NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[rams80]

As for ESL Admiral, I got nothing. Maybe they could go farther east but that is getting pretty far away from the center of the region.

Carlinville Rams! I used to not get cell phone coverage there!

Nah, put that thing in Litchfield. There's more stuff to do in Montgomery County.

[McCall]

As for ESL Admiral, I got nothing. Maybe they could go farther east but that is getting pretty far away from the center of the region.

Carlinville Rams! I used to not get cell phone coverage there!

the more I look at the Fenton site, the more I think this would be a logistical nightmare.

WHEN YOU PUNISH MCCALL FOR DREAMING HIS DREAM DON'T EXPECT HIM TO THANK OR FORGIVE YOU

Of course. admiral has nothing logical to say so he resorts to personal attacks to hide his lack of any legitimate knowledge on the subject and MOD EDIT. What a shocker.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, not cool.

I don't mean deserve, I mean they remember the Rams there in their childhood, so that's where they belong.

Nonsense. If that was the case, there'd be talk about the Raiders being the second team (and we are all pretty confident that there will be a second team).

This isn't about childhood reminisces. It's about the Rams needing a new stadium in a city that can't afford one in a state that's already resents the money its cities get. Doesn't have to be any more nuanced than that.

[STL FANATIC]

Well, we both know that that's not exactly the same thing. The Rams are much more thought of as being LA's team than the Raiders ever were.

That aside, it may or may not be the case with you. But if you don't think that has a great deal to do with the national perception, I think you're wrong.

Yours seems to be a simple inability to believe that an owner might not strictly be after the most short-term money any time anywhere. And that sounds more confrontational than I mean it to be, but I can't think of a gentler way to put it. You're just not buying into an idea that I think is very real.

[Gothamite]

Had the Rams not come out swinging in their negotiations, then I might agree with you.

I'm very sorry that you feel the need to be both confrontational and personal; I have never intended this to be so.

[STL FANATIC]

No, no. I really don't. Like I said, I didn't mean it that way, but I don't know how to illustrated our divide on the issue any easier than that.

It really comes down to the belief in that one particular idea. That Kroenke's motive isn't strictly short-term money anywhere. I have it. You don't.

I guess that's how I should have said it then.

To further the discussion (or circle it back around), I just don't think the aggressiveness in the current arbitration matters, and for a couple of reasons.

1. This situation doesn't come to a head until 2015. Why go soft from the outset? Most negotiations start with each side high balling or low balling (extreme balling? that sounds interesting...) the other. And the Rams (and they've stated exactly this) viewed the arbitration as a whole as the START of negotiations.

2. I think it's highly likely that Stan Kroenke wanted a new stadium, and a stadium that HE owned, all along. If he compromises on the first tier agreement, he risks winding up with a really nice, polished up dome that's still owned and operated by the city of St. Louis.

I think he wanted to get arbitration out of the way and get down to the nitty gritty. And since he's a true businessman and will certainly seek all the help he can get with his desired outcome, he certainly wanted to have as much leverage as possible in negotiating that outcome.

He now has it and he can now work towards it.

[IceCap]

That Kroenke's motive isn't strictly short-term money anywhere. I have it. You don't.

I wouldn't call owning a NFL team in Los Angeles a "short term" money grab.

[STL FANATIC]

That Kroenke's motive isn't strictly short-term money anywhere. I have it. You don't.

I wouldn't call owning a NFL team in Los Angeles a "short term" money grab.

That's a fair point. But I said it because I believe the long-term is being overlooked in St. Louis.

I realize a great deal of money can be made in LA, but Stan Kroenke is a real estate developer by trade, and he does it damn well. And being given land to not only build a stadium that he owns, but also to develop the surrounding land would be right up his alley and a major money maker from him.

Selling part of his team and leasing a stadium he doesn't own in a development that is not his would not be his style. And even in the Roski plan where he would have the land to develop, doing so in a big market still is not his style. Stan's made his money in smaller markets.

There's just very little about the LA situations that seem to be a fit for the way Stan Kroenke does things.

[The_Admiral]

Of course. admiral has nothing logical to say so he resorts to personal attacks to hide his lack of any legitimate knowledge on the subject and general ignorance. What a shocker.

That wasn't a personal attack, MOD EDIT, it was a song reference. MOD EDIT

[STL FANATIC]

Alright friends. Let's cool it, please.

[DaytonBlue]

I also believe Stan ultimately wants a new stadium somewhere. That's why we had to go through this rigmarole over the past year to essentially end the dome's lease after 2015.

Putting aside the lease and why it was written the way it was, I still think it says quite a bit about our society that 20-year old stadiums are obsolete.

