Home » Downtown »Planning & Design »Politics/Policy »STL Region » Currently Reading:

Do We Even Want to Keep the Rams, Can We Afford To

I’ve never been to a football game of any sort. That is saying quite a bit considering I did my undergrad work at the University of Oklahoma where football is seemingly important to everyone. Upon finishing at OU I moved to St Louis in 1990 just in time to catch the city trying to win an expansion team and finally getting the Rams from LA a few years later. I’ve never been to one of the few home games because frankly the sport bores me greatly. Baseball is an interesting game to watch in person, football is not.

Still I recognize the many fans the sport has. I also recognize what major sports can do for a region. Although we must accept the long standing history the baseball Cardinals have in St Louis. The Rams, I’m afraid, do not have the same strong ties to St Louis or the taxpayers, er, the fans.

Out of desperation in the early 1990s we gave the Rams a sweet deal to lure them to St Louis — that over the 30 year lease on the then new dome we’d make sure it stayed in the top 10% in the NFL, reviewed every 10 years. If we don’t keep up, the Rams are free to graze in other pastures.  As the Post-Dispatch reminded us recently, the last review point, at the 20 year marker, is in 2015 — just seven years away.   The P-D also had a rundown of some new stadiums coming online.  They are, in a word, expensive.  Try a billion dollars.

Last time the city, county and state all found a way to fund the dome (even without a team).  But the billion dollar question is this — at what point does keeping the Rams in St Louis get too expensive?  At what point does the cost far outweigh any real or perceived benefit the community gets in return for the investment of public dollars.  A billion dollars can do a lot for a region if leveraged properly.  I’d personally put the billion into a low cost per mile streetcar system and run it through an area prime for new construction with new zoning with some hefty density requirements.  I think  dollar for dollar return would be far greater and longer lasting than with a new football stadium.

The second question I have is this — assuming we think the Rams are worth keeping and that building a new billion dollar stadium is just par for the course —  where should it be built and what do we do with the old dome?  Baseball fits nicely into an urban context but football fans have the tailgate tradition that requires acres of surface parking.  For this reason I don’t think football belongs in a downtown setting, especially given the few times per year they play home games.   Locating a new dome on the East side of the river could be a nice gesture toward the idea that we are all part of the St Louis region.  There is also plenty of land available, transit access and by then a new bridge across the river for fans that can afford tickets and gasoline.

Another option is to place the new dome near downtown — in the old Pruitt-Igoe site.  Tie in a downtown streetcar circulator system running to the new dome and we might just get new development along the line.  The area around the new dome wouldn’t become village probably but the zoning of the area we set the stage for what it would become.  The village might end up being on the way to the dome.

Other options include far flung suburban locations along an interstate highway. Ug, boring.

And finally we have the issue of the abandoned dome.  Do we keep it around as addition space for the convention center?  No, get rid of the big thing so we ca repair that part of downtown — restoring streets lined with buildings oriented to the street.  Currently the convention center and dome acts as a large barrier between downtown and the residential areas to the North.  We need to do what we can to reconnect the city to downtown.

To recap the questions are as follows:  Is it worth a billion dollars to the region to keep the Rams in town?  If yes, where should a new dome be built?  And lastly what do we do with the old dome?

 

Currently there are "31 comments" on this Article:

  1. Andy says:

    The dome is an eyesore and the Rams suck. I say we let them leave and get an NBA team instead.

     
  2. Seth Teel says:

    Steve,
    What makes you think anyone is going to build a new dome? I seriously doubt after we subsidized the Cardinals new stadium and the wonderful non-existent Ball Park Village, citizens or elected officials have any desire to fork out money to help a poorly attended football team get a new pitch. The Dome and Convention Center unwent a rennovation not that long ago. And the Rams contract doesn’t expire til 2015. Don’t you think thats enough time to make any upgrades or additions needed to retain the team?
    I think there is a lot more to this than just keeping the Rams here. With the recent and ongoing development of Lumiere Place and subsequent phases I think there is great potential for the areas north and east of the dome. With the right master planning, a simple expansion/rennovation coupled with redevelopment of the vacant 2 square blocks to the north, could create (or expand the existing?) entertainment district. Maybe The Bottleworks could come to fruition. This could work well with your street car proposal. Maybe I am just too optimistic… But 2015 I dont think we will have a vacant dome.

    [slp — true but if the dome doesn’t have say a retractable roof by 2015 they might be gone by 2020.  I’m not at all convinced they are worth it.] 

     
  3. john says:

    It’s not our choice. Owners not fans determine the “stay-or-go” decision and to the extent fans offer revenues, too much is wasted already at Busch to have enough left over for the Rams (Dome doomed if the fans loose their dough at Lumiere). From a timing standpoint, much excitement will be generated for the Rams by the PD in the return of Green and the fun of having Long.

     
  4. Mike says:

    I’ve actually thought about this a bit. Worth it? Downtown? Only if its part of a well-designed project to bring more life to the city. The Dome is a dead zone.

    My idea: place a new state of the art stadium on the riverfront just south of Choteau. The stadium itelf could be made a part of the floodwall and 1800’s style paddle wheels/smokestacks could be added to the stadium in homage to STL’s riverboat past. This would look really cool with the right camera shot from IL. The RR tracks and 55 could be made to go under the stadium, reconnecting the area with Soulard to the south and the Purina campus area just west. This could also kickstart a redevelopment of the old riverfront factories just north of the RR bridge.

     
  5. Josh says:

    Interesting questions. First of all, I’m a huge football fan, and a BIG homer when it comes to any St. Louis sports team. The Rams have been struggling, but considering the brief time they’ve been here, I’d consider them pretty successful. The argument that because they’re experiencing a couple of down seasons they should be shipped out of St. Louis is contrary to the point of sports. You support your team any way possible, good or bad. Think about the Cubs for pete’s sake, the Rams have won more in the past 13 years than they have in 100 years… That said, I’ve never been sold on the dome. I understand the reasons for building a dome, and I’m not sure the Downtown location is poor, I just vastly prefer an open air stadium. If they could rip the top of the dome off, we could keep the Rams there for another 100 years as far as I’m concerned. If for some reason it were to make sense to move the stadium, the Pruitt-Igoe site would be interesting. I like the Choteau’s landing idea as well. Or even the idea of planting it into a neighborhood with enough space (the way that Wrigley is in Chicago) could be cool (not sure where would make sense…). You’re right about the tail gating situation though. We’re certainly at a disadvantage there in most of these scenarios. Most urban settings just don’t have the open land to do it right, and we certainly don’t want to encourage the destruction of yet more historic homes to make room! If we were to abandon the dome, I’m all for tearing it down and developing the area into great urban area with street fronting buildings. But the idea of creating another huge hole in the ground that goes undeveloped for too long, is not terribly attractive… And what’s the likelihood in this city of following through with an appropriate new urban project of that scale Downtown anyway?

     
  6. constant change says:

    I don’t really care where they or it goes, but reattaching that part of the city to downtown would be great.

     
  7. Goat314 says:

    I’m sorry guys, but if we lose the Rams and Football Cardinals in less than 30 years then that will really make St. Louis look like a 2nd rate city. Along with Ballpark Village being vacant for the upcoming all star game. Its crazy how thats happened, I feel the Cards really stuck the city with that one. I wouldn’t like to see it again with the Rams, but losing a team or major corporation doesn’t do much for a city that already has serious image problems. By the way, what the hell is up with Ballpark Village? It seems like everyone has just accepted that it will not get built or either when it gets built it will be subpar.

     
  8. Samuel says:

    At least to me, what is the return on investment on a stadium that will get used 10 times MAX by the Rams every year? I find it hard to believe that the revenue the Rams generate justifies spending what it would take to upgrade or replace the dome. At least the Cardinals play 81 home games a season. Being stuck in LA now, let me tell you something, no one misses having a football team here, especially the Rams.

     
  9. Jim Zavist says:

    Multiple thoughts and comments . . . the Broncos had absolutely no impact on my moving to Colorado in the ’70’s, nor did the Rams have any impact on my moving here four years ago. I enjoy watching pro football on TV, and have even attended a few games in person. And yes, winning and celebrating a Super Bowl is great for the regional ego. I also enjoy going to movies and taking vacations – they’re all personal entertainment. The big difference is I don’t see Paramount Pictures, Disney or the Vail Ski Corporation asking for direct taxpayer funding of their facilities (yes, they all get indirect tax breaks, as do the Rams). At a higher level, I also seriously doubt if the presence, or the lack of, a pro team has much, if any, impact on any company’s decision to locate in any city or region, or not.
    .
    Two, America’s Center is neither a very good convention center nor is it a very good football facility (domes suck). The pro teams with strong fan bases and a great football experience all have facilities that are topless (open to the weather) and surrounded by parking (think tailgating). They include the Broncos, Bears, Bengals, Chargers, Cowboys, Chiefs, Seahawks and Packers, to name but a few. The only thing a dome is good for is getting a chance, maybe once, to host the Super Bowl. These pro football stadiums are not “urban”, but the reality is that they probably shouldn’t be – they get used a dozen times a year, and when you have Monday or Thursday night games, they have a huge negative impact when they actually are in urban areas. Plus, with their limited usage, there is no real commercial spinoff to the surrounding neighborhoods – they’re much more of a big dark hole 333 days a year than any real sort of urban amenity (hmm, kinda like the Jones Dome!).
    .
    Three – should we, the taxpayers, vote to increase our taxes to build a new stadium? Personally, I say no, absolutely not. But I also believe in democracy – if the proponents can make a valid argument and convince the majority, it’s gonna happen. Personally, I’d rather see the same money directed to Metro – the same investment made in just expanding light rail would have many more long-term positive benefits than building a new stadium to “keep” the Rams ever would.
    .
    Four – that said, if we need to build another one, I’d vote to “give” that privilege to the east side. In my mind, the ideal site is across the river, just north of the Casino Queen, between the approaches to the Eads and the MLK Bridges. It has great highway and transit access, it would have a great view of downtown (for those TV shots), and it would be a good use of the floodplain – we rarely see flooding during the football season and who cares if acres of parking lots do get flooded? Plus, if it’s over there, it might just be their tax problem, not mine, and East St. Louis can obviously use any help they can get.
    .
    Five – other sites. The most logical one is also in Illinois, at Gateway International Raceway. They already have the acres of parking in place, along with a system for handling the traffic in and out, plus plenty of land to build a new stadium on. What they don’t have is good transit access or a good view of the city. And if we really need/want to keep the team on this side of the river, the most logical thing would be to build a new stadium where Ballpark Village is supposed to happen, next to Busch, much like KC. Then, tear down the Jones Dome, expand the convention center into a competitive facility and let what was supposed to happen at BPV happen naturally (and hopefully unsubsidized) around a viable facility that can actually attract a larger number of significant events (denverconvention.com, to name just one competitor). Heck, even nearby and smaller places like Louisville and Indianapolis have much better convention facilities than we do.
    .
    Six, and finally, given that St. Louis has a fairly short and contemporary track record when it comes to attracting a pro football team back to the city/region, it should be pretty easy for an economics whiz to crunch those numbers – the citizens have ponied up “X” dollars over “Y” years and have received “Z” dollars in direct, new, positive economic impact from this investment. What was promised and what has actually happened? Much like the current drumbeat, much can be and is promised, both tangible and intangible, to get a tax passed, but actual historical analysis, if done, is rarely made public, and my cynical side wants to know why. I get it, it hurt the regional ego when the old team hightailed it to Arizona. My question is was it worth it to “steal” the Rams from LA, and more importantly, how important (as in even higher taxes) would it be to “keep” them here?

     
  10. john w. says:

    Why invest another dollar in a new stadium, if the one that exists for the purpose it serves is already sastifactory. As for the true nature of the game of football, the dome should be torn off the bowl effectively creating the atmosphere traditional to the game. The surrounding convention center spaces are indeed awful, and while conveniently proximal to the hotels that provide the necessary hospitality for days-long events, there is little need for such expansive enclosure of conditioned interior space (the commons could have much better served a daily public street level activation by being ‘open’ in the way the concourse of Metropolitan Square allows through passage of pedestrian traffic past a convenience store and deli). Though most sustainability conscious folks would have trouble accepting the light pollution of an illuminated ediface that an open stadium could be, year ’round, I believe this could add to the visual interest our skyline already has from the westard approach on the Illinois side of the river. The bottom line is really that the facility necessary to accommodate the game and its fans already EXISTS, and while the recapture of these several blocks between downtown proper and the nearest near northside would be great, the fact is that the facility is there. Why expend millions more that should be properly directed to infractural development and new business and residential growth, when we ALREADY HAVE A STADIUM FOR FOOTBALL?

