NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[dfwabel]

Maybe. I've read a decent amount on it, but I'm not an expert. But I recall a theory that the fact that it's so overdue suggests the fault is simply shutting down and that "the big one" may never happen. Related, "the big one" just may not actually be that big of one, and St. Louis could be spared.

Also, it'd be incorrect to say that St. Louis hasn't earthquake proofed. They just haven't done it on the level of a place like San Francisco.

60/40 typically is a percentage of food to alcohol sales can be.

[The_Admiral]

Come on, do what you did

Throw me under New Madrid

Shake my baby and please bring her back

'cause death won't even be still

Caroms over the landfill

And buries us all in its broken back.

[STL FANATIC]

Maybe. I've read a decent amount on it, but I'm not an expert. But I recall a theory that the fact that it's so overdue suggests the fault is simply shutting down and that "the big one" may never happen. Related, "the big one" just may not actually be that big of one, and St. Louis could be spared.

Also, it'd be incorrect to say that St. Louis hasn't earthquake proofed. They just haven't done it on the level of a place like San Francisco.

60/40 typically is a percentage of food to alcohol sales can be.

Sorry, you snuck that in before I could post. he maybe wasn't referring to your 60/40 question, but rather the likelihood of an earthquake demolishing St. Louis.

To your question about 60/40, I suppose I have heard of it now that you mention it. You're right that the Landing would fall in that category.

[dfwabel]

Maybe. I've read a decent amount on it, but I'm not an expert. But I recall a theory that the fact that it's so overdue suggests the fault is simply shutting down and that "the big one" may never happen. Related, "the big one" just may not actually be that big of one, and St. Louis could be spared.

Also, it'd be incorrect to say that St. Louis hasn't earthquake proofed. They just haven't done it on the level of a place like San Francisco.

60/40 typically is a percentage of food to alcohol sales can be.

Sorry, you snuck that in before I could post. he maybe wasn't referring to your 60/40 question, but rather the likelihood of an earthquake demolishing St. Louis.

To your question about 60/40, I suppose I have heard of it now that you mention it. You're right that the Landing would fall in that category.

FWIW, I mentioned seismic issues while not specifically mentioning the New Madrid.

The Landing has has too many revitalization plans.

[rainmaker17]

The New Madrid may or may not ever go again. When it does it may destroy all of St. Louis or it may do very little. This is pretty much is what is known. They're probably not going to earthquake proof things anymore than they typically do as a result.

As for the "wet zones," I've never heard of that, and I'm a bit confused about what this talk is. St. Louis has bar districts throughout, and the landing is a relatively dead one. It used to be a bit livelier, it's always been under utilized. It hasn't been THE place to go since I've been even close to of age.

By the way, the biggest off-the-river casino development in the St. Louis area is the one right there by the stadium, Lumiere. St. Louis already had suburban casinos because of the Missouri river that moves westward into the suburbs. Aside from that, casinos are about as terrible at driving economic gain as stadiums are.

I don't really know what I'm responding to or what point I'm making, but just figured I'd chime in with all of that.

Wet/Dry is a Texas (maybe just North Texas) thing. Growing up in Dallas, there were parts of the city that sold alcohol and parts that didn't. You had to know the boundaries to figure out where to buy beer, etc. depending on where you were.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I saw Union Station is trying to reinvent itself again for the Nth time since becoming a mall in 1985.

With Ballpark Village almost a year in, each stadium has their own pocket of retail/nightlife nearby... and none of them are very far apart as it is. What has BV's impact been, and are there still plans to expand that, too?

You'd think BV now draws a post-Blues crowd as well. Short walk.

EDIT: Business story from June about "Ballpark Village effect": http://m.stltoday.com/business/local/competitors-are-feeling-the-ballpark-village-effect/article_9b3cc96c-4f13-5257-9208-747caa5a6c49.html?mobile_touch=true

[Gothamite]

As for St. Louis not earthquake proofing, I think I'll just leave another comment regarding the unsurprising lack of foresight possessed by St. Louis' civic leaders.

Which brings us back to this day-late-dollar-short proposal. Well, make that 2 years late and 400 million dollars short.

[The_Admiral]

Just out of curiosity, are there people who don't bemoan a lack of foresight from their civic leaders? I guess maybe Indianapolis, they're always thinking of something, but nobody likes Indianapolis.

[Gothamite]

New Yorkers, for the most part. We may not like everything our mayors and civic leaders do, but they are actively working on the city's next step. We are constantly transforming, rebuilding, developing and evolving.

