- Joined
- Dec 10, 2013
- Messages
- 2,563
- Name
- Brian
That's a lot of Rams jerseys appearing in LA. I think some are saying "What! You mean they aren't playing here today?"
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
NateTheRam
Rookie
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2014
- Messages
- 252
- Name
- Nathan
There was lots of throwbacks today. Good turn out
Can't you just take 30 seconds yourself to read the article?
I was there bro, thanks for asking.
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
Jones interview with Times took place in Irving, not Green Bay
• By Jim Thomas
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_b32e4f4f-4c2f-512f-9275-7fd5d4963d96.html
NFL executive Eric Grubman mistakenly thought a New York Times interview with Dallas owner Jerry Jones took place minutes after the Green Bay-Dallas divisional round playoff game Jan. 11.
Turns out the interview took place several days earlier.
"Contrary to Mr. Grubman's fanciful depiction of what happened, our reporter was quoting Mr. Jones from an interview conducted in his office in Irving, Texas, about 1,100 miles from Green Bay, several days before the Cowboys' loss to the Packers," said New York Times editor Jason Stallman via e-mail.
In the interview, Jones made headlines — particularly in St. Louis — by pointing out that historically owners have moved teams without league approval. Jones suggested that Stan Kroenke could move the Rams without league approval.
During an interview with the Post-Dispatch on Thursday, Grubman said that Jones was emotional when approached by Times reporter Ken Belson after the Cowboys' tough loss to Green Bay, and in the emotion of the moment may not have totally focused on the questions.
Belson was at the Green Bay-Dallas game, but said he did not speak to Jones that day.
"That's why Eric may have thought the comment was made there," NFL vice president Greg Aiello told the Post-Dispatch via e-mail. "Eric's point was about the substance of the comments, not where they were made. Where they were made is irrelevant.
Grubman's point was that the league was concerned enough about Jones' comments that commissioner Roger Goodell personally spoke to Jones about them. Grubman also pointed out that the league takes its relocation rules seriously, although how the owners interpret them and potentially could vote on them could be a subjective matter.
• By Jim Thomas
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_b32e4f4f-4c2f-512f-9275-7fd5d4963d96.html
NFL executive Eric Grubman mistakenly thought a New York Times interview with Dallas owner Jerry Jones took place minutes after the Green Bay-Dallas divisional round playoff game Jan. 11.
Turns out the interview took place several days earlier.
"Contrary to Mr. Grubman's fanciful depiction of what happened, our reporter was quoting Mr. Jones from an interview conducted in his office in Irving, Texas, about 1,100 miles from Green Bay, several days before the Cowboys' loss to the Packers," said New York Times editor Jason Stallman via e-mail.
In the interview, Jones made headlines — particularly in St. Louis — by pointing out that historically owners have moved teams without league approval. Jones suggested that Stan Kroenke could move the Rams without league approval.
During an interview with the Post-Dispatch on Thursday, Grubman said that Jones was emotional when approached by Times reporter Ken Belson after the Cowboys' tough loss to Green Bay, and in the emotion of the moment may not have totally focused on the questions.
Belson was at the Green Bay-Dallas game, but said he did not speak to Jones that day.
"That's why Eric may have thought the comment was made there," NFL vice president Greg Aiello told the Post-Dispatch via e-mail. "Eric's point was about the substance of the comments, not where they were made. Where they were made is irrelevant.
Grubman's point was that the league was concerned enough about Jones' comments that commissioner Roger Goodell personally spoke to Jones about them. Grubman also pointed out that the league takes its relocation rules seriously, although how the owners interpret them and potentially could vote on them could be a subjective matter.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,830
- Name
- Stu
So does anyone really think Grubman intentionally lied? I'm guessing he just had his dates wrong and it was that simple. Way too easy to disprove for him to be trying to actually mislead anyone. His dismissing Jerruh's comments as just being emotional after a big loss obviously don't hold water but I don't think he was meaning to lie in the interview.
