New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamBill]

Buck still has "hope" that NFL stays in St. Louis
• By Dan Caesar

http://www.stltoday.com/entertainme...cle_1557a418-8a20-5a45-939f-4d1bcb877cb4.html

Joe Buck grew up and still lives in St. Louis, is the lead play-by-play announcer for Fox’s NFL, MLB and now golf coverage. And he has been vocal about the perception by some outsiders that the city doesn’t support the NFL, so the Rams would be justified in moving back to the Los Angeles area.

He, and others, point to the woeful performance of the Rams — who have had just four winning years in their 20 seasons in town. Before that, the Cardinals had just 12 winning seasons in 28 years and never had a home playoff game. In his NFL role for Fox, Buck has a lot of contacts in and around the league — including Dave Peacock, who is helping spearhead the local efforts to keep the NFL in town by pushing for a new stadium.

“I talk to Dave, check his temperature every couple weeks, and he’s upbeat, positive and confident,’’ Buck said this week. “That gives me hope. The thing that’s so frustrating is (the notion) that St. Louis doesn’t support the NFL when it’s gone above and beyond supporting this product. You want to see bad support, put this team in LA and see who shows up.”

But Buck says he doesn’t know what will happen — and doesn’t think any of a select group of NFL heavy hitters does, either.

“I honestly believe this — if you were to ask a panel of (Rams owner) Stan Kroenke, (Dallas Cowboys owner) Jerry Jones, (NFL commissioner) Roger Goodell, Eric Grubman (who is the NFL’s point man on market evaluations) and Dave Peacock, you may get (all of them with) different answers,’’ Buck said. “I don’t think anybody knows.

“I know the first step here is building the stadium and I really feel in my heart is that if the stadium gets built here I don’t see how the NFL in some capacity is not in St. Louis. I don’t think they want to leave this market. I don’t know if they can stop Stan (from moving). I don’t know how that all will shake out. But I think building a stadium here is about as close to a guarantee to having a new team or the (Rams), and not building a stadium is the end of the NFL in St. Louis. No team is going to move into that dome, and the Rams aren’t going to stay in it.”

 

[mr.stlouis]

And if the Rams do move back to L.A. it won't have anything to do with the St. Louis fans, it will be because of the opportunity L.A. offers...

That is a statement I agree with, man. Very well done!

 

[mr.stlouis]

No I know it's been funded it just has to be completed.



No need for a blue font. What is there to present? Is it just a progress update? A presentation implies they're trying to sell something, I do presentations weekly at work. I was under the impression from the many articles that the Carson stadium was sold in and approved so I was curious what was presented. I'm sorry you think I'm sarcastic or picking a fight. It was an honest and straight forward question I thought.

Alright, I understand where u are coming from now. I'm not sure. IDK if it's going to be more formal , ala how Peacock did it for STL, or just more updates. The date set for this is June 22. So it's right around the corner. It's sure to make headlines with whatever is presented or said. My first impulse was it's going to be more like Raiders/Chargers presenting to the public. We'll see.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Again, 4th most money offered in public funding from a stadium going back 18 years.

And I think thats a big advantage that St.Louis has/have over the other stadiums, particularly when you start talking about timelines and such for San Diego's proposal (which has a lot of big contigencies to deal with, including legal environmental issues). And I don't think I need to say anything about Oakland's stadium which is pretty much dead.

I was curious and decided to look at the numbers of the various different stadiums and adjust them for inflation (as the NFL is almost certainly going to do when they're looking over everything)

Here's the raw data:

Now, the Minnesota is at the bottom because I'm not 100% sure on the cost (I went to Wikipedia) and St Louis I've heard that it'll be between 350 and 400. Plus we don't know the total cost, I just kept with 1 billion. Obviusly ignore the "1997" typo under the St Louis year... Either way analyzing things a bit.

Now when we rank the stadiums in terms of total money spent after inflation it ranks as follows:

Indy
Cincinnati
Minnesota
Chicago
Dallas
St Louis (if 400)
Seattle
Denver
Houston
Arizona
St Louis (if 350)
Baltimore
Tennessee
Cleveland
Tampa Bay
Philly
Pittsburgh
Green Bay
SF
Detroit
Washington
NE
NYC


So in terms of actual dollars spent, St Louis is ranked either 6th if it's as high as 400, or 10th if it's down to 350, out of 22 stadiums. Which isn't bad at all really.

If we look at percentage of total project we rank them as follows:
Tampa Bay
Cincinnati
Baltimore
Indy
Cleveland
Denver
Tennessee
Arizona
Chicago
Seattle
Pittsburgh
Houston
Green Bay
Minnesota
St Louis (if 40%)
Dallas
Philly
St Louis (if 35%)
Washington
Detroit
NE
SF
NYC

That puts St Louis at 15th or 17th... Again out of 22 stadiums.

So when we talk about how much teams contributed, the NFL is probably more likely to look at their commitment to the overall project in terms of how much they paid, as well as how much they paid in relation to how far each dollar went. That's assuming of course that they actually look and really care about what the city is offering. However if we're going to throw out a number and say that it's so incredibly high that it's out of the norm of what cities typically offer up for stadiums, that doesn't appear to be the case. It's roughly middle of the pack in terms of dollars, and on the lower end in terms of percentage.



So ultimately what do these numbers mean? Probably not much to be honest, if the NFL decides that Inglewood is the best option and they can take care of all three owners in the process (which seems to be the likely case) and go with it, it probably wont really matter what St Louis is offering. However there are the numbers anyway.

 

[WillasDad]

Georgia Frontier to LA Fans is what Stan Kroenke will be to St.Louis fans...

Conspiracy theorists can look back on both owners' actions and line up the dots to meet their theories about degrading attendance to move

You mean be the person instrumental towards bringing the Rams to your city to enjoy 20 years of football? Georgia did nothing of the sort for LA fans.

 

[Loyal]

The part that torqued me about Bernie M's latest rant on the Fast Lane with Randy K. and Farr...He was dismissive of the LA market and that LA fans didn't show up for games, unlike St Louis..Well, thats true up to a point, but is deceptive without context. The Rams never had a brand new stadium when they moved to LA from Cleveand...The Coliseum was a dangerous place near the end, and made the sewage overflowing Oakland Coliseum seem like a new facility in comparison . Then they went to playing on a baseball field in Anaheim. The fan experience wasn't good, and then Frontierre started dumping good players in the early 1990's..ala Major League.....Bernie mentioned none of this because he isn't all that interested in being a real journalist.

 

[blue4]

You mean be the person instrumental towards bringing the Rams to your city to enjoy 20 years of football? Georgia did nothing of the sort for LA fans.

The guy who cashed in big time to destroy the LA Rams and then turns around and attempts to cash in again destroying the St Louis Rams to return to the market he helped your nemesis abandon? Stan Kroenke is worse than Georgia IMO. At least Georgia only killed one city's dreams, Stan's going to get two cities. Georgia also didn't block a potential buyer either, as far as I know. We can argue what Khan would or wouldn't do in this situation, but there's not a person out there who believes he'd be trying to relocate. Kinda puts that bringing football back mantra in perspective. He keeps this up he'll be bringing football back to half the towns in America.

 

[The Ripper]

I was curious and decided to look at the numbers of the various different stadiums and adjust them for inflation (as the NFL is almost certainly going to do when they're looking over everything)

Here's the raw data:

Now, the Minnesota is at the bottom because I'm not 100% sure on the cost (I went to Wikipedia) and St Louis I've heard that it'll be between 350 and 400. Plus we don't know the total cost, I just kept with 1 billion. Obviusly ignore the "1997" typo under the St Louis year... Either way analyzing things a bit.

Now when we rank the stadiums in terms of total money spent after inflation it ranks as follows:

Indy
Cincinnati
Minnesota
Chicago
Dallas
St Louis (if 400)
Seattle
Denver
Houston
Arizona
St Louis (if 350)
Baltimore
Tennessee
Cleveland
Tampa Bay
Philly
Pittsburgh
Green Bay
SF
Detroit
Washington
NE
NYC


So in terms of actual dollars spent, St Louis is ranked either 6th if it's as high as 400, or 10th if it's down to 350, out of 22 stadiums. Which isn't bad at all really.

If we look at percentage of total project we rank them as follows:
Tampa Bay
Cincinnati
Baltimore
Indy
Cleveland
Denver
Tennessee
Arizona
Chicago
Seattle
Pittsburgh
Houston
Green Bay
Minnesota
St Louis (if 40%)
Dallas
Philly
St Louis (if 35%)
Washington
Detroit
NE
SF
NYC

That puts St Louis at 15th or 17th... Again out of 22 stadiums.

So when we talk about how much teams contributed, the NFL is probably more likely to look at their commitment to the overall project in terms of how much they paid, as well as how much they paid in relation to how far each dollar went. That's assuming of course that they actually look and really care about what the city is offering. However if we're going to throw out a number and say that it's so incredibly high that it's out of the norm of what cities typically offer up for stadiums, that doesn't appear to be the case. It's roughly middle of the pack in terms of dollars, and on the lower end in terms of percentage.



So ultimately what do these numbers mean? Probably not much to be honest, if the NFL decides that Inglewood is the best option and they can take care of all three owners in the process (which seems to be the likely case) and go with it, it probably wont really matter what St Louis is offering. However there are the numbers anyway.

Good stuff. The one factor that will change the current proposals is the cost overruns which occurred in most of the completed projects. The other is when you look at the projects the higher percentages of public contributions usually come from publicly controlled stadiums. It's also hard to determine all the public money in a project because sometimes the environmental clean up is included and sometimes it's not. Metlife had that and some of the parking was paid for by the issuance of bonds.

 

[Rmfnlt]

See I don't jive with the idea that Georgia, well Zygmunt, actually made the team worse - why? because that's implying that he was actually competent at his job. The Team in St.Louis only became successful under the guise of Vermiel, and we all saw how it fell apart after he left...from letting London Fletcher go to the complete demise that was the earlier 2000's..And then think about the horrific drafts. People think Mike Martz was a prick to work with - but when you think about whom he was working with, it's easier to understand. That front office was such a huge joke that its hard to really think of comparable situation that inept.

That's been my suspicion all along... that luck has a much as anything to do with building a champion as anything.

With the exception of acquiring Faulk, I always felt that a lot of things "just happened".

I never felt like Ziggy and Shaw knew what they were doing... deliberate efforts? Nah, to me, it was just plain incompetence.

Just my take and memory on it...

 

[Rmfnlt]

You're not stirring the pot, Bernie is. You're calling him on it...

Thank God we have a Bernie watchdog on duty!

 

[Rmfnlt]

The part that torqued me about Bernie M's latest rant on the Fast Lane with Randy K. and Farr...He was dismissive of the LA market and that LA fans didn't show up for games, unlike St Louis..Well, thats true up to a point, but is deceptive without context. The Rams never had a brand new stadium when they moved to LA from Cleveand...The Coliseum was a dangerous place near the end, and made the sewage overflowing Oakland Coliseum seem like a new facility in comparison . Then they went to playing on a baseball field in Anaheim. The fan experience wasn't good, and then Frontierre started dumping good players in the early 1990's..ala Major League.....Bernie mentioned none of this because he isn't all that interested in being a real journalist.

I'm sure those factors played in attendance.

I keep coming back to my gut... IF these Rams move to L.A. and continue to put a losing product on the field, my gut says attendance will drop faster than it has in STL.

Just my opinion, but I believe that all the other options available to L.A. fans (the beaches, mountains, amusement parks, etc.) would become much more attractive than sitting in a stadium watching a losing team.

There's just too many neat things to do in the L.A. area.

So, in the event they do move? They'd better start winning consistently... and fast... the honeymoon might only last two seasons or so IMO.

 

[Irish]

Especially because attendance has nothing to do with anything.



And if the Rams do move back to L.A. it won't have anything to do with the St. Louis fans, it will be because of the opportunity L.A. offers...

That's the heart of the argument, though. There should be more to keeping a team in a spot than just being able to maximize opportunities.

Of course St. Louis can't compete with Los Angeles, we would never assume to be able to. But neither can 30 other NFL cities. There are two sides to every contract, in this instance the team (rams) and the city it plays in (St. Louis.) You shouldn't be able to lose your team simply because your owner wants to make more money somewhere else, especially if that city is doing everything it can to keep you. LA didn't do that 20 years ago, St. Louis didn't do that when the Cardinals left, so on and so on. The difference now is that we are 2 simple court decisions away from having a fully funded, almost shovel ready project ready to go to save our team, and I am supposed to buy that Stan can just turn his nose up, or in the case simply ignore, whats going on here so he can make more money?

I'm sorry, I just don't believe that for a second. It sets the most dangerous precedent in the world and ruins the paradigm that NFL teams have with their current markets. The second the next lease comes up, Carolina, Jacksonville, etc will have to compete against Toronto or London, two of the great cities on the planet?

Come on, guys. There has to be more integrity than that.

 

[Rmfnlt]

You shouldn't be able to lose your team simply because your owner wants to make more money somewhere else, especially if that city is doing everything it can to keep you.

...and I am supposed to buy that Stan can just turn his nose up, or in the case simply ignore, whats going on here so he can make more money?

I'm sorry, I just don't believe that for a second. It sets the most dangerous precedent in the world and ruins the paradigm that NFL teams have with their current markets. The second the next lease comes up, Carolina, Jacksonville, etc will have to compete against Toronto or London, two of the great cities on the planet?

Come on, guys. There has to be more integrity than that.

Well, if you take the NFL rules verbatim, it's my understanding an owner cannot up and move simply because it makes him more money elsewhere. And I'm pretty sure that rule is in there because the league doesn't want a free-for-all where owners are moving around a bunch based on revenue and income. It does make sense.

But there are a lot of fans who just don't want to believe it can be that simple. Especially with billionaires involved.

All the motives have been documented in this thread multiple times.

Can it be as simple as integrity? Can it be as simple as the NFL enforces their rules verbatim?

Nah... what fun is there in that?

 

[beej]

That's been my suspicion all along... that luck has a much as anything to do with building a champion as anything.

With the exception of acquiring Faulk, I always felt that a lot of things "just happened".

I never felt like Ziggy and Shaw knew what they were doing... deliberate efforts? Nah, to me, it was just plain incompetence.

Just my take and memory on it...

Don't forget about Charlie Army. He was the guy evaluating talent. He was responsible for drafting guys and free agent signings and he did a heck of a job. But once other guys started butting heads with him and he was gone. I don't remember if he quit or was fired. But he deserves a lot more credit than he got.

 

[Legatron4]

That's the heart of the argument, though. There should be more to keeping a team in a spot than just being able to maximize opportunities.

Of course St. Louis can't compete with Los Angeles, we would never assume to be able to. But neither can 30 other NFL cities. There are two sides to every contract, in this instance the team (rams) and the city it plays in (St. Louis.) You shouldn't be able to lose your team simply because your owner wants to make more money somewhere else, especially if that city is doing everything it can to keep you. LA didn't do that 20 years ago, St. Louis didn't do that when the Cardinals left, so on and so on. The difference now is that we are 2 simple court decisions away from having a fully funded, almost shovel ready project ready to go to save our team, and I am supposed to buy that Stan can just turn his nose up, or in the case simply ignore, whats going on here so he can make more money?

I'm sorry, I just don't believe that for a second. It sets the most dangerous precedent in the world and ruins the paradigm that NFL teams have with their current markets. The second the next lease comes up, Carolina, Jacksonville, etc will have to compete against Toronto or London, two of the great cities on the planet?

Come on, guys. There has to be more integrity than that.

Easily my favorite post in this entire thread. I've been saying this from day one. It just doesn't make sense that he would be allowed to leave because he makes more money. That's not fair to the other owners either. There has to something more to this that were not being told.

 

[ChrisW]

That's the heart of the argument, though. There should be more to keeping a team in a spot than just being able to maximize opportunities.

Of course St. Louis can't compete with Los Angeles, we would never assume to be able to. But neither can 30 other NFL cities. There are two sides to every contract, in this instance the team (rams) and the city it plays in (St. Louis.) You shouldn't be able to lose your team simply because your owner wants to make more money somewhere else, especially if that city is doing everything it can to keep you. LA didn't do that 20 years ago, St. Louis didn't do that when the Cardinals left, so on and so on. The difference now is that we are 2 simple court decisions away from having a fully funded, almost shovel ready project ready to go to save our team, and I am supposed to buy that Stan can just turn his nose up, or in the case simply ignore, whats going on here so he can make more money?

I'm sorry, I just don't believe that for a second. It sets the most dangerous precedent in the world and ruins the paradigm that NFL teams have with their current markets. The second the next lease comes up, Carolina, Jacksonville, etc will have to compete against Toronto or London, two of the great cities on the planet?

Come on, guys. There has to be more integrity than that.

What you outlined here is basically summing up the relocation by-laws. If the league had any integrity, there would be no Rams to LA talk until (if) the STL plan fails.

I agree with you 100%. The focus should be on the home market. If a deal can't be done, so be it.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Don't forget about Charlie Army. He was the guy evaluating talent. He was responsible for drafting guys and free agent signings and he did a heck of a job. But once other guys started butting heads with him and he was gone. I don't remember if he quit or was fired. But he deserves a lot more credit than he got.

I don't know why.. but my recollection was he didn't do that well...

Who were some players they drafted at his recommendation?

 

[The Ripper]

That's the heart of the argument, though. There should be more to keeping a team in a spot than just being able to maximize opportunities.

Of course St. Louis can't compete with Los Angeles, we would never assume to be able to. But neither can 30 other NFL cities. There are two sides to every contract, in this instance the team (rams) and the city it plays in (St. Louis.) You shouldn't be able to lose your team simply because your owner wants to make more money somewhere else, especially if that city is doing everything it can to keep you. LA didn't do that 20 years ago, St. Louis didn't do that when the Cardinals left, so on and so on. The difference now is that we are 2 simple court decisions away from having a fully funded, almost shovel ready project ready to go to save our team, and I am supposed to buy that Stan can just turn his nose up, or in the case simply ignore, whats going on here so he can make more money?

I'm sorry, I just don't believe that for a second. It sets the most dangerous precedent in the world and ruins the paradigm that NFL teams have with their current markets. The second the next lease comes up, Carolina, Jacksonville, etc will have to compete against Toronto or London, two of the great cities on the planet?

Come on, guys. There has to be more integrity than that.

The precedent thing works against it too. There are a few other teams that have first tier clauses and so far it's gone smoothly in Cincinnati but that could change in the future. Houston is having issues paying for the required improvements for the 2017 Superbowl and that's not even major compared to what they will need to do in a few years for the lease because the Texans have a similar first tier clause in the lease. The NFL has and will turn down public money if they feel it's not enough or that the revenues aren't enough for the team to be successful in the long term.

Personally I feel that the way St Louis has set the funding is the way it should be. The owner paying all the cost for the stadium and the public paying for the site.

 

[MrMotes]

That's the heart of the argument, though. There should be more to keeping a team in a spot than just being able to maximize opportunities.

But that's why the Rams are in St. Louis in the first place: It was a fantastic opportunity for Georgia and she took it...

 

[ChrisW]

The NFL has and will turn down public money if they feel it's not enough or that the revenues aren't enough for the team to be successful in the long term.

@Ripper, you seem to speak in absolutes quite a bit. You need to denote these things as your opinion, because we don't know if it's true of the league or not, and history is against you on this. Teams have either moved because of a rogue owner, or lack of fan support, that I can remember. Can you name me one time when 50% of the cost of the stadium was left on the table? (I realize STL isn't there in financing yet, but just trying to get an example.)