Nixon to discuss Rams stadium situation

[RamFan503]

Please read the bold part. That was my only point in this whole thread. Thanks.

Let me clarify this and then you need to drop it. Jay Nixon is a primary person directly involved in the negotiations. If he has something to say on the subject, it is no longer conjecture and rumor. We have said before that until someone DIRECTLY involved in negotiations says something, these threads would be locked.

Let it go.

 

[RamFan503]

Please keep it about the actual subject in the OP.

 

[Sum1]

Honestly, it seems to me that they've waited far too long to move on the issue and are possibly doing this to save face. Just can't believe they've basically had to be backed into a corner before doing something.

Having been closely following this subject for the past few years and watching other cities and teams go through the same thing, this was totally expected and follows suit with most other cities. Even Kevin Demoff has stated over and over again that what gets these deals in motion are deadlines and things remain pretty quiet until the sides are forced to act.

 

[CoachO]

Honestly, it seems to me that they've waited far too long to move on the issue and are possibly doing this to save face. Just can't believe they've basically had to be backed into a corner before doing something.

You seem to be making the assumption that because they made it public TODAY, that this is just the beginning of this "project". I guess you missed the part of the article where both Miklasz and Burwell stated that this has been in the works for "quite awhile".

I doubt seriously that they have been "backed into a corner" at all. The biggest issue is the media in general, and their agenda based "reporting". In this age of lazy journalists, if the story doesn't fall in their laps, they don't seem to know how to actually go get the facts behind the story. In lieu of anything factual to report, they just fill the space with their own speculation.

That the powers that be were able to keep this behind closed doors, doesn't mean it hasn't been in the works for months. It seems that Nixon has a good working relationship with Kroenke, and between them, they have managed a keep a lid on this until they were ready to make it public. And anyone who doesn't see that, IMO, is just looking to make more of the whole "conspiracy" that is really there.

In the absence of any real news, we just make it up as we go. Thats kind of the new mantra of journalism these days.

 

[Sum1]

is my sarcasm meter broken or am I missing something here LOL

and on that note, why doesnt AB step in and buy the naming rights to the stadium. They are located in STL anyway and are "proud sponsors of the NFL and The Super Bowl"

Just making a joke.

Didn't you see this guy giving the MVP to Madison Bumgarner after the World Series?

 

[CoachO]

Believe me I hate those flame wars about LA vs STL. I really don't care where they play as long as they don't move out of country or change their name. I was only pointing out that the mods said that any talk about a Rams relocating or staying would be locked no matter what. So I was confused as to why this has 4 pages and was not locked.

and you now have successfully switched the conversation off the OP, and highjacked the thread to make it about the mods. And you wonder why they get defensive? What does your point have to do with the topic of the thread, and of the announcement?

Don't bother replying, because this has already wasted enough space taking the focus off the OP.

 

[RhodyRams]

Just making a joke.

Didn't you see this guy giving the MVP to Madison Bumgarner after the World Series?

actually...no.. LOL

 

[moklerman]

You seem to be making the assumption that because they made it public TODAY, that this is just the beginning of this "project". I guess you missed the part of the article where both Miklasz and Burwell stated that this has been in the works for "quite awhile".

I doubt seriously that they have been "backed into a corner" at all. The biggest issue is the media in general, and their agenda based "reporting". In this age of lazy journalists, if the story doesn't fall in their laps, they don't seem to know how to actually go get the facts behind the story. In lieu of anything factual to report, they just fill the space with their own speculation.

That the powers that be were able to keep this behind closed doors, doesn't mean it hasn't been in the works for months. It seems that Nixon has a good working relationship with Kroenke, and between them, they have managed a keep a lid on this until they were ready to make it public. And anyone who doesn't see that, IMO, is just looking to make more of the whole "conspiracy" that is really there.

In the absence of any real news, we just make it up as we go. Thats kind of the new mantra of journalism these days.

In another article I was reading, it said that they were planning on proposing an open-air stadium in the downtown area as part of their approach. In the same article it talked about how the Rams had requested a retractable roof as part of their proposal for what they wanted.

Maybe there's something being lost in the reporting but stuff like that makes it sound like "St. Louis" isn't really interested in what the Rams want and are putting on a show for the press and public.

This whole situation has been a long time coming though and the Rams could have opted out of their lease in 2005 but granted the city an exemption on their end of things because they didn't meet the terms of the lease even then. It very much seems like they've put this off to the 11th hour and appointing 2 guys to look into options in the next 60 days makes it seem even more so. They've had 10 years to come up with something and they still don't have anything.