Boffo97
Still legal in 17 states!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 5,278
- Name
- Dave
http://ksmu.org/post/st-louis-football-stadium-proposal-getting-cold-shoulder-missouri-capitol
St. Louis Football Stadium Proposal Getting Cold Shoulder From Missouri Capitol
Missouri legislative leaders are showing little, if any, support for authorizing any state aid for a proposed new football stadium in St. Louis.
A task force appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon has unveiled plans for a 64,000-seat stadium between the Gateway Arch and the new Interstate 70 bridge with an estimated price tag ranging from $860 million to $985 million.
Republican Caleb Rowden of Columbia chairs the House committee on economic development. He says he's certain no one wants the Rams to leave St. Louis, but "anything that would involve a large amount of public funds, a large increase or extension of even tax credits, is just going to be an uphill climb."
Rowden added, "The folks that I've talked to just don't seem to have a big appetite for it."
In addition, House Speaker John Diehl, R-Town and Country, said last week that it would be "extraordinarily difficult to get a stadium package through the General Assembly." Fellow Republican Eric Schmitt of Glendale chairs the Senate economic development committee. His office is "refraining" from commenting on the proposal at this time.
Backers of the proposed new stadium say it would be funded by numerous sources, including private investment, Brownfield tax credits and a possible extension of the bond being used to pay for the Edward Jones Dome, the current home of the St. Louis Rams. Rams owner Stan Kroenke has unveiled plans to build an 80,000-seat stadium in Inglewood, Calif., about 12 miles from downtown Los Angeles.
Follow Marshall Griffin on Twitter: @MarshallGReport
St. Louis Football Stadium Proposal Getting Cold Shoulder From Missouri Capitol
Missouri legislative leaders are showing little, if any, support for authorizing any state aid for a proposed new football stadium in St. Louis.
A task force appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon has unveiled plans for a 64,000-seat stadium between the Gateway Arch and the new Interstate 70 bridge with an estimated price tag ranging from $860 million to $985 million.
Republican Caleb Rowden of Columbia chairs the House committee on economic development. He says he's certain no one wants the Rams to leave St. Louis, but "anything that would involve a large amount of public funds, a large increase or extension of even tax credits, is just going to be an uphill climb."
Rowden added, "The folks that I've talked to just don't seem to have a big appetite for it."
In addition, House Speaker John Diehl, R-Town and Country, said last week that it would be "extraordinarily difficult to get a stadium package through the General Assembly." Fellow Republican Eric Schmitt of Glendale chairs the Senate economic development committee. His office is "refraining" from commenting on the proposal at this time.
Backers of the proposed new stadium say it would be funded by numerous sources, including private investment, Brownfield tax credits and a possible extension of the bond being used to pay for the Edward Jones Dome, the current home of the St. Louis Rams. Rams owner Stan Kroenke has unveiled plans to build an 80,000-seat stadium in Inglewood, Calif., about 12 miles from downtown Los Angeles.
Follow Marshall Griffin on Twitter: @MarshallGReport
Boffo97
Still legal in 17 states!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 5,278
- Name
- Dave
This one is kind of harsh, and I don't agree with everything it says. If it had come from a non-St. Louis source, I wouldn't have posted it.
http://www.stlamerican.com/sports/s...746-9c33-11e4-82a7-7f319159f68b.html?mode=jqm
St. Louis: going out of the NFL business
Last Friday, the St. Louis contingent submitted their plan to save the Rams, or should I say, pro football in St. Louis. They showed some very nice drawings that were reminiscent of those unveiled by the City of Inglewood, California the week before. Kudos to David Peacock and Bob Blitz for putting this plan for St. Louis together, as they have certainly shown some leadership and vision at a critical stage for the survival of the NFL in St. Louis.
However, if you are thinking this plan will save the Rams, think again. I am willing to wager there will never be a shovel full of dirt turned over to help Stan Kroenke and his current St. Louis football setup. There will be no need to run out and buy some silver shovels and hard hats for the groundbreaking ceremony. It’s not going to happen.
For one thing, the Rams are not worthy of saving under the current ownership. How can you negotiate with a team when you have not yet had the owner in the same room? This is all for show.
As for the show plan, it is flawed on many levels. Let’s start with the concept of having an open-air stadium.
An open-air stadium is nice for that limited group of so-called football purists who think it’s a good idea to sit outside in freezing weather to watch bad football. To have an open-air stadium where you could play a maximum of 12 dates a year for the NFL leaves you with a whole lot of open dates. Throw in a pro soccer team, which we don’t yet have, and you may add 15 more scheduled dates. An outdoor concert or two gets you to over a month of bookings. Last time I checked, the year has 11 more months of days. What else is left after eliminating mid-January through at least April?
And don’t forget an open-air stadium eliminates any chances of hosting a Super Bowl, Final Four or Bowl Championship in St. Louis.
Let’s talk about the capacity. The rough number being used is 64,000. Did anyone bother to examine the fact that attendance has been spiraling down throughout the NFL over the last few years? Did anyone bother to look at how often the current dump the Rams play in has had 60,000 people show up when the Rams were somewhat competitive? That’s way too many seats that will never be filled, no matter what is coming to town.
The only large facility in the area for open-air events is Busch Stadium, where they have hosted concerts that featured U2 and the Eagles and acts of that nature – and a crowd of 45,000 was a good number.
The real solution to justify an investment of this sort would be a stadium with a retractable roof. Yes, it would cost more, but one reason that St. Louis is in this mess now is because they went cheap on the current eyesore which is home to the Rams. If St. Louis does not have the money to do it right, then maybe they should not be in the football business when it comes to the NFL. This venture has too many questions and not enough answers.
As for financing, it was disclosed that it would be a community effort that includes the fans. That only means one thing: the PSL, the old Personal Seat License. Surely you remember that venture and how it went over. You had a right to buy a ticket along with having your name on a plaque. Nice, but this is the way owners go about getting things built without paying too much out of their own pocket.
After all, how can they remain billionaires if they have to use their own money? Guess that might risk making them mere millionaires. I wonder how they would survive. Seriously, giving Stan Kroenke any of your money for anything at this point should make you doubt your sanity. But that’s the price to be paid if you want pro football in St. Louis.
http://www.stlamerican.com/sports/s...746-9c33-11e4-82a7-7f319159f68b.html?mode=jqm
St. Louis: going out of the NFL business
Last Friday, the St. Louis contingent submitted their plan to save the Rams, or should I say, pro football in St. Louis. They showed some very nice drawings that were reminiscent of those unveiled by the City of Inglewood, California the week before. Kudos to David Peacock and Bob Blitz for putting this plan for St. Louis together, as they have certainly shown some leadership and vision at a critical stage for the survival of the NFL in St. Louis.
However, if you are thinking this plan will save the Rams, think again. I am willing to wager there will never be a shovel full of dirt turned over to help Stan Kroenke and his current St. Louis football setup. There will be no need to run out and buy some silver shovels and hard hats for the groundbreaking ceremony. It’s not going to happen.
For one thing, the Rams are not worthy of saving under the current ownership. How can you negotiate with a team when you have not yet had the owner in the same room? This is all for show.
As for the show plan, it is flawed on many levels. Let’s start with the concept of having an open-air stadium.
An open-air stadium is nice for that limited group of so-called football purists who think it’s a good idea to sit outside in freezing weather to watch bad football. To have an open-air stadium where you could play a maximum of 12 dates a year for the NFL leaves you with a whole lot of open dates. Throw in a pro soccer team, which we don’t yet have, and you may add 15 more scheduled dates. An outdoor concert or two gets you to over a month of bookings. Last time I checked, the year has 11 more months of days. What else is left after eliminating mid-January through at least April?
And don’t forget an open-air stadium eliminates any chances of hosting a Super Bowl, Final Four or Bowl Championship in St. Louis.
Let’s talk about the capacity. The rough number being used is 64,000. Did anyone bother to examine the fact that attendance has been spiraling down throughout the NFL over the last few years? Did anyone bother to look at how often the current dump the Rams play in has had 60,000 people show up when the Rams were somewhat competitive? That’s way too many seats that will never be filled, no matter what is coming to town.
The only large facility in the area for open-air events is Busch Stadium, where they have hosted concerts that featured U2 and the Eagles and acts of that nature – and a crowd of 45,000 was a good number.
The real solution to justify an investment of this sort would be a stadium with a retractable roof. Yes, it would cost more, but one reason that St. Louis is in this mess now is because they went cheap on the current eyesore which is home to the Rams. If St. Louis does not have the money to do it right, then maybe they should not be in the football business when it comes to the NFL. This venture has too many questions and not enough answers.
As for financing, it was disclosed that it would be a community effort that includes the fans. That only means one thing: the PSL, the old Personal Seat License. Surely you remember that venture and how it went over. You had a right to buy a ticket along with having your name on a plaque. Nice, but this is the way owners go about getting things built without paying too much out of their own pocket.
After all, how can they remain billionaires if they have to use their own money? Guess that might risk making them mere millionaires. I wonder how they would survive. Seriously, giving Stan Kroenke any of your money for anything at this point should make you doubt your sanity. But that’s the price to be paid if you want pro football in St. Louis.
Irish
Starter
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Messages
- 962
They are all liars, and if they aren't liars, then they are just the fall guy for the liars.
Kroenke is a liar, Demoff is his fall guy. Goodell is a liar, Grubman is his fall guy.
Demoff is the one that really bothers me, though. He was so pro St. Louis and involved that you could forgive Stan's aloofness. He was genuine and earnest. Then, no doubt he was ordered to make the media tour and lie to St. Louisans so as not to make effect ticket sales and merchandise sales through the end of last season. He told numerous media outlets in October that the Rams were not meeting or negotiating with other cities, which ended up being so blatantly false that it is almost insulting.
I hate it.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,830
- Name
- Stu
It seems that this may indeed be the biggest obstacle for St Louis. Hired windbags villainizing Stan and therefore eroding what public support is there. I love how these guys say they want to keep the Rams but that not one penny should be spent by the public. Sounds like they're running for public office.
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
If he lied intentionally or not, I don't know. However I do no his job is to make sure the NFL makes money, and therefore it is his job to make sure that butts get put into seats, and telling people in a city that may lose their team anything but there's still hope and maybe we'll side with you, etc etc isn't going to get butts into seats.
Its hard to really take anything the NFL says at face value over this, because until there's a vote they will deny deny deny. Its too easy for the NFL to say, "well it is ultimately up to the owners" and its too easy for the owners to say "well it is ultimately Stans team and up to him" and it's too easy for Stan to say "I don't have to answer to you anymore" and then that's that.
rhinobean
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2013
- Messages
- 2,152
- Name
- Bob
They did run for office and did as they pleased instead of acting on behalf of their constituents after being elected! Building a new stadium where propose would increase property values! But no, it would be spending some tax money and they don't want that, they'd rather let the place decline as they don't live there! I didn't vote for these clowns, voted against the short sighted sob's!
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2011
- Messages
- 917
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #794
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...n-of-MLS-Could-Keep-the-Rams-in-St-Louis.aspx
Gray: The Addition of MLS Could Keep the Rams in St. Louis
Just as the acquisition of professional soccer played a pivotal role in keeping the NFL's Seahawks in Seattle, the league's future in this region could also largely hinge upon the area's ability to secure a Major League Soccer franchise.
With that considered, it would make a lot of sense for all St. Louis area Rams football fans to quickly began transitioning towards becoming supporters of professional futbol, too.
According to official MLS figures, the 19 year old league posted its highest all-time regular season (19,147) and postseason attendance averages (23,633) in 2014. In addition, the league also set new records for postseason TV viewership and social media engagement.
In four of the last five seasons, MLS has realized an increase in regular season attendance numbers. Of those five years, the lowest league-wide mark was registered in 2010 (16,675) and the highest came last year (19,147). That five year attendance average leap (2010 to 2014) equated to a substantial 13 percent increase of MLS in-game spectatorship.
During this same time frame that MLS realized significant attendance growth, leagues like MLB, NBA, NHL and even the NFL have struggled to either hold stagnant at the gate or to minimize attendance declines.
It is clear -- whether one personally likes American profession soccer or not -- that MLS is a league on the rise.
In relation to soccer, St. Louis continues to be a hotbed for the sport, as evidenced by two friendly matches combining to draw over 100,000 onlookers last year.
While it still appears unlikely that the Dave Peacock/Bob Blitz spearheaded stadium proposal will ultimately go to a public vote, MLS considerations could play a major role in securing the support needed for this prospective multi-faceted downtown development to come to fruition.
If an MLS ownership group were to be cemented and a league franchise were conditionally awarded to St. Louis pending the approval of the downtown revitalization proposal,
(For much more on the MLS, plus quick hits on misunderstandings of the stadium proposal, how bonds were used like St. Louis has talked about to build two stadiums in Chicago, and more, please click below for the full read. Thanks for the support and for being the best board around, ROD. Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as well):
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...n-of-MLS-Could-Keep-the-Rams-in-St-Louis.aspx
Gray: The Addition of MLS Could Keep the Rams in St. Louis
Just as the acquisition of professional soccer played a pivotal role in keeping the NFL's Seahawks in Seattle, the league's future in this region could also largely hinge upon the area's ability to secure a Major League Soccer franchise.
With that considered, it would make a lot of sense for all St. Louis area Rams football fans to quickly began transitioning towards becoming supporters of professional futbol, too.
According to official MLS figures, the 19 year old league posted its highest all-time regular season (19,147) and postseason attendance averages (23,633) in 2014. In addition, the league also set new records for postseason TV viewership and social media engagement.
In four of the last five seasons, MLS has realized an increase in regular season attendance numbers. Of those five years, the lowest league-wide mark was registered in 2010 (16,675) and the highest came last year (19,147). That five year attendance average leap (2010 to 2014) equated to a substantial 13 percent increase of MLS in-game spectatorship.
During this same time frame that MLS realized significant attendance growth, leagues like MLB, NBA, NHL and even the NFL have struggled to either hold stagnant at the gate or to minimize attendance declines.
It is clear -- whether one personally likes American profession soccer or not -- that MLS is a league on the rise.
In relation to soccer, St. Louis continues to be a hotbed for the sport, as evidenced by two friendly matches combining to draw over 100,000 onlookers last year.
While it still appears unlikely that the Dave Peacock/Bob Blitz spearheaded stadium proposal will ultimately go to a public vote, MLS considerations could play a major role in securing the support needed for this prospective multi-faceted downtown development to come to fruition.
If an MLS ownership group were to be cemented and a league franchise were conditionally awarded to St. Louis pending the approval of the downtown revitalization proposal,
(For much more on the MLS, plus quick hits on misunderstandings of the stadium proposal, how bonds were used like St. Louis has talked about to build two stadiums in Chicago, and more, please click below for the full read. Thanks for the support and for being the best board around, ROD. Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as well):
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...n-of-MLS-Could-Keep-the-Rams-in-St-Louis.aspx
ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
I started keeping up with MLS this year. I'd love to be able to claim a team, and it would be the STL team if they got one.
Two new expansion franchises are being added in the 2015 season in Orlando FC and New York FC. AFAIK, the next two front runners are Las Vegas and Miami. The Miami group is being headed by David Beckham. But, neither he, nor the LV ownership groups have franchises. I think Las Vegas is close to being green lighted, though. If I recall they are looking to add 2 more franchises in the next two years or so.
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
The Post Dispatch’s David Nunn joined Nick Wagoner, Carey Davis, and Michael Young to talk the obstacles the new Rams stadium may face.
Listen to Nunn Talk Stadium
Listen to Nunn Talk Stadium
dbrooks25
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,119
This article can be picked apart. First, the writers for the St. Louis American are very pessimistic when it comes to covering anything Rams related unless they are winning. Secondly, everything in this article is based on the writer's opinion. What about all of the other open air stadiums throughout the NFL? St. Louis would not face any more difficulties than any of those other cities and frankly this isn't even something that would be a concern of ours as fans.
"For one thing, the Rams are not worthy of saving under the current ownership."
This is part of the pessimistic bullshit that I'm talking about. The writer's argument regarding the stadium capacity is weak as hell too. While we're at it, this guy certainly forgot to mention the estimated $20 million in additional revenue that will come in to the city with the additional dates the EJD would have due to the Rams playing in another facility.
Boffo97
Still legal in 17 states!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 5,278
- Name
- Dave
I will bear that in mind when it comes to the St. Louis American in the future, thanks.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2014
- Messages
- 1,293
I did read the article. However, it was late last night. I thought what I was reading was your opinion underneath the Quoted Twitter box in the article. Now, after a second look it was all part of the original article. So, my apologies for implying that you had posted there.
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
St. Louis should pause before getting burned again
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinio...cle_1d9f8b9e-e569-5962-8a78-ffe78243244a.html
Build it, and we might come. That is the message the NFL has delivered to our community. Here’s why we should pause before making that leap of faith.
Fact: The lease that St. Louis gave the Rams when the dome was first built was a bad deal for the city. Twenty years in, with the city still owing over $100 million in debt on the dome’s construction, the Rams are free to walk away.
Fact: The reason the city struck such a bad deal with the Rams is because in 1994, with a new stadium and no tenant, it was the best deal to be made.
Fact: The dome is no longer a viable home for an NFL franchise, because the NFL says so.
Fact: The NFL has made no guarantee to anyone that should St. Louis build a new stadium, it would have an NFL tenant.
Fact: A surplus of NFL-worthy stadiums gives NFL owners leverage in renegotiating leases or negotiating construction of new stadiums in their (current) cities.
Fact: With that leverage, it is more likely that the NFL could extract from a current owner the $1 billion franchise relocation fee. It is also more likely that the NFL could entice more billionaires to join the NFL owners club by paying the $1 billion-plus franchise fee for expansion teams, because cities with empty stadiums give more favorable lease terms.
Question: Why would St. Louis, having been burned once, surrender all leverage and again deal itself a losing hand by building a stadium without either a guaranteed NFL tenant or a palatable lease in hand?
Will Bealke • Des Peres
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinio...cle_1d9f8b9e-e569-5962-8a78-ffe78243244a.html
Build it, and we might come. That is the message the NFL has delivered to our community. Here’s why we should pause before making that leap of faith.
Fact: The lease that St. Louis gave the Rams when the dome was first built was a bad deal for the city. Twenty years in, with the city still owing over $100 million in debt on the dome’s construction, the Rams are free to walk away.
Fact: The reason the city struck such a bad deal with the Rams is because in 1994, with a new stadium and no tenant, it was the best deal to be made.
Fact: The dome is no longer a viable home for an NFL franchise, because the NFL says so.
Fact: The NFL has made no guarantee to anyone that should St. Louis build a new stadium, it would have an NFL tenant.
Fact: A surplus of NFL-worthy stadiums gives NFL owners leverage in renegotiating leases or negotiating construction of new stadiums in their (current) cities.
Fact: With that leverage, it is more likely that the NFL could extract from a current owner the $1 billion franchise relocation fee. It is also more likely that the NFL could entice more billionaires to join the NFL owners club by paying the $1 billion-plus franchise fee for expansion teams, because cities with empty stadiums give more favorable lease terms.
Question: Why would St. Louis, having been burned once, surrender all leverage and again deal itself a losing hand by building a stadium without either a guaranteed NFL tenant or a palatable lease in hand?
Will Bealke • Des Peres
- Status