Home » Downtown »Featured »Popular Culture »Sunday Poll » Currently Reading:

Poll: Will The St. Louis Rams Opt Out Of Dome Lease?

October 19, 2014 Downtown, Featured, Popular Culture, Sunday Poll 12 Comments
Please vote in the poll, located in the right sidebar
Please vote in the poll, located in the right sidebar

The last regular season game for the St. Louis Rams is December 28th, at CenturyLink Field in Seattle. With a 1-4 record I don’t think we can expect to see the Rams in the post-season. At the end of this season the Rams need to decide if they’re going to opt out of the last 10 years of a 30 year lease at the Edward Jones Dome. They can opt out because the quasi-government entity that owns the Dome was unable to meet the contractual obligation to keep the facility within the top 25% of all NFL stadiums. If the Rams opt out of the last 10 years they’ll switch to a year to year lease.

The negotiating climate changes rapidly. I personally had positive feelings when they drafted Michael Sam. When they released him, understandably so, my feelings cooled immediately. With players in trouble for domestic & child abuse, this year hasn’t been the best for the NFL’s image.

The poll question this week asks what you think the Rams will do. Not what you’d like them to — what will they do? The phrasing is:

“At the end of the current NFL season the St. Louis Rams have the right to opt out of the last 10 years of their lease at the Edward Jones Dome. What’ll they do?”

The poll is in the right sidebar, mobile users will need to switch to the desktop layout to see the sidebar.

— Steve Patterson


Currently there are "12 comments" on this Article:

  1. Fozzie says:

    What does the second paragraph have to do with the first paragraph?

    • The first paragraph establishes where the issue stands currently, the 2nd my thoughts on the leverage the Rams may, or may not, have if they try to get a new facility in the St. Louis region or elsewhere.

      The NFL brand has been damaged in the eyes of some taxpayers so it’ll be harder to convince them to fund a new facility.

      • Fozzie says:

        I’ll ask more pointedly. How does Michael Sam affect this leverage?

        • Myself and others looked upon the Rams more favorably when they drafted him. That favorability might have led to a willingness to consider a new partially taxpayer funded stadium.

          I get why they didn’t sign him, but any willingness I might have had to help them has vanished. I get that others might feel the exact opposite, while more don’t care.

          • Fozzie says:

            I figured that was the nonsensical connection you were making. The stadium issue is an economic issue, not a social issue.

            If a ballot measure comes about, I guess the Rams shouldn’t count on any Bosnians to vote for the measure since no Bosnians are on the team, either. Then again, we don’t know if any gay men are already on the team, do we? Maybe that’s the way it ought to be — a non-issue.

          • Todd Spangler says:

            I agree with Fozzie that connecting Michael Sam to the stadium issue is nonsensical. My own view on Michael Sam is that he appears to be a great person and a hard working, driven competitor but is only a marginal NFL talent, at least at present. Kudos to the Rams for having the courage to both draft him and cut him — I think both moves were done entirely in the interests of fielding the most competitive team possible. As for the Rams, I’ve read that the NFL has a strong interest in bringing one or two teams into the LA area in the next year or two. At present, the Rams would appear to be a great choice and could depart very, very quickly. They could likely play in the LA Coliseum or Rose Bowl until a new stadium is built, and Stan K’s investment in the team would probably double in value. A no-brainer, particularly given the evident disinterest in the St. Louis area in providing a high quality venue for the team.

          • I’d previously expressed I was five if the Rams left, then said I felt better once they drafted Sam. My connection was personal, as stated.

          • Fozzie says:

            If only the developers of Loughborough Commons were openly gay, their auto-centric design would have escaped your scorn.

          • Very poor analogy. There are many openly gay developers here are throughout the country, construction workers too.

          • Fozzie says:

            Nah, I hit the nail on the head. Your predisposed agenda as a purported community advocate is laughable.

  2. gmichaud says:

    In a true discussion Micheal Sam would have nothing to do with the price of eggs in China. I was recently at the Dallas game, first game I’ve been to in a while. The stadium as it sits is a good building, maybe without the bells and whistles of other stadiums, but certainly not even close to the end of useful life
    I don’t think the NFL brand is the problem as much as funding billionaires like Kroenke to build a new stadium. Aside from the insanity of signing a contract saying saying whatever the owner calls out in 20 years St. Louis should submit to what comprises total bullshit. What is worse is that the design of the stadium is not modular. The current architectural design does not allow for economical improvements later. Why is that when upgrading is considered so important? Is it stupid leadership or what is it?
    From what I can see the Edward Jones Dome is fine, my house over 100 years old, but only the mediocre leadership of the St. Louis region cannot find solutions.
    Personally I’m tired of the games. And I’m not talking football games.
    It is the same con game over and over. Enjoy being screwed.

    • Lately NFL owners have faced increased reluctance from communities to fund new stadiums. In such a climate Kronenke won’t have cities, except perhaps LA, from lining up with big offers.


Comment on this Article: