Nixon to discuss Rams stadium situation

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

CoachO

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,392
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.
The upgrades that the Rams submitted were nothing more than a pie in the sky "proposal", with the sole purpose of making it something the CVC would be forced to reject. That had to happen to get to the point of being able to even discuss other options, and that includes working on a new venue within the confines of STL city/county.

All I can tell you is what I heard K. Demoff say, on more than one occasion, as it pertains to his preference being an open air stadium. While acknowledging a retractable roof would be the best of both worlds, he also is smart enough to know that a new dome/retractable roof would render the EJD virtually obsolete, and would make it harder to get the support of the CVC and city officials. So, I reiterate my point, the proposal they submitted for the "Top Tier" clause was purposefully designed to be over the top, with it becoming a "no lose" proposition for that Rams. IF the CVC accepted it, they get $700M worth of upgrades. IF they rejected it, which ultimately they knew they would, they then would be free to look at other options. Which INCLUDES working on a new venue here.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
The upgrades that the Rams submitted were nothing more than a pie in the sky "proposal", with the sole purpose of making it something the CVC would be forced to reject. That had to happen to get to the point of being able to even discuss other options, and that includes working on a new venue within the confines of STL city/county.

All I can tell you is what I heard K. Demoff say, on more than one occasion, as it pertains to his preference being an open air stadium. While acknowledging a retractable roof would be the best of both worlds, he also is smart enough to know that a new dome/retractable roof would render the EJD virtually obsolete, and would make it harder to get the support of the CVC and city officials. So, I reiterate my point, the proposal they submitted for the "Top Tier" clause was purposefully designed to be over the top, with it becoming a "no lose" proposition for that Rams. IF the CVC accepted it, they get $700M worth of upgrades. IF they rejected it, which ultimately they knew they would, they then would be free to look at other options. Which INCLUDES working on a new venue here.

Not to mention 700M builds a TOP of the line open air stadium in STL. If Stan throws in 200M then the NFL matches it with 200M we are already over halfway there.

Hell, 720M builds Lucas Oil Stadium with a retractable roof.
 

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
17,846
How is this any different from say the Farmers group in LA getting people together to try to get an NFL team? That's not speculation that's also something that actually happening.

Because it didn't involve the Rams, didn't say explicitly they were serious about the Rams, and nothing has advanced since.

This is just on Jay Nixon's press conference. Nothing more nothing less.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
Because it didn't involve the Rams, didn't say explicitly they were serious about the Rams, and nothing has advanced since.

This is just on Jay Nixon's press conference. Nothing more nothing less.
I wouldn't waste any more of my time trying to explain things to him as he clearly does not get it.
 

rams2050

Starter
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
588
There are other ways being bandied about to fund the new stadium. Increased guest (hotel and motel) taxes, increased taxes on rental vehicles, etc., etc., etc. All, supposedly, designed to place most of the cost squarely on visitors, whether rightly or wrongly if it gets us a stadium I'm not about to quibble with the concept.
 

Mackeyser

Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
14,158
Name
Mack
Sooo... Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara is ineligible for a Super Bowl hosting gig?

No, Levi Stadium is capable of hosting a Super Bowl as is the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, CA which has hosted the Super Bowl five times. It has to do with weather, accommodations and a host of other factors. For towns with snow, they don't want weather to factor into the biggest game of the year. They had a Super Bowl in NY and they found out some hard lessons.

LA, SD, Tampa, Miami, NO.... those used to be the spots...

the Super Bowl is kinda like the Olympics... except there's nothing extra to build and there's not a 7000 page protocol guide to apply for a Super Bowl... and a Super Bowl is better to host.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
Man, can you imagine the hit the EJD would take if the new stadium has a retractable roof? Like someone said earlier, it would be obsolete. The biggest attraction they receive outside of Rams games is the NCAA Tournament and you bet your ass the NCAA would be hustling their way over to the new stadium.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
2. This clearly buys St. Louis more time. As I have written many times, the NFL would be more lenient in allowing Kroenke to move if inertia set in and no effort was made to solve the long-term stadium issue here. But if this launch leads to a stadium plan being unveiled over the next couple of months — and I'm confident it will — then the NFL is highly unlikely to allow Kroenke to take the Rams elsewhere. This will effectively stop the clock on a move for the 2015 season.

To elaborate: the NFL rules on franchise relocation guidelines prevent an owner from running away with his team just because, well, you know, he feels like doing so.

Here's Article 4.3, section A of the NFL bylaws, and I've italicized the essential part:

"Because League policy favors stable team-community relations, clubs are obligated to work diligently and in good faith to obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories, and to operate in a manner that maximizes fan support in their current home community."

And:

"If, having diligently engaged in good faith efforts, a club concludes that it cannot obtain a satisfactory resolution of its stadium needs, it may inform the League Office and the stadium landlord or other relevant public authorities that it has reached a stalemate in those negotiations. Upon such a declaration, the League may elect to become directly involved in the negotiations."

In other words ... even if the eventual negotiations between the Rams and the stadium task force reach an impasse, then the league will step in and try to help broker a deal.


So we're a couple of pretty significant stages away from Kroenke getting a green light to head to LA — if that's what he wants to do.

That's why Nixon's first good-faith step is an important development. As long as Peacock and Blitz and area leaders are working diligently toward a potential stadium resolution, the league can implement the bylaws to block Kroenke from fleeing.

Should anyone entirely trust the NFL to adhere to its own rules? Of course not. But just apply some common sense here. When is the last time the NFL allowed a team to move from a city that just committed to building a new stadium for the franchise? Answer: it's never happened.

But if the plan doesn't make it off the drawing board, if it's nothing more than a stunt, then the league will see it for what it is: a lot of flash, with no cash. A plan that's DOA. And that's when Kroenke can begin to make an earnest case for moving. For now, however, this action by Nixon slows the game down.

And if Peacock and Blitz can really get things going, they'll keep the NFL informed on their new-stadium progress and the people who run the league will know exactly what's going on here.

In this scenario, Kroenke won't be able to claim that St. Louis is ignoring the issue. He won't be able to sneak his way out of here. Again ... if that's his intention. Who knows what the guy is really thinking?

The initial move made by Nixon was only the first step of many. But it had to be taken. And as long as this wasn't a misdirection play, it was a step in the right direction.

Thanks for reading ...

— Bernie

Bernie, you don't know what you're talking about.(I know RamBill isn't Bernie ;)) You've clearly misinterpreted what you quoted or you didn't read the entirety of the Section 4.3. Furthermore, the NFL isn't going to block Kroenke from moving to LA if he chooses to. It's mutually beneficial to both parties. And the NFL is not obligated to enforce these bylaws even if it is ruled they are concrete(they're not) and the Rams violated them(they didn't).

I am not taking sides here. I hope it all works out for St. Louis fans but if the Rams decide to move to LA, this won't stop them...or even slow them down. If anyone wants elaboration as to why, I'm happy to explain. But I am avoiding a long winded post because I don't know if this comes close to encroaching on the forbidden LA issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.