New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[LetsGoRams]

Why not get the best of both worlds. Retractable roof?....

Demoff told us at a season ticket luncheon that to add on a retractable roof alone would add like $200-300 million to the cost!!

 

[RamFan503]

Minnesota's stadium is going to be amazing. Closed roof, green building

Notice how on top of the field the fans will sit. That is going to be one loud ass place. And I hate to say it but this looks WAY more impressive than the St Louis mock-ups. The video is even more impressive. I don't like the apparent lack of tailgating area but the stadium itself is a 72,000 seat palace.

 

[-X-]

Here's the architecture firm's announcement with all renderings, including parking sites:

http://www.hok.com/about/news/2015/01/09/peacock-and-blitz-unveil-study-for-new-st-louis-stadium/

And details on some of the financing...

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_e1e77d44-59e1-50a1-87f4-17b56c6d233b.html

So much attention to detail on the drawings, and they put Steven Jackson on the jumbotron? lulz.

 

[LetsGoRams]

It's we're talking Oklahoma or Texas red dirt, here. The Mississippi looks like a regular river that you see in any part of MO except way bigger. (Ecept after a big rain where you have a lot of drain off, maybe.)

I'm looking out my office window right now and can see the river... on a nice sunny day like this, it actually does look quite blue!

 

[Tron]

I love it!!! Please accept it Kroenke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LetsGoRams]

So much attention to detail on the drawings, and they put Steven Jackson on the jumbotron? lulz.

Ha! I just noticed that... and apparently only the upper deck is available for seating!

One thing that is good - is that at least it does have blue seats, not red. I never quite understood that one. Maybe the red ones were a dollar cheaper apiece??!

 

[wsaladen]

I hope the Rams stay and play in this new Stadium.

 

[ljramsfan]

ICYMI, here is the press conference with Bob Blitz and Dave Peacock


[av]http://www.insidestlaudio.com/HomeStretch/PeacockandBlitz.mp3[/av]

 

[RamFan503]

Mostly it's the hotel rooms and their proximity to the stadium/downtown! lot of the rooms are 20-30 miles away. Not sure that at 64,000 seats the stadium qualifies! Minnesota's stadium will be closed, right?

Yeah - I don't honestly know the hotel situation in Minn or St Lou. Yes - the Minnesota stadium is to be closed in. I agree that a closeable stadium would be a much greater advantage in selling a SB proposal. Makes me wonder if the NFL is expecting a proposal that says, "We expect to house a Superbowl."

 

[rhinobean]

A few observations:

I like the drawings. The main things I like about them are the proximity to the riverfront as you need to boast that aspect if you have it, and the parking in the computer mock-up. I can't tell you how lame it is to try to tailgate in Seattle. What I don't like is that the stadium actually looks too open to be give the 12th man effect a real go. They need to tighten that up IMO. It also looks a little generic - almost like they told the computer to build a stadium.

What do they mean by private money in the financing? If it's Stan's money, I'm thinking he's going to want some kind of ownership out of the deal. If it is outside private money, I don't think Stan will go for that. Just a guess.

I don't really get how this stadium drawing is a plan. It occurs to me that one of the biggest pieces that the St Louis group needs to show the NFL is exactly how they plan to build this thing if approved by the NFL and Stan.

I think the new drawings - though not as flashy as the Inglewood drawings - are VERY cool and with a few tweaks can be the makings for a pretty cool FOOTBALL experience. I hope they can figure out a deal that works. It just feels like a football venue that may be just a bit too open for today's crowd.

Now - as to Peacock's resume that was posted in the St Louis Business Journal - it is a bio that you see on many people in business. Much like a padded resume, it has every glowing attribute one could come up with. No doubt Peacock is an impressive man and I'm not saying he couldn't be key in negotiating a deal on behalf of the Governor's office. The guy has WAY more credentials than the average businessman. But to compare a guy who helped put together a group to buy 15 Jamba Juices to the group(s) Stan has put together, is not really much of a comparison. I'm not bagging on the guy at all. He has done some great things and I'm not sure there is a much better candidate to negotiate this thing. But there just aren't many in business PERIOD that have the chops of a Stan Kroenke. Hell Paul Allen is over three times as rich as Stan but even he has no where near the moxy.

As to the good faith argument - Stan's group won the arbitration and the city was pretty much told they weren't even in the ballpark (scuse the pun) and needed to come back with a more realistic plan. It is not up to Stan's group in this instance to do anything until the other side comes back with a viable plan. As much as none of us really know what the city has done to honestly try to get Stan to return calls, no one really knows.

Is this plan by the governor's group sufficient to get a deal done or open negotiations to get a deal done? I don't know. But I am not going to throw Stan under the bus for doing what anyone in his position would likely do. The city has known for quite some time that their previous offer was not even close. Why has it taken them this long to present something? Were they really waiting for something from Stan's group? Or did they think they could wait him out? I don't know if we will ever get the answer to that.

Guess it's Kroenke's turn to respond to this latest proposal. Since it's not the CVC that responded/ proposed this latest stadium deal, probably qualifies as a solid proposal by the city! It just got really interesting!

 

[RamFan503]

Demoff told us at a season ticket luncheon that to add on a retractable roof alone would add like $200-300 million to the cost!!

Was that to the ED or to a new facility? I do think that in order to pull off a SB bid in February, they are going to have to have a different plan. One thing I think this shows though is at least a realistic goal that they can work with. This isn't a take it or leave it presentation - is it?

 

[V3]

Why not get the best of both worlds. Retractable roof?....

I think they should implement the structural requirements into the current plans that would make a retractable roof a simple add on in the future. In 15-25 years they could add a retractable roof and it won't cost as much and turn people off. I have no problem with a retractable roof but I know it adds A LOT to the cost so it would make it difficult to do right now. So why not make it an option for down the road that won't cost too much because people had the forethought to make the addition simple, in terms of design and structure. In other words, it'd be like building a single story house with the plan to add a second story later on so you have the architect make sure the foundation and support beams would be able to support a second story in the future.

Hope that makes sense. Just a thought.

 

[mr.stlouis]

I'm looking out my office window right now and can see the river... on a nice sunny day like this, it actually does look quite blue!

Exactly, it looked blue the two times I walked down to it at the games last year too.

The riverfront stadium is very sentimental to me. I didn't grow up near the MI River, but there's a ton of creeks, ponds, and rivers in SW MO (cattle country.) I looove this location. Just wish it had a roof lol. I hate fighting the weather but I happily will if they build it.

 

[bskrilla]

I think they should implement the structural requirements into the current plans that would make a retractable roof a simple add on in the future. In 15-25 years they could add a retractable roof and it won't cost as much and turn people off. I have no problem with a retractable roof but I know it adds A LOT to the cost so it would make it difficult to do right now. So why not make it an option for down the road that won't cost too much because people had the forethought to make the addition simple, in terms of design and structure. In other words, it'd be like building a single story house with the plan to add a second story later on so you have the architect make sure the foundation and support beams would be able to support a second story in the future.

Hope that makes sense. Just a thought.

I wonder how much of the estimated 200-300 million it would take for a roof would be spent on doing that? I like the idea, but if 50-75% of the cost is in the foundation and support structure it may not be doable. I have no idea. Just wondering out loud.

 

[Irish]

maybe by the time this new stadium is ready, I will be in the position to buy some PSLs and go to more than one game a year.

I just called my folks about how much their PSLs were back in 95.

Each seat in 431, Row TT, 1 and 2 was $750 a piece, and only constituted a "right of first refusal"

 

[blue4]

A few observations:

I like the drawings. The main things I like about them are the proximity to the riverfront as you need to boast that aspect if you have it, and the parking in the computer mock-up. I can't tell you how lame it is to try to tailgate in Seattle. What I don't like is that the stadium actually looks too open to be give the 12th man effect a real go. They need to tighten that up IMO. It also looks a little generic - almost like they told the computer to build a stadium.

What do they mean by private money in the financing? If it's Stan's money, I'm thinking he's going to want some kind of ownership out of the deal. If it is outside private money, I don't think Stan will go for that. Just a guess.

I don't really get how this stadium drawing is a plan. It occurs to me that one of the biggest pieces that the St Louis group needs to show the NFL is exactly how they plan to build this thing if approved by the NFL and Stan.

I think the new drawings - though not as flashy as the Inglewood drawings - are VERY cool and with a few tweaks can be the makings for a pretty cool FOOTBALL experience. I hope they can figure out a deal that works. It just feels like a football venue that may be just a bit too open for today's crowd.

Now - as to Peacock's resume that was posted in the St Louis Business Journal - it is a bio that you see on many people in business. Much like a padded resume, it has every glowing attribute one could come up with. No doubt Peacock is an impressive man and I'm not saying he couldn't be key in negotiating a deal on behalf of the Governor's office. The guy has WAY more credentials than the average businessman. But to compare a guy who helped put together a group to buy 15 Jamba Juices to the group(s) Stan has put together, is not really much of a comparison. I'm not bagging on the guy at all. He has done some great things and I'm not sure there is a much better candidate to negotiate this thing. But there just aren't many in business PERIOD that have the chops of a Stan Kroenke. Hell Paul Allen is over three times as rich as Stan but even he has no where near the moxy.

As to the good faith argument - Stan's group won the arbitration and the city was pretty much told they weren't even in the ballpark (scuse the pun) and needed to come back with a more realistic plan. It is not up to Stan's group in this instance to do anything until the other side comes back with a viable plan. As much as none of us really know what the city has done to honestly try to get Stan to return calls, no one really knows.

Is this plan by the governor's group sufficient to get a deal done or open negotiations to get a deal done? I don't know. But I am not going to throw Stan under the bus for doing what anyone in his position would likely do. The city has known for quite some time that their previous offer was not even close. Why has it taken them this long to present something? Were they really waiting for something from Stan's group? Or did they think they could wait him out? I don't know if we will ever get the answer to that.

No one is faulting him for doing WHAT he is doing, it's HOW he's doing it. The fact is that talk of a new stadium before it's time for one is a political non starter in about 49 states right now. If we have to acknowledge that Stan is being realistic, then we have to acknowledge that if the politicians had started talking about this before the election we would have ended up with a bunch of newly elected anti stadium people.

 

[RamBill]

Watch as Dave Peacock unveils and explains plans for a new NFL stadium in St. Louis. Peacock proposed the plans as a member of a task force Gov. Jay Nixon appointed to keep St. Louis an NFL city. (9:38)

Watch Stadium Proposal Presentation

 

[LetsGoRams]

Was that to the ED or to a new facility? I do think that in order to pull off a SB bid in February, they are going to have to have a different plan. One thing I think this shows though is at least a realistic goal that they can work with. This isn't a take it or leave it presentation - is it?

That was for a new stadium. It was interesting because this discussion was probably around February of last year out at Rams park. And he pulled a little exercise on our group when someone asked about a proposed new stadium... He asked how many people in the room wanted open air.. about half the hands went up. He asked how many people want enclosed... about half the hands went up. How many want it in the city... half the hands, and how many want it out in the county?... half the hands. So 25% wanted open air in the city, 25% wanted open air in the county. 25% wanted enclosed in the city, 25% enclosed in the county.... and he said that's what has been the typical response as to what people want.

Obviously the question was asked about a retractable roof. He gave Lucas Oil Stadium in Indy as an example... said that it would add roughly $200 million to the cost. Not sure where that figure came from, because I had heard that it cost $30 million extra for the one at Lucas Oil. I think they use a 50-80 degree rule on when to keep it open... I think it's half and half regarding being open. I do know there is a pretty hefty ongoing cost to maintain one of those things.

I personally would love a retractable roof - I think it makes sense this day and age, and allows you to do / host a lot more things..... but I think the extra cost in this case is prohibitive. In addition, maybe the reason for not having a retractable roof is that things that need to be held purely indoors would be held at the current dome / convention center?

 

[V3]

I wonder how much of the estimated 200-300 million it would take for a roof would be spent on doing that? I like the idea, but if 50-75% of the cost is in the foundation and support structure it may not be doable. I have no idea. Just wondering out loud.

I hear ya. I wonder myself. It was just a thought. I wouldn't think it would add too much more to the initial costs, but I could be completely wrong. If it were to only cost like an extra $50-75 million, I think it'd be wise to do it. It might require a public vote for the extra funds at that point but I feel people would find $50-75 million more palatable than the $400 million most people were expecting to pay for a new stadium.

I'm probably expecting too much. I admit it.

 

[RamFan503]

I think they should implement the structural requirements into the current plans that would make a retractable roof a simple add on in the future. In 15-25 years they could add a retractable roof and it won't cost as much and turn people off. I have no problem with a retractable roof but I know it adds A LOT to the cost so it would make it difficult to do right now. So why not make it an option for down the road that won't cost too much because people had the forethought to make the addition simple, in terms of design and structure. In other words, it'd be like building a single story house with the plan to add a second story later on so you have the architect make sure the foundation and support beams would be able to support a second story in the future.

Hope that makes sense. Just a thought.

One big obstacle I see with this is that in that period of time, building codes and other aspects may change - much like building a one story building with plans to go 2. I'm in such a building and the codes won't allow for that second story without major renovations to the structure. Possibly could be overcome, and maybe these particular codes won't change but it doesn't sound like banking on it is a great idea. Dunno.

I also don't think saying 15-25 years down the road we'll actually make it SB ready is a real option.