SRQ_BillsFan Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) Which is why an out of state businessman had to buy the Rams the last time, right? It doesn't matter how many HQs are located there, NFL rules require that owners be individuals. If the Rams leave town that means St Louis will have lost an NFL franchise for the 2nd time, there won't be another team there because the city is broke as hell and they aren't going to get voters to build ANOTHER football stadium. The Edward Jones Dome isn't even 20 years old and the Rams are demanding nearly $700,000,000.00 in renovations, which the city is refusing. If the stadium isn't good enough for the Rams, it isn't going to be good enough for another franchise and there's no way St Louis is going to be held hostage by an NFL team for upwards of a billion dollars. That shipped has sailed. Actually the city/county was going to invest. Problem is they gave the Rams a sweet heart deal that says the stadium must be in the top tier (5-7-10?) of all NFL stadiums. This means they must compete against all of the new billion dollar + stadiums like jerry world. It's the city's fault but not sure they saw this coming or that the Rams would hold them to it to this degree. They wanted to negotiate something in the middle but the Rams took it to the courts and an arbitrator ruled in their favor. I would bet another team would be happy with the current dome and a sweetheart lease. Maybe a few improvements. City should have known what they were signing. . Edited March 23, 2014 by SRQ_BillsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 49 ers new $1.2b stadium opens this summer. It's 38 miles from San Fran but Raiders don't want to play there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumbalaya Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 The Rams should not go anywhere except: 1. The out of town owner bought a parcel of land in LA that will house a football complex. 2. The Rams are number three in fan base in STL behind the Blues and Cards. 3. The STL Dome sucks for football. 4. Tailgate facilities are among the worst in the league. 5. The name belongs in LA, or Cleveland, where it began. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 The Rams should not go anywhere except: 1. The out of town owner bought a parcel of land in LA that will house a football complex. 2. The Rams are number three in fan base in STL behind the Blues and Cards. 3. The STL Dome sucks for football. 4. Tailgate facilities are among the worst in the league. 5. The name belongs in LA, or Cleveland, where it began. When do they break ground on that football stadium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Actually the city/county was going to invest. Problem is they gave the Rams a sweet heart deal that says the stadium must be in the top tier (5-7-10?) of all NFL stadiums. This means they must compete against all of the new billion dollar + stadiums like jerry world. It's the city's fault but not sure they saw this coming or that the Rams would hold them to it to this degree. They wanted to negotiate something in the middle but the Rams took it to the courts and an arbitrator ruled in their favor. I would bet another team would be happy with the current dome and a sweetheart lease. Maybe a few improvements. City should have known what they were signing. . You don't have to explain what's been going on. I've been following it very closely because it's going to become the norm for professional sports going forward. The proposal that the Convention Bureau floated was a $200,000,000 upgrade to EJD, with the Rams picking up at least half. That's about the max the area can afford, so they deserve props for not selling out yet again. The reality is, there isn't going to be public financing for a new stadium in St Louis because there's no way it's going to get through the public process since the law changed in both St Louis City and County. The new laws don't allow the use of tax increases or tax payer funds to build sports stadiums without a public vote. That would be a pretty tough sell given there's still pretty good sized debt on the EJD and the city and county are both in pretty poor financial straights. They could try to get through some creative financing deal with the State taking on the entire share of the nut but that's pretty doubtful in the current political climate. They could simply remodel EJD because that doesn't require a public vote but the cost versus return is exorbitant and the Rams would like to get out of downtown and into a place where they control more of the revenue streams. The city and state are pretty much hoping that the fact that there are no real suitors (read as: places with NFL-ready stadiums) is going to keep the Rams in St Louis. They're probably right in the short term but if that dynamic changes, it's doubtful the Rams will remain in St Louis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigK14094 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 I think an NFL team in Toronto would help the Bills ....I think of the Leafs/Sabres games and know that it would be good rivalry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) I think an NFL team in Toronto would help the Bills ....I think of the Leafs/Sabres games and know that it would be good rivalry. I see the exact same problem happening with the NFL as the NHL. Over priced tickets in Toronto and all their fans come to our stadium instead. Only difference is we would have to deal with it once a year instead of 3 or 4 times like with the sabres. Though it would be a good rivalry I'm sure. Edited March 23, 2014 by The Wiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 St. Louis shouldn't have an nfl team. San Antonio Texas would be a huge market for a team. London, LA, Toronto won't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 St. Louis shouldn't have an nfl team. San Antonio Texas would be a huge market for a team. London, LA, Toronto won't work. San Antonio would be an excellent choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan_34 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Jason La Canfora says the NFL is looking for two teams for LA, and a team for London, and one for Toronto. exactly The day the NFL puts a team in London is the day I walk away from it all. We are the NATIONAL football league not world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 The day the NFL puts a team in London is the day I walk away from it all. We are the NATIONAL football league not world. if there is a team in London you won't watch a Bills-Jets game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) The 8 games so far in London average over 80,000 fans. 1 or 2 games a year is ok, in 2014, 3 games. A full season would be too much travel time. http://en.wikipedia....national_Series Edited March 24, 2014 by ALF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 @usatoday_nfl Raiders trying to get a deal done to stay in Oakland http://usat.ly/1jwvOEV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhg Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 @usatoday_nfl Raiders trying to get a deal done to stay in Oakland http://usat.ly/1jwvOEV Tried to read the article, but couldn't get past the picture of Mark Davis. Yikes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts