Let's Go Blues

cardsfan04 wrote:please please please please please don't let the Raiders move to STL.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:Legendary QB Jim Hart said the Cardinals should've left the team name and logo in St.Louis when they moved to Arizona. I agree.

cprice12 wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:Legendary QB Jim Hart said the Cardinals should've left the team name and logo in St.Louis when they moved to Arizona. I agree.

Couldn't agree more.

Oaklandblue wrote:You guys can't have the Raiders. Sorry. I really think yall should keep the Rams, given the color scheme and let's be honest, how many things come out of LA and win the championship in the mid-west? Rams to me belong in the STL moreso than any other team.

And I do agree that they should have kept the Cardinals NFL franchise IN the STL. It always confuses me when they talk about the Cards, I'm like which one?! O.o lol.

One thing the leagues need to realize is that a team isn't just a commodity, it's a culture in an area, a rite of passage, a part of history of both a city and those that follow that specific club. I can't think of my grandparents, who are no longer with me, without thinking of the Athletics, Raiders, Invaders, etc. That was part of our rite of passage here and in some ways, it still is. It was part of growing up and passing it on to our kids and so on.

Sorry, I'm a romantic like that, but I feel that's true. Taking a team away with their history is a major crime on an area. Look at Atlanta and how many times they lost a team now. Think they'll welcome hockey back in? I blame the NHL for their failure, both times.

dmiles2186 wrote:

Oaklandblue wrote:You guys can't have the Raiders. Sorry. I really think yall should keep the Rams, given the color scheme and let's be honest, how many things come out of LA and win the championship in the mid-west? Rams to me belong in the STL moreso than any other team.

And I do agree that they should have kept the Cardinals NFL franchise IN the STL. It always confuses me when they talk about the Cards, I'm like which one?! O.o lol.

One thing the leagues need to realize is that a team isn't just a commodity, it's a culture in an area, a rite of passage, a part of history of both a city and those that follow that specific club. I can't think of my grandparents, who are no longer with me, without thinking of the Athletics, Raiders, Invaders, etc. That was part of our rite of passage here and in some ways, it still is. It was part of growing up and passing it on to our kids and so on.

Sorry, I'm a romantic like that, but I feel that's true. Taking a team away with their history is a major crime on an area. Look at Atlanta and how many times they lost a team now. Think they'll welcome hockey back in? I blame the NHL for their failure, both times.

I 100% agree with all of this. I look at Europe and the football (soccer) teams there. No one moves. They either stay where they are or fold, but they don't move. They're a fabric of the community.

The thing I'd be concerned about if I were a Raiders fan, is that Oakland seems to have zero interest in building the Raiders a stadium. STL is making headway on a stadium, LA has a couple trying to get going, SD is finally starting to show interest in building a stadium. Oakland isn't.

Obviously, my number one choice is that the Rams stay here. But should STL go through with building the NFL a stadium (the 2nd time they've done so in 25 years, mind you), how can the league turn their back on them? They'll get a team and the Raiders will be on that list.

But I digress. Back to your original point. I want my son to be a Rams fan. I want to be able to take him to (home) games just across the river. The way leagues pit cities against each other so that billionaires can have their stadiums funded by the cities instead of our of their own fat pockets is pretty disgusting. But that's where we are, unfortunately.

I always get really wistful thinking of teams that moved away, mostly because of the fans left behind in that situation. A great documentary to watch about that is 'Sonicsgate,' which covered the Sonics move from Seattle to OKC.

dmiles2186 wrote:This is positive, right?
https://twitter.com/dkaplanSBJ/status/651589017507627008

cardsfan04 wrote:

dmiles2186 wrote:This is positive, right?
https://twitter.com/dkaplanSBJ/status/651589017507627008

Yeah, that's gotta be good. I don't know if we'll keep em or not (kinda think we will though). But, at least we're making it really hard on Kroenke.

cprice12 wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote:

dmiles2186 wrote:This is positive, right?
https://twitter.com/dkaplanSBJ/status/651589017507627008

Yeah, that's gotta be good. I don't know if we'll keep em or not (kinda think we will though). But, at least we're making it really hard on Kroenke.

McKernan tweeted that the owners didn't seem to care about the naming rights deal.

cprice12 wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote:

dmiles2186 wrote:This is positive, right?
https://twitter.com/dkaplanSBJ/status/651589017507627008

Yeah, that's gotta be good. I don't know if we'll keep em or not (kinda think we will though). But, at least we're making it really hard on Kroenke.

