Walter
Rookie
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2014
- Messages
- 451
I thought the same thing. Regardless I am not too concerned with the looks as long as it is occupied.
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
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
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 49,205
- Name
- Burger man
A Superbowl guarantee. Economic pump to the city.
At least I'd suggest some could come from that.
Big Willie
Starter
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
- Messages
- 763
It would appear to me that the Rams have the opportunity to deliver a counterproposal on the look and layout of the stadium now that the city has officially made a proposal. If so, they could feasibly propose a stadium that looks dramatically different or that has a retractable roof, or looks like the one proposed in LA county. Is that viewpoint feasible?
Now...my conspiracy theory. Perhaps the Goddell commissioned Kroenke to get the LA market active and get a stadium deal approved by city leaders (for future occupancy by TBD tenants). Kroenke is a real estate mogul, and who better to put together a plan and gain the support to build a stadium in LA. Kroenke wins in that he could sell his land in LA county and his stake in the partnership to the two teams that will ultimately reside in the stadium for hundreds of millions. The NFL wins in that they finally get a stadium in The LA market. Worst case scenario, the Chargers and Raiders move there. Best case, both those teams get new stadiums based on the leverage the LA stadium development provides, the league expands by two teams in LA....and all of this gets done around the time a new TV deal gets negotiated. Thoughts?
Now...my conspiracy theory. Perhaps the Goddell commissioned Kroenke to get the LA market active and get a stadium deal approved by city leaders (for future occupancy by TBD tenants). Kroenke is a real estate mogul, and who better to put together a plan and gain the support to build a stadium in LA. Kroenke wins in that he could sell his land in LA county and his stake in the partnership to the two teams that will ultimately reside in the stadium for hundreds of millions. The NFL wins in that they finally get a stadium in The LA market. Worst case scenario, the Chargers and Raiders move there. Best case, both those teams get new stadiums based on the leverage the LA stadium development provides, the league expands by two teams in LA....and all of this gets done around the time a new TV deal gets negotiated. Thoughts?
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 49,205
- Name
- Burger man
Doesn't sound too outlandish, actually.
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
Spending a billion dollars for a TBD tenant that's not yourself? I don't know, there's plenty of potential options for stadiums that would be financed that the NFL could take if that was their goal. The biggest issue is that the city doesn't want to go ahead and start building without a team that is ready to go, so why would proposal change that? I don't think anything has changed in that sense, so I don't see the thing getting built without a team committed. If Stan is working and then another team were to step in to take control, and then finance part of it, that would be one thing, but building it for a TBD tenant? I just don't see it. Especially since the NFL has said they're not really looking at expansion right now because it throws the balance off. If that was the case then yeah, Stan is definitely a good choice to spearhead it, but I don't think that is a very realistic scenario.
Also someone who is more familiar with G4 loans can comment, but is it true that Stan would need to pay that back as well? If that's the case then the proposal asks him to pony up 400+ million and he doesn't get to own it himself, I don't think he'll be too thrilled with it. However it would probably be very attractive to another potential owner, if Stan does truly want to own everything, and truly is against putting up his own money, then he might not be very thrilled.
mr.stlouis
Legend
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 6,454
- Name
- Main Hook
LOUD NOISES!!! ( 
)
)
Tron
Fights for the User
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2013
- Messages
- 7,836
- Name
- Tron
Big Unit
UDFA
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2013
- Messages
- 96
I like the proposal. I don't know what would make a stadium "unique" - unlike baseball, every football field has identical dimensions. Obviously a stadium like Seattle's holds the noise well, but that tends to take care of itself when a good team is on the field. Apart from that, seems like good sightlines, good sound system, good and large video boards, closeness of fans to the field, and good traffic flow and concessions are the main variables. It's hard to evaluate something like that. (Just ask the 49ers, with their billion-plus Levi's Stadium; they haven't played well there; there are turf issues; the neighborhood hasn't been thrilled with it; and it's 45 miles from downtown San Francisco.)
