Let's Go Blues :: Rams Stadium Negotiations
Let's Go Blues
http://www.letsgoblues.com/phpBB/

Rams Stadium Negotiations
http://www.letsgoblues.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=29483
Page 11 of 13

Author:  dmiles2186 [ Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

cardsfan04 wrote:
please please please please please don't let the Raiders move to STL.


This to me is just weird. Because you're going to make STL lose a franchise (again) and bring in an already existing franchise with prior history (again again)? It would fracture an already split fan base. Because there are still people attached to the Cardinals, some would follow the Rams still, some would quit the NFL all together.

I mean, the St. Louis Raiders? That's just dumb. Only way I accept this move is if they do a Brown/Baltimore type thing where the history is left behind in Oakland and if they ever get a team again, the Raiders name/history will be there for them.

Let STL get a fresh start for crying out loud. Otherwise, maybe Kroenke sells the Rams to keep them here and buys the Raiders and moves them. It's possible. But then again, there are about 100 different possibilities on how this ends.

Author:  JesusNEVERexisted [ Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

Legendary QB Jim Hart said the Cardinals should've left the team name and logo in St.Louis when they moved to Arizona. I agree.

The Rams always seemed like a foreign team. Like the LA Rams were just visiting or something.

Author:  cprice12 [ Mon Mar 02, 2015 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:
Legendary QB Jim Hart said the Cardinals should've left the team name and logo in St.Louis when they moved to Arizona. I agree.


Couldn't agree more.

Author:  dmiles2186 [ Mon Mar 02, 2015 3:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

cprice12 wrote:
JesusNEVERexisted wrote:
Legendary QB Jim Hart said the Cardinals should've left the team name and logo in St.Louis when they moved to Arizona. I agree.


Couldn't agree more.


Can't believe I'm going to say this, but I agree with JNE.

In fact, I think the Browns/Raves set a precedent with that. Now you are seeing that more. The Sonics name/colors are in Seattle and if/when they get a team again, that is going to be the name.

I think it should be a rule/thing that if a team leaves a city, they vacate all history/colors/logos to that city if/when they get a team back.

I look to Montreal who still celebrate the Expos with their banners hanging in the Forum. Keeping that flame going just in case they ever return.

Author:  JesusNEVERexisted [ Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

Hey! We ALL strongly agree on something! :okman:

Wish they could somehow bring back that mean gridbird logo & name from Arizona but it's not happening. If we get the St.Louis Raiders then some people won't even take it seriously because it will have almost degenerated into a JOKE!

Author:  Oaklandblue [ Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

You guys can't have the Raiders. Sorry. I really think yall should keep the Rams, given the color scheme and let's be honest, how many things come out of LA and win the championship in the mid-west? Rams to me belong in the STL moreso than any other team.

And I do agree that they should have kept the Cardinals NFL franchise IN the STL. It always confuses me when they talk about the Cards, I'm like which one?! O.o lol.

One thing the leagues need to realize is that a team isn't just a commodity, it's a culture in an area, a rite of passage, a part of history of both a city and those that follow that specific club. I can't think of my grandparents, who are no longer with me, without thinking of the Athletics, Raiders, Invaders, etc. That was part of our rite of passage here and in some ways, it still is. It was part of growing up and passing it on to our kids and so on.

Sorry, I'm a romantic like that, but I feel that's true. Taking a team away with their history is a major crime on an area. Look at Atlanta and how many times they lost a team now. Think they'll welcome hockey back in? I blame the NHL for their failure, both times.

Author:  dmiles2186 [ Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

Oaklandblue wrote:
You guys can't have the Raiders. Sorry. I really think yall should keep the Rams, given the color scheme and let's be honest, how many things come out of LA and win the championship in the mid-west? Rams to me belong in the STL moreso than any other team.

And I do agree that they should have kept the Cardinals NFL franchise IN the STL. It always confuses me when they talk about the Cards, I'm like which one?! O.o lol.

One thing the leagues need to realize is that a team isn't just a commodity, it's a culture in an area, a rite of passage, a part of history of both a city and those that follow that specific club. I can't think of my grandparents, who are no longer with me, without thinking of the Athletics, Raiders, Invaders, etc. That was part of our rite of passage here and in some ways, it still is. It was part of growing up and passing it on to our kids and so on.

