New: Rams Reject CVC Proposal (My Take)

[STL-Rams]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1086 ... is-la-next

 

[-X-]

Yeah, that was to be expected. They'll probably reject the next one too. Little curious about your headline though - "Is LA Next?" You insinuated that the pro-LA crowd will get all juiced up over this, and that it's not prudent to do that, but your headline seems to add a little fuel, no?

Again, I could care less where they play. Just play better.

 

[Stranger]

Counterproposal???

 

[-X-]

Counterproposal???

In the works......

Associated Press

ST. LOUIS -- The St. Louis Rams have rejected the initial proposal to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome and will submit their own improvement plan, the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission said Thursday.

The CVC on Feb. 1 announced details of a plan calling for $124 million in improvements to the dome in an effort to keep the Rams in St. Louis. The team can break its lease after the 2014 season and potentially move to another city if the dome is not deemed to be among the top tier of NFL stadiums.

[hil]The CVC said the Rams will submit their own plan no later than May 1.[/hil]

"We look forward to receiving it," the CVC said in a brief statement. CVC spokeswoman Donna Andrews declined further comment.

Messages left with the Rams were not returned.

Jeff Rainford, chief of staff for St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, said the rejection was not unexpected at the early stages of the negotiations.

"It's part of the dance," he said.

The CVC plan included a massive scoreboard, new club seats and other amenities. But it also called for the Rams to pay for 52 percent of the cost.

There is growing concern among fans that St. Louis could lose an NFL team for the second time in a quarter of a century. The football Cardinals left for Arizona after the 1987 season in large part because of stadium issues -- owner Bill Bidwill wanted a stadium of his own rather than having to share one with baseball's Cardinals.

The Rams relocated to St. Louis from Los Angeles prior to the 1994 season, and the dome -- built with taxpayer funds and operated by the CVC -- opened that year. Though just 18 years old, it lacks some of the amenities of newer NFL stadiums.

The Rams have a 30-year lease to play at the dome, but the agreement requires that it be among the top 25 percent of all NFL stadiums based on various criteria. If not, the team is allowed to break the lease and in theory could leave at a time when Los Angeles is openly courting NFL teams. Rams owner Stan Kroenke owns an estate in Malibu, Calif., and is among the bidders for baseball's Los Angeles Dodgers. He has been non-committal about the future of the Rams in St. Louis.

Highlights of the CVC dome improvement plan include:

• Adding a 96-foot-long, 27-foot-tall scoreboard over the center of the field, nearly as large as the one at Cowboys Stadium in Texas.

• Adding 1,500 club seats, along with new club lounges.

• New windows along the length of the field on both sides, creating more natural light.

• Adding a 50,000-square-foot attached building that would include a "Geek Suite" area for electronics buffs and fantasy football fanciers.

Even if agreement is reached with the Rams, voters will have to approve any taxpayer money spent on improvements, officials with St. Louis city and county said. Based on the CVC plan, the taxpayer bill would have been about $60 million.

If the Rams and the CVC fail to reach agreement by June 15, arbitration would begin, and that process could last through the end of the year.

The dome was built largely with $256 million in revenue bonds, a debt that is being paid back with $24 million annually in tax money -- $12 million from the state of Missouri and $6 million each from St. Louis city and county.

The Rams pay $500,000 each year to use the dome -- $250,000 in rent and $250,000 for reimbursement to CVC for game-day expenses. The team gets to keep box-office receipts, most advertising revenue, net game-day concession proceeds, and some concession proceeds sold for non-football events. The lease also allows use of Rams Park, the practice facility in St. Louis County.

Kroenke purchased a 40 percent share of the team when Georgia Frontiere moved the Rams to St. Louis. She died in 2008, and two years later, Kroenke bought the remaining stake from her children.

There was a recent dispute with the CVC about a lease provision requiring the Rams to play all "home" games at the dome. The dispute was settled, clearing the way for the team to play New England as the "home" team at Wembley Stadium in London on Oct. 28.

In exchange, the Rams agreed to increase the number of football season weekends that the dome can be booked for other uses. The team will also pay temporary employees the wages they would have earned by working the game in St. Louis. The Rams also want to play games in London in 2013 and 2014. No deal has been worked out on those games.

 

[STL-Rams]

Yeah, that was to be expected. They'll probably reject the next one too. Little curious about your headline though - "Is LA Next?" You insinuated that the pro-LA crowd will get all juiced up over this, and that it's not prudent to do that, but your headline seems to add a little fuel, no?

Again, I could care less where they play. Just play better.

It is simply presenting a ? that many people have.. and keep in mind X, I do not have control over all of my headlines.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[-X-]

Yeah, that was to be expected. They'll probably reject the next one too. Little curious about your headline though - "Is LA Next?" You insinuated that the pro-LA crowd will get all juiced up over this, and that it's not prudent to do that, but your headline seems to add a little fuel, no?

Again, I could care less where they play. Just play better.

It is simply presenting a ? that many people have.. and keep in mind X, I do not have control over all of my headlines.

Thanks for the feedback.

Well that's bunk. Why doesn't anyone get to write their own headlines anymore?

 

[STL-Rams]

Yeah, that was to be expected. They'll probably reject the next one too. Little curious about your headline though - "Is LA Next?" You insinuated that the pro-LA crowd will get all juiced up over this, and that it's not prudent to do that, but your headline seems to add a little fuel, no?

Again, I could care less where they play. Just play better.

It is simply presenting a ? that many people have.. and keep in mind X, I do not have control over all of my headlines.

Thanks for the feedback.

Well that's bunk. Why doesn't anyone get to write their own headlines anymore?

Well, I do X but sometimes they get edited, unfortunately.

How have you been? Miss interacting with you bro !

 

[-X-]

Yeah, that was to be expected. They'll probably reject the next one too. Little curious about your headline though - "Is LA Next?" You insinuated that the pro-LA crowd will get all juiced up over this, and that it's not prudent to do that, but your headline seems to add a little fuel, no?

Again, I could care less where they play. Just play better.

It is simply presenting a ? that many people have.. and keep in mind X, I do not have control over all of my headlines.

Thanks for the feedback.

Well that's bunk. Why doesn't anyone get to write their own headlines anymore?

Well, I do X but sometimes they get edited, unfortunately.

How have you been? Miss interacting with you bro !

Living the dream.

Or dreaming about Liv.

 

[STL-Rams]

Yeah, that was to be expected. They'll probably reject the next one too. Little curious about your headline though - "Is LA Next?" You insinuated that the pro-LA crowd will get all juiced up over this, and that it's not prudent to do that, but your headline seems to add a little fuel, no?

Again, I could care less where they play. Just play better.

It is simply presenting a ? that many people have.. and keep in mind X, I do not have control over all of my headlines.

Thanks for the feedback.

Well that's bunk. Why doesn't anyone get to write their own headlines anymore?

Well, I do X but sometimes they get edited, unfortunately.

How have you been? Miss interacting with you bro !

Living the dream.

Or dreaming about Liv.

lol! nice

 

[Faceplant]

Or dreaming about Liv.

 

[ZGare]

Counterproposal???

In the works......

Associated Press

ST. LOUIS -- The St. Louis Rams have rejected the initial proposal to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome and will submit their own improvement plan, the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission said Thursday.

The CVC on Feb. 1 announced details of a plan calling for $124 million in improvements to the dome in an effort to keep the Rams in St. Louis. The team can break its lease after the 2014 season and potentially move to another city if the dome is not deemed to be among the top tier of NFL stadiums.

[hil]The CVC said the Rams will submit their own plan no later than May 1.[/hil]

I believe CVC should announce NOW that they will ACCEPT whatever the Rams propose on May 1. That would ensure the Rams must stay in St. Louis for another 10 years, per the lease agreement. And to pay for whatever the Rams propose on May 1, CVC should announce that St. Louis will create a special tax district bounded by the walls of the Edward Jones Dome, to tax the tickets of events in the dome. Then if the Rams propose something totally unreasonable, it would be paid for by taxes on their own customers. If their demands are unreasonable, they could price themselves out of the market, which they would now be in through 2025, per the lease agreement.

As a charter PSL season ticket holder since 1995, I believe we Rams fans should be the ones who pay for the dome improvements. BUT, I personally think the dome is OK as it is, and I'm not anxious to pay more for dome improvements. I am not demanding improvements off-the-field. What I really want is improvement ON THE FIELD.

If CVC takes this "a priori" approach, it would force the Rams to reign in their demands.