What I like here is the following: 1. It virtually overhangs the Mississippi River - great views from inside, and especially from outside. 2. It's halfway between the two anchors of the St. Louis skyline - the Gateway Arch; and the Stan Musial Bridge. 3. It's open air - St. Louis has moderate weather, so shouldn't be an issue in 80-90% of games. 4. It's surrounded by dedicated parking spaces - similar to Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City, which has one of the best tailgating/gameday experiences in the NFL. 5. It continues and adds to the current redevelopment plan of St. Louis - the "city/arch/river" plan, which creates green space, instead of Interstate Highways - from downtown to the River and the Arch. 6. It permits repurposing of the Edward Jones Dome to be fully dedicated as part of the convention center; in effect developing two public venues, rather than one. 7. It doesn't require new tax proposals. 8. It still is easily accessible to Lumiere Place, redevelopment of downtown, etc.; and it would only be a small part of that redevelopment, already in progress - rather than an anchor of such redevelopment.
It would result in a downtown running from the River/Arch/Stadium at the east, to Tucker/I-70 to the west; and from Busch Stadium at the south, to the Stan Musial Bridge to the north. Finally St. Louis would make proper use of it's most compelling natural resource, the Mississippi River; similar to Chicago's use of the Lakefront.
The football stadium/baseball stadium would be similar to Pittsburgh, with both the ballpark and Heinz Field hard on the River. I'm intrigued.
I think the approach is wise, too. Maybe St. Louis isn't LA, but it's - in my opinion - clearly a qualified NFL city.
What I like here is the following: 1. It virtually overhangs the Mississippi River - great views from inside, and especially from outside. 2. It's halfway between the two anchors of the St. Louis skyline - the Gateway Arch; and the Stan Musial Bridge. 3. It's open air - St. Louis has moderate weather, so shouldn't be an issue in 80-90% of games. 4. It's surrounded by dedicated parking spaces - similar to Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City, which has one of the best tailgating/gameday experiences in the NFL. 5. It continues and adds to the current redevelopment plan of St. Louis - the "city/arch/river" plan, which creates green space, instead of Interstate Highways - from downtown to the River and the Arch. 6. It permits repurposing of the Edward Jones Dome to be fully dedicated as part of the convention center; in effect developing two public venues, rather than one. 7. It doesn't require new tax proposals. 8. It still is easily accessible to Lumiere Place, redevelopment of downtown, etc.; and it would only be a small part of that redevelopment, already in progress - rather than an anchor of such redevelopment.
It would result in a downtown running from the River/Arch/Stadium at the east, to Tucker/I-70 to the west; and from Busch Stadium at the south, to the Stan Musial Bridge to the north. Finally St. Louis would make proper use of it's most compelling natural resource, the Mississippi River; similar to Chicago's use of the Lakefront.
The football stadium/baseball stadium would be similar to Pittsburgh, with both the ballpark and Heinz Field hard on the River. I'm intrigued.
I think the approach is wise, too. Maybe St. Louis isn't LA, but it's - in my opinion - clearly a qualified NFL city.
Big Willie
Starter
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
- Messages
- 763
Maybe I am wrong, but no one seems to be able to get a stadium built in the LA market. I think the NFL knows Kroenke can get this done. I don't know the numbers, but let's say Kroenke's portion of the expense is $400 million. If he were able to get it built, I believe with two teams moving to the market he could get $300 million from each of the teams for his share of the stadium and land....plus the shared portion of the league's relocation fee. Like everyone...I am just speculating (conspiracy theory)....but I believe the NFL will do anything to get what they want.
Also, this approach allows the NFL not to spend any money on the development of the stadium.
Mikey Ram
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2014
- Messages
- 3,403
- Name
- Mike
I really doubt that Ridiculous Roger hopped in bed with Silent Stan on this deal. (Maybe it's a good theory, I just have trouble buying into it)..And what if the stadium gets built, he can't move and can't sell it ??? (My understanding is that he would not be allowed to be a landlord)... Pretty hefty investment, even for a billionaire...He got his money by paying attention to not wasting it...The new proposal is less than what the Rams thought it would cost to upgrade the Dome if I remember correctly...Maybe new construction would be less expensive, but the dollars they are talking about really doesn't sound like a lot of bucks for a considerably more upscale stadium...Especially without the added cost of a roof of some kind...This just babbling by me as I really know very little about this type of thing...It's just my initial thoughts on it...