    [slp— I agree but the fact is we are already spending millions to upgrade the dome as per the requirement.  Hundreds of millions is another story.  Can we rip the roof off the existing dome in an off-season?  ]

     
  11. kcmonarch says:

    (hey guys, changed the name…from my one post as apKCmo…rolls off the tongue better 🙂 )

    Any renovation of the dome won’t be as easy as simply ripping the roof off, because I would assume a retractable roof would be required in its place. Don’t forget the boost EJD gives to the convention center, and particularly, its role in attracting Final Fours to StL, which will no longer be viable without it. However, I don’t see how a reno costing say, 100-200 million couldn’t produce a pretty spectacular football facility. This talk of a new billion dollar stadium to replace the ~15 year old dome is unnecessary, in my eyes. By 2015, though, it may be seen as the only way to keep the Rams in StL, which would be your call. The Cards rule St. Louis, but losing a NFL franchise (the most desirable of the four pro leagues) again could hurt. and I for one don’t see it happening.

     
  12. Jim Zavist says:

    The upgrades the team are looking for have little to do with the roof and whole lot to do with increasing the number of luxury suites. Much like how the new Busch was “needed” to accomodate more seats with high prices for the Cardinals, the Rams want a facility where they can generate more revenue. If there’s a way to add more luxury boxes to the Jones Dome that’s cheaper than building a whole new facility, the Dome will probably stay. If not (as is likely), it will “need” to be replaced to keep the Rams in town . . .

    [slp —it’s easy to think luxury boxes today but the more stadiums that come online with retractable roofs the harder it will become for our dark dome to compete with the  top 10% or whatever it is.  As 2015 approaches the roof will become an increasingly important issue.] 

     
  13. john w. says:

    The Arizona Cardinals have a retractable roof that could still, with full thermal enclosure, accommodate an event such as an NCAA tournament or a large attraction like Billy Graham and be fully open to the weather for football. The challenge with such a retrofit, beside modifying the existing roof trusses as needed for retraction, would be weatherizing the suites and common spaces currently designed as interior spaces. I just can’t see spending exorbitant sums of money for a new football stadium when the one that exists already serves the purpose. Renovate as needed, but leave it there (and tear off the roof and replace with roof like the Cardinals stadium). It’ll never happen, I know, but I can think of FAR better uses of multiple millions of dollars for this city.

     
  14. Brian Boeckmann says:

    Okay, time for a silly question. What is the criteria that defines whether a venue is within the “top 10%”?

     
  15. Jim Zavist says:

    Silly answer . . . see the contract.
    .
    As for our “dark dome”, it would be a whole lot cheaper (but not as energy efficient) just to install more lights. Taking the roof off would kill the dome’s use as a multi-use adjunct to the convention center, while retrofitting a retractable would probably cost nearly as much as building a new stadium somewhere else, to say nothing of the coordination “challenges” – could the work be completed in the 7 months between when one season ends and another oreseason starts?

     
  16. Chris says:

    Jim,

    The Rams could play at Mizzou in Columbia, just like the Bears played in U of I Urbana when Soldier Field was being “renovated.”

     
  17. john w. says:

    Jim,

    There is NO WAY that the retrofit would cost even CLOSE to what a new stadium would cost. The land procurement along with the infrastructural installations alone would prove that, and Chris’ point about an alternate location is thoroughly valid. The actual hole would be above the existing truss structure, and the rectraction mechanisms would operate atop this structural shell layer of existing trusses. I presume a few existing trusses would even be able to be removed as load was relieved. Domes are stupid, and the convention center could easily still use the space as I described in my comments above regarding the AZ Cardinals new stadium.

     
  18. Nick Kasoff says:

    Over more than twenty years in St. Louis, I’ve attended two baseball games, and one football game. I do consider myself a football fan, though not enough of one to watch it on television, go to the stadium, or to have any significant knowledge of the sport. Baseball, on the other hand, strikes me as a game with ten minutes of excitement packed into several hours of standing around doing nothing.
    .
    Personally, I think it’s absurd that we spend public money to provide facilities for our pro sports teams. All over St. Louis, there are dangerous, collapsing buildings, a blight to their neighborhood and a hazard to those who live there, and the city can’t afford to demolish them. We allow infrastructure to rot until it is a crisis, then scramble to find money for a quick patch. We don’t have enough cops to police the crime ridden neighborhoods effectively. The city is always angling for a tax increase of some sort or other. And yet we seem to have a bottomless stack of cash to throw at pro sports franchise owners. Disgusting.
    .
    Then again, if you listen to the idiotic songs they play on the radio when one of our teams is a contender (“Go Rams, Go, All the way to the Superbowl!”) it’s obvious that pro sports is aimed at morons. Yeah, go shirtless to a game and paint your entire body in team colors, that’ll show your team spirit, you drunken idiot. Sadly, these same morons vote, and so the support for dumping money into stadiums is surely stronger than the support for common sense, and wise allocation of limited public resources.

     
    • Sean says:

      You sir, are the problem with this city. Who are you to call everyone who enjoys sports a moron. You are sitting here acting like you have all of the answers and you have none. Many of the so called collapsing buildings you are talking about are historical buildings that Downtown St. Louis gets tax incentives for keeping around and later rehabilitating like the International Shoe Building which is now the City Museum. The tax breaks are given for many reasons such as the conservation of raw materials. And yes there are some buildings that have fallen into disrepair and are in need of demolition but these are problems that every urban area in the United States of America faces from Detroit, Flint, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, Miami, Los Angeles, Seattle, to Washington D.C. Even though you obviously hate sports does not mean that they do not have an economic impact to local economies because they do. The Cardinals will not tell us this but between the home games played at Busch, the World Series in 2006, and the All Star Game in 2009 have made the City of St. Louis enough to pay for the new stadium and Ballpark Village.

       
  19. john says:

    Exactly. Continue to ignore infrastructure and quality of life issues (ie the New 64) and pretend life is all about spending time watching millionaires play with each other. Then argue endlessly about subsidizing others with big parking lots, lack of law enforcement and TIFs while drinking date-on beer. Eventually no one cares, that’s the point…welcome to the Lou.

     
  20. Chris says:

    Do they vote, or are they just good at getting their obnoxious themselves on the nightly sports broadcast?

     
  21. Jim Zavist says:

    Since we can’t maintain links to the Post-Dispatch, here’s a non-link . . . Kevin Horrigan’s analysis on Sunday: “For the Rams: A (very) subprime loan” was definitely on point . . . you can find it, for a while, on the STLtoday website thru the following internal links: Home > News > Columnists > Kevin Horrigan

     
  22. John M. says:

    Count me in with those that are unsure of the bottom line value of a professional football franchise. Many good people worked very hard at landing the Rams, and I don’t want to diminish the name of Jerry Clinton and his efforts in that regard, as we got snubbed for an expansion franchise. They awarded one to Tallhassee Florida and Nashville Tenn. for crying out loud, but skipped St. Louis.

    As I became a football fan watching the ’99-00-01 season, due to the performance of the team, I am definitely a fair weather fan.The economic impact of 8, or up to 10 home games each year is dicey at best.

    Is it possible to bring in more economic impact for a virtually desolate downtown on Sundays?

    I personally think we should put more eggs in the basket of the lesser leagues to get the most bang for the buck. Think Golf, Tennis, Open wheeled CART racing, Nascar, collegiate sports. Invest in the events that truly are events. I found it fun and exciting to have the final four here. But I couldn’t tell you week to week who the ram’s are playing.

    These lesser events might actually deliver more truly tourist dollars.

    I am comfortable knowing that if the football fans would like to pursue their dream, I too would be willing to throw in a few dollars as well, but I am not willing to mortgage the future of the city on such endeavors.

    I am not a huge sports fan, so I do believe objectivity is important in these things.

    So if there are truly 100’s millions of dollars available of the public’s money available, let’s hear those with the best ideas win. I would love options in this process of achieving set goals. I mean to the city itself, what is football, baseball other than a branding campaign. The goals of the city should be clear and concise, even if the passions of true fans are more subjective.

    What do “ALL” of us get for the money? That is important to remember in all of this, and the threats of a 2nd class city by not having one, is one of the worst arguments I have heard. A sports franchise does nothing for that. Truth be known, we are a 2nd tier city in spite of the sports franchises. We are not LA, NY, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Boston or Denver. And they are not in that position because of sports.

    Sports is the “bling” of a community, and not the substance of one. I have been to many a city that has much to offer without one pro league in its arsenal.

    The basics tell me that we should ask, what is the substance of a real city and why a city exists in the first place? Why do people come together? People come together for economic opportunity, not celebration. Celebration happens when the opportunities have happened and we have the means to do so. So if you were broke, would you spend your remaining dollars on a party? Or would you invest those monies in a way to produce more financial rewards in the future?

    How many civic parties does St. Louis need when we have so many pressing issues that face not only downtown, but the region as a whole?

    We need to start acting like all of the players on all of these teams and just go for the money.

     
    • Sean says:

      Yeah like the Pruitt Igoe housing projects we invested in thousands of housing units to help out those who were less fortunate and it created hundreds of construction jobs for the two years it was being built and after it opened 9 years later it fell into disrepair and was mostly torn down and it was built by a world renowned architect. However if we use money to invest into a new stadium or what I would more likely suggest a complete overhaul to the Edward Jones Dome to the point that people wouldn't even recognize what the building used to be is the best option for creating lasting jobs, economic impact to local business, and overall visitors to the city. Let me put it this way and I truly believe that I am not the only one, I live in St. Louis County in the suburbs and if St. Louis were to get rid of the Cardinals and Rams I literally would have zero reason whatsoever to go Downtown, face it aside a few great downtown restaurants and Forest Park which is basically just as close to the county as the city; the County has better dining, shopping, entertainment, housing and jobs. The Cardinals, Rams and Blues in all reality are keeping Downtown St. Louis afloat and if you take them away every single Restaurant, Shop and Store will soon be out of business.

       
      • JZ71 says:

        Personally, you can take the Rams and their stadium out to the County. You have multiple potential sites. Sharing parking with Verizon Wireless Amphitheater (Maryland Heights), the vacant Chrysler plant (Fenton), the dead Jamestown Mall (Black Jack) or any place in Welston are all possibilities. But you may want to double check your geography – Forest Park is IN the city, not “just as close to the county as the city”!

        Pro sports have a place, especially in the hearts of their fans. But to say that they're critical to either the success or the soul of a community is flat out wrong. If they were, Detroit and the Meadowlands would both be desirable zip codes, while Austin and Honolulu would be barren ghost towns. Spectator sports are entertainment, plain and simple. The only real question is whether or not, or how much, taxpayers should be subsidizing them? We can all point to things we like seeing our taxes being spent on, and we all have things we see absolutely no need in supporting. That's why this discussion will never end . . .

         
  23. stannate says:

    Kansas City received a conditional offer to host the Super Bowl in 2015, provided that Arrowhead Stadium would have been enclosed with a retractable roof. The proposal to fund the retractable roof, offered in a referendum, failed, so the city nullified the conditional award (source).
    .
    If there were to be any renovation of the Edward Jones Dome, I can easily see the Rams playing in Columbia during construction time; the Bears and the Giants, among other teams, temporarily relocated to college stadiums while their home fields were renovated/built. The Rams probably won’t do well in their temporary home, what with having to travel 120-odd miles to “their” stadium, but the enticement of their renovated stadium may drive some interest. What I worry about, given how expensive a renovation would be (let alone a new stadium), there’s going to be one helluva marketing push to convince those outside of STL to pony up. Unfortunately, that “snow job” will probably involve two words: Super Bowl, as STL will try to pick up where KC left off. Once those words get mentioned, just wait for the line-up of companies trying to dip into the trough.

     
  24. Demolish the Edward Jones Dome and rebuild. Let the Rams leave. We are a baseball town anyway.

     
  25. Chris says:

    You’re right, Doug. This might sound crazy, but maybe we should try to become a two major league baseball team town again; I think we could support them.

     
    • Sean says:

      How exactly do you think St. Louisian's would embrace another MLB Baseball team? Oh, let me answer that for you “Not At All!” and that would require us to build yet another stadium which is what the Rams are wanting so might as well give them the new stadium because MLB in this modern age would not allow two teams to play in the same facility. And the Browns left back then because St. Louis was to small of a city to support 2 MLB teams and they didn't even draw good crowd numbers unlike the much more successful Cardinals that did draw attendance. I happen to be proud of our City and the sports teams that we do have. Everyone acts like the Rams are so terrible but without the Rams we wouldn't have won the Super Bowl in the 99-2000 season and wouldn't have been NFC Champions like we were in 2000-2001 season. Compare that to the success of the Seattle Seahawks, San Diego Chargers, Arizona Cardinals, Philadelphia Eagles, Cincinnati Bengals, Cleveland Browns and Minnesota Vikings. What these teams couldn't do in their entire franchise's history was done right here in St. Louis in a mere 15 years. So if we lose the Rams in St. Louis the Rams have not failed but yet again the City of St. Louis and our community have failed.

       

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe