New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

What difference does that make though? Because that isn't the case here. LA has been brought up. (BTW after 14 years of talking about stadiums and threats, I'd be glad to see a stadium in Columbia). I've no doubt SD fans are pissed. But I'm talking about what I think the league will view as least traumatic for its overall markets, not whether or not the fans think it's fair. Hell, I doubt anyone but an LA resident can say what's happening to the 3 effected markets is fair. It's not about putting yourself in another fan's shoes, it's about putting yourself in an owners shoes and voting for a situation that's best for the NFL. I'm not trying to insult another fan base or insinuate that they are lucky or something. I'm saying that IMO Carson retains the majority of your fans overall and Inglewood will lose the majority of the 21st largest market. After all you'd be pissed if they become the Columbia Rams, but would you really stop watching them or being a fan? When they are still talked about every night on local news? When they are still accessible by motor vehicle? You'd be pissed but I bet you'd still be there.

The NFL see's them as separate markets. Its doubtful that they view it as losing the most fans or keeping the most fans. These guys aren't dumb, they will know that they're asking these guys to cheer for a hated rival.

Imagine the Cardinals are the only show in town.

They move to Chicago.

Do you go to games? Do you remain a fan? Does a majority of the fanbase?

 

[Goose]

 

[blue4]

I agree. I live about 120 miles from Baltimore and would never travel there for a day. Cant imagine having season's tickets that require minimum 1 night stay in a hotel to enjoy a game.
Also, this is about St Louis and what the team brings to the town, jobs, tourism etc. St Louis loses all of that if they move to Columbia.

St Louis to Columbia is an easy drive. I have a guy at work who drives that almost that far every night. St Louis to Columbia is about 120 miles. Most of the way it's 70 mph speed limit. So normal person 75 miles an hour. You wouldn't even need to pee unless you drank a lot of coffee. I used to make day trips from Norfolk to D.C. all the time. That's 194 miles, and not easy traffic at either the Norfolk or D.C. end.

My point anyway is not to debate the merits of a Rams move to Columbia. That was just a distance example. My point is that it's going to be much easier for a SD Chargers fan to remain an engaged fan of the Chargers then it will be for a St Louis Rams fan to remain an engaged fan of the Rams upon a move to LA. And that Oakland fans will actually have a team still there. The market will still be served long term. Yes in the short term people will be upset. That will happen no matter what. But ten years from now..... Put a stadium in Carson and you have three teams within a 500 mile radius and one team serving the Eastern Central Missouri and Western Central Illinois region. Put it in Inglewood and you have a 4 way split of the same number of fans in SC and a good sized chunk of Missouri and Illinois who don't watch much pro football anymore. I don't see how it can be said that the NFL will serve the markets more effectively with Inglewood. This is of course not taking into account a team other than the Rams in St Louis. If that happens, the markets are still set to serve long term with Inglewood. I don't think the NFL cares which team goes where. It's also assuming that all cities and teams get the finance down and are viable. That's just my opinion, I don't know anymore than the other guys what the NFL owners consider important. That's just how I would see it if I were voting.

 

[blue4]

The NFL see's them as separate markets. Its doubtful that they view it as losing the most fans or keeping the most fans. These guys aren't dumb, they will know that they're asking these guys to cheer for a hated rival.

Imagine the Cardinals are the only show in town.

They move to Chicago.

Do you go to games? Do you remain a fan? Does a majority of the fanbase?

You know no more than I how the NFL actually sees it. These guys aren't dumb, they know eventually that the fan bases will settle down. And when it does, there will be a team there.

 

[The Ripper]

Wasn't quoting his article

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12040153/san-diego-chargers-commit-play-2015-qualcomm-stadium

"The team will not be exercising the lease termination clause and will keep working to find a publicly acceptable way to build a Super Bowl-quality stadium in San Diego," Mark Fabiani,

Plenty of teams have buyouts in their leases and the only thing the Chargers need to do is let the city know if they're leaving or not but they still have a lease through 2020. They don't renew the lease every year.

 

[bluecoconuts]

You know no more than I how the NFL actually sees it. These guys aren't dumb, they know eventually that the fan bases will settle down. And when it does, there will be a team there.

I know that the NFL views San Diego and Los Angeles as different markets. Are you saying that after a while you would continue to root for the Chicago Cardinals?

 

[Goose]

DAVE PEACOCK'S STATEMENT FOLLOWING TODAY'S APPROVAL BY THE MISSOURI DEVELOPMENT FINANCE BOARD

#STLNFL Task Force
Posted on Aug 18th, 2015


Statement from Dave Peacock, co-lead with Bob Blitz on Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon's task force, following today's approval by the Missouri Development Finance Board for $50 million in tax credits for a new riverfront NFL stadium in downtown St. Louis:

"The benefits of a new NFL stadium in downtown St. Louis are clear, not only to our metropolitan region but the entire state of Missouri as well. That was underlined today by the approval for $50 million in tax credits by the Missouri Development Finance Board. We appreciate the board's support as we continue to make meaningful and measurable progress toward keeping the St. Louis Rams here in St. Louis."

http://lockerdome.com/7475583080735553/7953549825022481

 

[tahoe]

The task force keeps knocking out one piece at a time for everything needed to build this stadium. I will continue to hold out the belief that the NFL will not allow the Rams to leave with this stadium ready to go.

 

[dieterbrock]

St Louis to Columbia is an easy drive. I have a guy at work who drives that almost that far every night. St Louis to Columbia is about 120 miles. Most of the way it's 70 mph speed limit. So normal person 75 miles an hour. You wouldn't even need to pee unless you drank a lot of coffee. I used to make day trips from Norfolk to D.C. all the time. That's 194 miles, and not easy traffic at either the Norfolk or D.C. end.

My point anyway is not to debate the merits of a Rams move to Columbia. That was just a distance example. My point is that it's going to be much easier for a SD Chargers fan to remain an engaged fan of the Chargers then it will be for a St Louis Rams fan to remain an engaged fan of the Rams upon a move to LA. And that Oakland fans will actually have a team still there. The market will still be served long term. Yes in the short term people will be upset. That will happen no matter what. But ten years from now..... Put a stadium in Carson and you have three teams within a 500 mile radius and one team serving the Eastern Central Missouri and Western Central Illinois region. Put it in Inglewood and you have a 4 way split of the same number of fans in SC and a good sized chunk of Missouri and Illinois who don't watch much pro football anymore. I don't see how it can be said that the NFL will serve the markets more effectively with Inglewood. This is of course not taking into account a team other than the Rams in St Louis. If that happens, the markets are still set to serve long term with Inglewood. I don't think the NFL cares which team goes where. It's also assuming that all cities and teams get the finance down and are viable. That's just my opinion, I don't know anymore than the other guys what the NFL owners consider important. That's just how I would see it if I were voting.

I was agreeing with the premise that Columbia is a better alternative than LA, but if Stan was building a palace in Columbia instead of St Louis (and there was no LA controversy) that would suck for St Louis and there would be an uproar.
120 miles is basically a 2 hour drive, then of course the whole parking fiasco that is the NFL experience. And of course there are those who are 30-40 miles south of the stadium that are now looking at 150-160 miles. Its better than LA but would be horrible to do to a fan base.
Build it on the river and its a win

 

[dieterbrock]

eh i dunno - if i were st.louis and the game were in columbia, i'd make that drive... its 60 miles from me to Tampa and 230 miles to Miami - the year the Rams played in both cities I went to both... but if you take out of state/out of driving range, that definitely puts a damper on my driving ability. And when/if they play in Jacksonville (assuming they're still the St.Louis Rams), which is 386 miles from me, I'll probably drive to that game too (however Jacksonville I wouldn't do every weekend)..

But traffic for me on the interstate isn't the same as DC/Maryland or the 101 in California (not to mention how bad LA traffic is),so it's not necessarily the same... And the drive to Sunlife (miami) is only about 2 hours/2.5

Apples and organges man. Going to a game when the Rams are somewhat close isnt the same as season's tickets and making that drive 8 weeks plus pre-season nonsense. And not to get in to a semantics debate here, but 230 miles to Miami aint a 2 hour drive

 

[LorenzoTheLimner]

St Louis to Columbia is an easy drive. I have a guy at work who drives that almost that far every night. St Louis to Columbia is about 120 miles. Most of the way it's 70 mph speed limit. So normal person 75 miles an hour. You wouldn't even need to pee unless you drank a lot of coffee. I used to make day trips from Norfolk to D.C. all the time. That's 194 miles, and not easy traffic at either the Norfolk or D.C. end.

