Rams must win before asking fans to foot stadium bill
By Bryan Burwell
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Sunday, May. 25 2008
We all know where this is going. We all know where this eventually will lead.
Everything about the future of the St. Louis Rams, both short term and long
term, leads us directly to the Edward Jones Dome.
This is the crossroads where everything intersects — hopes and fears, dreams
and wishes, victories and failures, political and social choices, the
disturbing past, the unsettling present and the tenuous future. All the answers
are inside those walls of the big brick playground on Broadway.
Contractually, the Rams are eventually going to need a new stadium or at a bare
minimum a wildly upgraded current one — if St. Louis hopes to keep Rams
ownership from at least a predictable serious flirtation with another city. How
well this city deals with the stadium issue will provide us with the answer to
whether yet another NFL franchise will be bolting the Mississippi riverfront
and heading off to another city. That's a fact, not a debate. It's something
everyone knows, but no one really wants to talk about because quite frankly,
we're all afraid of the potential answers.
Between now and 2014, the dome will be so far behind the rest of pro football's
other state-of-the-art stadiums that there's no way the city's convention
authority will be able to meet the terms of the lease agreement that the Edward
Jones Dome be among the top eight NFL facilities by 2015.
People in St. Louis probably don't like that idea even a little bit, because
they know at the end of that conversation, there will be a big fat tax bill
with their names on it. But that was part of the deal when St. Louis lured the
Rams away from Los Angeles. The city — and that means all of us — made a
promise that it's being asked not so subtly to keep.
So it's time for a home improvement loan or a brand-new house. Either choice is
going to hurt. Either way, there's a monstrous price tag. You know what the
going rate for new stadiums is, and the cost for sprucing up a charming little
fixer-upper like the Dome isn't any easier to cope with, either. It's going to
hurt, and one way or the other, the price is going to be steep. Keep the Rams
and shell out more money, or lose them and never expect another NFL team to
enter the city's borders again.
That vote is going to come sooner or later, and I'm not telling anyone what
they should do with their tax dollars at this point, particularly in a
struggling economy when it takes $50 to fill up a Yugo.
But I do know this. If the Rams ownership really is committed to staying here,
and they are truly intent on holding the city to the terms of the lease (trust
me folks, they are), then it's incumbent on them to give the fan base a product
worth supporting. Dallas Cowboys boss Jerry Jones understood that before he got
up the gumption to build his gargantuan $900 million palace in suburban
Arlington but needed the vote of the people to get the deal done.
He knew the Cowboys couldn't be a crappy product in the same year that the
proposition to gain state tax dollars to help fund the project was on the
voters' ballots. So he brought in Bill Parcells to coach the team and create a
quick fix on a sluggish franchise. It worked. Parcells turned the team around,
the citizenry gave Jones his funds and the most fabulous football palace in the
history of the world is growing in the shadows of the Texas Rangers' ballpark.
The Rams need to do the same thing. No, not bring in Parcells. They need to get
good in a hurry and stay good for a long time. They need to provide an
entertaining and successful product on the field to make that inevitable big
tax bill for stadium improvements more palatable to digest for a citizenry that
historically hates large tax bills.
So that uncomfortable feeling you're getting about the Rams' future is totally
justified. Oh yes, all roads do lead to the Dome, and sooner or later, we're
all going to have to deal with this. Yet your suspicions that something
clandestine is afoot may not be as easy to justify, but are simple to
understand.
All the words coming out of new owner Chip Rosenbloom's mouth are attempting to
soothe your fears, and he's not feeding you any lies. When he has said he's not
shopping the team, that's the truth. But you should know exactly what that
means. It's the same as me saying my house is not for sale, and then someone
knocks on my door with a million-dollar check.
Here are the keys, thank you very much, and I'll send somebody for the
furniture.
Everything is for sale, you just have to find the right asking price.
So this is where all roads lead. We're about to find out just how much the Rams
mean to St. Louis, and how much St. Louis means to the Rams.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
"Honor" for Incognito
So I'm reading thru the 1/21 Sporting News (yes, I'm WAY behind in my reading), and I see that Richie Incognito's peers have betowed him with an honor.
Second-dirtiest player in the NFL.
Worthless piece of shit Rodney Harrison was the runaway winner in the poll of 107 NFL players, beating Incognito 31 to 8, with Roy "Horse Collar" Williams third with 6.5 votes.
TSN says Richie's "an after-the-play menace who is known to pull a Moe with an eye poke now and then."
Just think - when piece of shit Harrison retires, and it'll be soon, Richie will be the dirtiest player in the NFL!
Keep up the dirty work, Richie!
Second-dirtiest player in the NFL.
Worthless piece of shit Rodney Harrison was the runaway winner in the poll of 107 NFL players, beating Incognito 31 to 8, with Roy "Horse Collar" Williams third with 6.5 votes.
TSN says Richie's "an after-the-play menace who is known to pull a Moe with an eye poke now and then."
Just think - when piece of shit Harrison retires, and it'll be soon, Richie will be the dirtiest player in the NFL!
Keep up the dirty work, Richie!
Brilliant Burwell: Rosenbloom won't sell (until he does)
Bryan Burwell tries to reassure St. Louis Rams fans by telling us nothing new, showing stunning naivety in believing anything an NFL owner ever says in this matter, and by ending his column with a stupid and contradictory point that undermines the whole thing.
Allow me summarize.
Rosenbloom won't sell... Rosenbloom won't sell.. Rosenbloom... OK, when he does sell, the Rams have to stay here till 2015. But at least I have his phone number!
How do these two ideas, from the same paragraph, square with one another?
"That doesn't mean that somewhere down the line Rosenbloom won't sell the team..."
"...the fear that someone was once again on the verge of committing franchise grand larceny against this football community should officially be put to bed."
They don't! If you think Rosenbloom could sell the team down the line, why would you think the possibility of losing the team should be put to bed?
I've already painted the scenario. I would have thought Burwell smart enough to figure it out on his own. Seeing otherwise, I may look him up and try to sell him the new Interstate 70 bridge.
Allow me summarize.
Rosenbloom won't sell... Rosenbloom won't sell.. Rosenbloom... OK, when he does sell, the Rams have to stay here till 2015. But at least I have his phone number!
How do these two ideas, from the same paragraph, square with one another?
"That doesn't mean that somewhere down the line Rosenbloom won't sell the team..."
"...the fear that someone was once again on the verge of committing franchise grand larceny against this football community should officially be put to bed."
They don't! If you think Rosenbloom could sell the team down the line, why would you think the possibility of losing the team should be put to bed?
I've already painted the scenario. I would have thought Burwell smart enough to figure it out on his own. Seeing otherwise, I may look him up and try to sell him the new Interstate 70 bridge.
No 'For Sale' sign on the Rams
05/21/2008
Simple question: Are the St. Louis Rams for sale?
In the face of an Internet report that said he was shopping the franchise barely four months after the death of his mother and longtime Rams owner Georgia Frontiere, new team chairman and owner Chip Rosenbloom was convinced he'd answered that most essential question with a prepared statement issued by his public relations staff.
"I thought it was pretty clear," Rosenbloom said in an e-mail late Tuesday evening.
Well, no, it wasn't clear.
Perhaps it was the inexperience of a new owner facing his first public brush fire, but Rosenbloom's flurry into the spotlight began with a rather cloudy prepared statement that failed to put out the fire and probably stoked it just a bit more.
"To reply to this article, nothing has changed since my mom's passing ... While we deal with her estate I can assure you we have every intention of keeping the Rams in
That was part of the prepared statement that was issued in the early afternoon in response to a Yahoo Sports.com report that the Rosenbloom and his sister were selling the team and the asking price was between $850 million and $900 million. Yet the trouble with that answer was that it was the wrong answer, like telling me you're 10 feet tall when I ask you what time it is.
Is the team for sale?
But by late Tuesday evening, Rosenbloom responded to e-mails and voice mails and removed any doubt about what many
Now that was clear. Unlike the earlier, vague and easily misinterpreted prepared statement, the new owner left no room for any misunderstanding or inaccurate reading between the lines.
Rosenbloom said he is not shopping the team, and that's precisely what the city deserved. That was the 800-pound elephant that was standing in the middle of the room since the day Rosenbloom took over the franchise. Rosenbloom kept saying that as long as he owns the Rams, they're safe in
So if the team was being shopped, the team's
The Rams have a long history of quickly getting word out when they are victims of faulty reporting. On the record or off, someone will make sure it's clear that a story is false when management wants to clear up any doubts. So it was rather peculiar how they responded Tuesday afternoon when former NFL owner Eddie DeBartolo was quoted by prominent football reporter Mike Silver. On the website Yahoo Sports.com, DeBartolo said he'd spoken with intermediaries who said the asking price was somewhere between $850 million and $900 million. The Rams, oddly, never issued a denial of that basic element of the story. Here's why that little fact was far more relevant than whether the new owner wants to keep the Rams in
If Rosenbloom were to sell the team, a new owner could have different plans about that local stability and less civic loyalty. Just ask the city of
When I originally asked Rosenbloom that question via e-mail and voicemail Tuesday, and he replied that I should check out his prepared statement, I did. It never answered the question. In fact, if it was supposed to douse the fire, it actually fanned the flames with its oddly worded phrases. This is why I hate written statements — they rarely tell you everything. They lack the definitive opportunity that a face-to-face live encounter provides.
By now you've probably seen the original prepared statement, and it proved conclusively why most prepared statements fall short. First of all, it began by confirming all of our anxieties. But it also failed to provide specifics. Was the team being shopped or were people simply assuming that you were going to sell? When you were approached, did you shoo them away like pesky flies or give them that flirtatious, "come hither (and bring your financial statements)" look? Were they legitimate buyers with deep pockets and flawless backgrounds, or frauds with no portfolio?
There were too many questions, not nearly enough answers.
But the new boss took care of that definitively by the end of the evening, and that's exactly what he had to do. This is a city that has bent over backward for this franchise, making everyone involved wildly wealthy beyond most imaginations. In 13 years in
That doesn't mean that somewhere down the line Rosenbloom won't sell the team, but with an airtight lease with the city that guarantees at least eight more years in the Edward Jones Dome — and a clear-cut promise from the new owner — the fear that someone was once again on the verge of committing franchise grand larceny against this football community should officially be put to bed.
Simple question. Simple answer. The team isn't for sale.
Sporting News on NFL labor situation
NFL owners, players aren't stupid — right?
Clifton Brown, sportingnews.com
Posted: May 20, 2008
You want to believe that NFL owners and players are too smart to ruin a good thing. We are about to find out.
NFL owners voted 32-0 on Tuesday to opt out of the current labor deal, meaning there could be a season without a salary cap in 2010 and a work stoppage as early as 2011. It's too early to hit the panic button. But it's not too early to wonder how this will all play out.
The current system is not perfect. Despite the salary cap, some smaller market owners say they are at a disadvantage, unable to generate revenue equal to teams with new stadiums or teams from bigger markets. The Buffalo Bills' decision to play some future home games in
Owners, general managers and even a few veteran players are irked by the guaranteed money given to top draft choices. Jake Long might turn out to be a great left tackle for the Miami Dolphins, but there's no way he should be the highest paid left tackle in the NFL before ever playing a down.
So yes, some things about the current system need to be addressed -- but not at the expense of the fans.
Answer this question: When has the NFL ever been more popular? The answer is never. It's a year-round addiction for fans.
For the NFL, the term "offseason" has become outdated. The Super Bowl is followed by the NFL Combine, then free agency, then the draft, then minicamps, then training camps, then another season. It's a year-round cycle that keeps generating more attention from fans and more revenue for owners and players.
Since the NFL's last work stoppage in 1982, the league's popularity has been on a steady climb that nothing has been able to stop -- not the Michael Vick fiasco, not Spygate, not players getting arrested for various offenses.
But another work stoppage would elicit a seriously negative reaction from fans. You can't take their game away and expect them to forgive and forget quickly. And you can't expect fans to feel sorry for wealthy owners, or for players making millions of dollars, especially in these tough economic times.
You will hear a lot of rhetoric during the coming months of negotiations. Players union chief Gene Upshaw will call the owners greedy. The owners will say the current system is unfair. But you have to believe a new deal will be struck in time to prevent a work stoppage. The owners might not like this deal, but a work stoppage would be far more costly.
Senior writer
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Correction
The earliest the Rams can break their lease in St. Louis is actually 2015.
So I'll get my 20 years in after all.
Before the team moves back to L.A.
So I'll get my 20 years in after all.
Before the team moves back to L.A.
The whole ugly picture
So let's see... now we find out the team's new owners want to sell it. It's almost impossible to blame them. Inheritance tax is a bitch.
Minority owner Stan Kroenke ought to be the #1 ownership option, but the NFL won't let him become majority owner, if he even wants to, because he owns teams in other sports. That NFL rule is almost as stupid as its TV blackout rule.
If Kroenke doesn't at least make an honest effort to keep the team here, he'll become as big a St. Louis football villain as Bill Bidwill. Sure, fans try to spend their team owners' money for them all the time, but Kroenke's an especially fair target, having made his fortune spending, or taking advantage of, his wife's Wal-Mart fortune. He may live in Colorado, but he indeed has a civic duty here. His stake in the Rams has increased wonderfully since he bought it, and it's because of St. Louis fans. Kroenke owes us.
However, Kroenke acquired the Colorado Avalanche and Denver Nuggets well after he bought into the Rams. He knew the rule then regarding ownership of multiple sports franchises. So he'll either make a move to have the rule re-considered, or he'll hide behind it while somebody else buys the team with the transparent motive of moving it back to L.A. Option B is likelier. His stake's value would increase without him lifting a finger.
For --St. Louis-- Rams fans, this is shaping up about as ugly as it can get. The team is coming off an awful season and will be lucky to sell out two home games in 2008. The Rosenblooms need to sell the team and don't figure to spend significantly to improve it. One person that's great news for: Scott Linehan. Suddenly, he's becoming a great bet to play out his contract, almost no matter what he does. It's not like the current owners will spend big bringing Marty Schottenheimer or whoever to St. Louis. Nor would any potential owners waiting out the lease so they can jump to the West Coast.
And this is an awful time to be a fan of a team with a tight budget, because the owners have unanimously voided the CBA with the players' union and made 2010 an UNCAPPED season. After which the owners and the players' union will play chicken with the 2011 season. Whether or not this is mindless idiocy the owners bring on themselves (it is), it's a poisonous atmosphere for trying to revive a franchise.
So, the team's going to suck, under owners who either can't, or won't, spend significant money to improve it. The rich teams will pull way away from the poor teams in 2010. There may not BE a 2011 season. The Rams' waning popularity in St. Louis will become plunging popularity. Oh, and the stadium lease, the only thing really keeping the Rams in the city, in a facility widely regarded as "declining"? Runs out in 2012. The city of St. Louis surely has no plan for replacing the E.J. Dome, and the chances of building a new football stadium here are about as good as Eric Crouch's chances of becoming NFL MVP.
Assuming the Rosenblooms have sold the team by 2012, look at all the excuses hypothetical new owners will have to move the team. A declining fan base and a declining facility in a small market will make it impossible to compete in a freer-spending league, in a sport that's shot itself in the foot popularity-wise with another strike. To be economically viable, we need to move the team.
Sounds a lot like the team's excuses for moving from L.A. in the first place.
Can I just add how fucking cruel it is that we let Isaac Bruce go to the 49ers, and now, there's articles talking about the whole team going to... Eddie DeBartolo? Just shoot me now.
It's practically unavoidable. Too much has to happen to prevent it.
* Does Stan Kroenke -want- to be majority owner? Can he get the NFL to change its rules preventing him from becoming majority owner? Will another local owner emerge?
* Can the team improve quickly enough to revive fan interest? Can local interest survive the inevitability of losing out to richer teams, a potentially damaging strike, or, simply, more seasons of bad football? I hate to bring up baseball here, but basically, can the Rams survive here the way the Cardinals have?
* Can the city and the team reach an agreement in the next four years on a new stadium? Will anything short of that do?
* Will somebody else - the Saints? Jagwires? expansion? - beat the Rams back to L.A.?
Unfortunately, I think the answer to all of those above questions is no, and that, little though we suspected it, the endgame of the Rams' stay in St. Louis has begun. The war's over. Wormer dropped the big one. The team's era here passed when Georgia Frontiere did.
I justified buying my original PSLs with the idea that if I held them for 20 years, they only cost me an extra $5 a game.
Looks like I'll never see that rate of return now.
Minority owner Stan Kroenke ought to be the #1 ownership option, but the NFL won't let him become majority owner, if he even wants to, because he owns teams in other sports. That NFL rule is almost as stupid as its TV blackout rule.
If Kroenke doesn't at least make an honest effort to keep the team here, he'll become as big a St. Louis football villain as Bill Bidwill. Sure, fans try to spend their team owners' money for them all the time, but Kroenke's an especially fair target, having made his fortune spending, or taking advantage of, his wife's Wal-Mart fortune. He may live in Colorado, but he indeed has a civic duty here. His stake in the Rams has increased wonderfully since he bought it, and it's because of St. Louis fans. Kroenke owes us.
However, Kroenke acquired the Colorado Avalanche and Denver Nuggets well after he bought into the Rams. He knew the rule then regarding ownership of multiple sports franchises. So he'll either make a move to have the rule re-considered, or he'll hide behind it while somebody else buys the team with the transparent motive of moving it back to L.A. Option B is likelier. His stake's value would increase without him lifting a finger.
For --St. Louis-- Rams fans, this is shaping up about as ugly as it can get. The team is coming off an awful season and will be lucky to sell out two home games in 2008. The Rosenblooms need to sell the team and don't figure to spend significantly to improve it. One person that's great news for: Scott Linehan. Suddenly, he's becoming a great bet to play out his contract, almost no matter what he does. It's not like the current owners will spend big bringing Marty Schottenheimer or whoever to St. Louis. Nor would any potential owners waiting out the lease so they can jump to the West Coast.
And this is an awful time to be a fan of a team with a tight budget, because the owners have unanimously voided the CBA with the players' union and made 2010 an UNCAPPED season. After which the owners and the players' union will play chicken with the 2011 season. Whether or not this is mindless idiocy the owners bring on themselves (it is), it's a poisonous atmosphere for trying to revive a franchise.
So, the team's going to suck, under owners who either can't, or won't, spend significant money to improve it. The rich teams will pull way away from the poor teams in 2010. There may not BE a 2011 season. The Rams' waning popularity in St. Louis will become plunging popularity. Oh, and the stadium lease, the only thing really keeping the Rams in the city, in a facility widely regarded as "declining"? Runs out in 2012. The city of St. Louis surely has no plan for replacing the E.J. Dome, and the chances of building a new football stadium here are about as good as Eric Crouch's chances of becoming NFL MVP.
Assuming the Rosenblooms have sold the team by 2012, look at all the excuses hypothetical new owners will have to move the team. A declining fan base and a declining facility in a small market will make it impossible to compete in a freer-spending league, in a sport that's shot itself in the foot popularity-wise with another strike. To be economically viable, we need to move the team.
Sounds a lot like the team's excuses for moving from L.A. in the first place.
Can I just add how fucking cruel it is that we let Isaac Bruce go to the 49ers, and now, there's articles talking about the whole team going to... Eddie DeBartolo? Just shoot me now.
It's practically unavoidable. Too much has to happen to prevent it.
* Does Stan Kroenke -want- to be majority owner? Can he get the NFL to change its rules preventing him from becoming majority owner? Will another local owner emerge?
* Can the team improve quickly enough to revive fan interest? Can local interest survive the inevitability of losing out to richer teams, a potentially damaging strike, or, simply, more seasons of bad football? I hate to bring up baseball here, but basically, can the Rams survive here the way the Cardinals have?
* Can the city and the team reach an agreement in the next four years on a new stadium? Will anything short of that do?
