The race to Los Angeles will only get more interesting as the offseason trudges on and Mike Florio talks about all the rumblings regarding new stadiums.
Watch Florio Talk LA Stadium Situation
Watch Florio Talk LA Stadium Situation
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
Agreed. I'd rather watch paint dry.
St. Louis is unleashing pictures of its fancy new football stadium on the world. Can it keep the Rams in town? CBSSports.com’s Will Brinson breaks it down.
Watch Brinson Talk Rams
Watch Brinson Talk Rams
bluecoconuts
Legend
He doesn't really say anything, rehashes the AEG terrorism story, and then says the race is going to get nastier before it's over. File that under "no shit".
A little information for those not familiar with St. Louis:
The new stadium would basically be put in the last blighted part of the Riverfront; at least from well south of the Arch - where Busch Stadium is located - to the new Stan Musial Interstate 70 Bridge, just north of the stadium. The only old building that would be retained, to my knowledge, is the old powerhouse located on the Mississippi; similar to Camden Yards in Baltimore maintaining the old warehouses beyond Right Field.
Someone asked about windiness near the River. Trust me - the River is NOT a substantial enough body of water to create wind; at least, not in the manner of a body of water like Lake Michigan. The Mississippi River bottom is instead more renowned for high humidity - but only during the dog days of the summer; not during football season.
And the talk about cold? Sure - it's not San Diego; but I grew up in Michigan and Wisconsin, where you put your Halloween costume over your snowsuit! One of the things I love about St. Louis is that golf season is 9-10 months long; unlike even Chicago, some 270 miles north. I was curious, so I looked up the average temperatures in St. Louis for the relevant months; this is what I found:
September - average high 80 degrees; average low 61 degrees.
October - average high 69 degrees; average low 49 degrees.
November - average high 56 degrees; average low 38 degrees.
December - average high 43 degrees; average low 27 degrees.
January - average high 40 degrees; average low 24 degrees.
In most seasons, there would only be two regular season games in December; and based on history, half would be played in temperatures above 43 degrees; half below 43 degrees. Chilly? Of Course! But hardly frozen-tundra-like.
I recall one playoff game many years ago in Cincinnati in brutal cold. The climate of Cincinnati is similar to that of St. Louis. But I think climate variables add to the charm of a football game; and a below-freezing game in St. Louis would be very much the exception, not the rule.
Having come from the upper midwest, my sense is that - apart from a very short spring (it gets hot here quick!) - the weather in St. Louis typically follows the calendar, so that Autumn typically in fact lasts into December. And, while a "default" day in Chicago, Wisconsin or Michigan may be overcast - a "default" day in St. Louis is at least partly sunny.
Trust me, over the past 20 years, there've been many, many times when we hated to go from outdoor tailgating to football inside the Dome; retractable roof is nice, but not necessary here.
The new stadium would basically be put in the last blighted part of the Riverfront; at least from well south of the Arch - where Busch Stadium is located - to the new Stan Musial Interstate 70 Bridge, just north of the stadium. The only old building that would be retained, to my knowledge, is the old powerhouse located on the Mississippi; similar to Camden Yards in Baltimore maintaining the old warehouses beyond Right Field.
Someone asked about windiness near the River. Trust me - the River is NOT a substantial enough body of water to create wind; at least, not in the manner of a body of water like Lake Michigan. The Mississippi River bottom is instead more renowned for high humidity - but only during the dog days of the summer; not during football season.
And the talk about cold? Sure - it's not San Diego; but I grew up in Michigan and Wisconsin, where you put your Halloween costume over your snowsuit! One of the things I love about St. Louis is that golf season is 9-10 months long; unlike even Chicago, some 270 miles north. I was curious, so I looked up the average temperatures in St. Louis for the relevant months; this is what I found:
September - average high 80 degrees; average low 61 degrees.
October - average high 69 degrees; average low 49 degrees.
November - average high 56 degrees; average low 38 degrees.
December - average high 43 degrees; average low 27 degrees.
January - average high 40 degrees; average low 24 degrees.
In most seasons, there would only be two regular season games in December; and based on history, half would be played in temperatures above 43 degrees; half below 43 degrees. Chilly? Of Course! But hardly frozen-tundra-like.
I recall one playoff game many years ago in Cincinnati in brutal cold. The climate of Cincinnati is similar to that of St. Louis. But I think climate variables add to the charm of a football game; and a below-freezing game in St. Louis would be very much the exception, not the rule.
Having come from the upper midwest, my sense is that - apart from a very short spring (it gets hot here quick!) - the weather in St. Louis typically follows the calendar, so that Autumn typically in fact lasts into December. And, while a "default" day in Chicago, Wisconsin or Michigan may be overcast - a "default" day in St. Louis is at least partly sunny.
Trust me, over the past 20 years, there've been many, many times when we hated to go from outdoor tailgating to football inside the Dome; retractable roof is nice, but not necessary here.
mr.stlouis
Legend
They were leverage/Plan B, like Inglewood. Nobody really wants to move to LA unless their stadiums don't get built in their current cities.
mr.stlouis
Legend
bluecoconuts
Legend
He could really like it, so can Kroenke, but I wouldn't read too much into favorite tweet because it's his job to encourage fans to spend money, regardless of the city. I think he probably does like it, because it does look nice, but I doubt it means anything about what Kroenke is thinking. Hard to imagine they would tip their hand like that.
What? That's not very accurate. Any LA plans were either owners making a show about exploring LA (Vikings, Colts, etc) which didn't have any stadium location/design plan, and thus would be leverage, or private investors making plans for a stadium (AEG, City of Industry, etc) that didn't have any team backing, thus would not be leverage. The difference between Inglewood (and Carson) is that it's a stadium and location WITH a team backing it. The difference between Carson and Inglewood is that Kroenke has actually bought the land and is going through everything to actually build.
B.E.A....utiful. Wow, looks great.
B.E.A....utiful. Wow, looks great.
Have to concur here and I've been trumped by @blue4 if the Rams make it to post season the cold won't bother me! This stadium with the Arch in the background should be name Grace Field because it's simply amazing!
mr.stlouis
Legend
That's what he wants you to think, good job. He won't build anything unless he knows he will have a team there. Right now everybody is waiting on SD and OAK. Everything is at a stand still until further notice.
mr.stlouis
Legend
Beautiful name for a beautiful stadium. Fits like a glove.
bluecoconuts
Legend
How are things at a standstill? Just last week they approved the stadium to build.
Yes I understand, but the big difference is "out of pocket money". SK would have to pay out a much larger number. It isn't just the ability to pay it's the amount too!
I don't think the NFL is going to break the G4 bylaws, talk about opening a Pandora's Box............they regret it the moment they did it LOL.
Then the Chargers and Raiduhs have to come up with that money too. So how is it out of pocket money for Stan but not for Davis and Spanos. Not following your money trail here Les. The Carson project is supposed to be all privately funded as well. And though there would be two teams sharing it, that seems to be the consensus on if Stan goes forward with the Inglewood project. Add to that, the Inglewood project has all kinds of other money making developments as part of the overall project whereas the Carson project has zero.
With Stan being 3 - 4 times richer than either of the other two, I just don't follow the logic that it makes more sense for Davis/Spanos but it is a money loser for Stan. And if your numbers are even close to correct, do you really see Spanos/Davis tying up well over a $Billion in relocation fees alone? $1.7 Billion for the Carson project PLUS a billion? Not a chance.
Things in Inglewood are 'not' at a stand still, and anyone that's been paying attention knows that. The reason St. Louis seems to be 'movin' right along' is because they started out needing a boat load of boxes to check off (same goes for Carson), and were way behind.
Stan Kroenke, and Inglewood.... not so much.
- Status