New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[blue4]

Exactly. It's been different people involved in L.A., and there hasn't been any contract hanging over their heads.

Whereas in St. Louis, the CVC knew from signing the lease that the first tier clause was going to be a problem, and as of two more weeks, it will be two full years since the CVC rejected the Rams' arbitrator-approved proposal for bringing the EJD into compliance with the lease.

At the very least, St. Louis should have hit the ground running after that rejection with an alternate plan. They didn't, and that's why people are wondering if there's any sense of urgency from them. Comparisons to other cities aren't going to help that perception.

That's just it. Perception. It's been well stated on this very website that the behind-the-scenes to get a new stadium has been going for some time. There are political realities on how fast a project can be built in Missouri, same as there has been in LA. It's a perception that keeps going due to people wanting believe that St Louis is failing the Rams.

 

[blue4]

Bernies article can be responded to with a single sentence. The LA market is completely different today than it was just 20 years ago. He might as well compare St Louis's situation with Nepal, it's apples or oranges at this point. If it was the same then the NFL wouldn't be so interested in returning.

Certainly taking their time returning, though. They're certainly interested in using LA for new stadiums.

 

[Alan]

bluecoconuts noticing the difference:
Bernies article can be responded to with a single sentence. The LA market is completely different today than it was just 20 years ago. He might as well compare St Louis's situation with Nepal, it's apples or oranges at this point. If it was the same then the NFL wouldn't be so interested in returning.

That's true but I'd contend that it has gotten even worse. Much worse.

The NFL is interested only because of the TV market which doesn't directly increase revenue for the potential owner. There's, as he mentioned, an excellent reason why LA hasn't had a football team for all these years.

I could go into much more detail about why I think the LA situation has worsened so much but I did that already at The Huddle. So unless you're really interested I'll spare you.

 

[Boffo97]

That's just it. Perception. It's been well stated on this very website that the behind-the-scenes to get a new stadium has been going for some time. There are political realities on how fast a project can be built in Missouri, same as there has been in LA. It's a perception that keeps going due to people wanting believe that St Louis is failing the Rams.

But the problem is that nothing has been BUILT so far... there are pretty drawings, with two massive question marks in regard to funding (namely whether Stan will go along with contributing and whether the population of St. Louis and/or Missouri will contribute public money to it.)

Unfair perception or not, most people are going to look at that and two years and say the process should have been farther along. Wasn't the Peacock/Blitz duo (and why is someone named Bob Blitz NOT a football player?!) only appointed last year?

 

[ChrisW]

But the problem is that nothing has been BUILT so far... there are pretty drawings, with two massive question marks in regard to funding (namely whether Stan will go along with contributing and whether the population of St. Louis and/or Missouri will contribute public money to it.)

Unfair perception or not, most people are going to look at that and two years and say the process should have been farther along. Wasn't the Peacock/Blitz duo (and why is someone named Bob Blitz NOT a football player?!) only appointed last year?

People have different perceptions of when the proposal should have been started. But it was actually pretty fast.

The problem is that the dome wasn't renovated to keep it up to snuff. Everything else is speculation (time frame wise.)

 

[Boffo97]

People have different perceptions of when the proposal should have been started. But it was actually pretty fast.

The problem is that the dome wasn't renovated to keep it up to snuff. Everything else is speculation (time frame wise.)

If I were a St. Louisan, I would like to know why it took a year to appoint Peacock and Blitz... that's the part that really stands out as slow.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Certainly taking their time returning, though. They're certainly interested in using LA for new stadiums.

Well it didn't change over night. They've gotten there though, and with the NFL pushing to return its no longer a question of if but rather when. Which is why the Rams are such an attractive option for them. Gets them what they want in the easiest possible way. There is a reason why the Clippers sold for so much money, and its not because LA is a bad sports city. The teams are experience all time highs.

 

[dbrooks25]

If I were a St. Louisan, I would like to know why it took a year to appoint Peacock and Blitz... that's the part that really stands out as slow.

If you listen to Peacock, it wasn't just last year that they were appointed as they have been working on the stadium plan a little over a year ago. He said they were working on it back then and then it went into a full time job for them about 6 months ago. The mayor came out and said they were appointed back in November, but anyone should be able to see that he actually had them on the job long before that. Again, it may have taken too long according to some of us but to the NFL folks who matter that isn't an issue that is being raised.

 

[blue4]

If I were a St. Louisan, I would like to know why it took a year to appoint Peacock and Blitz... that's the part that really stands out as slow.

No, as a St. Louisan I want to know why after 2 years no one can get the owner on the phone, but yet team officials can do a LA fan outreach during a game in SD. I want to know why we weren't more public about when we started to look at a new stadium, which as dbooks25 and I have pointed out started well before the official Peacock announcement.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Again, it may have taken too long according to some of us but to the NFL folks who matter that isn't an issue that is being raised.

^ this!

 

[Boffo97]

No, as a St. Louisan I want to know why after 2 years no one can get the owner on the phone, but yet team officials can do a LA fan outreach during a game in SD. I want to know why we weren't more public about when we started to look at a new stadium, which as dbooks25 and I have pointed out started well before the official Peacock announcement.

Sure, I can completely understand why you guys would be unhappy with how Stan & the Rams have handled this... but no issues with how the CVC/St. Louis/Missouri has handled the problem?

 

[dieterbrock]

Sure, I can completely understand why you guys would be unhappy with how Stan & the Rams have handled this... but no issues with how the CVC/St. Louis/Missouri has handled the problem?

Again, having no dog in this fight I totally agree with this.
From an unbiased point of view, had the owner of the Rams NOT been so connected to St Louis and HAD NOT proclaimed that he would keep the team there, I imagine the sense of urgency would have been raised a lot sooner.

 

[blue4]

Sure, I can completely understand why you guys would be unhappy with how Stan & the Rams have handled this... but no issues with how the CVC/St. Louis/Missouri has handled the problem?

I would have loved for them to have started years ago. But that ignores all political and economic reality of this state. And up until Stan rode in on his white horse, that described LA as well. My issue is that we didn't announce we were working on it when they actually started. That has directly led to the Rams being able to sell this "too little, too late" nonsense. As for the CVC, I may be wrong but it's my understanding that their job is the financial solvency of the EJD and convention center. Which actually benefits from the Rams not being there. Also, spending 700 million on the dome would have just had us bending back over for Stan in 10 years anyway.

 

[beej]

Sure, I can completely understand why you guys would be unhappy with how Stan & the Rams have handled this... but no issues with how the CVC/St. Louis/Missouri has handled the problem?

None! So it's hard for mw to understand why you keep saying it over and over and over. There's a lot that goes into this. First of all you typically don't hire a guy like peacock overnight. He has a life and a schedule to keep up or clear for a job like this. There are probably other people that gov may have wanted involved as well. You start out by feeling people out, see who wants to take on a project like this. It all takes time. Besides that the rams aren't the only thing happening in this state even though it might be the only thing that makes you interested in our area. I get the sense that you're not involved in running a business and the planning or process that goes into billion dollar projects. There's no clapper for putting a team of people and a plan together.

 

[blue4]

Again, having no dog in this fight I totally agree with this.
From an unbiased point of view, had the owner of the Rams NOT been so connected to St Louis and HAD NOT proclaimed that he would keep the team there, I imagine the sense of urgency would have been raised a lot sooner.

Not to mention that the other owners involved in stuff like this are very engaged. There's no doubt to what they want. The Rams won arbitration, issued a statement that basically said "cool", and disappeared.

 

[dieterbrock]

Not to mention that the other owners involved in stuff like this are very engaged. There's no doubt to what they want. The Rams won arbitration, issued a statement that basically said "cool", and disappeared.

I dont know how much engagement there is with the owners. I dont recall much when the NY Giants stadium was being rebuilt and there were 2 owners involved, the Mara's and Woody Johnson. IIRC the details were all fairly much done behind the scenes

 

[blue4]

I dont know how much engagement there is with the owners. I dont recall much when the NY Giants stadium was being rebuilt and there were 2 owners involved, the Mara's and Woody Johnson. IIRC the details were all fairly much done behind the scenes

I had the Falcons and Vikings in mind. I admit the Giants didn't make the news here.


Probably because they suck.

 

[dbrooks25]

I would have loved for them to have started years ago. But that ignores all political and economic reality of this state. And up until Stan rode in on his white horse, that described LA as well. My issue is that we didn't announce we were working on it when they actually started. That has directly led to the Rams being able to sell this "too little, too late" nonsense. As for the CVC, I may be wrong but it's my understanding that their job is the financial solvency of the EJD and convention center. Which actually benefits from the Rams not being there. Also, spending 700 million on the dome would have just had us bending back over for Stan in 10 years anyway.

Agreed, and the other thing is people tend to forget (or not know) that the CVC's negotiation with the Rams have nothing to do with what Nixon/Peacock/Blitz. Those negotiations are separate. Everybody knew that the CVC and Rams wouldn't come to an agreement well before they went to arbitration so I wish people would stop bringing this argument up.

 

[Boffo97]

None! So it's hard for mw to understand why you keep saying it over and over and over.

Fair enough. I'm not trying to start fights... just kind of understand where you guys are coming from is all.

 

[tonyl711]

But the problem is that nothing has been BUILT so far... there are pretty drawings, with two massive question marks in regard to funding (namely whether Stan will go along with contributing and whether the population of St. Louis and/or Missouri will contribute public money to it.)

Unfair perception or not, most people are going to look at that and two years and say the process should have been farther along. Wasn't the Peacock/Blitz duo (and why is someone named Bob Blitz NOT a football player?!) only appointed last year?

what exactly has been built in LA? nothing, the LA plan is only farther along than St Louis plan because Stan said he would fund it. I can promise you if Stan said he would fund a stadium in St Louis it would be farther along in the planning, as we have seen from both St Louis and LA its easy to draw pretty stadiums how many drawings has LA had? whole different story about getting everything approved and actually building.