New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Big Unit]

I don't think he's saying St Louis is a bad football town or anything like that, I think he's saying it wouldn't be fair for the NFL to say that they need to be NFL first and foremost (which they did ask to "rank" the teams on the survey they sent out).

You've got it; that's exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks.

 

[Username]

Then why this?

3. St. Louis doesn't NEED a team; they've gotten along without one for years, and regardless which NFL franchise might be in St. Louis, it'll play second fiddle to the best organization in baseball, the Cardinals. Consequently, NFL support in St. Louis will be directly related to team success, maybe even more than in many other markets.

 

[Username]

Regardless I'm done. I like you Big Unit.

This is not worth even caring about anymore. I'll let the "shrewd businessmen" circle jerk it out. Then we can all talk football.



And how bad the refs suck.

 

[Prime Time]

If the Cardinals and the Blues sucked for ten years in a row while the Rams won a couple of Super Bowls, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Winning solves most if not all problems.

There is no another NFL team that comes to mind that has moved more often than the Rams. That fragments any fanbase. Teams that have been in one place for many years, like the Packers and the Steelers, can endure 10 years in a row of sucky football and keep their fanbase intact. For the Rams that has been much more difficult. In fact, it's quite astounding how many fans keep showing up for games year after year even while the product is sorely lacking.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

If the Cardinals and the Blues sucked for ten years in a row while the Rams won a couple of Super Bowls, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Winning solves most if not all problems.

There is no another NFL team that comes to mind that has moved more often than the Rams. That fragments any fanbase. Teams that have been in one place for many years, like the Packers and the Steelers, can endure 10 years in a row of sucky football and keep their fanbase intact. For the Rams that has been much more difficult. In fact, it's quite astounding how many fans keep showing up for games year after year even while the product is sorely lacking.

Stan wanting to go to LA has nothing to do with STL. There's more money in LA. That's the only reason. STL is the perfect city for football. Anyone that doesn't agree is a dumbass.

 

[Big Unit]

If the Cardinals and the Blues sucked for ten years in a row while the Rams won a couple of Super Bowls, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Winning solves most if not all problems.

There is no another NFL team that comes to mind that has moved more often than the Rams. That fragments any fanbase. Teams that have been in one place for many years, like the Packers and the Steelers, can endure 10 years in a row of sucky football and keep their fanbase intact. For the Rams that has been much more difficult. In fact, it's quite astounding how many fans keep showing up for games year after year even while the product is sorely lacking.

Great point! Lots of folks around St. Louis are Cardinal fans because their father was; their grandfather was; the tradition is remarkable. There is no way to reproduce that, other than to let a team stay put for a generation or two.

Even today, plenty of folks think the Rams "belong" in LA. If that's true - then the Dodgers "belong" in Brooklyn, where they can dodge the trolley; the Lakers "belong" in Minnesota, where there actually are lakes. Right?

Funniest example I can think of is the Utah "Jazz". Yeah, Utah - hotbed of Jazz.

We'll see if the NFL means it when they say they don't want franchises to move unnecessarily.

 

[Thordaddy]

WTF Thor? You color blind too? I just admonished him for that choice. Telling you - I am about to delete everything he writes because of it. I think you know me. I'm not one to do that because of content but that font is down right inciteful.

I didn' TELL him to use it, I advised him what row and space the color he wanted was in,I've posted with him for YEARS probably Prime has too. I never gave it a thought back then since I seldom if ever had a problem with his content

Not even close - the dome is not unusuable. Notice they are still using it.... (a closer example to what you are claiming would be if the metrodome had not repaired the roof years ago when it caved in).

Both side exercised options provided for within the contract. The lease is still binding and valid, the rams exercised an option allowing them to go year to year, but it is still the same lease....the rams will pay the CVC for the dome this year.

Blue4 has it correct.

A good example would be you lease an office in the tallest office building in the city since you want the prestige. Your lease states that if the building does not remain the tallest in the city you MAY change the lease to month to month from yearly. A taller builing is built. The current owner determines the cost of making his building even taller is prohibitive or not even possible. You inform him you are making the lease month to month. It isn't his fault, he did not break the contract, and neither did you, you both had options you could use.

I may be getting prickly on some language used in this thread, but it touches on what I do for a living. In contract law a broken promise is huge (like the constructive eviction above). We do not have that here, no promises are broken (no one can sue), just options allowed to both sides.

\FWIW drac, an apartment is 90% usable or more without hot water, when a landlord fails to provide for the stipulations of a lease is given the opportunity to do so the tenant is no longer bound by the lease except where there is an option they wish to exercise as penalty , the moment the top 25% became in force the Rams didn't have to go year to year they could have claimed constructive eviction AND as things did transpire they went to arbitration and won which is what they would have done in court if the CVC had tried to prevent them from leaving. BUT HEY that's why each party has lawyers bk the law is subject to interpretation,so I stand by my claim,not so much on the position that I am a lawyer ,I am a landlord

 

[Prime Time]

The next closest to the Rams as a "vagabond" team is the Cardinals. They started in Chicago, moved to St. Louis, and eventually Arizona. Honestly, Rams fans are a different breed when it comes to loyalty. No other fanbase has been through what we've been through and still remained fanatics of our team. And if you don't believe you're a Rams fanatic, then what are you doing here each day.

I didn' TELL him to use it, I advised him what row and space the color he wanted was in,I've posted with him for YEARS probably Prime has too. I never gave it a thought back then since I seldom if ever had a problem with his content

I've never had a problem with his comments nor his font either but this morning he asked me to close his account so I obliged him.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Great point! Lots of folks around St. Louis are Cardinal fans because their father was; their grandfather was; the tradition is remarkable. There is no way to reproduce that, other than to let a team stay put for a generation or two.

Even today, plenty of folks think the Rams "belong" in LA. If that's true - then the Dodgers "belong" in Brooklyn, where they can dodge the trolley; the Lakers "belong" in Minnesota, where there actually are lakes. Right?

Funniest example I can think of is the Utah "Jazz". Yeah, Utah - hotbed of Jazz.

We'll see if the NFL means it when they say they don't want franchises to move unnecessarily.

The NFL doesn't want teams to move and they don't want to add expansion teams but they want LA. So something has to give. I keep on saying STL is good solid market for an NFL franchise. It's just that LA is so much better. If LA had a team Stan wouldn't want to move somewhere else like idk OKC or San Antonio.

 

[blue4]

Stan wanting to go to LA has nothing to do with STL. There's more money in LA. That's the only reason. STL is the perfect city for football. Anyone that doesn't agree is a dumbass.

I heartily agree sir!

 

[RamFan503]

I didn' TELL him to use it, I advised him what row and space the color he wanted was in,I've posted with him for YEARS probably Prime has too. I never gave it a thought back then since I seldom if ever had a problem with his content

I don't mind his content either but that font was just a screamer. No one likes that. Well.... not NO ONE but it gets people riled up before even reading the words. At least that was the feedback I was getting.

 

[den-the-coach]

,not so much on the position that I am a lawyer

I am lawyer, hear me thor!

 

[Thordaddy]

The next closest to the Rams as a "vagabond" team is the Cardinals. They started in Chicago, moved to St. Louis, and eventually Arizona. Honestly, Rams fans are a different breed when it comes to loyalty. No other fanbase has been through what we've been through and still remained fanatics of our team. And if you don't believe you're a Rams fanatic, then what are you doing here each day.



I've never had a problem with his comments nor his font either but this morning he asked me to close his account so I obliged him.

Well Prime if a pretty girl broke up with me , she had until I met another one to hold on to me, loyalty goes both ways for me ,so as a card fan I followed and rooted for them until the Rams came here and within a year I was a Rams fan.

Ardunno on the Legends thing , like I said he is color blind and doesn't have the same sensibilities and or sensitivities to color as some of us , he really is a good dude and pretty sharp I think he makes his living on currency exchange and the folkish way he writes is mostly to not sound too professorial.

 

[Thordaddy]

I am lawyer, hear me thor!

What? NANANANANANAN

BTW are you now resigning as the coach???????????????????????????????:fighting:


did I mention I've played a lawyer in a school play?

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Chargers stadium task force public forum meeting Monday

Qualcomm Stadium

Stadium Task Force public forum: Monday March 2nd from 6-9 PM at Qualcomm Stadium in the Club Lounge Area. Gates open at 5 PM and parking will be free.

SAN DIEGO — The advisory group formed to find a site and develop a financing plan for a new football stadium in San Diego announced Wednesday it will hold a meeting March 2 to take input from the public.

The forum will take place at 6 p.m. at Qualcomm Stadium, the aging facility the Chargers are hoping to vacate.

“We want to hear about (the public’s) good ideas and we want to know what their concerns are as we work toward selecting a site for a new stadium and developing a financing plan for public consideration,” said Adam Day, who chairs the task force.

“The advisory group is in the information-gathering phase, so we appreciate the information the Chargers shared with us this week,” Day said. “We had a good first meeting with the team, and we expect to meet with representatives from San Diego County and San Diego State University next.”

Meanwhile, the Chargers’ point-man in their long-running stadium search told City News Service that team president and CEO Dean Spanos would be willing to meet with San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer.

“Dean has met with the mayor before, and of course I have met with the mayor and his staff on many occasions,” said Mark Fabiani, who has led the team’s quest since the early 2000s. “Dean would be happy to meet with the mayor again.”

Faulconer wrote Spanos Tuesday and suggested a one-on-one get-together in an effort to defuse rising tensions involving the task force and mayor’s office.

Fabiani wrote Faulconer Tuesday to ask — among other things — why members of his staff attended the task force meeting referred to by Day, and if the group was really independent. The letter went on to suggest that political and media consultants who attended have conflicts of interest.

Faulconer subsequently wrote Spanos to complain about Fabiani’s ongoing criticism of the task force since it was announced last month.

Matt Awbrey, a spokesman for Faulconer, said mayoral staff is aware of Fabiani’s comment that Spanos is willing to meet, and has called the team to confirm.

“Mayor Faulconer looks forward to meeting with Mr. Spanos in the next few days to discuss how to chart a positive course moving forward,” Awbrey said.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Is the old Q the new Q?

A newly formed stadium task force will host a March 2 public forum to solicit ideas for a new home for the San Diego Chargers. — John Gastaldo
The search for a new Chargers stadium site seems to have ended where it started more than a decade ago:

The old, standby, Mission Valley's Qualcomm Stadium.

Real estate experts, politicians and the public seem increasingly convinced that the 166-acre site is where the team should continue to play, either in a vastly refurbished Qualcomm or in a state-of-the-art, $1 billion-plus new facility next to it.

The Metropolitan Transit System chief virtually sidelined the previously preferred downtown option last week, when he said it could take as many as seven years to make it available. CEO Paul Jablonski said it also could cost $150 million to clear the 7.75-acre bus yard at 16th Street and Imperial Avenue so that a new stadium could be built there and on the adjacent Tailgate Park, both east of Petco Park.

Next steps
The mayor's stadium advisory group continues to meet weekly with its next session at 6 p.m. Monday at Qualcomm Stadium for a public forum. More than 3,000 people have already indicated they plan to attend. The next private meeting is to include representatives from the convention, hotel and tourist industry. Group Chairman Adam Day said he hopes to offer recommendations to the mayor within 90 days.

But before declaring the site decision a fait accompli, four key questions remain to be answered about the Q by Mayor Kevin Faulconer's nine-member stadium advisory group over the next 90 days:


An 2003 rendering shows the streetscape around a new Chargers stadium that was proposed for the Qualcomm Stadium site in Mission Valley. Offices, shops, a hotel and park space were masterplanned but the concept has since given way to a site in downtown San Diego. — M.W. Steele Group
Should it be rebuilt or replaced?
The 48-year-old, award-winning concrete icon looks great from a blimp, but up close and beneath the seats, numerous structural and design issues stand in the way of the Q's continued glory, especially when it comes to hosting periodic Super Bowls.

Local architects and many fans are fond of the stadium and believe it would be much cheaper and more environmentally responsible to remodel and update rather than tear down and replace.

"With some imagination and focused design effort, San Diego can capitalize on these great bones and transform it into a state-of-the-art football venue," said the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects.

Former City Attorney Mike Aguirre, whose criticism of the Chargers prompted the team to seek a site outside the city limits a decade ago, said the present site and building, properly upgraded and maintained, make the most sense for a community lacking the corporate financial muscle to afford a billion-dollar replacement.

"A lot of the focus is misplaced on where they play as opposed to how they play," Aguirre said.

The Chargers cite studies that remodeling could be nearly as costly as a new stadium. And the stadium's inherent shortcomings could keep it from equaling the state-of-the-art facilities recently opened in other NFL cities. At least $79.8 million in repairs were called for in 2011, and that didn't include major makeovers and structural reconfigurations.

"At what point is substantial further investment in an aging facility not fiscally responsible?" asked an earlier city task force in 2003.


The ancillary development around a new Chargers stadium would include up to 6,000 homes and office, retail and hotel uses, as well as a park linked to the San Diego River. — Chargers 2003 study
How much development can the surrounding land accommodate?
The Qualcomm site, the equivalent of 66 downtown city blocks, is a 17,000-space parking lot most of the time, a steaming sea of asphalt in a community undergoing rapid growth. The city owns it and the Mission Valley community plan has long envisioned its redevelopment with other uses.

