NFL Breaking News, Rumors: Rams Reject Offer to Upgrade Stadium—Is L.A. Next?

According to The Associated Press, as reported by washingtonpost.com, the St. Louis Rams formally rejected the initial proposal by the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome, the Rams' home stadium since 1995. 

This was an even less surprising announcement than the recent news from ESPN that the Rams had decided to deal the No. 2 pick between now and the 2012 NFL draft on April 26. 

Most who are knowledgeable of the situation fully expected a Rams rejection, as negotiations of this sort rarely, if ever, are resolved without a counteroffer.  

After all, who takes the first offer, regardless of how good it may (or may not) be?  A sound businessman almost always engages in a thorough negotiation process in an attempt to optimize the situation before coming to an agreement.  

The doom-and-gloom crowd will undoubtedly shout from the rooftops that the Rams are on the way out, but there is nothing to currently indicate that is even remotely true. 

Most of you know my thoughts on the situation, as shared here among my many articles on the topic.  St. Louis' most well-known sports journalist, Bernie Miklasz, recently stated boldly that "Kroenke's not moving the Rams," as reported here.

Miklasz is very well-connected in St. Louis and is highly regarded locally and nationally, as evidenced in part by him again being given a top-10 newspaper-based sportswriter award in the U.S, according to this article by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 

The next step in the lease negotiations is May 1. On this date (or potentially earlier), the Rams will present their counteroffer of how they feel the EJD should be upgraded.  

The initial CVC proposal, as detailed here, called for $124 million in upgrades and renovations in and around the EJD.  

Specifically, the CVC proposal called for the Rams to contribute 52 percent of the financing to cover the upgrades, a number based upon a league-wide average of recent upgrades and new stadium contribution percentages from around the NFL.  

Even the CVC admitted that although they would like the Rams to accept their proposal, they themselves expected changes. 

Once again, I fully expect an eventual pro-St. Louis resolution to the lease.  

The Rams currently have as good a lease situation as there is in the league.  Fortune 1000 companies are on the rise and the city is already home to a high number or Fortune 500 and 1000 companies. 

The metropolitan area continues to grow, according to the 2010 U.S. census, and is the 18th-largest in the U.S.  That makes it a solid, mid-size market.  In the last 10 years, the metro area grew from  2.698 million residents to 2.812 million occupants. 

As for the combined statistical area population (CSA), St. Louis checks in as the 16th-biggest with a combined population of 2.878 million residents. 

According to a new 2012 estimate reported in this column, St. Louis has reached 2.83 million metro area residents (up from 2.81 million in 2010), indicating a continued metro-area population growth. 

That puts St. Louis ahead of Green Bay, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Denver, New Orleans and Buffalo with regards to metro population.

St. Louis is comparable to San Diego, Minneapolis and Seattle in terms of metro population, checking in just a notch smaller than San Diego (3.09 million) and a few hundred thousand smaller than Minneapolis and Seattle. 

Simply put, St. Louis is plenty big enough and has a strong enough business base to support the Rams and support them sufficiently.  

The reason for the modest attendance downturn recently has been a historically anemic on-field product.  In fact, the Rams possess the single-worst winning percentage in NFL history over a five-season stretch, going 15-65 during that stomach-churning period. 

To put it in perspective, the Rams have won three (yes, three) or fewer games in four of the last five seasons.  In fact, they have won two or fewer games three times in the last five campaigns.

Would your city fill the house ever week under that scenario?  Unless you are in one of a handful of historic NFL cities possessing a multi-generational fan base with a consistent winning tradition who might pack the house under any circumstances, the answer to that is no.  

With all the on-field problems, St. Louis fans have also had the lease issue hanging over their heads.  

It is one thing to support a team wholeheartedly, regardless of the circumstances, when you know it is absolutely going to be your team, for good or for bad and to support them with reckless abandon regardless of how sorry the team might be when you know the team is yours now and forever.

It is an entirely different thing, however, to go all-in when your team is both historically inept and when you are not convinced of where the team will make its long-term home. 

Common sense would dictate that is an excruciatingly tough predicament for a fan base.  St. Louis fans deserve a standing ovation for the loyal support of the franchise while simultaneous enduring zero winning seasons in eight years and an insecure future.  

The vast majority of Rams fans have stuck with their team with an extraordinary dedication, passion and resolve that largely goes unnoticed nationwide.  

While reaching sellout status for every home game during the last two seasons (at times with the help of corporate or other assistance), the TV ratings continue to be terrific in St. Louis.  

To put the support they receive in the Gateway City in perspective, their preseason games were the most-watched television programs in St. Louis during the month of August and doubled the ratings of the pennant-chasing Cardinals.

I know people outside of Missouri just picked their jaws up off the floor after hearing that stat about this "so-called" baseball city.  The fact is, there is a great passion throughout the region for the Rams, despite lacking the lengthy tradition here that the Cardinals boast.

Even while in the midst of the storm, there appears to be light at the end of this long, dark tunnel.  

Hope springs eternal in St. Louis for football fans who have endured decades of some of the worst NFL football ever.

The football Cardinals were rarely competitive here, making the playoffs just three times in 28 seasons.  Outside the Greatest Show on Turf years, the Rams have been almost as futile while under the Arch.

Nevertheless, St. Louis is abuzz about the hiring of head coach Jeff Fisher, the speculation regarding the massive haul that may be had for the No. 2 pick in the chase for Robert Griffin III, some terrific young talent such as Sam Bradford, James Laurinaitis, Chris Long and Robert Quinn, and some much anticipated big-time cap space in 2013.  

Recently, a report surfaced showing Rams owner Stan Kroenke (who is bidding on the L.A. Dodgers) is working hand in hand with CVC Commissioner Bob O'Loughlin on a project at Union Station, which sits close to the EJD.

It has to be a positive sign that arguably the two most important individuals involved in the lease negotiations are working cooperatively on a separate (at least directly) joint project.

It is widely believed that the Rams and the CVC have a terrific working relationship, in general, and that, of course, is also a positive. 

In the end, I am convinced both parties will agree to some nice upgrades to the EJD while simultaneously working toward a long-term agreement for a new stadium somewhere in the St. Louis metro area. 

What is required by the lease to be done to the EJD by the CVC is often misrepresented and misunderstood. 

The CVC is not required to make the EJD one of the top 25 percent of stadiums in the NFL.

I repeat, that is not what is required in the lease.  What is required is that specific items or categories are "top-tier," and those specific items only.  For a look at the lease in full, check this. 

The Rams themselves have repeatedly stated they are not specifically concerned about the top 25 percent clause, per se.  They have consistently emphasized finding a global solution that will work for the citizens, the CVC and the Rams in making St. Louis more of a national and international destination. 

Rams Chief Operating Officer Kevin Demoff has steadfastly stated that the Rams goal is to build a winner "in and for St. Louis." 

Of course, some criticize Kroenke for remaining silent regarding the Rams commitment to St. Louis (although he did speak to that in 2010), but the prestigious owner of the organization (second-wealthiest in the NFL when combining his and his wife's net worth) did not get the nickname (Silent Stan) for nothing. 

As a businessman, he would be a fool to guarantee the Rams are staying in St. Louis no matter what. That would essentially kill all leverage he would have during these ongoing negotiations. 

Kroenke purchased only 30 percent of the Rams in 1994 (after being the lead investor for the St. Louis Stallions expansion efforts in 1993) on the predetermined condition that the Rams move to his home state of Missouri and the Gateway City. 

So now are we to believe he would move the Rams back to Los Angeles, abandoning his home state, for a still invisible stadium and to a situation where he would likely either have to give up partial ownership (something he has never done) or settle for a less favorable lease than his current one in the Lou?  

Sorry, but I am not buying it.  

Kroenke has a lot of political allies in high places in Missouri.  By 2025 (the date that the Rams lease is set to expire with the EJD), the building will be 30 years old.  

That 30-year life-span has become a general benchmark in determining a reasonable date for the construction of new stadiums.  By 2025, it should seem reasonable for all parties involved (the Rams, the state, and the city/county/metro) to replace the EJD with a state-of-the-art stadium.  

I foresee Kroenke either being given or sold land at a discount rate in the metro area that he can (and will) develop, with perhaps a Sam's Club Stadium or Walmart Field going up via a combination of state, city/region and Rams contributions paying for the new venue. 

In the meantime, the picture will become much clearer by May 1 when the details of the Rams counteroffer are released.  

Those details will show how far apart (or how close) the CVC's offer and the Rams' counteroffer is.  

We will be able to see how much ground needs to be covered to reach a resolution. 

The CVC must then show how it will pay for the Rams counteroffer (or come to some compromise with the Rams) by June 1, or the process would go to arbitration, and that process could continue through the end of the year.  

If by then an agreement is still not made, the Rams could potentially leave St. Louis following the 2014 season or enter into a year-to-year lease a la the San Diego Chargers.

In short, today's rejection means very little, if anything, in regard to where the lease negotiations are headed.  May 1 will be a much more telling revelation. 

In the meantime, I urge St. Louis Rams fans to remain calm and enjoy the draft and free agency.  I urge L.A. fans desiring a Rams return to do the same, as today's news means very little to the hopes of either group.  

For the first time in a while, the future looks bright for the St. Louis Rams on the field and, hopefully (for the sake of St. Louis fans), for the long-term future of the Rams in the Gateway City as well.  

Shane Gray covers the St. Louis Rams year-round. You are encouraged to check out the rest of his work here and to follow him on Twitter.