Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    RAMFANRAIDERHATER's Avatar
    RAMFANRAIDERHATER is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Surf City USA
    Age
    61
    Posts
    2,276
    Rep Power
    56

    New proposal released for Rams dome

    ST. LOUIS (AP)


    The agency that operates the home of the St. Louis Rams released a revised renovation plan Monday that it believes will put the 17-year-old stadium among the top tier in the NFL. The 30-year lease that lured the Rams from Anaheim, Calif., in 1995 allows for the franchise to leave after the 2014 season if the Edward Jones Dome is not deemed among the top 25 percent of all NFL stadiums.
    The Rams and the St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission, which operates the facility, entered arbitration earlier this year after rejecting each other's proposals.
    The CVC's 128-page plan submitted to the Rams on Friday calls for, among other things, replacing the existing roof, expanding concourse levels and adding about 3,000 club seats. It also calls for a new glass exterior.
    CVC president Kitty Radcliffe said the biggest addition to the plan is replacing a 50,000 square-foot building connecting to Baer Plaza, across the street from the dome, with the glass exterior.

    Rams chief operating officer Kevin Demoff had no comment about the proposal.

    The Rams have asked for a retractable dome, but Radcliffe said such a feature is prohibitively expensive and ''just not necessary.'' Radcliffe said the handful of NFL stadiums that have retractable roofs generally keep them closed to satisfy fans.
    The dome was built with taxpayer funding from the city, St. Louis County and the state of Missouri.
    Negotiations began early this year. The CVC privately proposed to the Rams a modest $48 million plan in January that would have been publicly funded.
    When that was rejected, the CVC in February announced a plan for $124 million in improvements that included better amenities and a massive new scoreboard. It would have required to Rams to pay for $64 million of the cost. Voter approval in the city and county would have been required for the rest.
    The Rams countered with a much more elaborate plan calling for a new roof with a sliding panel, replacing much of the brick exterior with a glass front, even re-routing a nearby street.

    The Rams did not provide a cost estimate but mayoral aide Jeff Rainford said at the time that the team's plan would cost about $700 million and the dome, which also hosts conventions, would have to be closed for renovation for up to three years, potentially costing the city $500 million in revenue.

    The CVC did not specify a cost for its revised plan, but Radcliffe said the bottom line would not be significantly higher than the original proposal. She said the CVC is still getting price estimates for various improvements.
    ''We know it's going to be a little more expensive,'' Radcliffe said. ''We expected give and take. But it's only a 17-year-old building. Not that old.''
    Both sides have agreed to attempt to complete arbitration by Dec. 31. The arbitrators will either endorse the CVC plan, the Rams' plan, or develop their own. The CVC will then have 60 days to decide whether to move forward with that plan or allow the Rams to end the lease.
    Radcliffe said the arbitration process, which has not yet been scheduled, would take several days. The Rams dropped plans to play home games in London in 2013 and 2014, citing a need to focus on lease negotiations and ease fan discontent.
    Team owner Stan Kroenke has been noncommittal about the team's future if the dome isn't improved. The Missouri native owns an estate in Malibu, Calif., and unsuccessfully sought to purchase baseball's Dodgers, leading to speculation that the Rams could potentially return to Los Angeles without a significant dome upgrade.
    Doesn't seem like the CVC moved much on their plan.
    Last edited by RAMFANRAIDERHATER; -08-20-2012 at 09:37 PM.

    Faithful Rams fan since 1968

  2. #2
    MoonJoe's Avatar
    MoonJoe is offline Ram MVP
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Norco, CA
    Age
    48
    Posts
    1,424
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: New proposal released for Rams dome

    I agree RFRH...don't see too much different.
    "The disappointment of losing is huge!"

    Jack Youngblood

  3. #3
    swatter555's Avatar
    swatter555 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    484
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: New proposal released for Rams dome

    The talk radio scene here in St. Louis today thought, at minimum, it was a step in the right direction or a positive gesture. From the sounds of it on the radio, it will be no where near the original proposal. There is more going in the proposal than described here.

  4. #4
    Truth's Avatar
    Truth is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Age
    54
    Posts
    1,389
    Rep Power
    36

    Re: New proposal released for Rams dome

    Quote Originally Posted by swatter555 View Post
    The talk radio scene here in St. Louis today thought, at minimum, it was a step in the right direction or a positive gesture. From the sounds of it on the radio, it will be no where near the original proposal. There is more going in the proposal than described here.
    Yeah, read the proposal. not that much different. Biggest issue still might be the CVC wanting the Rams to foot 50%+ of the cost. I think Stan would be willing to chip in a chunk of change. But only if the renovation would make the dome a SB location, and a viable venue for at least the next 15 - 20 years. The renovations would also come with an extended lease. It would be pointless for him to invest over $100 mil in a stadium he wouldn't want to be in for the duration of the lease extension. I think that's really the sticking point. the CVC wants/needs to do the bare minimum. Stan wants a venue that will generate revenue and attract a SB. I do believe that staying in STL is Stan's 1st choice. However, I don't think he'd lose any sleep over leaving if he can't get what he wants/needs. I think he knows what his bottomline for improvements is (the CVC probably knows as well). Now it's just a matter of getting there, and making STL the Ram's home for the next 25 years, or moving to a new stadium in LA.
    That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!!

  5. #5
    berg8309's Avatar
    berg8309 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,896
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: New proposal released for Rams dome

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth View Post
    Yeah, read the proposal. not that much different. Biggest issue still might be the CVC wanting the Rams to foot 50%+ of the cost. I think Stan would be willing to chip in a chunk of change. But only if the renovation would make the dome a SB location, and a viable venue for at least the next 15 - 20 years. The renovations would also come with an extended lease. It would be pointless for him to invest over $100 mil in a stadium he wouldn't want to be in for the duration of the lease extension. I think that's really the sticking point. the CVC wants/needs to do the bare minimum. Stan wants a venue that will generate revenue and attract a SB. I do believe that staying in STL is Stan's 1st choice. However, I don't think he'd lose any sleep over leaving if he can't get what he wants/needs. I think he knows what his bottomline for improvements is (the CVC probably knows as well). Now it's just a matter of getting there, and making STL the Ram's home for the next 25 years, or moving to a new stadium in LA.
    If that's the case, then he won't agree to any renovations. Currently the dome is too small, and if I remember correctly, St. Louis lacks sufficient hotel space close enough to the dome to be considered viable for the SB, but maybe the NFL has changed that recently. I thought the NFL had several problems with St. Louis as a location outside of the size of the dome, and those are things the CVC can't fix in dome negotiations. Nor should SB status be a 1st tier category, as the NFL generally has a limited set of cities it will consider. New Orleans, Miami, Arizona, and San Diego will continue to see their fair share of superbowls, even if the NFL mixes in some other locations.

    If Stan really truly wants a SB, and that is all he will accept, go ahead and sign the Rams up for a move to L.A., it is the only place that can be guaranteed a SB, except he'll have to share the revenue with whatever the second team is there, as Goodell has stated it has to hold two teams.

  6. #6
    Truth's Avatar
    Truth is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Age
    54
    Posts
    1,389
    Rep Power
    36

    Re: New proposal released for Rams dome

    I don't know if the SB is a deal breaker (probably not). However, Indy hosted an SB, and the NFL has said they'll let Minneapolis host a SB in their new dome. It's not like either of those locations are ideal, or will host multiple SB's. I think Stan, and STL would be happy to host one SB. As for the rest of the plan, I still think Stan is holding out for renovations that will keep the Ed relevant and useful for another 15 to 20 years. I don't think he'd want to extend the lease for a facility he doesn't believe will be viable in 10 years. My belief is that he'd rather fight the battle for his stadium now, than make some upgrades and have to battle this again in 10 or so years. All that being said, I think STL is his first choice. He just wants what he feels will be best for his teams longterm success. No matter the outcome...GO RAMS!!!
    That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!!

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: -06-12-2012, 02:22 AM
  2. Rams' dome proposal rejected
    By supachump in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: -06-03-2012, 04:22 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: -05-07-2012, 12:16 AM
  4. A Fair Rams/Bucs Trade Proposal
    By AvengerRam in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: -03-03-2010, 11:41 AM
  5. BCS proposal
    By DJRamFan in forum COLLEGE
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: -12-19-2001, 11:07 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •