NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[Gothamite]

Not unexpected? Nothing's changed? That's the rosiest possible interpretation of today's facts, a fan's optimism speaking.

That "the Rams' plan for a dramatic renovation of the Dome -- estimated to cost at least $700 million -- is the only way to make the building a "first tier" football facility" is a huge win for the team.

I expected them to halve the baby, frankly.

(St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay's chief of staff Jeff) Rainford stressed that Slay and County Executive Charlie Dooley have pledged to put any proposed tax increase for a renovated or new stadium up for a vote.

"The people of St. Louis will be the ones who decide," Rainford said.

How likely does that seem, considering how broke the city and state are, that they'll vote to give a billionaire $700M or more in public money?

Even if they vote to authorize it, do we really think that they'll actually be able to come up with a brand-new stadium? They better find the money somewhere, because the arbitrators just gave the Rams all the leverage. That's what's changed today, and it isn't a minor change.

[DaytonBlue]

Wow, did not think the arbitrator would completely side with the Rams. Figured it would be in the middle somewhere, like 400 million range.

IMHO, putting 700 million into that dome is stupid. I think it'll end up being new stadium or LA for the Rams. Which one, not sure, but the EJD has just been given its fate as a giant convention hall. There are some sites in St. Louis where the local governments could just give the Rams the land and allow them to develop it, which would account for part of a public contribution.

I still question our priorities as a society when 20 year old stadia used for mostly football games are "obsolete" and cannot be fixed up at reasonable costs (Georgia Dome, EJD). These domes weren't like the old Orlando Arena with its suites only in the top or the Memphis Pyramid which had too many seats and terrible acoustics. And at least arenas are used 100-200 days a year.

And it boggles my mind just how bad this lease was written. At least Memphis with the FedExForum set the lease so if the Grizzlies ever did leave, the building would at least be paid for. Most other cities have done the same. St. Louis was really desperate to get the NFL back after losing the Cardinals and missing out on the expansion Stallions.

[Gothamite]

Georgia knew that, and she screwed her hometown over.

[dbadefense1990]

Georgia knew that, and she screwed her hometown over.

So she did a double-jeapordy: screwed over LA by "Major Leaguing" the Rams to the point of sucking and apathy, and screwed over St. Louis by not bolting a full payment plan on the return stadium before talks of a sleek palace to replace set stadium arose.

If the Rams do move, at least Missourians can join Californians in calling her a scumbag and hopes she's roasting in Hades right now.

[STL FANATIC]

Nothing has changed. Everyone speculating about this for the past 6 months has been saying that the Rams would win, the CVC would reject, and then the negotiations for a new plan would begin.

All that's changed is that we've finally gotten this process out of the way and they're free to begin talks without the specific constraints of the first tier clause.

Yes the Rams have all the leverage, but nobody believed it was any other way.

Whether it is a renovation or a new building, expect the Rams to do it in St. Louis and foot about 75% of the bill (including the loan from the NFL) and the city to pitch in 25%.

[Still MIGHTY]

...or expect the Los Angeles Rams

[Gothamite]

All that's changed is that we've finally gotten this process out of the way and they're free to begin talks without the specific constraints of the first tier clause.

The lease is still in effect. The CVC is still required to provide the Rams, at its expense, a first-tier facility.

The arbitrators were deciding if the CVC's proposal met their obligations under the lease; they weren't ruling on the lease itself. The "constraints" of that clause haven't been altered in any way (except perhaps to have been strengthened by this ruling, since the Rams' interpretation won).

Whether it is a renovation or a new building, expect the Rams to do it in St. Louis and foot about 75% of the bill (including the loan from the NFL) and the city to pitch in 25%.

Why should the Rams do that, when the lease specifies that the city has to pay 100%? And when the arbitrators flatly rejected a proposal that would have seen the Rams pay 50%?

Perhaps for their next trick, the Rams will cut ticket prices in half and give every fan a free jersey. Since they're feeling generous and all...

[DaytonBlue]

Stan will be willing to negotiate I think... but only for a new stadium in the suburbs that also gives him commercial development rights and parking revenue.

A new stadium downtown or fixed up dome does not give him real estate or parking.

[STL FANATIC]

The Rams will do that because they intend to stay in St. Louis and they will now look for the best opportunity to make that happen.

And your right, for 30 days the lease doesn't change. But as soon as the CVC rejects the proposal, for all intents and purposes, the first tier clause is gone. The city no longer has to live up to that and the Rams no longer have to be locked into the lease past 2015.

And at that point (when the CVC rejects) you have your regular end of lease / new stadium situation. Just like you had in Minnesota.

Every single indication, including ones from the Rams themselves, has suggested that this was a process they must go through, and that it would then be used as the starting point for negotiations.

If you truly believe yesterday's news was some big shock that changes the scope of the situation, you haven't been paying close enough attention. Few in St. Louis is worried or surprised about this ruling because it was anticipated. It's right in line with the anticipated process.

[rams80]

Every single indication, including ones from the Rams themselves, has suggested that this was a process they must go through, and that it would then be used as the starting point for negotiations.

Yes, but the interesting thing is that "the forms and process" that you must go through to move have the same starting point.

[STL FANATIC]

Sure. So moving is a possibility. That's not being denied. But it's the unlikely outcome. Not the other way around.

[Gothamite]

Only if you think the city can come up with a majority of the money for a new stadium, or can demonstrate any reason to believe that Stan will let them off the hook for it.

[STL FANATIC]

I did leave one part out of my previous expectation. I do think the city (or another municipality in the region) will cede control of land so that Stan owns the entire development. So 25% of building costs, plus land and ownership.

I have little doubt a resolution very similar to that will be the outcome.

Your welcome to your skepticism of that notion, as I've been saying all along, we'll know more when we know more. But yesterday was expected, not a situation shattering development.

Both sides wanted that process to play out and become official so they could move on to more realistic negotiations.

[rams80]

Only if you think the city can come up with a majority of the money for a new stadium, or can demonstrate any reason to believe that Stan will let them off the hook for it.

Clarification: Outside of the standard St. Louis Sports Fan Pollyannaism^TM

[CubsFanBudMan]

L.A. still is being used solely to get the best possible deal out of every current city with stadium issues. The Vikings looked gone, the Chargers should be gone, and now it's the Rams' turn. The Raiders will be soon. If you really expect the Rams to say, "but you have to" on building their project fine. But some of you also say "leases were meant to be broken" every time the Rays or Jaguars come up. There is no indication that the Rams aren't going to exhaust every option to stay in St. Louis with as much benefit as realistically possible. Maybe that's a $750M renovation. Or maybe it's land and infrastructure in the suburbs. The Rams will get theirs. Some of you act like the NFL wants to move teams around. Yet there's L.A., going on almost 20 years now with no team. Feel free to call me a St. Louis sports fan pollyanna.

Meanwhile, there's still no stadium in L.A. If ever there was a "build it and they will come" situation...

[STL FANATIC]

The national conscience is not attached to the Rams in St. Louis. In fact, many have fond memories (not as Rams fans but just romanticizing of the old days) of the Rams in LA.

That is THE primary reason they are perceived nationally to be likely to move to LA whilst it was generally assumed the Vikings would get something done at the 11th hour.

This is not to suggest there are not valid points that support the possibility of the Rams moving. Goth, for example, has never once not used some of this logic in his posts on the subject.

But the fact remains there is little reason at all to believe the Rams are more likely than any other team was, and yet that perception continues to float.

On the contrary, just as in 90% of stadium situations, the likelihood is that it gets resolved in the existing home of the team.

Keep in mind that most teams and city's begin negotiations right before or just after the lease's term has expired and has become year-to-year. The Rams and St. Louis will now start negotiating with 2 full years before that occurs,

[rams80]

The national conscience is not attached to the Rams in St. Louis. In fact, many have fond memories (not as Rams fans but just romanticizing of the old days) of the Rams in LA.

That is THE primary reason they are perceived nationally to be likely to move to LA whilst it was generally assumed the Vikings would get something done at the 11th hour.

Yes, that's the reason. Not "the upper bowl still looks to be a bit on the deserted side during games, except if they're playing a team with a large traveling fanbase". Not "The Rams have all of Cape Girardeau and much of Rolla in their corner, but that's it." Not "attendance is only good if the team is contending for the Super Bowl."

There is a decent amount of historical evidence that the people of Minnesota care about the Vikings on a yearly basis. That cannot be credibly said for St. Louis.

On the contrary, just as in 90% of stadium situations, the likelihood is that it gets resolved in the existing home of the team.

The Tea Party isn't in the regional political ascendancy in most of those situations. Refresh my memory, how much has Missouri slashed budgets and state aid again in the last few years?

Keep in mind that most teams and city's begin negotiations right before or just after the lease's term has expired and has become year-to-year. The Rams and St. Louis will now start negotiating with 2 full years before that occurs,

It also takes a couple years to build an NFL stadium. Keep that in mind.

[STL FANATIC]

Like I said there's some logic to it. Although the attendance woes are greatly overstated.

Attendance was good last year and that team finished under .500.

Not sure how the length of time to build the stadium is relevant at all. It's not about the opening date of the stadium, it's about the date of agreement.

Again, you're welcome to your skepticism and cynicism. I can't say that anybody here is putting forth invalid or illogical arguments. But I'd put money on the Rams staying in St. Louis. Indications are very much that.

[Gothamite]

On the contrary, just as in 90% of stadium situations, the likelihood is that it gets resolved in the existing home of the team.

The Tea Party isn't in the regional political ascendancy in most of those situations. Refresh my memory, how much has Missouri slashed budgets and state aid again in the last few years?

That's my concern. Missouri has already voted to slash the cities' budgets, and I just don't see how St. Louis is going to come up with the money for a brand-new stadium if they can't even pay their cops.

Similarly, I don't see why the Rams would give up their leverage now that its at its strongest. They really have the CVC over a barrel.

The best chance St. Louis had at keeping the Rams, as I saw it, was a ruling on the lease that said the city didn't actually have to pay for the whole thing. Now they're on the hook for a very large bill, one which they seem unlikely to be able to afford.

[njmeadowlanders]

On the contrary, just as in 90% of stadium situations, the likelihood is that it gets resolved in the existing home of the team.

The Tea Party isn't in the regional political ascendancy in most of those situations. Refresh my memory, how much has Missouri slashed budgets and state aid again in the last few years?

That's my concern. Missouri has already voted to slash the cities' budgets, and I just don't see how St. Louis is going to come up with the money for a brand-new stadium if they can't even pay their cops.

Similarly, I don't see why the Rams would give up their leverage now that its at its strongest. They really have the CVC over a barrel.

The best chance St. Louis had at keeping the Rams, as I saw it, was a ruling on the lease that said the city didn't actually have to pay for the whole thing. Now they're on the hook for a very large bill, one which they seem unlikely to be able to afford.

Elaine Scruggs, your next mayor of St. Louis! They can just sell the arch to another city for revenue.