U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > St. Louis
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-03-2015, 03:39 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,305 posts, read 5,982,379 times
Reputation: 4350

Advertisements

Peacock calls on region to 'rally' as judge rules against need for stadium vote : News

"ST. LOUIS • The construction of a riverfront football stadium does not need voter approval in the city before using city tax dollars, a judge ruled on Monday.

St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Thomas Frawley declared invalid the city ordinance requiring a public vote. Moreover, Frawley ruled, the placement of the new stadium, along the riverfront just north of downtown, does not break a state law requiring the building to be “adjacent” to the convention center — it is close enough, he wrote."

I have mixed emotions about this. While I'm generally against public funding for billionaires, and I think this smacks of subverting the democratic process, I would like to see St. Louis remain an NFL city.

Thoughts?

Last edited by MUTGR; 08-03-2015 at 04:46 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-03-2015, 08:41 PM
 
1,094 posts, read 1,121,563 times
Reputation: 601
I have pretty mixed feelings as well. I love football, and want the Rams to stay in STL, but they are undeserving of a new stadium on the taxpayers' dime.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2015, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Apex, NC
1,026 posts, read 593,539 times
Reputation: 1206
I don't think this is about "deserve". The NFL is the NFL. It's pay to play. If St. Louis thinks having the NFL is important, then this is what it will take. As a side benefit, this will also most likely lead to an MLS team if built. Lose the NFL and you've just taken a backseat to Indianapolis, Nashville, and Charlotte. I HATE what the NFL has become, which is financing billionaires to have more billions. That being said, other cities would line up to get teams. I also think Frawley made the right judgment, going by the actual law as written.

Also, how sickening would it/will it be if the Rams are in the Super Bowl in 3-4 years as the Los Angeles Rams? Might seem far fetched right now, but the same scenario played out 1999-2003 in STL.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2015, 12:05 AM
 
1,094 posts, read 1,121,563 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by STL2006 View Post
Lose the NFL and you've just taken a backseat to Indianapolis, Nashville, and Charlotte. .
Hmmm that's a valid point; I never really considered it in that light.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2015, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Midwest USA
217 posts, read 171,821 times
Reputation: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitanRam View Post
I have pretty mixed feelings as well. I love football, and want the Rams to stay in STL, but they are undeserving of a new stadium on the taxpayers' dime.
I love the Rams and want them to stay here but I have to agree. Especially since Kroenke is building a stadium in Los Angeles and the funding is coming out of his pocket. This is just absurd.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2015, 01:28 AM
 
684 posts, read 675,582 times
Reputation: 867
I live in KCMO so I don't pay all that close attention to the organization of the Rams. But how did this Kroenke guy become owner in the first place? I must only think that he literally has to be the most hated moronic smug in the entire city. He reminds me of that lady owner from Major League (the movie). Who hated both the city and her team.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2015, 09:04 AM
 
Location: Apex, NC
1,026 posts, read 593,539 times
Reputation: 1206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truly Missouri View Post
I live in KCMO so I don't pay all that close attention to the organization of the Rams. But how did this Kroenke guy become owner in the first place? I must only think that he literally has to be the most hated moronic smug in the entire city. He reminds me of that lady owner from Major League (the movie). Who hated both the city and her team.
He had minority ownership stake in the Rams at 40%. When Georgia died, and the 60% majority share went to her kids, they needed to sell. Kroenke had right of first refusal and exercised it to purchase the whole shebang. The Jaguars owner, Shad Khan, initially tried to purchase the Rams. He's a Rams fan from Champaign, IL, area. In hindsight, it would've been the best thing possible. Kroenke, most likely already knew he could take advantage of a bad lease in the coming years.

He's pretty hated right now. Has shown ZERO interest, appreciation, loyalty, to a fanbase that continues to draw 55,000 per game for a horrible team (2006-2014). As I stated earlier though, he and the NFL hold the cards. The NFL isn't begging cities to let them stay. There's more demand than supply. If STL loses the Rams, they'd be the largest market in the nation without an NFL team.

I don't like financing billionaires anymore than the next guy, but the NFL is important to a city's visibility and I think it'd be a net benefit:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/g...ddb554da1.html
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 06:20 AM
 
15 posts, read 17,869 times
Reputation: 89
Why build a stadium for a team when the owner of that team only has interest and heart for LA? Don't give me a new team, nor a new stadium, give me a new owner.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Alamogordo, NM
7,602 posts, read 7,215,964 times
Reputation: 5370
If STL loses the Rams, they'd be the largest market in the nation without an NFL team.

The largest market in the nation without a NFL team would surely have ta be L.A., not St.Louie. Eh?



Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 02:59 PM
 
1,094 posts, read 1,121,563 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkotronics View Post
If STL loses the Rams, they'd be the largest market in the nation without an NFL team.

The largest market in the nation without a NFL team would surely have ta be L.A., not St.Louie. Eh?



Yeah, but the Rams would be in LA, hence STL being the largest market without a team
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > St. Louis

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:02 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top