From a real estate and business standpoint, the Q's advantages come down to three, in the words of developer Perry Dealy, who presented his own plan for the property several years ago:

"It's got the land, it's got the location and it's got the ownership. Those are three key ingredients to make it successful."

The Chargers' original proposal of 2002-3 called for a rebuilt stadium surrounded by up to 3,200 apartments and condos, 1.2 million square feet of offices, a 450-room hotel and an 18-acre park.

Real estate consultant Alan Nevin, who worked on that plan, said the site could easily handle 6,000 units and some retail.

Alternately, Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, whose district includes Qualcomm, suggests the site become an annex of housing and academic buildings for San Diego State University.

Commercial real estate analyst Jeff Rice sent the mayor's advisory panel a 52-page proposal drawn from the Chargers' old plan, other recent stadium designs and development concepts from various experts.

"The clock is ticking on development for Mission Valley," he said. "One way or another, that site is going to be developed in the near future or the long term."

Architect and planner Frank Wolden had his students at the NewSchool of Architecture and Design replan the entire valley as a studio exercise last year. Out of that effort came the view that all of the valley should embrace the river, just as downtown has done with San Diego Bay.

"Qualcomm should be the center of public life in Mission Valley," he added.


A 2010 flood shows that the Qualcomm Stadium playing field can be vulnerable to winter storms in the San Diego River flood plain. — File photo
What environmental, legal or political issues could stall the project?
Many months lie ahead to figure out the impact of a new stadium surrounded by millions of square feet of new development.

The traffic, particularly on game day and during the holidays, can be a "nightmare," as one expert put it. Studies are currently under way to assess current conditions and the updated community plan, due by 2018, is expected to propose more streets and roads to make traffic more efficient.

Much of the stadium property sits in a floodplain zone and would have to elevated to remove threats to new development from heavy rain storms that occasionally in history flooded valley from one side to the other.

One issue seems to have been resolved -- the cleanup of a plume under the stadium that originated from leaks at the nearby Kinder Morgan gas tank farm. Stadium manager Mike McSweeney said the work is nearly complete after more than 10 years.

It's unclear right now if environmentalists or anyone else would challenge the project legally. Also unclear is what sort of voter approval would be sought next year. Stadium supporters want to avoid a tax increase that would require two-thirds voter approval. The Chargers have warned against any "half-baked scheme to attempt to get around the two-thirds rule."


A pastoral scene included in architecture student Thomas Aldrich's study last year suggests how reorienting Mission Valley development to the San Diego River might introduce a new "green" lifestyle feel. — Thomas Aldrich-NewSchool of Architecture and Design
How much will it cost and who will pay what?
Back in 2003, the Chargers estimated the stadium would cost $400 million, a third of their current projection. Ancillary development of 2.9 million square feet was projected at $1.1 billion in valuation. For their fallback proposal unveiled last month with the Oakland Raiders in the Los Angeles suburban of Carson, the Chargers gave a $1.7 billion figure for a stadium and no extra development.

Without a detailed design or construction bid in hand, the actual cost could be more or less. And rising interest rates could affect payback costs as well.

Regardless of the cost, the sources of funding remain the trickiest part of any stadium plan.

If there are no taxes, then the project has to fall back on the team and the NFL, fans and revenues generated from development around the stadium.

Jason Hughes, cochairman of the mayor's advisory group, said the members have "volumes" of plans and ideas to sift through as they construct a financial plan.

"We're reviewing all of it - and working towards our conclusion," he said.

Although the drumbeat for Qualcomm is growing, the Chargers have not given up on building downtown, where they envisioned a convention-stadium complex that could theoretically be financed in part with hotel room taxes -- a concept hoteliers continue to oppose.

"We made our proposal downtown because we believe it is the only potentially workable solution, and nothing has occurred to change our view on that," said team counsel Mark Fabiani. "But we remain open minded about other solutions."

However, Fabiani also said discussion about a downtown site is "quickly becoming academic" in light of the transit operator's logistical concerns.

Still some downtown boosters believe a stadium there would work - with a big "but."

“I like the idea of a downtown stadium or arena, but it’s got to be designed well, wrapped with retail and other uses,” said real estate consultant Jeff Graham, former president of Civic San Diego city development agency.

The concern he and others have is that a large single-purpose, inwardly oriented stadium that’s rarely used could retard development in East Village where much residential growth is anticipated as a way to take the pressure off farflung suburbs.

As City Attorney Jan Goldsmith reminded the City Council last week, the mayor's advisory group carries no legal standing and is not responsible for negotiating with the Chargers.

Once the site decision and financial term sheet are hammered out, then the real playoff will begin.


This 1953 aerial photo shows U.S. Highway 80, later renamed Interstate 8, under construction past U.S. Route 395 (now state Route 163). Most of the valley was being farmed or mined. — File photo
Qualcomm Stadium and Mission Valley: 1905-2015
ca. 1905: City water department buys land -- now totaling 73 acres -- along Murphy Creek from which to pump water to the University Heights reservoir.

1916: Major floods fill the valley bank to bank, a disaster repeated 11 years later before upstream dams were completed.

1945: The federal government studies the feasibility of building a flood-control channel, a proposal abandoned in the 1970s.

1948: Mission Valley Road upgraded to U.S. Highway 80, widened to Interstate 8 in the ‘50s and ‘60s.

1957-58: Westgate Park (today’s Fashion Valley site) opens for Pacific Coast League Padres; City Council rezones Mission Valley.

1961: Chargers play first season in Balboa Stadium in Balboa Park.

1963: Citizens’ Stadium Study Committee formed to promote new stadium, retain the Chargers and attract a major-league baseball team. Mission Bay and Kearny Mesa also considered as sites.

1965: 72 percent of city voters approve Proposition 1, a charter amendment authorizing the stadium in Mission Valley: cost: $27.75 million.

1967: “San Diego Stadium” opens Aug. 20; San Diego State Aztecs’ first game, Sept. 15; first car race, Pacific Invitational Grand Prix, Oct. 21-22.

1968: Padres move from Westgate Park to play last season as minor-league team before joining the National League in 1969.

1972: First rock concert.

1973: Fortune magazine dubs stadium a “dazzling structure.”

1978: First Holiday Bowl.

1980: Stadium renamed “San Diego Jack Murphy Stadium” to honor the late San Diego Union sports editor who campaigned for the new stadium.

1984: Capacity expanded to 61,000 seats; cost, $9.5 million. Padres play first World Series.

1988: Super Bowl XXII.

1992: Major League Baseball All-Star Game.

1995: New Chargers lease provides for $78 million expansion to 71,500 seats and ticket guarantee.

1997: Name changed to Qualcomm in return for company’s $18 million payment to the city; San Diego Trolley service extended to stadium.

1998: Super Bowl XXXII and World Series; voters approve downtown Padres ballpark.

2002: Citizens Task Force on Chargers Issues recommends $400 million, 62,000-seat football-only stadium.

2005: First Poinsettia Bowl.

2011: Consultants report says city will lose more than $10 million a year operating stadium through 2020 and 44-year-old facility needs nearly $80 million in repairs.

2015: Mayor Kevin Faulconer appoints advisory group to recommend site and financing for a new or refurbished stadium; Chargers and Oakland Raiders announce $1.7 billion joint stadium plan for Carson in Los Angeles County.

Research: Merrie Monteagudo

 

[RamFan503]

Funniest example I can think of is the Utah "Jazz". Yeah, Utah - hotbed of Jazz.

Come on man. What says jazz like a little bit country and a little bit rock 'n roll.

 

[RamFan503]

I am lawyer, hear me thor!

Oh man... Who let THIS guy in. Where's my pitchfork and garlic. Wench! fetch me my torch.

 

[den-the-coach]

Oh man... Who let THIS guy in. Where's my pitchfork and garlic. Wench! fetch me my torch.

It was directed @Thordaddy as I thought his post was communicating he was a lawyer...I am not a member of the Bar unless it serves single malt scotch.

 

[tonyl711]

I think an excellent argument can be made that St Louis is not just a baseball town. Just look at attendance during the worst stretch of NFL play in recent history. This idea of STL being a baseball town is purely a media invention, and has been latched onto by everyone from LA enthusiasts to rabid baseball Cardinal fans desperate to believe themselves the greatest fans in history. It's simply not true. The fact that this team has any support after the Rams last ten years is a testament to this towns desire for NFL football. Can we please put this to bed now? It's as silly as the "LA won't support a team cause it's full of transients" nonsense. Put a halfway successful team in any larger town in America today and they will get supported. Football is that popular.

not to mention the 12 or so years of all sell outs until the losing got so bad.