BBTV Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 It's more / less just a dog and pony PR show so they can say "hey, we tried - the Rams are the bad guys who turned down the awesome stadium that we designed (but wouldn't have been able to build)"Nothing against St. Louis - the same thing probably happens in a lot of places that are in this situation. It's just that it sucks if any fans are actually hopeful that this means anything (for the Rams.) "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Well, they did put Rams logos on one mockup... but everything they've said sounds more like they are looking for a Cleveland or Charlotte deal than retaining the Rams.Also, I found an interesting piece mentioning how much Kroenke loves Lucas Oil Stadium, so continuing our discussion above on the architecture, it's a bit surprising. (EDIT: Forgot the link. http://nextstl.com/2015/01/stan-kroenke-inglewood-saint-louis-rams-future/ Way down in the design section.)It's not the home run I was looking for, and I'm among those inclined to root for this, so I can envision a scenario in which the Rams are unimpressed, as difficult as that seems to say about a $900M project. Though I'm not ready to call it a single, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 At the St. Louis stadium presentation the guy mentioned NFL bylaws as far as what bars a team from moving when it comes to good faith efforts by the city to keep the team.Can anyone elaborate? What kind of barrier does Kroenke face in unilaterally moving the team?The full text of the NFL's regulations on relocation are in this thread somewhere.It's more / less just a dog and pony PR show so they can say "hey, we tried - the Rams are the bad guys who turned down the awesome stadium that we designed (but wouldn't have been able to build)"Nothing against St. Louis - the same thing probably happens in a lot of places that are in this situation. It's just that it sucks if any fans are actually hopeful that this means anything (for the Rams.)Exactly. At this point St. Louis officials are resigned to losing the Rams. They're giving lip service to the issue just enough to try and keep in the mix for some mythical relocating franchise down the road, without pissing off anyone in the NFL's hierarchy the way Seattle scorched its relationship with David Stern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Insead of saying "that still has to be worked out" and "there are experts who know more than me that can answer that" and "I don't know yet", he should have just said "look, it's not going to happen anyway so we didn't bother to spend any time working out the details - now shut up." "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Insead of saying "that still has to be worked out" and "there are experts who know more than me that can answer that" and "I don't know yet", he should have just said "look, it's not going to happen anyway so we didn't bother to spend any time working out the details - now shut up."Yeah, this announcement is akin to all those wanna-be football guys who organize "the next" professional football league. The first time they can't answer a question about a significant detail (viz., "Where's the money coming from to do this?"), you can pretty much write it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 And really, that's no fault of their own. 60 days is an impossibly short timeframe to put a plan together, especially one that involves taking on new public debt. The real culprits, and I said this before, are the city fathers who refused to even consider a plan like this one before the lease came due. Or at the very least, once they lost in arbitrarion and it was clear they needed to pony up for a new stadium. What have they been doing for the past year? I know what Stan's been doing since then... The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerslionspistonshabs Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Lol at ``We`re not doing this because of the L.A. situation``. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Dave Peacock has been working on this for over a year. The 60 days were just after the formal announcement by the Governor. He's had Peacock working on the plan for a quite a while. I also think there's a lot of assuming going on about what they haven't done. Peacock said it's not his area of expertise, but the people involved who are experts in these areas have given them confidence that these funds will be available. I agree that's not the same thing as a full commitment, but it's not the same thing as grasping at straws either here. The funding plan is realistic. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Oh STL FANATIC and his hopeless optimism. On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Dave Peacock has been working on this for over a year. The 60 days were just after the formal announcement by the Governor. He's had Peacock working on the plan for a quite a while. I also think there's a lot of assuming going on about what they haven't done. Peacock said it's not his area of expertise, but the people involved who are experts in these areas have given them confidence that these funds will be available. I agree that's not the same thing as a full commitment, but it's not the same thing as grasping at straws either here. The funding plan is realistic. They're using dynamic scoring to make the whole thing work, aren't they. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Oh STL FANATIC and his hopeless optimism. I'm not particularly optimistic any of this works out, I just think the funding won't be the issue. If they weren't actually figuring out funding mechanisms, why would they have limited themselves to a budget. Peacock even admitted cost was an important factor, and they had to make certain decisions with that in mind. This wasn't a shoot for the moon and pray they find the money later, thing. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 $1B budget isn't "limiting themselves". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 $860-985 million, which fair enough is probably close enough to a billion, especially the way these things go. But it's still on the cheaper end of new football stadium costs these days. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 $860-985 million, which fair enough is probably close enough to a billion, especially the way these things go. But it's still on the cheaper end of new football stadium costs these days.It's very cheap.How much of the cost for eminent domain factored in? Levi's Stadium had seismic costs added into it and it cost $1.2B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Dave Peacock has been working on this for over a year. The 60 days were just after the formal announcement by the Governor. He's had Peacock working on the plan for a quite a while.Okay, I stand corrected. I was wrong; this half-added plan is Peacock'a fault. Over a year and he can't get any funding together beyond vaque promises? A year of prep work and he announces a plan using land he doesn't control and paid for by money he's doesn't know is there?He's somehow managing to make the Rams look good in this situation. If that's the best St. Louis can do with a year's lead time. I really hope you're wrong about that. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 $860-985 million, which fair enough is probably close enough to a billion, especially the way these things go. But it's still on the cheaper end of new football stadium costs these days.It's very cheap.How much of the cost for eminent domain factored in? Levi's Stadium had seismic costs added into it and it cost $1.2B. Earthquake engineering, and I'm gonna hazard a guess that construction in California is more expensive than in Missouri. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 $860-985 million, which fair enough is probably close enough to a billion, especially the way these things go. But it's still on the cheaper end of new football stadium costs these days.It's very cheap.How much of the cost for eminent domain factored in? Levi's Stadium had seismic costs added into it and it cost $1.2B. Earthquake engineering, and I'm gonna hazard a guess that construction in California is more expensive than in Missouri.Concrete costs and union labor costs are higher too, but not close to 40% higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 $860-985 million, which fair enough is probably close enough to a billion, especially the way these things go. But it's still on the cheaper end of new football stadium costs these days.It's very cheap.How much of the cost for eminent domain factored in? Levi's Stadium had seismic costs added into it and it cost $1.2B. Earthquake engineering, and I'm gonna hazard a guess that construction in California is more expensive than in Missouri.Concrete costs and union labor costs are higher too, but not close to 40% higher. not paying any attention to the $860M. That's "We can deliver this project at a responsible $860M." and then "Well, we TOLD you it was gonna cost close to a billion dollars! No complaining!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I don't think the plan is that bad. It did what it was designed to do: show that they're trying. On the most superficial level, it looks like a good idea to stick a stadium/entertainment district on the river where some abandoned warehouses and railyards used to be. All the messy details like who owns the land or who will pay for the whole thing can come later. They did enough to get people's imaginations going and to show the NFL that they're willing to pay about half a billion dollars to tape eight TV shows a year in their city. I think it's a terrible idea for a mid-sized city that struggles to support the NFL and NHL, a city that has much bigger things on its plate than keeping a sports team, but I struggle to find any major fault with their plans. St. Louis is really into boosterism; they just might pull the damn thing off after all if it means no one can talk crap about them and their Bosnians. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 They did enough to get people's imaginations going and to show the NFL that they're willing to gay about half a billion dollars to tape eight TV shows a year in their city.I don't think you should libel gay people by comparing them to corporate welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.