Strauss: Stadium aside, Rams must prove their worth
PostPosted:9 years 3 months ago
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 2bef5.html
Strauss: Stadium aside, Rams must prove their worth
While competing local entities still argue over the definition of “adjacent,” the National Football League has scheduled an Aug. 11 meeting in Chicago to update owners on the progress, or lack thereof, toward new stadiums in Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis.
To some, the delay created by placing a November referendum before city voters regarding public financing of a riverfront facility would be ruinous.
But is it a worst-case scenario?
Is allowing city residents to give a thumbs up or down on helping to underwrite a $985 million project too abhorrent to contemplate?
Whether one believes extending government bonds to facilitate construction of a new home for the Rams represents new taxation or not, might it be just as useful to ask if current ownership has so poisoned the well that no outcome is satisfactory as long as Stan Kroenke controls the franchise?
To claim there’s disconnect between Kroenke and his fan base is like saying Nixon (Richard, not Jay) edged out McGovern in ’72.
If Kroenke gets what he wants — the NFL’s blessing to relocate the Rams from here to Inglewood, within two miles of Los Angeles International Airport — the issue morphs. Does another team relocate to St. Louis? Is expansion possible?
Without a team in place, what happens to stadium financing since all involved insist construction won’t begin without a franchise and the league contributing more than $400 million to the project?
Kroenke has said nothing publicly since the matter mushroomed. Yet he’s made clear his commitment to southern California, where the Rams’ value likely trebles.
That’s Kroenke’s right. It’s his team — not yours, not mine — something that numerous personal seat license holders have taken to heart. There is a strong possibility that attendance for the’ Sept. 13 opener will fall short of 40,000 when the defending NFC champion and division rival Seattle Seahawks visit. If the Rams can’t pull ’em in for Pete Carroll, Richard Sherman and Russell Wilson, what’s it going to be like on Oct. 25 against Cleveland or before a national television audience Dec. 17 against Tampa Bay? Small wonder the Rams placed single-game tickets on sale three months earlier than usual and have aggressively marketed other cities. The Pittsburgh Steelers, Chicago Bears and Detroit Lions may find the Jones Dome a home away from home.
The NFL clearly wants to expedite the relocation process that will likely see two stadium-challenged franchises playing in either the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl in 2016.
What if owners opt for the so-called California Solution that moves the Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers into their former markets?
It’s difficult to envision the NFL stiffing the Spanos family, which has patiently fought the good fight for a facility in downtown San Diego.
Patriarch Alex Spanos turned over control of the franchise to his son, Dean, more than a year ago. But the father’s influence over sentiment remains strong.
As of now Spanos’ alliance with Raiders owner Mark Davis appears unshakeable as both work toward construction of a new $1.7 billion stadium in suburban Carson. With league insider Carmen Policy running point for both franchises, getting the league out of two of its worst facilities, O.co Coliseum and Qualcomm Stadium, certainly appears plausible.
Despite the legal challenges, the Rams remain the only one of the three relocation candidates with a viable in-town alternative.
To their credit, Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz adopted a two-rail approach in efforts to keep the NFL here. As point men for Nixon (Jay, not Richard), their intent has been to convince commissioner Roger Goodell, NFL executive vice-president Eric Grubman and the league’s relocation committee of St. Louis’ continued fitness as a market willing to help finance a new facility regardless of who inhabits it on Sundays.
Clear away the legal speed bumps. Let the league side with its California Solution. Retain the Rams, ostensibly to play between Lumiere Casino and the Stan Span. Then what?
Kroenke has shown his hand. There was the 2012 game in London against New England after initially agreeing to a series of three “home” games across the pond. Unimpressed by the Convention and Visitors Commission’s stance on upgrades to an obsolete Jones Dome, Kroenke looked west. He hasn’t spoken to local media or his fan base since. Now any perceived slight, such as this summer’s training layover against the Dallas Cowboys in Oxnard, Calif., strikes many as rubbing salt in an open wound. Somehow trading Sam Bradford for Nick Foles is part of the plot.
Kroenke wants out of here. Everyone gets it. And, again, that’s his right.
But what if the NFL announces this fall that the Rams are going nowhere? How does this franchise get back in its home market’s good graces?
The most obvious answer is by returning to contention within the NFC West. Complaining fans and reluctant sponsors have a way of returning when a forlorn or discredited franchise suddenly finds its way to double-digit wins and a postseason berth. Coming off a 6-10 season while enduring an 11-year wait for a winning campaign make for easy skepticism.
A new stadium would likely bring a temporary bounce. Everyone likes “new.” But barring 11-5 or 12-4, can locals ever forget this ongoing soap opera?
The Rams don’t just have a stadium problem. They have an image problem.
Folks don’t pay big bucks to attend an NFL game in hopes of glimpsing the owner.
But they’ll certainly keep their cash in pocket if given an average (or worse) product and a money man who would love to be someplace else.
The courts will eventually define “adjacent” for the city and the state.
It may then be an opportune time to address the meaning of “dilemma.”
Strauss: Stadium aside, Rams must prove their worth
While competing local entities still argue over the definition of “adjacent,” the National Football League has scheduled an Aug. 11 meeting in Chicago to update owners on the progress, or lack thereof, toward new stadiums in Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis.
To some, the delay created by placing a November referendum before city voters regarding public financing of a riverfront facility would be ruinous.
But is it a worst-case scenario?
Is allowing city residents to give a thumbs up or down on helping to underwrite a $985 million project too abhorrent to contemplate?
Whether one believes extending government bonds to facilitate construction of a new home for the Rams represents new taxation or not, might it be just as useful to ask if current ownership has so poisoned the well that no outcome is satisfactory as long as Stan Kroenke controls the franchise?
To claim there’s disconnect between Kroenke and his fan base is like saying Nixon (Richard, not Jay) edged out McGovern in ’72.
If Kroenke gets what he wants — the NFL’s blessing to relocate the Rams from here to Inglewood, within two miles of Los Angeles International Airport — the issue morphs. Does another team relocate to St. Louis? Is expansion possible?
Without a team in place, what happens to stadium financing since all involved insist construction won’t begin without a franchise and the league contributing more than $400 million to the project?
Kroenke has said nothing publicly since the matter mushroomed. Yet he’s made clear his commitment to southern California, where the Rams’ value likely trebles.
That’s Kroenke’s right. It’s his team — not yours, not mine — something that numerous personal seat license holders have taken to heart. There is a strong possibility that attendance for the’ Sept. 13 opener will fall short of 40,000 when the defending NFC champion and division rival Seattle Seahawks visit. If the Rams can’t pull ’em in for Pete Carroll, Richard Sherman and Russell Wilson, what’s it going to be like on Oct. 25 against Cleveland or before a national television audience Dec. 17 against Tampa Bay? Small wonder the Rams placed single-game tickets on sale three months earlier than usual and have aggressively marketed other cities. The Pittsburgh Steelers, Chicago Bears and Detroit Lions may find the Jones Dome a home away from home.
The NFL clearly wants to expedite the relocation process that will likely see two stadium-challenged franchises playing in either the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl in 2016.
What if owners opt for the so-called California Solution that moves the Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers into their former markets?
It’s difficult to envision the NFL stiffing the Spanos family, which has patiently fought the good fight for a facility in downtown San Diego.
Patriarch Alex Spanos turned over control of the franchise to his son, Dean, more than a year ago. But the father’s influence over sentiment remains strong.
As of now Spanos’ alliance with Raiders owner Mark Davis appears unshakeable as both work toward construction of a new $1.7 billion stadium in suburban Carson. With league insider Carmen Policy running point for both franchises, getting the league out of two of its worst facilities, O.co Coliseum and Qualcomm Stadium, certainly appears plausible.
Despite the legal challenges, the Rams remain the only one of the three relocation candidates with a viable in-town alternative.
To their credit, Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz adopted a two-rail approach in efforts to keep the NFL here. As point men for Nixon (Jay, not Richard), their intent has been to convince commissioner Roger Goodell, NFL executive vice-president Eric Grubman and the league’s relocation committee of St. Louis’ continued fitness as a market willing to help finance a new facility regardless of who inhabits it on Sundays.
Clear away the legal speed bumps. Let the league side with its California Solution. Retain the Rams, ostensibly to play between Lumiere Casino and the Stan Span. Then what?
Kroenke has shown his hand. There was the 2012 game in London against New England after initially agreeing to a series of three “home” games across the pond. Unimpressed by the Convention and Visitors Commission’s stance on upgrades to an obsolete Jones Dome, Kroenke looked west. He hasn’t spoken to local media or his fan base since. Now any perceived slight, such as this summer’s training layover against the Dallas Cowboys in Oxnard, Calif., strikes many as rubbing salt in an open wound. Somehow trading Sam Bradford for Nick Foles is part of the plot.
Kroenke wants out of here. Everyone gets it. And, again, that’s his right.
But what if the NFL announces this fall that the Rams are going nowhere? How does this franchise get back in its home market’s good graces?
The most obvious answer is by returning to contention within the NFC West. Complaining fans and reluctant sponsors have a way of returning when a forlorn or discredited franchise suddenly finds its way to double-digit wins and a postseason berth. Coming off a 6-10 season while enduring an 11-year wait for a winning campaign make for easy skepticism.
A new stadium would likely bring a temporary bounce. Everyone likes “new.” But barring 11-5 or 12-4, can locals ever forget this ongoing soap opera?
The Rams don’t just have a stadium problem. They have an image problem.
Folks don’t pay big bucks to attend an NFL game in hopes of glimpsing the owner.
But they’ll certainly keep their cash in pocket if given an average (or worse) product and a money man who would love to be someplace else.
The courts will eventually define “adjacent” for the city and the state.
It may then be an opportune time to address the meaning of “dilemma.”