When I lived in Milwaukee twenty years ago, we had an extremely proactive mayor, who worked to develop the riverfront so we didn't have the blocks of prime real estate blight that reportedly are to house this new stadium.

Again, we can quibble about efficiency or wisdom, but there's active work happening. Not like this.

[BBTV]

I think Philadelphia is entering that category too. NYT just named it #3 in places to visit in 2015 behind Milan and Cuba(?) and it's going through an unprecended construction/ development boom mostly due to forethought and planning that managed to evade the ever-present corruption and nimbys. People were mostly against the development of Dilworth Park, which cost $$$, destroyed traffic right in the city center for years, and was a complete eyesore during construction, but now that it's completed it instantly became an attraction and tourist destination, as well as improving transit connections and providing eye-candy for locals. One of those "just... trust us" kind of things that really worked out.

[STL FANATIC]

I saw Union Station is trying to reinvent itself again for the Nth time since becoming a mall in 1985.

With Ballpark Village almost a year in, each stadium has their own pocket of retail/nightlife nearby... and none of them are very far apart as it is. What has BV's impact been, and are there still plans to expand that, too?

You'd think BV now draws a post-Blues crowd as well. Short walk.

EDIT: Business story from June about "Ballpark Village effect": http://m.stltoday.com/business/local/competitors-are-feeling-the-ballpark-village-effect/article_9b3cc96c-4f13-5257-9208-747caa5a6c49.html?mobile_touch=true

I actually like the Union Station plan as much as anything because I really trust the guy in charge of it. He does great things. And I think they plan for this is quality rather than cheap.

Many local businesses have cited a negative impact from Ballpark Village, but they've known for years it was coming, and I think it will be temporary. The rumored next step for BPV is a hotel and/or condos tower, but it hasn't been announced yet.

[STL FANATIC]

This isn't related to any recent posts, just some additional info I meant to share from a radio interview Dave Peacock did on Friday. (And some additional ramblings as a result.)

The question was raised about not putting a retractable roof on the building, and how that might impact getting events such as a Final Four. I can't remember if Super Bowl was mentioned, but I think a similar response would fit if it was, only to an even larger degree.

The answer was basically that they don't have unlimited funds, and they had to make decisions. And when you look at the way the NCAA has begun awarding Final Fours, you're seeing a group of cores cities repeated frequently, with a handful of other cities getting mixed in every so often. Basically, you're not going to get one more than every decade or so.

And should you really pay an extra $100-150 million for that?

Like I said, the reasoning works for the Super Bowl too, only to a larger degree. First off, the stadium isn't big enough for a Super Bowl. But even if they reconciled that and spent the money on the roof, you're probably talking about one awarded Super Bowl as a reward for the stadium, and very likely no further ones.

Basically, it's this compromise of accepting what they are and not totally selling their soul to get these minor payoffs...while still selling some of their soul to get the theoretical payoffs of having the NFL around.

It's not a palace. It's a very nice compromise. (Nicer for the NFL than St. Louis given the money.)

If this is a free market situation, St. Louis loses to LA every time. We'll have to see whether that's what this is or not. St. Louis is deserving of an NFL team, and it's good for the league to have one here. (I think Peacock made a compelling case for that.) It's not necessarily more deserving or better for the league than LA. So the question is—how does the league want to do this. Do they want to lose St. Louis for the easy path to LA? Do they want to try to hold on to St. Louis and try to find one of the other paths to LA? Maybe they take the easy path to LA, and then try to explore the paths back to St. Louis.

Kroenke can throw a wrench into all of this by just acting on his own and challenging the league. Might happen.

[rams80]

At the end of the day, Kansas City, Chicago, and Green Bay have St. Louis' market more than covered. Indeed, in a far more complete manner than the California teams do for Los Angeles.

EDIT-The St. Louis Combined Statistical Area is smaller than Portland's and Orlando's. The NFL does not NEED a team in St. Louis for anything.

[BBTV]

Right (referring to STLF's post). St. Louis will lose to LA in every way (and so would other cities) so what this does is show what could be in St. Louis, and that while maybe not enough to keep someone from moving to LA, might be enough to convince the league (or at least another owner) that StL really is a viable market. The question is would fans be able to accept a third team to invest in emotionally (and financially via PSLs). Maybe... just maybe... that's enough to warrant the dreaded Cleveland Deal. "Don't worry - you'll get your Rams back in 2020." not "don't worry - you're now Chargers (or Raiders) fans!" or "you'll cheer for whoever we put in that stadium and you'll like it!"

I do think that for a press conference like that, they really needed to have the experts and anyone else that understood any of the specifics on hand to field questions so the guy didn't basically just stand there and say 'I don't know, but I'm sure someone probably does."

