Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

The merry-go-round continues.

More accurately, it has yet to start.

Hardly a single issue that was brought up when this thread was started has been solved, which is somewhat crazy. Some situations have changed and some things become a bit more clear, but there still haven't been many answers yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some interesting and seemingly positive news out of St. Louis. Actually, it's positive even if it has nothing to do with the Rams.

Michael Staenberg, who is Stan Kroenke's partner in THF Realty, is reportedly partnering with Bob O’Loughlin and his Lodging Hospitality Management to purchase, renovate, and operate Union Station in St. Louis. Who's Bob O'Loughlin? Just the lead negotiator for the CVC.

Union Station, for those who don't know, is a really beautiful, historic and well kept up building in downtown St. Louis. As the name suggests, it's a former train station. It now houses a Marriot Hotel, something of a mall, a food court, and a few decent restaurants. I say well kept up, and I pretty much mean it--the building is in seemingly good shape and they just did a lot of work to keep the outside of the building looking nice. But the inside is dull. The infrastructure is there to have something really cool going on, but nobody has been committed to the project, so it sits half empty, and the part that's full isn't full of the most appealing attractions.

So someone committing to develop it is really good news for St. Louis. St. Louis has the potential to have a really nice downtown, and that's one of the buildings that was just screaming to be a part of it. This excites me strictly on that level.

The fact that it may also be an example of good relations in the Rams-CVC negotiation is just icing.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/print-edition/2012/02/17/michael-staenberg-eyes-union-station.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other news, today is the deadline for the Vikings to notify the NFL of any intention to relocate for 2012.

Reportedly, they have no plans to do so:

Team vice president Lester Bagley told The Associated Press that "there's no point" in filing such a notice. Bagley said the team has momentum with state lawmakers to build a new stadium that will replace the Metrodome.

The merry-go-round continues.

I am not seeing the momentum. You have a populace that does not want to pay tax dollars for it and a team/league that wants more, more, more.

It's time to let the Vikings go.

Edit: I don't follow that closely (wake me up when it's decided), so I may have been a few days behind:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/02/17/vikings-stadium/

I still say it's time to let 'em go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you may be in the minority there - it sure is looking more and more like the Vikings are staying put.

I'm surprised they can get even this far in our economy, but it's helped by the possibility of some creative funding sources. Casino profits?

Well if it was put to a vote, it would lose huge. But I guess I am losing any surprise (except how the SF Giants ballpark was done)...extortion works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

So someone committing to develop it is really good news for St. Louis. St. Louis has the potential to have a really nice downtown, and that's one of the buildings that was just screaming to be a part of it. This excites me strictly on that level.

The giant squirrel-infested hole in the ground next to Busch III says "Hi".

Meanwhile, the CVC "improvements" would take the Rams' max potential premium seating revenue from 31st in the league to.....*drum roll*......28th

/sad trombone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hearing about a potential renovation of Union Station makes me feel old. I remember visiting the mall and staying at the Omni on vacation when it was reborn around 1986 (or maybe it was just new to us then). My last visit there was a bit of a shock, with so many stores closed, but it is a really cool building. Hope they are successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

So someone committing to develop it is really good news for St. Louis. St. Louis has the potential to have a really nice downtown, and that's one of the buildings that was just screaming to be a part of it. This excites me strictly on that level.

The giant squirrel-infested hole in the ground next to Busch III says "Hi".

Not sure what your point is here, really. Of course the land by the ballpark is another piece that's screaming to be developed, whether it be the oft-promised, never delivered Ballpark Village, or something else. I don't think I said re-developing Union Station solves all of downtown's problems. I said it could be a a nice and important part of a revitalized downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

So someone committing to develop it is really good news for St. Louis. St. Louis has the potential to have a really nice downtown, and that's one of the buildings that was just screaming to be a part of it. This excites me strictly on that level.

The giant squirrel-infested hole in the ground next to Busch III says "Hi".

Not sure what your point is here, really. Of course the land by the ballpark is another piece that's screaming to be developed, whether it be the oft-promised, never delivered Ballpark Village, or something else. I don't think I said re-developing Union Station solves all of downtown's problems. I said it could be a a nice and important part of a revitalized downtown.

Just an addition to that point. Although the tragic fate of the Ballpark Village should probably hang around in the back of the minds of Rams management when they listen to "promises" from the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you may be in the minority there - it sure is looking more and more like the Vikings are staying put.

I'm surprised they can get even this far in our economy, but it's helped by the possibility of some creative funding sources. Casino profits?

Well if it was put to a vote, it would lose huge. But I guess I am losing any surprise (except how the SF Giants ballpark was done)...extortion works.

I hate to be that splash of cold water, but public stadium financing is essential towards luring and keeping a team. Has been since 1953.

And yes, it would probably be voted down, although there's a difference between voting against public money in the abstract and voting on a specific stadium bill. And in any case, it looks like they found a loophole around the prohibition on tax dollars without a vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

There's no surprise to this, but the Rams are expected to reject the CVC's proposal today. They have until May 1 to submit a counter-proposal.

Negotiations have supposedly been on-going, so we'll see how that goes and how quickly we hear something. We'll learn much more about the situation once we hear details of the counter-proposal, but that could still be two months away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they will.

Even if they are totally committed to staying in Missouri for the next century, they'll reject the CVC's original offer. Even if the original offer hasn't been laughably lowball, the Rams would have rejected it.

They'll formally reject it today, but that won't actually tell us anything about their future. As you say, we won't know until their counter-offer how serious they are about staying in St. Louis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, sure enough:

St. Louis Rams reject Dome renovation plan

A CVC statement released today did not note whether the Rams offered any specific criticism of the agency's plan. The statement, which offered no explanation of the team's decision, said the Rams will present a counter proposal by May 1 as required by the team's lease.

"We look forward to receiving it," the CVC statement said.

I think this story from earlier in the week is interesting, in as much as it quotes Marc Ganis of Chicago-based Sportscorp Ltd., who was a member of the Rams' negotiating team when the original lease was signed. He backs up my original reading of the lease, for what it's worth:

Ganis suggested the Rams could even argue that the improvements should be 100 percent publicly funded.

"Having been a part of the negotiating team for the Rams in 1995, I can tell you there was absolutely no expectation that the Rams would pay for improvements," he said. "I don't see that there's any splitting of the baby on this."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, sure enough:

St. Louis Rams reject Dome renovation plan

A CVC statement released today did not note whether the Rams offered any specific criticism of the agency's plan. The statement, which offered no explanation of the team's decision, said the Rams will present a counter proposal by May 1 as required by the team's lease.

"We look forward to receiving it," the CVC statement said.

I think this story from earlier in the week is interesting, in as much as it quotes Marc Ganis of Chicago-based Sportscorp Ltd., who was a member of the Rams' negotiating team when the original lease was signed. He backs up my original reading of the lease, for what it's worth:

Ganis suggested the Rams could even argue that the improvements should be 100 percent publicly funded.

"Having been a part of the negotiating team for the Rams in 1995, I can tell you there was absolutely no expectation that the Rams would pay for improvements," he said. "I don't see that there's any splitting of the baby on this."

While the information may be correct, it is the messenger (Ganis) who I question. Prior to his consulting business and working with the Rams, he never got his biggest project off the ground. He was the one who was going to build/develop the proposed Tampa Coliseum for the Lightning next to the old Tampa Stadium from 1990-1993. Two decades later, he is still quoted for the little knowledge he has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the information may be correct, it is the messenger (Ganis) who I question. Prior to his consulting business and working with the Rams, he never got his biggest project off the ground. He was the one who was going to build/develop the proposed Tampa Coliseum for the Lightning next to the old Tampa Stadium from 1990-1993. Two decades later, he is still quoted for the little knowledge he has.

Fair enough, but he was actually in the room at the time, and on this one topic I think his understanding of the process has some merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.