mr.stlouis
Legend
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 6,454
- Name
- Main Hook
I'm just curious as to why Rams brass is holding out to immediately supporting this proposal. No Rams brass was at this event. What's the gain to keeping the cards so close by shunning it? It appears to be lack of interest, but that could be a very coy form of a bargaining chip in itself. Maybe they want more, maybe Stan wants his LA hand to appear firm to make huge money off both cities. It appears to be a good deal for him but clearly he has his eye on a much bigger picture that leads to more money. I have no idea what he's thinking and I won't speculate to what exactly that is. But boy, I sure a curious. VERY curious, this guy is sharp as a tack.
Yamahopper
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,838
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 11,337
- Name
- Scott
I like it as well.Well I think it looks totally awesome , the way a football stadium is suppose to look
The only thing I would.do different is make it a little steeper. Get the crowd right on top of the field. Also, getting the fans in the back rows a closer view from further above.
But, yeah. I like that they didn't get to cute with some futuristic, outer space design. This stadium will still look good 20 years from now.
Yeah. I like it.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2014
- Messages
- 6,614
- Name
- Iowa
Thats why Kinnick Stadium in Iowa City is still may favorite stadium , the seating in the stadium almost goes right up to the sideline , you're almost sitting right on top of the field , there really isn't a bad seat in the entire place
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
The main reason why they didn't get built was because teams wouldn't commit to moving. Most of it was privately funded so the NFL wouldn't have to pay for anything as well, but they all required a team to sign on and then they would break ground right away. At this point the only thing different is that an owner of a team is backing it, but if he wasn't committed to moving, then they would be at the same square they were before. However there are still technicalities they need to get past, one of them is a ballot initiative that is sure to pass, which is why the Rams wouldn't move until next year anyway if that is indeed their end goal. They won't commit to moving unless all ducks are in a row, Stan doesn't want to risk spending that kind of cash without knowing he'll get his desired return. Which goes back to letting other teams have it instead of him, the return is far less than if he were to be there himself. Not impossible, but unlikely.
I read somewhere that they probably weren't too impressed, and were probably looking for how they can tear it down and say it's not enough. They were saying the response from the Rams was pretty lackluster for these reasons. Maybe part of the negotiations, but at this point it looks like both sides are posturing, Rams to leave and St Louis to convince the NFL to allow another team to come back.
JonRam99
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2014
- Messages
- 2,330
- Name
- Jonathan
I think they rushed this proposal to press once Stan's hand was revealed, in order to stem the flow of a mass exodus of fans. At some point, the designs will be much further along & more spectacular, because these architects have that capability; however, because of the timing of Stan's reveal, I think they rushed the stadium design out "as-is"--notice how the upper bowl shows fans in seats, but the lower ones don't, as if they didn't have time to finish the 3-D modelling. It's very possible much more will be added to a "final" presentation, similar to the renderings for the new Atlanta Braves' stadium.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 11,337
- Name
- Scott
That's what I'm talking about!Thats why Kinnick Stadium in Iowa City is still may favorite stadium , the seating in the stadium almost goes right up to the sideline , you're almost sitting right on top of the field , there really isn't a bad seat in the entire place
Gets the crowd right on top of the field.
No bad seats.
Very loud stadium.
mr.stlouis
Legend
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 6,454
- Name
- Main Hook
That's my initial reaction, but I do have another take on it. Peacock knows the NFL has the final say on if a teams stays or goes. The attempt is to try one-up Kroneke by going straight to the boss and saying "Hey, my manager wants this to happen but it's not right. It needs to go this particular way for the various reasons... etc."
But it's not a good move financially because we need Stan to pony up some of his many millions. But it's the only way to go if he really is lobbying STL to the LA market.
There's just too many variables to pin this one down. Obviously we're just gonna see what Kroneke does next. It's clearly his move unless money from a private source arrises to pay Stan's part. This is hard to imagine, but it is also possible.
One thing is sure, Stan is gonna keep being Stan to the media.
(Thanks again, ROD. I've been dying for a civil discussion that sheds light on the subject for true Rams fans everywhere.)
- Status