They don't know what their options are at this point? They had to hire someone to find out what they are? I mean, the Rams are potentially 3 months away from requesting permission to relocate and St. Louis doesn't even know what it's options are? It sure sounds like they've backed themselves into a corner.

 

[Young Ram]

and you now have successfully switched the conversation off the OP, and highjacked the thread to make it about the mods. And you wonder why they get defensive? What does your point have to do with the topic of the thread, and of the announcement?

Don't bother replying, because this has already wasted enough space taking the focus off the OP.

I did not switch conversation I was just asking a simple question but whatever you can get defensive if you want I'm done with this thread.

 

[RamBill]

ESPN Rams reporter Nick Wagoner discusses the conference call Missouri Governor Jay Nixon had with reporters about the state’s desire to retain the NFL franchise.

Watch Wagoner's Report

 

[HometownBoy]

I did not switch conversation I was just asking a simple question but whatever you can get defensive if you want I'm done with this thread.

Your problem is that you called it favoritism when there is none. They, from the day they started locking threads to now have always said speculation threads will be locked, because it leads to in fighting about what some vague, highly interpretive statement meant for the rams.

This is solid fact, Nixon is making a plan to keep the rams. This is actual news on the matter and should and is being discussed. Actual news leads to less fighting and more discussing. There's no favorites, accusing the mods of such is unfair and uncalled for. Why wouldn't they get defensive?

 

[CoachO]

In another article I was reading, it said that they were planning on proposing an open-air stadium in the downtown area as part of their approach. In the same article it talked about how the Rams had requested a retractable roof as part of their proposal for what they wanted.

Maybe there's something being lost in the reporting but stuff like that makes it sound like "St. Louis" isn't really interested in what the Rams want and are putting on a show for the press and public.

This whole situation has been a long time coming though and the Rams could have opted out of their lease in 2005 but granted the city an exemption on their end of things because they didn't meet the terms of the lease even then. It very much seems like they've put this off to the 11th hour and appointing 2 guys to look into options in the next 60 days makes it seem even more so. They've had 10 years to come up with something and they still don't have anything.

They don't know what their options are at this point? They had to hire someone to find out what they are? I mean, the Rams are potentially 3 months away from requesting permission to relocate and St. Louis doesn't even know what it's options are? It sure sounds like they've backed themselves into a corner.

You believe everything you read in these articles? The Rams have never "requested" a retractable roof, and that is coming straight from the mouth of Kevin Demoff. I have sat in more than one Season Ticket Luncheon over the past few years and this subject ALWAYS comes up.

Demoff has said more than once, they are keeping THEIR options open, and would consider many different scenarios, including a retractable roof. At the same time, he makes a point of acknowledging a retractable roof would be substantially more costly. And HIS preference (not necessarily the organizations) would be an open air stadium. It would be easier to sell the luxury boxes in an outdoor stadium, (his words), which obviously is a major factor.

The Rams didn't do anyone any favors, when they made their decision back in 2005. No one had any issues with the dome back then, as they were still enjoying the fruits of the GSOT teams, and attendance was booming. It's funny how the dome because an issue ONLY after the team became to the losing-est franchise in NFL history over a 5 year period. Now the dome is the reason why fans won't come?

I think you are being a bit naive if you think the Rams haven't known exactly how this is playing out, and haven't been involved in the process. And like I said, the media is the reason for all of the speculation. And not just the local media. All these "behind the scenes" NFL reporters just take turns regurgitating the same rumors. And obviously, if they are saying it, it much be true.

 

[MerlinJones]

In another article I was reading, it said that they were planning on proposing an open-air stadium in the downtown area as part of their approach. In the same article it talked about how the Rams had requested a retractable roof as part of their proposal for what they wanted.

Maybe there's something being lost in the reporting but stuff like that makes it sound like "St. Louis" isn't really interested in what the Rams want and are putting on a show for the press and public.

This whole situation has been a long time coming though and the Rams could have opted out of their lease in 2005 but granted the city an exemption on their end of things because they didn't meet the terms of the lease even then. It very much seems like they've put this off to the 11th hour and appointing 2 guys to look into options in the next 60 days makes it seem even more so. They've had 10 years to come up with something and they still don't have anything.

They don't know what their options are at this point? They had to hire someone to find out what they are? I mean, the Rams are potentially 3 months away from requesting permission to relocate and St. Louis doesn't even know what it's options are? It sure sounds like they've backed themselves into a corner.

