Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: Rams' dome proposal rejected

  1. #1
    supachump is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    san fran
    Age
    45
    Posts
    690
    Rep Power
    17

    Rams' dome proposal rejected

    As expected....


    ST. LOUIS -- The agency that operates the Edward Jones Dome on Friday rejected an improvement plan for the 17-year-old stadium proposed by the St. Louis Rams.

    The St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission said in a brief statement that it believes it is in "the best interest of the community and the Rams to engage in meaningful dialogue over the next two weeks, and looks forward to the opportunity to do so at the earliest convenience of Rams management."

    Arbitration begins if no agreement is reached by June 15, and the arbitration process could last through the end of the year.

    The lease between the commission and the Rams requires that the dome be among the top quarter of all NFL stadiums before the 2015 season. If not, the team could break the lease and potentially become the second NFL team to leave St. Louis in a quarter of a century.

    The dome, which opened in 1995 after the team relocated from Los Angeles, was built with money from city, St. Louis County and Missouri taxpayers.

    The commission's rejection was not unexpected given the wide discrepancy between the Rams' plan and one submitted by it in February. That plan called for $124 million in improvements such as a bigger scoreboard and better club seating. It also would have required the Rams to pay 52 percent of the cost. Taxpayers would have to approve funding for the remaining 48 percent.

    The Rams' counterproposal submitted May 1 was far more elaborate, 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 Jeff Rainford, chief of staff for Mayor Francis Slay, said the 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 convention revenue.

    The Rams did not intend for their proposal to be publicly released. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster released it against the team's wishes on May 14 following open records requests from media, including The Associated Press, which contended that since taxpayers are paying $720 million over 30 years to fund the dome, records related to it should be open.

    The 30-year lease signed when the Rams moved to St. Louis requires the dome to remain among the top eight of the 31 NFL stadiums or the team can break the lease at certain junctures, the next being after the 2014 season.

    Owner Stan Kroenke has been non-committal about the team's future if the dome isn't improved. He is a Missouri native who became minority owner when Georgia Frontiere brought the Rams to her hometown of St. Louis.

    But Kroenke owns an estate in Malibu, Calif., and unsuccessfully sought to purchase baseball's Dodgers, leading to speculation that the Rams could head west after the 2014 season without a significant dome upgrade.

    St. Louis has been through this before. The football Cardinals moved to Arizona after the 1987 season when owner Bill Bidwill was unable to get a stadium of his own. The football and baseball Cardinals shared old Busch Stadium.


  2. #2
    berg8309's Avatar
    berg8309 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,899
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Rams' dome proposal rejected

    And I was 100% certain it was going to be a done deal. Blew my mind!
    MoonJoe likes this.

  3. #3
    RamsFanSam's Avatar
    RamsFanSam is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Springfield, Missouri, United States
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,656
    Rep Power
    71

    Re: Rams' dome proposal rejected

    And here come the people thinking this means the Rams are moving to LA in 5...4...3...2...1...
    FestusRam likes this.

  4. #4
    gap's Avatar
    gap
    gap is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,263
    Rep Power
    25

    Re: Rams' dome proposal rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by supachump View Post
    The Rams did not provide a cost estimate but Jeff Rainford, chief of staff for Mayor Francis Slay, said the 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 convention revenue.
    I got to bad on St. Louis here, and it reflects my cynicism (SP?) of the City of St. Louis. If they recieve $500 million dollars every three years from the Dome, why the heck is it not paid off? If the above quote is true, and my question is valid (both big IFs), it reinvorces my small experiences with the City of St. Louis. They use special circumstances to get revenue just for them, and then misallocate it on living the high life. Shame on St. Louis if they really receive $500 million every three years, and haven't paid off the dome. Also knowing that the cost estimate was done by the Mayor's C/S, it resets that actual costs to about $250 Million in an open and fair bidding process.


    gap

  5. #5
    Trevor's Avatar
    Trevor is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vicenza, Italy From Hagerstown, MD
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,296
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Rams' dome proposal rejected

    Rams are moving to Los Angeles.

  6. #6
    berg8309's Avatar
    berg8309 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,899
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Rams' dome proposal rejected

    $500 million of income is not $500 million of profit, just fyi. The dome has employees, requires maintenance, security for events. It sounds like a lot of money, but it isn't. The city isn't rolling in cash because of the dome and just refusing to pay the bill. That's a pretty gross misconception.

  7. #7
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,593
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Rams' dome proposal rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by berg8309 View Post
    And I was 100% certain it was going to be a done deal. Blew my mind!
    Exactly. I'm not even sure why they're reporting it. Everyone knew this was going to arbitration.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  8. #8
    gap's Avatar
    gap
    gap is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,263
    Rep Power
    25

    Re: Rams' dome proposal rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by berg8309 View Post
    $500 million of income is not $500 million of profit, just fyi. The dome has employees, requires maintenance, security for events. It sounds like a lot of money, but it isn't. The city isn't rolling in cash because of the dome and just refusing to pay the bill. That's a pretty gross misconception.
    I know that $500 million in revenue is not $500 million in profit, but they should still have the Dome paid off by now if that amount is not another fabrication.

    1995 - Doesn't count because the stadium wasn't ready until about half way through the season. Let say the money from that season is a buffer.

    1996-1996 - $500M
    1997-1999 - $500M
    2001-2003 - $500M
    2004-2006 - $500M
    2007-2009 - $500M
    2010-2011 - $333M

    This equals $2.8 billion (yes, with a B). If I remember correctly, they have only taken about 10% of that money to pay off the "mortgage". Would you only spend 10% of your income to pay off your mortgage? Even if you lower earlier earnings to fit more with the economy, you are still looking at some serious mismanagement of the dome's financial situations. Or someone is seriously misrepresenting the revenue from the dome over the next three years.


    gap

  9. #9
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,145
    Rep Power
    75

    Re: Rams' dome proposal rejected

    Ok now what?

    It goes to Arbitration after they can't work out a deal by June 15th.

    The Arbitrator comes back with a design and a cost somewhere in the middle.

    Then the city, taxpayers have to agree to pay the cost to remodel the stadium by the end of the 2014 season.

    How long does the city and the taxpayers have to agree to the terms set by arbitrator? If the arbitrator rules by the end of the year what is the time frame for the city to agree to pay for the cost? Can they drag this out for two years?

    If the City and the tax payers say no to the arbitrated cost. Where does that leave the Rams? Can the break the lease immediately? Are they lame ducks stuck in a city they plan on leaving?
    Last edited by Rambos; -06-01-2012 at 06:27 PM.

  10. #10
    berg8309's Avatar
    berg8309 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,899
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Rams' dome proposal rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by gap View Post
    I know that $500 million in revenue is not $500 million in profit, but they should still have the Dome paid off by now if that amount is not another fabrication.

    1995 - Doesn't count because the stadium wasn't ready until about half way through the season. Let say the money from that season is a buffer.

    1996-1996 - $500M
    1997-1999 - $500M
    2001-2003 - $500M
    2004-2006 - $500M
    2007-2009 - $500M
    2010-2011 - $333M

    This equals $2.8 billion (yes, with a B). If I remember correctly, they have only taken about 10% of that money to pay off the "mortgage". Would you only spend 10% of your income to pay off your mortgage? Even if you lower earlier earnings to fit more with the economy, you are still looking at some serious mismanagement of the dome's financial situations. Or someone is seriously misrepresenting the revenue from the dome over the next three years.


    gap
    I see no reason to argue this. You don't have the city's finances and neither do I. Making general allegations of gross mismanagement of money based upon rough estimates that someone threw out there is ridiculous. In addition to the fact that revenue is supposed to increase in time, and you applied the same revenue stream for the last nearly 20 years, including $500mil for one year. This is an exercise in futility.

  11. #11
    LA Rammer's Avatar
    LA Rammer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wilmington, CA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    2,709
    Rep Power
    38

    Re: Rams' dome proposal rejected

    i like reading the comments at the bottom of the article. some folks in st. louie not happy. don't worry once this reaches heights team will renew contract and stay in st. louie for years to come. sorry LA not a football city.
    LA RAMMER

    It's Jim not Chris
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HNgqQVHI_8

  12. #12
    BEER's Avatar
    BEER is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    896
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Rams' dome proposal rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by LA Rammer View Post
    i like reading the comments at the bottom of the article. some folks in st. louie not happy. don't worry once this reaches heights team will renew contract and stay in st. louie for years to come. sorry LA not a football city.
    Not much to say more then, Yea they are..... Its pre written. We all know its coming, but not willing to admit it. We never thought they would leave LA. But the did! Guess what, Its going to take place again.

  13. #13
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,145
    Rep Power
    75

    Re: Rams' dome proposal rejected

    Rams officials plan to discuss stadium upgrades with city

    By Steve Wyche

    Officials with the St. Louis Rams plan to engage in negotiations with St. Louis city leaders before an arbitration hearing to determine who will pay for stadium upgrades and what those upgrades will be.

    "We plan to sit down with them in the near future before this arbitration process," Rams COO Kevin Demoff said.

    The city's convention committee and the Rams have rejected each others' proposals for stadium upgrades leading to arbitration before the end of the year -- as terms of the lease stipulate. However, negotiations can take place at any point.

    Should things reach the arbitration stage, the city could accept the terms of the ruling, which would lead the Rams to remain in St. Louis through the final 10 years of the lease. If the city declines the terms of arbitration, the Rams, in 2013, can change the terms of the lease to year-to-year.

    If that happens, the Rams could engage in relocation negotiations. There is already speculation that their former home, Los Angeles, could become their future home.

  14. #14
    swatter555's Avatar
    swatter555 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    484
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: Rams' dome proposal rejected

    Lets await the results of the next step before we speculate too much. I think if both sides alter their initial positions a deal is likely. Although as time goes on and what a top-tier stadium is defined as will work more and more against the Rams. St. Louis just is not a top-tier city, economically.

    Winning a few games might build up some goodwill also.

  15. #15
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,145
    Rep Power
    75

    Re: Rams' dome proposal rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by swatter555 View Post
    Lets await the results of the next step before we speculate too much. I think if both sides alter their initial positions a deal is likely. Although as time goes on and what a top-tier stadium is defined as will work more and more against the Rams. St. Louis just is not a top-tier city, economically.

    Winning a few games might build up some goodwill also.
    The lease contains a clause which allows the Rams to exit the lease every 10 years if the Dome is not a “top tier” stadium at that point in time. The argument has been made that the Edward Jones Dome is not a “top tier” stadium. The Rams think it will take the design they submitted and the CVC thinks it will take much less... With new stadiums being built over the last decade, the standards goes way up. Who knew in the last decade so many new stadiums would be built.


    MetLife Stadium 82,566 East Rutherford New Jersey FieldTurf New York Giants
    New York Jets 2010


    Lucas Oil Stadiumdouble-dagger 63,000 Indianapolis Indiana FieldTurf Indianapolis Colts 2008

    Cowboys Stadiumdouble-dagger 80,000 Arlington Texas Matrix RealGrass artificial turf Dallas Cowboys 2009


    University of Phoenix Stadiumdouble-dagger 63,400 Glendale Arizona 419 Tifway Bermuda Grass Arizona Cardinals 2006

    Ford Fielddagger 64,500 Detroit Michigan FieldTurf Detroit Lions 2002

    CenturyLink Field 67,000 Seattle Washington FieldTurf Seattle Seahawks 2002



    Gillette Stadium 68,756 Foxborough Massachusetts FieldTurf New England Patriots 2002

    Heinz Field 65,050 Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Grass Pittsburgh Steelers 2001


    Paul Brown Stadium 65,535 Cincinnati Ohio FieldTurf Cincinnati Bengals 2000

    Lincoln Financial Field 69,144 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Desso GrassMaster Philadelphia Eagles 2003

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. An in-depth look at the CVC proposal/lease
    By helorm341 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -02-08-2012, 01:34 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: -04-19-2010, 01:32 AM
  3. A Fair Rams/Bucs Trade Proposal
    By AvengerRam in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: -03-03-2010, 11:41 AM
  4. Realignment Proposal
    By laram0 in forum NFL TALK
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: -12-31-2006, 10:06 PM
  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
  •