New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamBill]

Bernie: Peacock and Blitz keep working, progressing
• By Bernie Miklasz

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_3ed969be-cf54-50e3-84b1-06e7f1d2141f.html

St. Louis stadium task-force leaders Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz continue to make progress on the attempt to develop a new football-soccer stadium on the north riverfront.

First, Peacock and Blitz hired stadium consultant John Loyd, who brings established credibility to the St. Louis project.

Next, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon came to the proposed stadium site Tuesday to announce a tentative agreement with Ameren Missouri and the Terminal Railroad Association to clear space on the stadium grounds. The railroad will reroute some tracks, and Ameren will move some power lines.

The announcement wasn't a blockbuster in that it didn't ignite the "hot take" bellowing that arouses the short attention span crowd. But the news was important. You can't build a stadium without first buying the property, and you can't purchase or prepare the property if it isn't clear and free. Building a stadium there would be impossible if Ameren and the railroad balked at the request to relocate infrastructure.

As sports consultant Marc Ganis told sports-radio station 920-AM: "Very significant. There was always the subtext of whether the site could be acquired or not. The fact that that is being done, without having to force people to do it, does two things. It locks up the site and it demonstrates that cooperation is taking place. Both are positive signs."

Peacock and Blitz continue to check the necessary boxes.

That's all they can do: take care of business, one goal at a time.

Peackcock and Blitz are racing against the clock; the NFL wants "actionable" development on the STL stadium plan by the end of the year. But the Peacock and Blitz can't make everything happen in 30 seconds. This is a long process. And at least so far Peacock and Blitz are methodically moving the chains.

I'm not sure why anyone would expect them to go about this differently. But that's the wait it works in today's culture. We want a resolution -- thumbs up, thumbs down -- and WE WANT IT RIGHT NOW!

That's not realistic. When we're talking about building a second new stadium for the NFL here in 23 years, there's no way to fast-forward the project. There are too many boxes to check.

In my opinion, Peackcock and Blitz are progressing more quickly than I anticipated. This doesn't mean they'll succeed; this doesn't mean the Rams are staying; this doesn't mean the Oakland Raiders will be moving to St. Louis.

It just means that after two highly capable and ambitious individuals agreed to lead a stadium initiative, they've stayed on course and have managed to keep the process moving forward.

This would be a good thing, yes?

You would think so.

It's funny ...

Peacock and Blitz were absent when Nixon spoke on Tuesday. This, of course, was interpreted by some as an ominous sign. Here's an email that popped up yesterday:

Peacock and Blitz weren't there. What does that tell you? They didn't stand with the governor. They stayed as far away from the scene as possible. Obviously, Peacock and Blitz know this stadium plan is doomed to fail, and they're already distancing themselves. This entire thing is a joke!

You could see similar snippets of wisdom on Twitter.

So where were Peacock and Blitz? Why weren't they standing with Nixon?

Well, they were meeting with NFL executive VP Eric Grubman.

Grubman was in town (again) to confer with Peacock and Blitz on the stadium. Rams chief operating officer Kevin Demoff was involved in the meetings.

And after completing the news conference, Nixon joined the private discussions with Grubman, Demoff and the task force.

In other words ... instead of wasting time, Peacock and Blitz were staying busy on the stadium issue -- keeping the NFL fully apprised on the progress that's being made here.

Two guys working quietly on an important project? Imagine that.

Thanks for reading ...

_Bernie

 

[iced]

Can the riverfront proposal host a Super Bowl then? I thought I heard someone said they may be able to get more parking, but from first glance it doesn't seem to be the case.

if it's connected to downtown then i don't see why not - it's walking distance from the hotels (I walked to the EJD game when i stayed there)

its more about stadium quality, imo. the newer/nicer ones tend to be a lure when the city isn't like a Miami or New Orleans

 

[RamFan503]

I'm going to start a new thing. Green text is text of whatever link I'm posting and not something I'm personally saying.

http://kfwbam.com/2015/02/11/breaking-news-inglewood-has-the-verified-signatures-for-nfl-stadium/

BREAKING NEWS: Inglewood has the verified signatures for NFL stadium initiative

Inglewood Mayor James Butts called in to The Fred Roggin Show with some breaking news regarding the “City of Champions” project to build an NFL stadium on the Hollywood Park land, a project that St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is a part of.


“We have the verified signatures and the initiative did pass,” proclaimed the proud Mayor, referring to the Initiative Measure Regarding the Proposed Development of a Sports and Entertainment Zone, including a Stadium, within the Previously Approved Hollywood Park Mixed-Use Development.


This seems to be one more giant leap towards the NFL, and specifically the Rams, returning to Los Angeles. According to the Mayor, there will be a public hearing on February 24th.

OK - before we get too carried away here. This is NOT a passed initiative. I'm quite familiar with the process and what this is is that the initiative has been given a title and summary so that it can appear on a ballot to be voted on by the voters of Inglewood. I don't see where the city has of yet bypassed the ballot process and passed it without a vote. They apparently could do that but I think the Mayor mis-spoke. My guess though with what he said is that it is somewhat of a formality and that is exactly what they intend to do.

 

[Boffo97]

OK - before we get too carried away here. This is NOT a passed initiative. I'm quite familiar with the process and what this is is that the initiative has been given a title and summary so that it can appear on a ballot to be voted on by the voters of Inglewood. I don't see where the city has of yet bypassed the ballot process and passed it without a vote. They apparently could do that but I think the Mayor mis-spoke. My guess though with what he said is that it is somewhat of a formality and that is exactly what they intend to do.

That's what I'm thinking is the case as well.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the public hearing is just to determine if there's any kind of significant public opposition to the project, and if not, they'll just go ahead with it.

It's hard to imagine many people in a given municipality are going to vote against a stadium being built with zero public funding.

 

[bluecoconuts]

if it's connected to downtown then i don't see why not - it's walking distance from the hotels (I walked to the EJD game when i stayed there)

its more about stadium quality, imo. the newer/nicer ones tend to be a lure when the city isn't like a Miami or New Orleans

I thought the parking was a big issue as well, that's why I think they're looking to getting some more land to fix that issue. That's assuming the NFL isn't afraid for another "cold weather" Super Bowl.

OK - before we get too carried away here. This is NOT a passed initiative. I'm quite familiar with the process and what this is is that the initiative has been given a title and summary so that it can appear on a ballot to be voted on by the voters of Inglewood. I don't see where the city has of yet bypassed the ballot process and passed it without a vote. They apparently could do that but I think the Mayor mis-spoke. My guess though with what he said is that it is somewhat of a formality and that is exactly what they intend to do.

That's my guess, is that they figure the vote will just be a formality. There aren't that many voters in Inglewood, and I've seen numbers as high as the 90% who are in approval for the stadium. Given that they're already doing the rest of the area, I don't think they expect much of an argument against a stadium there either. The mention of not needing a vote seemed fuzzy to me though, but I'm assuming there's going to be a lot more information about the stadium on the 24th.

 

[blue4]

[QUOTE="Boffo97, post: 508168, member: 1192"

While the concept of the St. Louis Raiders would be kind of odd at first, it would set up a really nice cross-state division rivalry with the Chiefs.[/QUOTE]

At this point I'm like the last guy at a frat party. I just want someone willing. While I've argued that Stan has no case according to the bylaws, and I firmly believe that, I still think the Rams only have about a 45% chance of staying in St Louis. To someone like me, the location of the franchise is more important in most cases than the actual franchise. 49ers and Cowboys excluded as I have hated them since birth. And the Cheatriots of course that goes without saying.

 

[RamFan503]

The announcement wasn't a blockbuster in that it didn't ignite the "hot take" bellowing that arouses the short attention span crowd.

The article contains some decent information but does Bernie ALWAYS have to get in his smarmy little superiority jabs? Maybe if he left this shit out he wouldn't get so much heat.

Grubman was in town (again) to confer with Peacock and Blitz on the stadium. Rams chief operating officer Kevin Demoff was involved in the meetings.

This addresses that one guy who was trying to say that Demoff wasn't being part of the process. I didn't buy it anyway but nice to see it confirmed.

 

[Dodgersrf]

I thought the parking was a big issue as well, that's why I think they're looking to getting some more land to fix that issue. That's assuming the NFL isn't afraid for another "cold weather" Super Bowl.



That's my guess, is that they figure the vote will just be a formality. There aren't that many voters in Inglewood, and I've seen numbers as high as the 90% who are in approval for the stadium. Given that they're already doing the rest of the area, I don't think they expect much of an argument against a stadium there either. The mention of not needing a vote seemed fuzzy to me though, but I'm assuming there's going to be a lot more information about the stadium on the 24th.

55,000 registered voters I believe. Could be wrong.

 

[bluecoconuts]

55,000 registered voters I believe. Could be wrong.

That's roughly the number I heard as well.

 

[RamFan503]

Sounds like there were indeed a lot of support then, wonder if the public hearing will be about pushing forward with a vote, or if they can just skip it and start construction now. I'd really like to see detailed concepts of the stadium itself, the inside, etc. With word that they're going to sink it 100 feet into the ground so they're good with the FAA, does that change the design at all, or was that always the plan, and how does that work with being "green".. I know the City of Industry one (which is still one of my favorite designs for a stadium) said that by building it down into the hill they would lower the cost for cooling, electricity, etc, so perhaps this would as well?

I had heard that sinking it in the ground would bypass the FAA requirements. I'm not sure if this plays into it at all as well but I was involved with a couple projects in CA where they sunk the building into the ground as well as built up the soil around it. That got them out of stricter elevator and fire restrictions and saved them huge money on the projects. @-X- might actually know something about the elevator part at least in how it applies in his neck of the woods

 

[RamFan503]

55,000 registered voters I believe. Could be wrong.

I had heard that as well but it sounds like they don't get a very high turnout for elections. I wonder though if this were on the ballot if it wouldn't drive up the turnout. As a rule though, non-presidential year and special elections have very low turnout.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I had heard that as well but it sounds like they don't get a very high turnout for elections. I wonder though if this were on the ballot if it wouldn't drive up the turnout. As a rule though, non-presidential year and special elections have very low turnout.

He said there was roughly 16,000 who voted in the last election for Mayor, (then he throws out he got 13,000 votes, like that means anything), but that the signatures roughly estimated to about 16,000 votes as well when they stopped counting (took about 11,000 to get the 8,500 they needed), so it would be interesting if this got more or less turnout than that.

 

[Dodgersrf]

I had heard that as well but it sounds like they don't get a very high turnout for elections. I wonder though if this were on the ballot if it wouldn't drive up the turnout. As a rule though, non-presidential year and special elections have very low turnout.

I'm not sure how many of the 20,000 plus signatures were verified, but if most of them were, I'd be surprised if the City Council doesn't just approve it.

 

[Boffo97]

I'm not sure how many of the 20,000 plus signatures were verified, but if most of them were, I'd be surprised if the City Council doesn't just approve it.

I was pretty sure that what Butts (hehe... Butts) was saying in the quoted article was that signatures were verified.

 

[Dodgersrf]

I was pretty sure that what Butts (hehe... Butts) was saying in the quoted article was that signatures were verified.

Yes, but how many were verified? If the number is large enough, he also mentioned the possibility of bypassing a public vote.

 

[ChrisW]

The article contains some decent information but does Bernie ALWAYS have to get in his smarmy little superiority jabs? Maybe if he left this crap out he wouldn't get so much heat.

He's not wrong though. In these types of issues, people don't appreciate the ground work. They don't equate that with progress. It isn't until dirt is moved that people as a whole get excited.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I'm not sure how many of the 20,000 plus signatures were verified, but if most of them were, I'd be surprised if the City Council doesn't just approve it.

I was pretty sure that what Butts (hehe... Butts) was saying in the quoted article was that signatures were verified.

Yes, but how many were verified? If the number is large enough, he also mentioned the possibility of bypassing a public vote.

In an audio clip he said they counted to 11,490 signatures in order to get the necessary 8,500 signatures to pass. Meaning at that point they had a 74% verification at the time they stopped. Meaning if they went on it could have been anywhere from a low of 38% (very unlikely) to as high as 86% (unlikely as well, but not as unlikely as the low end) of valid signatures. He said at the time they stopped, it roughly translated to 16,415 "yes" votes (assuming those who signed vote yes), which is roughly the amount that voted in the 2014 midterm elections in Inglewood last year.


The Mayor also said it was not passed, just approved for ballot.

 

[RamFan503]

He's not wrong though. In these types of issues, people don't appreciate the ground work. They don't equate that with progress. It isn't until dirt is moved that people as a whole get excited.

Right but it is in virtually every one of his pieces. He has to make some jackass remark about someone in almost everything he writes.

 

[ChrisW]

Right but it is in virtually every one of his pieces. He has to make some jackass remark about someone in almost everything he writes.

Lol. Yea, that's true. Just didn't stand out to me as much in this case.

 

[RamFan503]

Lol. Yea, that's true. Just didn't stand out to me as much in this case.

Yeah man - I admit to having Bernie over sensitivity. I just think the guy is a jackass and probably so in real life too so I have almost no patience for him.