I'm no expert, but I think the city may be trying to begin negotiations with the Rams.
Generally (in my experience at least) you don't offer everything your willing to give right off the bat.
Conversely, the Rams may not expect to get everything they're asking for from the city.

I may be naive, but I also don't believe the city/state are just beginning to look at options for a proposal.
I'd guess they're in the process of evaluating and finalizing their opening proposal.

 

[ChrisW]

In another article I was reading, it said that they were planning on proposing an open-air stadium in the downtown area as part of their approach. In the same article it talked about how the Rams had requested a retractable roof as part of their proposal for what they wanted.

Maybe there's something being lost in the reporting but stuff like that makes it sound like "St. Louis" isn't really interested in what the Rams want and are putting on a show for the press and public.

This whole situation has been a long time coming though and the Rams could have opted out of their lease in 2005 but granted the city an exemption on their end of things because they didn't meet the terms of the lease even then. It very much seems like they've put this off to the 11th hour and appointing 2 guys to look into options in the next 60 days makes it seem even more so. They've had 10 years to come up with something and they still don't have anything.

They don't know what their options are at this point? They had to hire someone to find out what they are? I mean, the Rams are potentially 3 months away from requesting permission to relocate and St. Louis doesn't even know what it's options are? It sure sounds like they've backed themselves into a corner.

Stadium funding is obviously a hot topic with the population of St. Louis or they wouldn't have passed the legislation to have a vote on all stadium funding. Do you blame the gov. for waiting until after elections to bring this up? It has nothing to do with waiting until the last minute, and everything to do with getting re-elected. You don't bring out heavy hitters like Peacock if you don't plan to give it a real go.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Why were reporters asking Fisher about moving, at his Press conference?

 

[RamFan503]

Stadium funding is obviously a hot topic with the population of St. Louis or they wouldn't have passed the legislation to have a vote on all stadium funding. Do you blame the gov. for waiting until after elections to bring this up? It has nothing to do with waiting until the last minute, and everything to do with getting re-elected. You don't bring out heavy hitters like Peacock if you don't plan to give it a real go.

No doubt the reality of the situation. I'm sure if the polling indicated that it would gain him votes, it would have affected the timing. Hardly surprising he would wait until after the election. I'm actually kind of glad. It keeps from muddying the waters with campaign rhetoric.

 

[RamFan503]

Why were reporters asking Fisher about moving, at his Press conference?

Because they are morons. Any more questions?

 

[Jorgeh0605]

Why were reporters asking Fisher about moving, at his Press conference?

They asked Davis too, like his opinion matters...

 

[moklerman]

You believe everything you read in these articles? The Rams have never "requested" a retractable roof, and that is coming straight from the mouth of Kevin Demoff. I have sat in more than one Season Ticket Luncheon over the past few years and this subject ALWAYS comes up.

Demoff has said more than once, they are keeping THEIR options open, and would consider many different scenarios, including a retractable roof. At the same time, he makes a point of acknowledging a retractable roof would be substantially more costly. And HIS preference (not necessarily the organizations) would be an open air stadium. It would be easier to sell the luxury boxes in an outdoor stadium, (his words), which obviously is a major factor.

The Rams didn't do anyone any favors, when they made their decision back in 2005. No one had any issues with the dome back then, as they were still enjoying the fruits of the GSOT teams, and attendance was booming. It's funny how the dome because an issue ONLY after the team became to the losing-est franchise in NFL history over a 5 year period. Now the dome is the reason why fans won't come?

I think you are being a bit naive if you think the Rams haven't known exactly how this is playing out, and haven't been involved in the process. And like I said, the media is the reason for all of the speculation. And not just the local media. All these "behind the scenes" NFL reporters just take turns regurgitating the same rumors. And obviously, if they are saying it, it much be true.

Wasn't that one of the stipulations of the $700M upgrades the Rams wanted to the EJD? Seems like that means they want a retractable roof.
In 2005, the Rams were still owned by Georgia so I think they DID do the city a favor. If Stan was in control back then do you think he would have given the city the same waiver?

I have no doubt that the Rams have known this is how things will play out and they have positioned themselves perfectly and hold all the proverbial cards. Why the city has played into that hand is what makes me think they've put themselves in a corner.

 

[Dxmissile]

Honestly it doesn't seem like public funding will be an issue at all. The way it sound it seems that the Rams will be able to transfer the funds already being used for the stadium to go towards the new stadium. Basically it's about leverage how much will Stan pay and what does the city get