Skip to content

Rams’ dome renovation plans will become public

83077581 Getty Images

The Rams recently submitted their plan to renovate Edward Jones Dome to the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission as the two sides try to figure out a plan to upgrade the stadium and keep the Rams in St. Louis.

When the Rams submitted the plans, they chose not to make them public and the CVC has fought to keep those documents secret. They’ve lost that fight. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said Monday that the documents would be made public next Monday unless a judge orders that they remain under wraps. Per the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which has been fighting to get access to the documents, the CVC has no plans to fight the state’s decision at the moment.

The CVC has until June 1st to accept or reject the Rams’ proposal. If the Rams and the CVC can’t agree on a renovation plan that makes the dome a “first-tier” stadium by June 15th, the dispute would go to arbitration. If there’s no agreement through that process, the Rams would be on a year-to-year lease after the 2014 season.

If that happens, talk of relocation would almost certainly pick up in intensity.

Permalink 15 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, St. Louis Rams
15 Responses to “Rams’ dome renovation plans will become public”
  1. Soulman45 says: May 8, 2012 10:11 AM

    Viking and Rams the two teams headed to LA.

  2. rollteal says: May 8, 2012 10:15 AM

    Not like they haven’t been the Los Angeles Rams before in fact they have for most of their existence. Then again if the situation in Minnesota continues to go south there maybe an open spot it after the Vikings bolt. But I hope none of this comes to pass & everyone keeps there teams.

  3. ultimatecardinalwarrior says: May 8, 2012 10:16 AM

    I want to know how much Kroenke would be paying for this versus how much the city of St. Louis would be. Because if Kroenke isn’t on the hook for at least a good chunk of it, I would say goodbye to the Rams, if I were the CVC. Without a commitment to the city from the owner, St. Louis could pony up tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and Kroenke could still say “Nah, I’d like LA better” and bolt. And then there’d be an freshly renovated but completely empty stadium downtown.

  4. sj39 says: May 8, 2012 10:25 AM

    I can’t wait to see it. The CVC proposal called fo the Rams to pay a substatial part (they said it was similar to the percentage other teams have kicked in). Their proposal was pretty cool but lacked something the Rams need that every other team has – revenue from parking. I would expect the Rams to want part of the old Bottle District north of the dome for parking. This would be a good thing as a developer in town now wants it for some sort of public housing that will cost, not generate money.

  5. dontouchmyjunk says: May 8, 2012 11:17 AM

    The sentiment out here is that of all the teams out there in the league, we would most welcome back the Rams to LA over any other franchise.

    We’ll settle for Minnesota, but would prefer our Rams come back home.

  6. jimbo75025 says: May 8, 2012 11:40 AM

    dontouchmyjunk says:May 8, 2012 11:17 AM

    The sentiment out here is that of all the teams out there in the league, we would most welcome back the Rams to LA over any other franchise.

    We’ll settle for Minnesota, but would prefer our Rams come back home.
    __________

    Face it-in the end the NFL wants an expansion team in LA much more than they want a relocation. Why? The expansion/franchise fee that is going to be in the high hundreds of millions or possibly even a billion by this point. If Minn or StL do transfer Ziggy or Kroenke are still going to get hit with a relocation fee that is gonna be pretty staggering considering the size of the market in LA.

  7. rammerray says: May 8, 2012 11:58 AM

    You L.A. fans need to stop saying “The Rams need to come back home!” The Rams original “home” is Cleveland, not L.A.!

  8. rollteal says: May 8, 2012 12:06 PM

    I could agree with that. I’m sure there is a nice divide with the ownership between expansion & relocation. Some like the number of teams we have some would like to see Los Angeles finally get its own NFL from birth with no history or baggage tided to it like their past NFL teams or even their most of other sports teams coming from all over to be in Los Angeles.

  9. sj39 says: May 8, 2012 12:14 PM

    dontouchmyjunk, you should not have ran them off in the first place. Just because they were having bad years the fans in that hugh market did not support them. Here they have sold out just about every game not just during The Greatest Show Years. Besides, jimbo is right.No current team has any interest in moving there. You will be lucky to get an expasion team and that will be many years away. Just enjoy the Rams on TV.

  10. lolb23 says: May 8, 2012 12:54 PM

    Because the public has a clue lol

  11. ownbay says: May 8, 2012 12:55 PM

    LA Rams

  12. purpleguy says: May 8, 2012 1:41 PM

    As a Minnesota Viking fan tired of the ongoing stadium legislative debate (looks like its going to pass), I will feel the pain of St.Louis fans as their debate starts — and promise not to use the 2nd-grade level “LA Rams” crack. Besides, California deserves a team about as much as Rex Ryan deserves another jelly donut.

  13. NoHomeTeam says: May 8, 2012 2:33 PM

    jimbo75025 says:May 8, 2012 11:40 AM
    . dontouchmyjunk says:May 8, 2012 11:17 AM
    . The sentiment out here is that of all the teams out there in the league,
    . we would most welcome back the Rams to LA over any other franchise.
    . We’ll settle for Minnesota, but would prefer our Rams come back home.
    __________
    Face it-in the end the NFL wants an expansion team in LA much more than they want a relocation. Why? The expansion/franchise fee that is going to be in the high hundreds of millions or possibly even a billion by this point. If Minn or StL do transfer Ziggy or Kroenke are still going to get hit with a relocation fee that is gonna be pretty staggering considering the size of the market in LA.

    **********************

    I’m going to have to disagree with you, there, Jimbo. I addressed this at the tale end of a Vikings thread, but I believe it bears addressing again. It’s not in the best interests of the League to expand. There are two issues in play:

    The first is Conference and Divisional Alignment. The current set-up – 4 teams per Division, 4 Divisions per Conference – is nearly ideal for the NFL. It makes scheduling significantly easier, and makes for what has proven to be a very successful postseason /playoff structure (individual team results notwithstanding). Expansion would almost certainly mean Realignment, which I believe is something a League which trades heavily on tradition and rivalry would very much like to avoid. To prevent creating an unbalanced structure, the NFL would have to revert to 3 Divisions per conference, with each Division consisting of 6 teams . That’s 36 teams in the League; even if the NFL preferred and expansion franchise in Los Angeles, where would the other 3 teams be placed? Are there three other cities that could support an NFL team?

    The second matter is money. You make a valid point regarding the expansion fee; I will absolutely grant you that an expansion fee could easily push the $1B mark. On the surface, it seems like this is something that “Greedy NFL Owners” would jump at. Here’s the thing, though: In the long run, adding an additional team would cost the existing owners money. The NFL’s primary source of revenue is and will continue to be broadcast TV contracts. It’s tempting to think that he contracts will continue to grow with each renewal, but at some point, there will be a limit to what the networks will pay. The pie simply won’t get any bigger. An expansion fee would certainly be a nice one-time windfall for the 31 owners, but it would mean that each ensuing year they receive a smaller portion of the League’s revenue. There would need to be something in place to replace that “lost” share, and I’m not clear what that might be.

  14. NoHomeTeam says: May 8, 2012 2:42 PM

    rammerray says: “You L.A. fans need to stop saying “The Rams need to come back home!” The Rams original “home” is Cleveland, not L.A.!”

    Cleveland Rams: 1937-1945, with a 1-year hiatus due to the war. 7 years.

    Los Angeles Rams: 1946 – 1994. That’s 48 years. Even if you want to exclude the “Anaheim Rams”, say 1946 -1979. That’s still 33 years.

  15. NoHomeTeam says: May 8, 2012 2:55 PM

    sj39 says: “dontouchmyjunk, you should not have ran them off in the first place. Just because they were having bad years the fans in that hugh market did not support them. Here they have sold out just about every game not just during The Greatest Show Years. . . Just enjoy the Rams on TV.”

    1. They weren’t “run off,” and the fans didn’t stop going simply because the team was not playing well. We stopped going because the ownership ran the team into the ground by siphoning off money that should have been put back into the team, and repeatedly refused to make moves that would have kept them at least competitive. She then turned around and claimed lack of fan support as a justification for taking the team to her home town.

    2. I don’t think the Rams are selling as many tickets as you think they’re selling these days. Are the St. Louis fans trying to “run them off?”

    3. We don’t get many Rams games here, since they’re not in our market. On the rare occasion that they play an opponent that the NFL thinks might appeal to us in the Los Angeles area, I usually tune in; the past couple of years have been very enjoyable — particularly the 1-15 season.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!