* Will somebody else - the Saints? Jagwires? expansion? - beat the Rams back to L.A.?
Unfortunately, I think the answer to all of those above questions is no, and that, little though we suspected it, the endgame of the Rams' stay in St. Louis has begun. The war's over. Wormer dropped the big one. The team's era here passed when Georgia Frontiere did.
I justified buying my original PSLs with the idea that if I held them for 20 years, they only cost me an extra $5 a game.
Looks like I'll never see that rate of return now.
NFL owners opt out of CBA
More wonderful news from the football world this fine morning...
Yet another useless professional sports strike, anyone?
Owners opt out
By Jason Cole, Yahoo! Sports
ATLANTA – NFL owners voted unanimously Tuesday to opt out of the collective bargaining agreement, opening the door for negotiations on an extension and creating the possibility of a work stoppage for the 2011 season.
Several of the owners, who are meeting collectively here to discuss a variety of issues in a one-day meeting, have complained in recent months about the terms of the agreement. Under the current CBA, NFL players receive 59 percent of the revenue raised in football.
In a release, the NFL said: “The NFL earns very substantial revenues. But the clubs are obligated by the CBA to spend substantially more than half their revenues…on player costs. In addition, as we have explained to the union, the clubs must spend significant and growing amounts on stadium construction, operations and improvements to respond to the interests and demands of our fans. The current labor agreement does not adequately recognize the costs of generating the revenues of which the players receive the largest share; nor does the agreement recognize that those costs have increased substantially – and at an ever-increasing rate – in recent years during a difficult economic climate in our country. As a result, under the terms of the current agreement, the clubs’ incentive to invest in the game is threatened.”
The league estimated that it spends approximately $4.5 billion on player costs.
The league also argued that the structure of the deal does not work for lower-revenue clubs. Finally, the league is upset with the inability of clubs to recoup signing bonus money from players who breach their contracts, such as imprisoned Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick.
NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw responded to the announcement with no surprise during an interveiw on Sirius Radio: “My response to his e-mail was very simple: ‘What a surprise,’ ” Upshaw said. “Obviously the owners have decided to take this termination early. We expected it. But it means that there is football through 2010, not through 2012. And it also means that, as they say during the draft, we’re on the clock. That’s basically what it means.”
Upshaw said he received an e-mail from league commissioner Roger Goodell on Tuesday morning.
Yet another useless professional sports strike, anyone?
Owners opt out
By Jason Cole, Yahoo! Sports
ATLANTA – NFL owners voted unanimously Tuesday to opt out of the collective bargaining agreement, opening the door for negotiations on an extension and creating the possibility of a work stoppage for the 2011 season.
Several of the owners, who are meeting collectively here to discuss a variety of issues in a one-day meeting, have complained in recent months about the terms of the agreement. Under the current CBA, NFL players receive 59 percent of the revenue raised in football.
In a release, the NFL said: “The NFL earns very substantial revenues. But the clubs are obligated by the CBA to spend substantially more than half their revenues…on player costs. In addition, as we have explained to the union, the clubs must spend significant and growing amounts on stadium construction, operations and improvements to respond to the interests and demands of our fans. The current labor agreement does not adequately recognize the costs of generating the revenues of which the players receive the largest share; nor does the agreement recognize that those costs have increased substantially – and at an ever-increasing rate – in recent years during a difficult economic climate in our country. As a result, under the terms of the current agreement, the clubs’ incentive to invest in the game is threatened.”
The league estimated that it spends approximately $4.5 billion on player costs.
The league also argued that the structure of the deal does not work for lower-revenue clubs. Finally, the league is upset with the inability of clubs to recoup signing bonus money from players who breach their contracts, such as imprisoned Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick.
NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw responded to the announcement with no surprise during an interveiw on Sirius Radio: “My response to his e-mail was very simple: ‘What a surprise,’ ” Upshaw said. “Obviously the owners have decided to take this termination early. We expected it. But it means that there is football through 2010, not through 2012. And it also means that, as they say during the draft, we’re on the clock. That’s basically what it means.”
Upshaw said he received an e-mail from league commissioner Roger Goodell on Tuesday morning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)