Sorry, I'm a romantic like that, but I feel that's true. Taking a team away with their history is a major crime on an area. Look at Atlanta and how many times they lost a team now. Think they'll welcome hockey back in? I blame the NHL for their failure, both times.


I 100% agree with all of this. I look at Europe and the football (soccer) teams there. No one moves. They either stay where they are or fold, but they don't move. They're a fabric of the community.

The thing I'd be concerned about if I were a Raiders fan, is that Oakland seems to have zero interest in building the Raiders a stadium. STL is making headway on a stadium, LA has a couple trying to get going, SD is finally starting to show interest in building a stadium. Oakland isn't.

Obviously, my number one choice is that the Rams stay here. But should STL go through with building the NFL a stadium (the 2nd time they've done so in 25 years, mind you), how can the league turn their back on them? They'll get a team and the Raiders will be on that list.

But I digress. Back to your original point. I want my son to be a Rams fan. I want to be able to take him to (home) games just across the river. The way leagues pit cities against each other so that billionaires can have their stadiums funded by the cities instead of our of their own fat pockets is pretty disgusting. But that's where we are, unfortunately.

I always get really wistful thinking of teams that moved away, mostly because of the fans left behind in that situation. A great documentary to watch about that is 'Sonicsgate,' which covered the Sonics move from Seattle to OKC.

Author:  cardsfan04 [ Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

I didn't 100% follow what they were saying, but a few minutes ago on the Fast Lane, they said that the Chargers owner said that within a month he will own the land of a stadium proposal site in Carson, CA (near LA).

Author:  Oaklandblue [ Thu Mar 05, 2015 11:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

dmiles2186 wrote:
Oaklandblue wrote:
You guys can't have the Raiders. Sorry. I really think yall should keep the Rams, given the color scheme and let's be honest, how many things come out of LA and win the championship in the mid-west? Rams to me belong in the STL moreso than any other team.

And I do agree that they should have kept the Cardinals NFL franchise IN the STL. It always confuses me when they talk about the Cards, I'm like which one?! O.o lol.

One thing the leagues need to realize is that a team isn't just a commodity, it's a culture in an area, a rite of passage, a part of history of both a city and those that follow that specific club. I can't think of my grandparents, who are no longer with me, without thinking of the Athletics, Raiders, Invaders, etc. That was part of our rite of passage here and in some ways, it still is. It was part of growing up and passing it on to our kids and so on.

Sorry, I'm a romantic like that, but I feel that's true. Taking a team away with their history is a major crime on an area. Look at Atlanta and how many times they lost a team now. Think they'll welcome hockey back in? I blame the NHL for their failure, both times.


I 100% agree with all of this. I look at Europe and the football (soccer) teams there. No one moves. They either stay where they are or fold, but they don't move. They're a fabric of the community.

The thing I'd be concerned about if I were a Raiders fan, is that Oakland seems to have zero interest in building the Raiders a stadium. STL is making headway on a stadium, LA has a couple trying to get going, SD is finally starting to show interest in building a stadium. Oakland isn't.

Obviously, my number one choice is that the Rams stay here. But should STL go through with building the NFL a stadium (the 2nd time they've done so in 25 years, mind you), how can the league turn their back on them? They'll get a team and the Raiders will be on that list.

But I digress. Back to your original point. I want my son to be a Rams fan. I want to be able to take him to (home) games just across the river. The way leagues pit cities against each other so that billionaires can have their stadiums funded by the cities instead of our of their own fat pockets is pretty disgusting. But that's where we are, unfortunately.

I always get really wistful thinking of teams that moved away, mostly because of the fans left behind in that situation. A great documentary to watch about that is 'Sonicsgate,' which covered the Sonics move from Seattle to OKC.


The Oakland City Council has been against pretty much any and all attempts to get a stadium funded, even through private means. They're the primary reason the teams are looking to leave town. The amount of apathy there for sports and the lack of understanding what a sports team means and can do for a city is epic beyond words. The previous mayor actually cancelled the high school division football championship over a fight between two other teams and decided to penalize everyone for it instead of disqualifying the teams responsible and having the runner-up play. The sad part was that this was the first time Oakland High ever made it that far and they wern't even part of that nonsense. That is the line of thinking of the powers that run the city.

Author:  dmiles2186 [ Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

This is positive, right?


Author:  cardsfan04 [ Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

dmiles2186 wrote:
This is positive, right?



Yeah, that's gotta be good. I don't know if we'll keep em or not (kinda think we will though). But, at least we're making it really hard on Kroenke.

Author:  cprice12 [ Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

cardsfan04 wrote:
dmiles2186 wrote:
This is positive, right?



Yeah, that's gotta be good. I don't know if we'll keep em or not (kinda think we will though). But, at least we're making it really hard on Kroenke.


McKernan tweeted that the owners didn't seem to care about the naming rights deal.

Author:  dmiles2186 [ Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

cprice12 wrote:
cardsfan04 wrote:
dmiles2186 wrote:
This is positive, right?



Yeah, that's gotta be good. I don't know if we'll keep em or not (kinda think we will though). But, at least we're making it really hard on Kroenke.


McKernan tweeted that the owners didn't seem to care about the naming rights deal.


Yeah, I was just getting ready to post that the pendulum swung again after that. Owners said they would have wanted to be a part of negotiations (which is rich since Kroenke will have none of the STL proposal). And then Jerry Jones said the deal would 'buy a lobby' in the LA stadium. By the way, my disdain for Jerry Jones grows more and more as this stadium thing plays out.

Now Goodell and owners are saying STL needs to get things finalized when they've been further along than SD and OAK this whole time. It's all a joke. Yesterday I felt like the naming rights thing meant they raised their chances to stay. Today, I feel like most of the owners in the league are just trying to stack odds against STL. Goes back and forth.

Author:  cprice12 [ Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

When I heard it was for $128 million I was like...well that's nice. But then I heard it was over 20 years...so...not as impressive really. But whatever. That isn't going to make or break the Rams being here or not.

Author:  cardsfan04 [ Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

cprice12 wrote:
cardsfan04 wrote:
dmiles2186 wrote:
This is positive, right?



Yeah, that's gotta be good. I don't know if we'll keep em or not (kinda think we will though). But, at least we're making it really hard on Kroenke.


McKernan tweeted that the owners didn't seem to care about the naming rights deal.


That surprises me some, but I guess it would surprise me more if they said it was a negative. I don't really know what naming rights go for, but they basically just financed 20% of the stadium. Sounds like a good thing at least.

Author:  abc789987 [ Wed Nov 11, 2015 11:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

Disney CEO agrees to lead LA stadium project for Raiders and Chargers

This is good, right?

Author:  dmiles2186 [ Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

abc789987 wrote:


Appears to be. Jerry Richardson, owner of the Panthers and on the relocation committee, said something to the effect of, 'This is a good move for the NFL.' Not the Raiders and Chargers, the NFL.

The money was always the big question with the Raiders, since Mark Davis doesn't have it. But this quells those questions and it's a huge coup for this group.

Pair that with the FAA report saying Kroenke's Inglewood site could interfere with radar/plane activity at LAX, and the last 36 hours have been positive for the Rams staying in St. Louis crowd.

Author:  dmiles2186 [ Tue Dec 15, 2015 10:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

Things continue to look up. But in case there is a down turn, I got tickets to go to the game on Thursday, in case it's the last home game in STL ever.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... -0.twitter

Quote:
ST. LOUIS • The deal for a new riverfront football stadium has changed again, and at the last minute. This time, the National Football League is sweetening the pot, local stadium planners said, with a promise to add $100 million toward construction.

But the extra cash comes with a local cost: Gov. Jay Nixon's stadium task force has tentatively agreed to rebate city ticket taxes back to the team.

In exchange, the task force is seeking a boost in stadium rent, paid by the football team, from about $700,000 a year to $1.5 million, the promise of which will back construction bonds.

The deal will require approval by the city Board of Aldermen, which meets this morning to debate the city's part of the financing package.

Downtown St. Louis Alderman Jack Coatar, a sponsor of the city stadium bill, circulated a substitute late Monday night.

"I apologize for sending these at such a late hour, but these changes were still being finalized until very recently," Coatar wrote in an email to aldermen.

The proposed changes, he said, limit the city's financial risk, clarify ambiguous bill language, and boost the NFL's promised commitment from $200 million to $300 million.

The NFL team -- if one commits to the project -- would add another $250 million, as previously envisioned.

"The changes reflected in the floor substitute do not increase the City's contribution to this project," Coatar continued.

Task force co-chairman Dave Peacock said the new bill also requires the NFL team to pay for any cost overruns.

"If the team wants more, great," he said early Tuesday morning. "But they have to pay for it now. This is a fully-funded project."

The revisions, Peacock explained, take another stab at solving nagging NFL worries about the local stadium plan.

This time, the task force zeroed in on the ticket taxes. Some NFL owners had complained that ticket taxes boosted seat prices, stealing profits from the team.

Tuesday's move eliminates such concerns, Peacock said, without affecting the city's costs or potential tax revenues.

Peacock said the NFL came to him this time.

"We have been in direct contact with key owners on committees deciding this process and we feel, based on those discussions, that the proposal now will get the strongest consideration by the league," he said, measuring his words carefully.

The NFL could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday morning.

Peacock said he understand the changes will frustrate some who see the deal as ever-changing. "However," he said, "we have to get something definitive and have to put our best foot forward. With any large and complex deal with high stakes there always seems to be a lot of activity at the end."


Author:  glen a richter [ Tue Dec 15, 2015 6:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

I would imagine that if the Rams leave, St. Louis would get another team eventually... the Jaguars possibly. I can't see that market being without a football team, #1, and #2 football, by virtue of simply how popular it is, is the only sport I could actually envision having a successful expansion to maybe 40 teams. Why keep a decent sized market out? Football is so popular, you could plop a team in East Nowhereland and probably sell out the stadium 8 times a year. It works in Green Bay.

Author:  cardsfan04 [ Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Rams Stadium Negotiations

dmiles2186 wrote:
Things continue to look up. But in case there is a down turn, I got tickets to go to the game on Thursday, in case it's the last home game in STL ever.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... -0.twitter

Quote:
ST. LOUIS • The deal for a new riverfront football stadium has changed again, and at the last minute. This time, the National Football League is sweetening the pot, local stadium planners said, with a promise to add $100 million toward construction.

But the extra cash comes with a local cost: Gov. Jay Nixon's stadium task force has tentatively agreed to rebate city ticket taxes back to the team.

In exchange, the task force is seeking a boost in stadium rent, paid by the football team, from about $700,000 a year to $1.5 million, the promise of which will back construction bonds.

The deal will require approval by the city Board of Aldermen, which meets this morning to debate the city's part of the financing package.

Downtown St. Louis Alderman Jack Coatar, a sponsor of the city stadium bill, circulated a substitute late Monday night.

"I apologize for sending these at such a late hour, but these changes were still being finalized until very recently," Coatar wrote in an email to aldermen.

The proposed changes, he said, limit the city's financial risk, clarify ambiguous bill language, and boost the NFL's promised commitment from $200 million to $300 million.

The NFL team -- if one commits to the project -- would add another $250 million, as previously envisioned.

"The changes reflected in the floor substitute do not increase the City's contribution to this project," Coatar continued.

Task force co-chairman Dave Peacock said the new bill also requires the NFL team to pay for any cost overruns.

"If the team wants more, great," he said early Tuesday morning. "But they have to pay for it now. This is a fully-funded project."

The revisions, Peacock explained, take another stab at solving nagging NFL worries about the local stadium plan.

This time, the task force zeroed in on the ticket taxes. Some NFL owners had complained that ticket taxes boosted seat prices, stealing profits from the team.

Tuesday's move eliminates such concerns, Peacock said, without affecting the city's costs or potential tax revenues.

Peacock said the NFL came to him this time.

"We have been in direct contact with key owners on committees deciding this process and we feel, based on those discussions, that the proposal now will get the strongest consideration by the league," he said, measuring his words carefully.

The NFL could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday morning.

Peacock said he understand the changes will frustrate some who see the deal as ever-changing. "However," he said, "we have to get something definitive and have to put our best foot forward. With any large and complex deal with high stakes there always seems to be a lot of activity at the end."



The way I'm reading that is NFL gives STL an additional $100MM for stadium construction. Rams give STL an extra 800K/year in rent. STL gives ticket taxes back to Rams.

I have no idea how much ticket taxes are, I have a hard time seeing it being large enough to counteract bot the extra 800K/year in rent and $100MM extra up front for building the stadium.

More than anything, I think this is a sign that the NFL wants a team here.

Page 11 of 13 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/