McKernan tweeted that the owners didn't seem to care about the naming rights deal.

abc789987 wrote:Disney CEO agrees to lead LA stadium project for Raiders and Chargers

This is good, right?

ST. LOUIS • The deal for a new riverfront football stadium has changed again, and at the last minute. This time, the National Football League is sweetening the pot, local stadium planners said, with a promise to add $100 million toward construction.

But the extra cash comes with a local cost: Gov. Jay Nixon's stadium task force has tentatively agreed to rebate city ticket taxes back to the team.

In exchange, the task force is seeking a boost in stadium rent, paid by the football team, from about $700,000 a year to $1.5 million, the promise of which will back construction bonds.

The deal will require approval by the city Board of Aldermen, which meets this morning to debate the city's part of the financing package.

Downtown St. Louis Alderman Jack Coatar, a sponsor of the city stadium bill, circulated a substitute late Monday night.

"I apologize for sending these at such a late hour, but these changes were still being finalized until very recently," Coatar wrote in an email to aldermen.

The proposed changes, he said, limit the city's financial risk, clarify ambiguous bill language, and boost the NFL's promised commitment from $200 million to $300 million.

The NFL team -- if one commits to the project -- would add another $250 million, as previously envisioned.

"The changes reflected in the floor substitute do not increase the City's contribution to this project," Coatar continued.

Task force co-chairman Dave Peacock said the new bill also requires the NFL team to pay for any cost overruns.

"If the team wants more, great," he said early Tuesday morning. "But they have to pay for it now. This is a fully-funded project."

The revisions, Peacock explained, take another stab at solving nagging NFL worries about the local stadium plan.

This time, the task force zeroed in on the ticket taxes. Some NFL owners had complained that ticket taxes boosted seat prices, stealing profits from the team.

Tuesday's move eliminates such concerns, Peacock said, without affecting the city's costs or potential tax revenues.

Peacock said the NFL came to him this time.

"We have been in direct contact with key owners on committees deciding this process and we feel, based on those discussions, that the proposal now will get the strongest consideration by the league," he said, measuring his words carefully.

The NFL could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday morning.

Peacock said he understand the changes will frustrate some who see the deal as ever-changing. "However," he said, "we have to get something definitive and have to put our best foot forward. With any large and complex deal with high stakes there always seems to be a lot of activity at the end."

dmiles2186 wrote:Things continue to look up. But in case there is a down turn, I got tickets to go to the game on Thursday, in case it's the last home game in STL ever.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... -0.twitter

ST. LOUIS • The deal for a new riverfront football stadium has changed again, and at the last minute. This time, the National Football League is sweetening the pot, local stadium planners said, with a promise to add $100 million toward construction.

But the extra cash comes with a local cost: Gov. Jay Nixon's stadium task force has tentatively agreed to rebate city ticket taxes back to the team.

In exchange, the task force is seeking a boost in stadium rent, paid by the football team, from about $700,000 a year to $1.5 million, the promise of which will back construction bonds.

The deal will require approval by the city Board of Aldermen, which meets this morning to debate the city's part of the financing package.

Downtown St. Louis Alderman Jack Coatar, a sponsor of the city stadium bill, circulated a substitute late Monday night.

"I apologize for sending these at such a late hour, but these changes were still being finalized until very recently," Coatar wrote in an email to aldermen.

The proposed changes, he said, limit the city's financial risk, clarify ambiguous bill language, and boost the NFL's promised commitment from $200 million to $300 million.

The NFL team -- if one commits to the project -- would add another $250 million, as previously envisioned.

"The changes reflected in the floor substitute do not increase the City's contribution to this project," Coatar continued.

Task force co-chairman Dave Peacock said the new bill also requires the NFL team to pay for any cost overruns.

"If the team wants more, great," he said early Tuesday morning. "But they have to pay for it now. This is a fully-funded project."

The revisions, Peacock explained, take another stab at solving nagging NFL worries about the local stadium plan.

This time, the task force zeroed in on the ticket taxes. Some NFL owners had complained that ticket taxes boosted seat prices, stealing profits from the team.

Tuesday's move eliminates such concerns, Peacock said, without affecting the city's costs or potential tax revenues.

Peacock said the NFL came to him this time.

"We have been in direct contact with key owners on committees deciding this process and we feel, based on those discussions, that the proposal now will get the strongest consideration by the league," he said, measuring his words carefully.

The NFL could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday morning.

Peacock said he understand the changes will frustrate some who see the deal as ever-changing. "However," he said, "we have to get something definitive and have to put our best foot forward. With any large and complex deal with high stakes there always seems to be a lot of activity at the end."