An open air stadium.
On cleaned up industrial land.
Close to downtown.
Saves a team from leaving for a richer locale.
Sounds familiar, right? But no, it’s not Oakland’s stillborn Howard Terminal. It’s the brand new, last ditch effort by St. Louis interests to keep football in the Gateway City. The 64,000-seat stadium, ostensibly for the Rams, would sit north of of the Gateway Arch and across I-44 from the team’s current home, the Edward Jones Dome.
The price tag? $860-985 million (gotta make the estimate a tiny bit less than 10 figures, you know). Half of that cost would be paid for by PSLs, a la Levi’s Stadium. The backers claim no taxes would be needed. And as your eyes roll repeatedly at everything I’m writing, there’s also this: the stadium doesn’t have to be for the Rams. It could be for another team desiring to relocate to the renowned football town known as St. Louis.
An open air stadium in St. Louis would be great. It could also look cool, like Paul Brown Stadium, if the stuffy Cincinnati crowd learned to appreciate a cool piece of modern sports architecture. But the financing is fanciful, the plan is extraordinarily late, and the team owner, Stan Kroenke, hasn’t returned backers’ phone calls this week. At least they can say they tried, right?
@ML- now that St. Louis has proposed the Midwest equivalent of the HT pipe dream do you believe there is any chance the NFL decides that the Rams can file for relocation or is their primary focus to continue to use LA as the stalking horse for existing cities and ultimately try to get 2 new franchises in LA?
@GoA’s – No, I think this is a favor to Governor Nixon to give STL one last chance. If MO can’t pull it off Kroenke can move without resistance.
If Kroenke won’t return their calls, they should look up Mark Davis. He wants someone to build a stadium for him.
Another pretty drawing…costing hundreds of thousands of taxpayers dollars…I want one, too!
Folks, use a Etch-a-Sketch, please.
re: Half of that cost would be paid for by PSLs, a la Levi’s Stadium. PSLs – successful for the 49ers, a disaster for the Raiders. I’d bet that Saint Louis does not have the Silicon Valley-type wealth to make PSLs successful. Hence, there could be lots of unsold PSLs leading to taxpayer bailouts to pay for the stadium. Just like in Oakland.
Recall Al Davis didn’t require NFL approval before moving the Raiders to the southland – Kroenke likely won’t either. Also the NFL is demonstrating bad judgement by believing that the LA fanbase can support two teams – from past results, it clearly cannot. Would Davis be better off moving the Raiders to St Louis? the Raiders are likely better off staying in Oakland than moving to MO.
Unless Saint Louis is offering to build a new stadium, something not being offered in Oakland. The question is the financing. Can Saint Louis pull it off whereas Oakland can’t?
A new NFL stadium over there might be applying lipstick on a pig though. The Raiders draw better attendance than St Louis – even though the Rams play at a much newer stadium, and have been a better team than the Raiders in recent memory. A new NFL stadium may not help a team in St Louis much – that’s likely why Kroenke wants to get the eff out of there.
So then how can the population base support 2 hockey teams, 2 basketball teams, and 2 baseball teams?
The LA region evidently is not an NFL market (although it solidly supports USC and UCLA football) That’s why Davis and the Chargers owner must have second thoughts about moving there. The bay area and San Diego definitely appear to be better NFL fanbases than LA.
That’s based on 20+ year old information, and twisted information at that.
Is it odd to anyone else that the lower bowl is empty in the renderings, but the top deck is full of fake people?
I noticed that as well, really odd?
It doesn’t fill like the Rams owner is bluffing. What the outcome of the Rams possible calling LA home again will have on Oakland, and the Raiders is still an unknown, but if I had to guess I would say it may enhance the chances, something acutely gets done in the East Bay. But honestly, who the hell knows?
Kroenke building a stadium in LA does absolutely nothing to close the huge financial gap in how much money is available for a new Raiders stadium in Oakland and how much is needed.
You’re correct it doesn’t, it may only serve to reduce one of the Raiders options, or make that same option more viable, like I said who the hell knows?
St Louis Raiders… let that percolate.
That could also happen…
It seems ironic that Stan K is poised to kill and Ak Davis move that may thwart Al Davis’ son from getting what he really wants. But I always screw up irony and coincidence.
*an Al Davis
*pull, not kill. Eff you autocorrect!!!!
“City of St. Louis………..I have a PLAN DOWN BY THE RIVER!!!”
Anyhow – Wolff’s idea of combining stadium and residential/etc. development appears to be responsible for starting a trend with sports stadia. The LA/Hollywood Park proposal is similar to what Wolff is planning at the Coliseum site (combining a stadium and other development) Also the Chargers are proposing a similar project in San Diego – quite the opposite of the dopey, outmoded Giants ballpark (ballpark only) facility. The A’s will have an edge over the Giants once they build a combo sports project when compared to the Giants obsolete stadium.