My point anyway is not to debate the merits of a Rams move to Columbia. That was just a distance example. My point is that it's going to be much easier for a SD Chargers fan to remain an engaged fan of the Chargers then it will be for a St Louis Rams fan to remain an engaged fan of the Rams upon a move to LA. And that Oakland fans will actually have a team still there. The market will still be served long term. Yes in the short term people will be upset. That will happen no matter what. But ten years from now..... Put a stadium in Carson and you have three teams within a 500 mile radius and one team serving the Eastern Central Missouri and Western Central Illinois region. Put it in Inglewood and you have a 4 way split of the same number of fans in SC and a good sized chunk of Missouri and Illinois who don't watch much pro football anymore. I don't see how it can be said that the NFL will serve the markets more effectively with Inglewood. This is of course not taking into account a team other than the Rams in St Louis. If that happens, the markets are still set to serve long term with Inglewood. I don't think the NFL cares which team goes where. It's also assuming that all cities and teams get the finance down and are viable. That's just my opinion, I don't know anymore than the other guys what the NFL owners consider important. That's just how I would see it if I were voting.

It's not just about california. It's about football locations on the west coast. The Midwest and eastcoast teams are much more densely packed. We have only 5 teams west of new Mexico. 5?? And then its Denver, even after there is Houston and Dallas which are on the east side of Texas. The map speaks for itself. Football on the west coast would benefit from an extra team. I'm sure the NFL is taking that into consideration. The Rams would be the option that makes most sense in maintainting market exposure on the west coast. Jmho.

 

[ChrisW]

Compared to a population map, you see why there are more teams on the east coast.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Compared to a population map, you see why there are more teams on the east coast.

Problem is up and down that coast there's plenty of dark red. Its the middle that's empty.

 

[LorenzoTheLimner]

Compared to a population map, you see why there are more teams on the east coast.

Don't you remember? Hispanics hide from the census Bureau lol. Just a joke. California and the west continues to grow at a rapid rate. The east coast of course had a head start on us. The massive california railway is already under construction. In 15 years time it will be much more dense all over, rather than just So-cal and Bay area. There are long term goals as well than just immediate impact that I'm sure sports moguls factor in

 

[ChrisW]

Don't you remember? Hispanics hide from the census Bureau lol. Just a joke. California and the west continues to grow at a rapid rate. The east coast of course had a head start on us. The massive california railway is already under construction. In 15 years time it will be much more dense all over, rather than just So-cal and Bay area. There are long term goals as well than just immediate impact that I'm sure sports moguls factor in

But there still aren't any people living in the deserts or the rocky mountains.

 

[ChrisW]

Peacock Statement about the tax credit approval:

In a statement, Peacock said the vote further validates the benefits of a new NFL stadium in downtown St. Louis. "That was underlined today by the approval for $50 million in tax credits by the Missouri Development Finance Board," he said in the statement. "We appreciate the board’s support as we continue to make meaningful and measurable progress toward keeping the St. Louis Rams here in St. Louis."

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...oves-50-million-for-proposed-nfl-stadium.html

 

[ChrisW]

Problem is up and down that coast there's plenty of dark red. Its the middle that's empty.

There are 3 NFL teams that cover Cali. There isn't a reason to add a 4th.

 

[blue4]

I know that the NFL views San Diego and Los Angeles as different markets. Are you saying that after a while you would continue to root for the Chicago Cardinals?

Your example of the Cardinals moving isn't remotely the same. The distance would have to be shorter and the Dodgers and Twins would also be trying to move to Chicago, which of course wouldn't already have a team there. So there would be no Chicago rivalry. It bears no resemblance to the NFL situation here.

If you're putting me in the same situation as the Raiders, and there was another team across the bridge in East St Louis, yes I would be a fan of the East ST Louis team. Because it's better than no team. Even if they were rivals before.

If you are putting me in the same situation as the Chargers, 113 miles to another town that currently doesn't have a team is no hardship for me. It'd take me until training camp to get over that.

Putting 4 teams in a 500 mile radius and allowing a chunk of the Midwest to wander off and watch college football or curling or whatever doesn't sound like good business to me. If all parties make their stadium goals I don't see the NFL willingly allowing that to happen.

 

[bluecoconuts]

There are 3 NFL teams that cover Cali. There isn't a reason to add a 4th.

California is the most populous state in America, LA alone has more people than most states have, there's plenty of room, and that means the NFL has plenty of reason.

 

[The Ripper]

There are 3 NFL teams that cover Cali. There isn't a reason to add a 4th.

18 million people just in LA