NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[B-Rich]

With all the talk above of seeing fields of red, you start to understand why most teams outfit their stadiums with team-colored seats.

As an aside, when the Superdome was completed in 1975, the interior designers went so far as to not only alternate seat colors, but also include seat colors with designs (stripes):

The resulting "patchwork" effect made it difficult to determine (from standard-distance TV shots at least) how relatively full or empty the stadium was for any event (such as Tulane football games):

Perhaps the designers had the Saints and Tulane's perennially bad records in mind (and foresaw their upcoming futility as well) in laying out the seat design as such.

Of course, with recent renovations, the two lower levels' upholstered seats are now either black or gold, while the upper-most level's seats remain harder plastic and shades of gray:

[Gothamite]

It's not just the last few years that have been trying times. Outside of a mere handful of years, St. Louis has either had an awful football team or no football team. You can forgive them if they're not champing at the bit to support the NFL, especially when their time and money can go into the Cardinals instead and actually give them some happiness in return.

Of course, that's fair enough. But then St. Louis isn't a football town.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Is just is.

[CubsFanBudMan]

A column from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Pujols' exit being a trial run for the Rams' exit:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/bill-mcclellan/pujols-exit-was-trial-run-for-rams-departure/article_a10ef672-0c07-5c82-ac39-e241516ef19e.html

And I'll agree that the "BFIB" make for some strange football fans. Maybe it's just because the Rams are so bad, but booing vehemently when they kick a FG to tie on 4th and 3 from the 8? Odd.

[bosrs1]

A column from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Pujols' exit being a trial run for the Rams' exit:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/bill-mcclellan/pujols-exit-was-trial-run-for-rams-departure/article_a10ef672-0c07-5c82-ac39-e241516ef19e.html

And I'll agree that the "BFIB" make for some strange football fans. Maybe it's just because the Rams are so bad, but booing vehemently when they kick a FG to tie on 4th and 3 from the 8? Odd.

Ouch. To see a local guy that certain they're gone sure isn't encouraging. But then it kinda fits with the situation you have across the board. In many of the other cities rumored to be losing teams you still have varying degrees of hope coming out of both the media and the city leadership. Minnesota's various leaders have been working like crazy to keep the Vikings up there. San Diego's leaders are so determined to make it happen they're suggesting throwing part of their convention center under the bus to fund a new stadium. Jacksonville is standing by their nearly unbreakable lease, and so far Khan is standing by them (for what that's worth).

I just haven't seen much of that out of St. Louis. They seem resigned to the fact that the Rams are gone if they want to leave.

[STL FANATIC]

For the record, Bill McClellan simply writes commentary about anything and everything, and that sometimes includes sports. He's not a sports reporter. Nor is he either of the two (a regular reporter or a regular sports columnist).

All he knows about the situation is what he's read in his own paper from his co-workers in the sports department.

But he's funny (sometimes) and witty, and such. He can be worth the read. I haven't read this one year, but I may.

But him saying the Rams are gone is no different than one of you guys saying it.

I just haven't seen much of that out of St. Louis. They seem resigned to the fact that the Rams are gone if they want to leave.

I think that means, whether a conscious decision or not, you're having selective memory about what you've read. Or you haven't read everything.

[bosrs1]

For the record, Bill McClellan simply writes commentary about anything and everything, and that sometimes includes sports. He's not a sports reporter. Nor is he either of the two (a regular reporter or a regular sports columnist).

All he knows about the situation is what he's read in his own paper from his co-workers in the sports department.

But he's funny (sometimes) and witty, and such. He can be worth the read. I haven't read this one year, but I may.

But him saying the Rams are gone is no different than one of you guys saying it.

I just haven't seen much of that out of St. Louis. They seem resigned to the fact that the Rams are gone if they want to leave.

I think that means, whether a conscious decision or not, you're having selective memory about what you've read. Or you haven't read everything.

No I just haven't read many articles featuring any real financial plans to fix the problem. I'm a "show me the money" type guy.

[STL FANATIC]

For the record, Bill McClellan simply writes commentary about anything and everything, and that sometimes includes sports. He's not a sports reporter. Nor is he either of the two (a regular reporter or a regular sports columnist).

All he knows about the situation is what he's read in his own paper from his co-workers in the sports department.

But he's funny (sometimes) and witty, and such. He can be worth the read. I haven't read this one year, but I may.

But him saying the Rams are gone is no different than one of you guys saying it.

I just haven't seen much of that out of St. Louis. They seem resigned to the fact that the Rams are gone if they want to leave.

I think that means, whether a conscious decision or not, you're having selective memory about what you've read. Or you haven't read everything.

No I just haven't read many articles featuring any real financial plans to fix the problem. I'm a "show me the money" type guy.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bryan-burwell/article_cfa265eb-58ad-53ca-89e6-e63cb741d424.html

Granted, that was three months ago, when excitement was building around the franchise, not frustration.

[Gothamite]

In the three months since, what has happened with the bill he mentioned to start spending money on luring sports to St. Louis?

Financial plans for the Dome are due in less than two months. That can't be pushed back just because the Rams have a bad season.

[STL FANATIC]

In the three months since, what has happened with the bill he mentioned to start spending money on luring sports to St. Louis?

Financial plans for the Dome are due in less than two months. That can't be pushed back just because the Rams have a bad season.

Well are we talking about the media or the people working on this behind the scenes? We don't know what's happening there. I thought the compliant was that the St. Louis media didn't sound optimistic.

[IceCap]

The complaint was that St. Louis' civic government doesn't seem very optimistic.

[Gothamite]

Yes.

But Fanatic, your article mentioned a certain bill in the Missouri legislature designed to lure sports to St. Louis. That was one of the "positive signs" to the Rams being in St. Louis.

Bills are rarely considered in secret, so we should have some idea of what's going on - what's become of that since September 7? The first deadline looms.

[bosrs1]

The complaint was that St. Louis' civic government doesn't seem very optimistic.

Actually the complaint was both. But yes this doesn't address what the civic gov't has done lately. 3 months ia a long time. That bill should have made some headway with deadlines looming.

[Gothamite]

I would say that three months isn't very long at all, in a beurocratic context. Which is why I'd be worried if they haven't done much in the way of passing the bill, since the Rams will need answers in half that time.

[STL FANATIC]

All I know regarding that bill is that the legislature made very little headway on anything when they met a few weeks after that article was published. I don't know if there have been further developments.

I can't speak to the government's thought process behind this. Certainly they haven't been forthcoming about a proposal that they're trying to get hyped up in the media. They also haven't been forthcoming with negative thoughts. We'll find out in 2 months what they propose.

[STL FANATIC]

It seems that the bill in question indeed died. However, that bill was not strictly pertaining to athletics. That was just one of many, many elements to that bill.

What that MIGHT mean is that there are people in the legislature open to working on something that would still help in this regard. Unfortunately, as Goth points out, no matter how willing they are to discuss it, there isn't much time before the proposal is due.

[Gothamite]

And that's my concern. There isn't much time for talking, when concrete proposals are due in about eight weeks.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I'm still reading through the comments on that article, but it seems there is confusion about the "top 25 percent" clause. Is it in writing anywhere? One guy pasted something that suggested the Dome only needed to be in the top 25 percent of stadiums built before it. Didn't say where he got it. I'll go back in and dig out the interesting stuff if I have time.

[Gothamite]

I'm still reading through the comments on that article, but it seems there is confusion about the "top 25 percent" clause. Is it in writing anywhere? One guy pasted something that suggested the Dome only needed to be in the top 25 percent of stadiums built before it. Didn't say where he got it. I'll go back in and dig out the interesting stuff if I have time.

I can't find the lease, but all the reporting says top quarter of current stadiums.

The way that guy describes it doesn't make any sense. It has to stay top 25% of stadiums built before it?

[CubsFanBudMan]

I took it as it has to keep pace with its peers, etc., meaning renovations more than building an entirely new facility.

EDIT: Here is what "bantam weight" said:

There is one question I always ask when one of these factless articles pop up. What is the 25% top tier mean? Apparently it's not written objectively in the lease, from what I've gathered from all the poor reporting on this is that it is very subjective. It doesn't say it has to be one of the top eight newest stadiums. Kroenke would be hard pressed to find a better lease.

Someone else said it more specifically, but it was shorter and I can't find it among the 120 or so comments at this time. Of course, it doesn't make it true. Just that there is confusion even among St. Louis fans.

END EDIT

The following wasn't from the same guy, and he doesn't cite the source, but it seems to be posted from something legit and it's set off in quotes. It seems "dakesc" would have to go out of his way to write something this elaborate for fun. But it is the Internet, so FWIW:

For those wanting to know what it would take to be in the top 25 percent of stadiums, "There are 15 conditions that must be measured in order to determine if the building meets the criteria ranging from luxury suites to club seats, lighting to scoreboards, regular stadium seating, concession areas, common areas (such as concourses and restrooms), electronic and telecommunications equipment, the playing surface, and the locker and training rooms.None of the provisions for suites, club seats, or stadium seats deals with quantities. The measurements have to do with whether the seats are cushioned or how they compare in width with other first-tier stadiums. Concourse widths are important as is lighting and scoreboard technology."

[Gothamite]

I took it as it has to keep pace with its peers, etc., meaning renovations more than building an entirely new facility.

EDIT: Here is what "bantam weight" said:

There is one question I always ask when one of these factless articles pop up. What is the 25% top tier mean? Apparently it's not written objectively in the lease, from what I've gathered from all the poor reporting on this is that it is very subjective. It doesn't say it has to be one of the top eight newest stadiums. Kroenke would be hard pressed to find a better lease.

Someone else said it more specifically, but it was shorter and I can't find it among the 120 or so comments at this time. Of course, it doesn't make it true. Just that there is confusion even among St. Louis fans.

END EDIT

The following wasn't from the same guy, and he doesn't cite the source, but it seems to be posted from something legit and it's set off in quotes. It seems "dakesc" would have to go out of his way to write something this elaborate for fun. But it is the Internet, so FWIW:

For those wanting to know what it would take to be in the top 25 percent of stadiums, "There are 15 conditions that must be measured in order to determine if the building meets the criteria ranging from luxury suites to club seats, lighting to scoreboards, regular stadium seating, concession areas, common areas (such as concourses and restrooms), electronic and telecommunications equipment, the playing surface, and the locker and training rooms.None of the provisions for suites, club seats, or stadium seats deals with quantities. The measurements have to do with whether the seats are cushioned or how they compare in width with other first-tier stadiums. Concourse widths are important as is lighting and scoreboard technology."

If true, sounds like it's not very subjective at all, poor reporting aside.

It would seem to be in accordance with what I've read, that we're talking about an almost-total rebuild if not a new facility. Expanding concourse widths would necessitate that.