[rams80]

Putting aside the lease and why it was written the way it was, I still think it says quite a bit about our society that 20-year old stadiums are obsolete.

Well, when you build them on the cheap and on spec....

[DaytonBlue]

But even this guy is on its way out, and its supposedly a lot nicer than the Jones Dome, especially after a $300 million renovation in '07-'08.

[STL FANATIC]

It's really not any nicer than the EJD.

And the EJD wasn't really built on the cheap either (not saying it was pricey, either). But it was built with plans that were probably a bit outdated. And frankly, it just happened to be at the wrong point in time.

[DaytonBlue]

Interesting...I've never been to the GA Dome but the reviews I've read put it a step above the Ed, like it should last 30 years if the Ed is only good for 20.

I think the lesson to be learned here is don't build a stadium without a team. Same lesson learned from Tropicana Field. By time you get the team, stadium has lost its prime years of being state of the art.

If, hypothetically, the Rams had played at Busch for a couple years, maybe they would have gotten a slightly more modern dome that would have lasted longer.

[njmeadowlanders]

Interesting...I've never been to the GA Dome but the reviews I've read put it a step above the Ed, like it should last 30 years if the Ed is only good for 20.

I think the lesson to be learned here is don't build a stadium without a team. Same lesson learned from Tropicana Field. By time you get the team, stadium has lost its prime years of being state of the art.

If, hypothetically, the Rams had played at Busch for a couple years, maybe they would have gotten a slightly more modern dome that would have lasted longer.

It's getting to the point where every four or five years teams will all be begging for new stadia. I'm sorry but 1995 isn't so long ago that any building should be deemed inadequate. I know, I know, luxury box this and that and blah blah blah, but gimme a break. Is the revenue generated by those REALLY going to eventually surpass the 700+ million outlay for new digs? (I know, the trick is to have public funds build it while you keep all revenue somehow). I'd love to see IRR projections on some of these.

This is why if I'm a city I say you know what, if they're so lucrative and profitable, why don't you go ahead and build it yourself rather than have us foot the bill. Then if they move, so be it. You didn't just spend a ton of taxpayer cash you already didn't have. Oh well. Life goes on.

[DaytonBlue]

I agree meadowlander. But no one wants to be the mayor "responsible" for losing a team.

Somehow the cities are going to have to collectively organize themselves against the sports leagues if they want this to stop. Don't see that happening though.

[bosrs1]

Well the Raiders may have moved themselves up the LA list a bit today. They're tarping off over 10,000 seats (the entire top of Mt Davis as well as 6 sections in the old bowl's 3rd deck) next season to reduce capacity down to 53,250. They're also in the last throws of negotiations with the city of Oakland to save the DOA "Coliseum City" stadium proposal that the A's and Warriors have already rejected. Given the fact they're now the smallest stadium in the NFL officially by about 10,000 seats, as well as now the oldest without any major renovation or replacement plans in store it seems clear their days in Oakland are numbered. Question is are they going to give in and partner up with and play second fiddle to the Niners (something they've wholesale rejected since first exploring it several years ago and that was before the Niners became the resurgent face of football in the region) or will they finally push for a return to LA? CBS seems to think it means LA is in their future especially with the Raiders lease expiring after next season.

http://www.cbssports...-stadium-in-nfl

[DarkJourney]

Well the Raiders may have moved themselves up the LA list a bit today. They're tarping off over 10,000 seats (the entire top of Mt Davis as well as 6 sections in the old bowl's 3rd deck next season to reduce capacity down to about 51,000. They're also in the last throws of negotiations with the city of Oakland to save the DOA "Coliseum City" stadium proposal that the A's and Warriors have already rejected. Given the fact they're now the smallest stadium in the NFL officially by about 10,000 seats, as well as now the oldest without any major renovation or replacement plans in store it seems clear their days in Oakland are numbered. Question is are they going to give in and partner up with and play second fiddle to the Niners (something they've wholesale rejected since first exploring it several years ago and that was before the Niners became the resurgent face of football in the region) or will they finally push for a return to LA?

http://www.cbssports...-stadium-in-nfl

Sharing the new stadium with the 49ers is a pipe dream for the Raiders. Mark Davis needs to sell this team to someone who can resuscitate this franchise. Moving to L.A. seems like the best option to me, but with a new owner.

[DaytonBlue]

I used to think, like others, if the A's left the Coliseum, they could tear down everything that's not Mount Davis and build a new half on the other side. But Mt. Davis was built the same time as the Ed Jones Dome, so surely that wouldn't be acceptable to an NFL team today.