1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Rams want "operable roof panels" as part of stadium improvements

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by BurnsWhenIPee, May 14, 2012.

  1. BurnsWhenIPee

    BurnsWhenIPee Well-Known Member

    The St. Louis Rams' counterproposal for stadium improvements was released today by the Missouri AG, after both the team and city refused to release it because of a confidentiality clause in the team's lease.

    They want a new retractable roof in addition to other amenities, including the ability to add 6,000 seats so they would be eligible to host a Super Bowl. No wonder the team didn't want these requests to be public, as it shows them to be ridiculously greedy and out of touch. That dome does suck as far as atmosphere goes, but sinking what surely would be hundreds of millions of dollars into a retractable roof, plus finding somewhere to put 6,000 seats in a facility that appears to have maxed out its capacity, for a pipe dream of a Super Bowl in St. Louis, is ridiculous.

    There was no word on how much the team would chip in to pay for these improvements.


    Given the sad state of the state's budget, and its woefully underfunded education program at all levels, I'd bet there would be plenty of St. Louisans willing to help them load up the moving vans rather than foot the bill for Stan Kroenke's latest plaything.
  2. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

    Yup. Straight to Los Angeles, which is where they will end up.
  3. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    With apologies to the good people of St. Louis, who gives a fuck if the Rams leave? The league did just fine without a franchise there and with a craptastic franchise for decades before that. And the city gets plenty of excitement from its first love and even from the Blues. Hell, they could probably even stand up as a landing spot for a distressed NBA team if it comes to that.

    I guess people might be stupid enough to give Stan Kroenke money for this little toy, but if not, it isn't going to be a tragedy for either the city or the NFL.
  4. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    I believe this goes to arbitration. The Rams plan would probably win as the CVC's plan for a $125-million "window-dressing" would not put the Dome in the top quarter of stadiums.
  5. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    Given the sad state of the state's budget, and its woefully underfunded education program at all levels,

    Amen. I wish more voters would recognize this tremendous sacrifice when government $$ are spent on an athletic facility.
  6. Crash

    Crash Active Member

    "According to the lease, the Rams are free to terminate the lease as early as 2015 if the CVC fails to keep the Dome a “first-tier” stadium, or one that’s better than three-quarters of all National Football League venues in 15 categories. If the Rams and the CVC can’t agree on a renovation plan satisfying the lease requirement by June 15, the matter goes into arbitration."

    Ridiculous. Who the hell negotiated that deal?
  7. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    Kroenke was on the front row of the Nuggets/Lakers game in Staples Saturday; I imagine he was scoping out his new neighborhood.
  8. BurnsWhenIPee

    BurnsWhenIPee Well-Known Member

    That is the story that needs to be written, IMO.

    If I remember correctly, they were building the dome without having a team, so maybe it was desperation as they searched for a major tenant.

    But at the time, it shouldn't have taken a psychic to see the coming building boom for NFL stadiums and how this clause would come back to haunt the city in a big way.
  9. finishthehat

    finishthehat Active Member

    I agree with all this except the "pipe dream of a Super Bowl" part -- the NFL would no doubt have at least one SB there if they got the improvements.
  10. trifectarich

    trifectarich Well-Known Member

    They can do whatever they want as long as the answer to the above is 100 percent. They can also call Roger, their good friend on Park Avenue. I'm sure he has access to the necessary funds.
  11. BurnsWhenIPee

    BurnsWhenIPee Well-Known Member

    Maybe. But even with the improvements, I'd think they are in the back of a very long line for Super Bowls. It seems to me you have to possess either a kick-ass stadium, or be a kick-ass tourist destination, to be in that mix. On both counts, I'd think St. Louis and an improved dome would be pretty "blah" in most people's eyes.

    But stranger things have happened.
  12. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Nah, all the new stadiums get one Super Bowl unless weather prevents it (Denver, Seattle, but oh look we'll just go ahead and throw New York in because it's never bad weather there in February!).

    The idea that one Super Bowl one time is reason to put taxpayers on the hook for new stadiums is patently absurd, but the NFL does come through with that promised Super Bowl.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page