You’re a moron. The Giants own all that land south of the stadium and are making tons of money off the development, money which is not subject to revenue sharing either. Try operating in reality instead of just making shit up. It’s infuriating to watch you constantly state false things and then claim they are facts.
I was trying to be more diplomatic 🙂
wrong answer: YOU are the moron – like your idiotic claims that the giants outdrew the A’s during La Russa’s stint (LOL – the A’s clobbered the giants during that time)
So you admit that you are stating something that is objectively false and claiming it’s true. Glad we cleared that up.
I don’t know if the A’s will ever have an advantage (over all), against the Giants in the Bay Area, but it’s not necessary for them to be on top of the Giants, to be successful on and off the field. As much as I hate the Giants for hindering the A’s efforts in San Jose, I must admit they have one hell of an organization, and market their product like no one else.
@Lakeshore/Neil: Also the Giants are the guilty party (MLB does not buy the Giants argument that the A’s will be encroaching on Giants territory by moving 40 miles further from SF to San Jose) As some people have suggested though, there might be a solution in sight – once the Giants pay off their loan for ATT Park – MLB will ok the A’s move to SJ.
I was wondering that (like many others), but didn’t the Giants refinance that debt, not long ago?
@Lakeshore/Neil: True, however it’s also appears that MLB is not actually siding with the Giants, and MLB doesn’t buy the Giants song and dance routine – which is a big plus for the A’s.
Well I hope MLB is not siding with the Giants(they have up till now), either that or Wolff get it together in Oakland. I just want a new ballpark.
The Giants have development rights to the parking lot/pier across McCovey Cove.
The Braves are doing it currently.
It’s the same plan in Anaheim/Orange County as well. The Angels want land to develop.
The first “multiuse” development/ballpark that I am aware of is Busch Stadium in St. Louis. It’s not a new idea, it’s been around a while.
It’s the new “subsidy.” Instead of asking for a city to pay for a ballpark, ask them to pay for a ballpark and to give you land to build a bar/restaurant district.
Actually Jeffrey, Atlanta and St. Louis STILL received (or will be receiving) hefty municipal subsidies along with development rights. It’s not as if allowing owners to develop land will make all future stadia “free of charge” to cities. Especially if that land is located in an area with poor corporate support and disposable incomes (which Cobb County isn’t).
I know. Read what I wrote: “Instead of asking for a city to pay for a ballpark, ask them to pay for a ballpark and to give you land to build a bar/restaurant district.”
My bad Jeffrey. Totally read past the “and to” in your last sentence. Peace..
San Diego Raiders. It’s the SoCal market without the relocation fee.
Kroenke won’t call back because he is going over the info and determining its feasibility.
Also, the original lease stated St. Louis would pay the entire stadium without a nickel out of Rams.
If Kroenke has to raise money then it defeats the purpose of the original lease.
Plus the arbitrator already ruled in his favor. Missouri and St Louis have to provide a public subsidy.
No way around it….
That region is decent in market size but not big enough to privately finance a new stadium,
Rams are long gone….
The argument will be “Why should taxpayers provide stadium improvements for the rich owner?” even though the lease says the taxpayers would provide stadium improvements for the rich owner. Rams are supposed to have one of the top stadiums in the league, based on the lease agreed to by the previous owner and public officials.
Chargers hint at litigation to keep the Rams out of LA. If I recall correctly, the Raiders (Al Davis) sued the NFL and won, letting them go to LA. And when they came back to Oakland, the 49ers (who played 8 miles from Oakland) couldn’t do a thing about it. But the Chargers want to claim the entire SoCal area (from Kern County, perhaps?) down to Tijuana as their territory, apparently. Good luck with that. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/12/chargers-hint-strongly-at-litigation-to-keep-rams-out-of-la/
There’s nothing the Chargers can do if owners vote against them.
I’m not sure there is anything the Chargers can do even if; the owners don’t approve a move of the Rams to LA. Aside from the fact that the Rams owner can move wherever he wants, and doesn’t need league money to build, which of course could affect a league vote if he need one, San Diego is a separate market then LA, hell Al Davis did it without league approval, with the Rams in LA at the time and still beat the leagues ass in court.
Sorry: “If he needed one”
More on Kroenke stadium in Inglewood. Tax breaks would be sought. http://la.curbed.com/archives/2015/01/the_high_public_cost_of_the_proposed_inglewood_nfl_stadium.php
Jerry Jones: No permission needed to move http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/13/7536819/jerry-jones-stan-kreonke-relocation-nfl-rams
So basically JJ said frack the league, just be the first team to set up shop in LA and move. Lets see how this plays out.
And this is from the guy that everyone says would block a Raiders move to San Antonio. Maybe he wouldn’t…
Told you guys years ago this wasn’t gonna happen.
Rooney says league could stop team from moving http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/17/rooney-rattles-the-legal-sword-at-kroenke/