Ongoing stadium negotiations thread

[CGI_Ram]

Re: KD to comment on the Dome News in 10 mins.

I tuned in but missed Kevin's comments. Can someone please post what he said. Thx.

I caught it.

When they spoke about the Dome;

- He said he was pleased the arbitrator sided with the Rams.

- This is just a step to now start talking about how to get a solution done.

- The goal of a first tier facility isn't just about the Rams, but the ability to pump Superbowls and events of magnitude into St. Louis.

I might have missed some as I was working on a home project at the time. But the general tone was exactly what I expected to hear; its a process.

 

[Stranger]

Re: KD to comment on the Dome News in 10 mins.

A Superbowl in StL would be awesome!

 

[ShaneG]

Will St. Louis Keep Rams? Part 2: the Franchise (101 ESPN)

By Shane Gray

In 1995, the Rams moved to St. Louis and set up headquarters beneath the unique shadow of the Gateway Arch after signing a still unique lease — an unprecedented one that requires the Edward Jones Dome to be among the top 25 percent of all league venues in 15 specified criteria.

<a class="postlink" href="http://101sports.com/category/misc-blogs/20130204/Will-St.Louis-keep-the-Rams?-Part-2~The-Franchise/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://101sports.com/category/misc-blog ... Franchise/</a>

 

[ZGare]

Re: Will St. Louis Keep Rams? Part 2: the Franchise (101 ESP

Has anyone read the arbitrators report? I find it completely bizarre. Here is the link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/123411141...d-Visitors-Commission-full-Arbitration-Report

I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, necessarily, but they seem highly biased and lazy. They didn't even bother to mediate a configuration acceptable to both sides. I guess they had a plane to catch.

First they said “In order to be first tier, the Dome must be open" because 17 of the 22 newer stadia are open. This seems very odd to me. So fan comfort means nothing? Well, hell, let's just rip the lid off altogether be instantly top tier. It sounds like they are setting up the rationale for moving to LA. Both stadia proposed there are open, hence first tier by this standard.

Besides seeing a roof (and fan comfort) as huge drawback compared to open air stadia, the arbitrators keyed on the fact that people in luxury sky boxes would not be able to easily view the new hanging giant video screens proposed by the CVC, and would have to settle for individual large video screens in each of their individual suites. The Rams didn't even propose a giant video screen hanging from the ceiling, and that makes their proposal top tier since the luxury skybox people would not strain themselves trying to see one, I guess.

Also, they completely dismissed the CVC argument that the Rams proposal would push fans further from the field vs. the CVC proposal average distance of 623 feet. The arbitrators argued that many newer stadia exceeded the average of 623 feet, therefore pushing fans away from the field is a characteristic of Tier 1 stadia, not a drawback.

Then they declared that the CVC must pay the Rams legal fees for their trouble. Who are these guys? Of all the things to key on, they really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with this junk.

 

[-X-]

Re: Will St. Louis Keep Rams? Part 2: the Franchise (101 ESP

Has anyone read the arbitrators report? I find it completely bizarre. Here is the link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/123411141...d-Visitors-Commission-full-Arbitration-Report

I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, necessarily, but they seem highly biased and lazy. They didn't even bother to mediate a configuration acceptable to both sides. I guess they had a plane to catch.

First they said “In order to be first tier, the Dome must be open" because 17 of the 22 newer stadia are open. This seems very odd to me. So fan comfort means nothing? Well, hell, let's just rip the lid off altogether be instantly top tier. It sounds like they are setting up the rationale for moving to LA. Both stadia proposed there are open, hence first tier by this standard.

Besides seeing a roof (and fan comfort) as huge drawback compared to open air stadia, the arbitrators keyed on the fact that people in luxury sky boxes would not be able to easily view the new hanging giant video screens proposed by the CVC, and would have to settle for individual large video screens in each of their individual suites. The Rams didn't even propose a giant video screen hanging from the ceiling, and that makes their proposal top tier since the luxury skybox people would not strain themselves trying to see one, I guess.

Also, they completely dismissed the CVC argument that the Rams proposal would push fans further from the field vs. the CVC proposal average distance of 623 feet. The arbitrators argued that many newer stadia exceeded the average of 623 feet, therefore pushing fans away from the field is a characteristic of Tier 1 stadia, not a drawback.

Then they declared that the CVC must pay the Rams legal fees for their trouble. Who are these guys? Of all the things to key on, they really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with this junk.

I haven't read it yet (don't really want to), but did they mention a retractable roof, and not so much an open-air stadium? I seem to remember that coming up last year in the proposed stadium re-designs.

 

[RamFan503]

Re: Will St. Louis Keep Rams? Part 2: the Franchise (101 ESP

I skimmed through it fairly well. Apparently, the legal fees and supporting research stuff was part of the agreement. The arbitrators merely ruled on the questions before them as they were presented in the agreement between the CVC and The Rams.

I don't believe - though I could read it again - that they said the stadium had to be open. I believe what they did was discount the CVC's approach to key issues on how to make the stadium top tier. They appeared to key on the foot print and what changes actually could be made, given that foot print, to make the dome "top tier".

Also, while I haven't read the lease provisions, from the wording in the ruling, I gather that it doesn't actually state that the arbitrators are to come up with an alternative that would work. Personally, I think that would be a HUGE stretch for arbitrators anyway. That's not even remotely what they do.

If I recall right, the 623 feet was in regards to both line of sight issues and (at greater issue) leg room for the club seats - though I could be wrong.

All in all, it seemed to me that the arbitrators might have been a little put off by the CVC proposal and its lack of reality given what the lease provisions call for.

 

[ZGare]

Re: Will St. Louis Keep Rams? Part 2: the Franchise (101 ESP

Has anyone read the arbitrators report? I find it completely bizarre. Here is the link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/123411141...d-Visitors-Commission-full-Arbitration-Report

I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, necessarily, but they seem highly biased and lazy. They didn't even bother to mediate a configuration acceptable to both sides. I guess they had a plane to catch.

First they said “In order to be first tier, the Dome must be open" because 17 of the 22 newer stadia are open. This seems very odd to me. So fan comfort means nothing? Well, hell, let's just rip the lid off altogether be instantly top tier. It sounds like they are setting up the rationale for moving to LA. Both stadia proposed there are open, hence first tier by this standard.

Besides seeing a roof (and fan comfort) as huge drawback compared to open air stadia, the arbitrators keyed on the fact that people in luxury sky boxes would not be able to easily view the new hanging giant video screens proposed by the CVC, and would have to settle for individual large video screens in each of their individual suites. The Rams didn't even propose a giant video screen hanging from the ceiling, and that makes their proposal top tier since the luxury skybox people would not strain themselves trying to see one, I guess.

Also, they completely dismissed the CVC argument that the Rams proposal would push fans further from the field vs. the CVC proposal average distance of 623 feet. The arbitrators argued that many newer stadia exceeded the average of 623 feet, therefore pushing fans away from the field is a characteristic of Tier 1 stadia, not a drawback.

Then they declared that the CVC must pay the Rams legal fees for their trouble. Who are these guys? Of all the things to key on, they really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with this junk.

I haven't read it yet (don't really want to), but did they mention a retractable roof, and not so much an open-air stadium? I seem to remember that coming up last year in the proposed stadium re-designs.

Only 4 stadia in the NFL have retractable roofs. Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, and Phoenix. That would make them upper 13%. The criteria is upper 25%. The only other dome newer than our teenager dome is the closed dome in Detroit.

 

[-X-]

Re: Will St. Louis Keep Rams? Part 2: the Franchise (101 ESP

Has anyone read the arbitrators report? I find it completely bizarre. Here is the link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/123411141...d-Visitors-Commission-full-Arbitration-Report

I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, necessarily, but they seem highly biased and lazy. They didn't even bother to mediate a configuration acceptable to both sides. I guess they had a plane to catch.

First they said “In order to be first tier, the Dome must be open" because 17 of the 22 newer stadia are open. This seems very odd to me. So fan comfort means nothing? Well, hell, let's just rip the lid off altogether be instantly top tier. It sounds like they are setting up the rationale for moving to LA. Both stadia proposed there are open, hence first tier by this standard.

Besides seeing a roof (and fan comfort) as huge drawback compared to open air stadia, the arbitrators keyed on the fact that people in luxury sky boxes would not be able to easily view the new hanging giant video screens proposed by the CVC, and would have to settle for individual large video screens in each of their individual suites. The Rams didn't even propose a giant video screen hanging from the ceiling, and that makes their proposal top tier since the luxury skybox people would not strain themselves trying to see one, I guess.

Also, they completely dismissed the CVC argument that the Rams proposal would push fans further from the field vs. the CVC proposal average distance of 623 feet. The arbitrators argued that many newer stadia exceeded the average of 623 feet, therefore pushing fans away from the field is a characteristic of Tier 1 stadia, not a drawback.

Then they declared that the CVC must pay the Rams legal fees for their trouble. Who are these guys? Of all the things to key on, they really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with this junk.

I haven't read it yet (don't really want to), but did they mention a retractable roof, and not so much an open-air stadium? I seem to remember that coming up last year in the proposed stadium re-designs.

Only 4 stadia in the NFL have retractable roofs. Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, and Phoenix. That would make them upper 13%. The criteria is upper 25%. The only other dome newer than our teenager dome is the closed dome in Detroit.

Well, why stop at 25%? Might as well blow the doors off that as long as you're upgrading. The weather in STL, from what I've heard, is too bi-polar to make it wide open like that, and that's why the Rams proposed being able to close the sunroof when needed. Also, and this is just me asking without any knowledge of how this works, but say you *only* put in a retractable roof. Would that still make it upper 13%?

 

[nighttrain]

Re: Will St. Louis Keep Rams? Part 2: the Franchise (101 ESP

i see Stan building his own stadium, just what he's done in the past. But it will be in the St Louis area

train

 

[ZGare]

Re: Will St. Louis Keep Rams? Part 2: the Franchise (101 ESP

I sent this to the Post Dispatch and it was published today. I am surprised the arbitrators had so much trouble finding good reasons the dome was not upper tier, finally deciding that any stadium newer then the dome, even if it is open air, must be higher tier. They seemed to be only concerned about the high rollers in suites, which are always indoors even in an open air stadium, or the club seats. What about us regular fans in the seats? If a stadium can't control the temperature, wind, rain, snow, light, or sound, I am sorry, it is not top tier to me. EJD is the 6th newest dome.

If you switch the physical structures, but not the teams or fans or histories, of the EJD and Lambeau Field, I think the stadium rankers would love the Green Bay EJD, and hate the St Louis Lambeau. They would say they love the indoor atmosphere and close seats of the GB dome, and hate the old cold SL open stadium. I predict that if we build a new open air stadium, it will be declared obsolete in less than 15 years.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/mailbag/arbitrators-decision-on-dome-seems-biased/article_c27111c3-5294-50a3-bd21-055514662ec1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/ma ... 62ec1.html</a>

 

[Lesson]

Goldman Sachs hired by the CVC to work towards a solution

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis-agency-hires-goldman-sachs-to-keep-rams-in/article_7ea53d74-083d-5db2-9e5a-0036b4792466.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 92466.html</a>

ST. LOUIS • The agency that owns the Edward Jones Dome is not letting the Rams go quietly.

The St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority has hired Goldman Sachs, the multi-national investment banking firm, to keep the Rams in the Dome, or, if that’s not possible, to maintain a National League Football team in St. Louis.

The contract pays Goldman $20,000 a month, plus no more than $25,000 in expenses, Dome officials said.

 

[-X-]

Re: Goldman Sachs hired by the CVC to work towards a solutio

$45K a month for Consulting services?

Good lord. I'm not charging enough.

 

[brokeu91]

Re: Goldman Sachs hired by the CVC to work towards a solutio

$45K a month for Consulting services?

Good lord. I'm not charging enough.

lol

 

[lasvegasrams]

i havent really read much or seen too much of EJD. is it possible that a renovation during next offseason would work? a dome in its' teens isnt doesnt seem too bad to me

 

[iced]

NFL stadiums are like dog years now. They all die around 15 it seems

 

[CGI_Ram]

NFL stadiums are like dog years now. They all die around 15 it seems

Makes you wonder where it stops.

If the goal is to one up the next guy, 16 teams will always have an inferior stadium.



Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ZGare]

At the Rams lunch yesterday, someone asked about PSLs. Kevin said he guessed there would be some consideration or priority on new stadium PSL for currernt PSL holders. Also said he prefers that they don't need to do PSLs at all with the new stadium. But he got my attention by mentioning that it may take NFL money, owner money, and PSL money to build the new stadium if there is no public tax money available. So I think this is the first I've heard that the Rams acknowledge they they have thought of ways to get to a new stadium without a vote of the people or legislature to help finance it. Also, I think he said CVC has indicated that if they spend big money, they want to spend it on a new stadium, not an upgrade to the dome.

 

[RamFan503]

At the Rams lunch yesterday, someone asked about PSLs. Kevin said he guessed there would be some consideration or priority on new stadium PSL for currernt PSL holders. Also said he prefers that they don't need to do PSLs at all with the new stadium. But he got my attention by mentioning that it may take NFL money, owner money, and PSL money to build the new stadium if there is no public tax money available. So I think this is the first I've heard that the Rams acknowledge they they have thought of ways to get to a new stadium without a vote of the people or legislature to help finance it. Also, I think he said CVC has indicated that if they spend big money, they want to spend it on a new stadium, not an upgrade to the dome.

That sounds like a new stadium in St Louis is a given. Wonder if they already have the property locked up.

 

[nighttrain]

At the Rams lunch yesterday, someone asked about PSLs. Kevin said he guessed there would be some consideration or priority on new stadium PSL for currernt PSL holders. Also said he prefers that they don't need to do PSLs at all with the new stadium. But he got my attention by mentioning that it may take NFL money, owner money, and PSL money to build the new stadium if there is no public tax money available. So I think this is the first I've heard that the Rams acknowledge they they have thought of ways to get to a new stadium without a vote of the people or legislature to help finance it. Also, I think he said CVC has indicated that if they spend big money, they want to spend it on a new stadium, not an upgrade to the dome.

That sounds like a new stadium in St Louis is a given. Wonder if they already have the property locked up.

The old Chrysler grounds? From what i've read, best of all possible solutions
train

 

[ZGare]

Atlanta stadium takes steps forward. $200m from tax on hotels plus $800m split between NFL, Falcons, and PSLs. Could be a formula for the new Rams stadium.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/breaking-news/state-agency-gives-ok-to-falcons-stadium-deal/nWstz/