[STL FANATIC]

At the end of the day, Kansas City, Chicago, and Green Bay have St. Louis' market more than covered. Indeed, in a far more complete manner than the California teams do for Los Angeles.

EDIT-The St. Louis Combined Statistical Area is smaller than Portland's and Orlando's. The NFL does not NEED a team in St. Louis for anything.

I didn't say the NFL needs St. Louis. I said the NFL benefits from St. Louis. Sure, the NFL draws fans from St. Louis with those teams, but it doesn't cover St. Louis nearly in the manner that having a generally competent franchise in St. Louis would.

In a league that spans 32 cities 29 markets with 32 teams (good call BBTV), St. Louis is one the league should prefer to be in.

LA is significantly higher on the list by that standard, of course. Which is why I'm acknowledging that in a simple head-to-head decision, it's LA over St. Louis. But the league may have options to cover both, and perhaps they'll do so.

[BBTV]

At the end of the day, Kansas City, Chicago, and Green Bay have St. Louis' market more than covered. Indeed, in a far more complete manner than the California teams do for Los Angeles.

EDIT-The St. Louis Combined Statistical Area is smaller than Portland's and Orlando's. The NFL does not NEED a team in St. Louis for anything.

It certainly dose NOT need a team in STL - but it's looking like a much better situation than Jacksonville, San Diego, Oakland, Buffalo, and any currently-non-NFL city.

There are 32 NFL teams in 29 (arguably 28) markets. There are not 28 NFL worthy markets. This proposal (if it were doable) along with the other legitimate facts that were given probably at least would put STL in the list of worthy markets - and a relo chip to a team looking for a better deal (I may not have thought that a week ago.) Of course the "(if it were doable)" caveat is kind of a big deal.

[rams80]

St. Louis' road visitors mask some of the problems. Honestly you'd be just as well off as setting up "Wembley Mid America" and mandate a couple Midwestern teams host games there a year.

[The_Admiral]

Milwaukee and Cincinnati are pretty close to St. Louis in size and stature, right? Milwaukee struggles to support three pro teams, St. Louis struggles to support three pro teams, and Cincinnati doesn't have a third team to support. (You could throw Pittsburgh in there, too, which is doing well for now but the Penguins are always a hair's breadth from nobody caring about them.) The Cardinals super-serve the market; there's not enough left there for the Rams and Blues to get the support they deserve/require, inasmuch as one team has one and a half feet out the door and the other perpetually loses money and underperforms at the box office even with good records. I do not wish for the Blues to go away, so I guess the Rams have to go. Live by the moving truck, die by the moving truck.

St. Louis' road visitors mask some of the problems. Honestly you'd be just as well off as setting up "Wembley Mid America" and mandate a couple Midwestern teams host games there a year.

I could see the Chiefs and Bengals giving up one preseason home game each. The Bears should but wouldn't and probably can't. Make them a road team.

[STL FANATIC]

This isn't really about attendance, though. It's about TV. And I'm confident in stating (but don't know how to prove it) that more people tune in for the NFL in St. Louis when they have a team and when said team isn't a disaster.

As far as attendance goes, I think the same holds true, I just don't think it's the biggest concern of the team or league. Even if St. Louis does benefit from being near other big markets, that's not going away. Even if it's not the sort of thing you want to call a positive, it technically is right?

I get your point, too admiral. In St. Louis' current state, it will struggle to extend it's entertainment dollars to all three teams. The Cardinals are a virtual lock. So the Blues are the niche sport, and the Rams are the perpetual laughing stock version of the American behemoth. Thus neither one is a lock.

Side note: Blues attendance is on the increase this year (as is TV viewership). Traditionally the Blues have done well with attendance, but with cheap ticket prices. The last few years prices have gone up (still on the lower side in the NHL, I'm sure) and attendance struggled. Maybe the market is adjusting a bit. As much as I just absolutely slam Chicago for bandwagoning, I do look forward to someday seeing the impact a Cup might have in St. Louis. Maybe enough to get those extra couple thousand seats filled a night. (And I don't just mean in years they're Cup contenders, I mean actual fan base growth as a result of winning. Creating new fans.)

Personally, I'd trade the Rams for an MLS and/or NBA team. Probably easier sustained by a market of this size, and sports I enjoy more. The Hawks are for sale. LA can have the Rams back if we can have the Hawks back. Deal? No? Fine.

[The_Admiral]

If it's about TV, then Los Angeles obliterates St. Louis, especially when it's time to re-up the big-market NFC package.