Did they really not have a better option?

Not really...the Rose Bowl already said no and the only other option really is Dodger Stadium.

When the Rams last played out there, they played at Edison International. They couldn't have done that?

I am not sure how that would be better. Especially since the stadium has been drastically downsized since then. I think it only seats 45,000 now. Plus I don't think it is configured to be rearranged to hold football like it used to be.

It is not like the Coliseum is Dilapidated . USC plays there now and while it is certainly no modern NFL stadium, or even college stadium, it will do for a couple of years. Maybe USC gets some free upgrades out of it.

I believe both Dodgers and Angels said no.

Heck, they couldn't have parked in St. Louis for at least a year? Sure it would be a lame duck season and attendance would suffer but they instead play in a place the NFL refused to let an NFL team move to?

(01-13-2016 12:53 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I am not sure how that would be better. Especially since the stadium has been drastically downsized since then. I think it only seats 45,000 now. Plus I don't think it is configured to be rearranged to hold football like it used to be.

It is not like the Coliseum is Dilapidated . USC plays there now and while it is certainly no modern NFL stadium, or even college stadium, it will do for a couple of years. Maybe USC gets some free upgrades out of it.

Vikings paid for extensive upgrades to Univ of Minnesota stadium, as nice as it already was for a college stadium.

Granted, those were mostly related to cold weather.

Considering the scope of the new project, I would not count against the Rams dropping $20 million into the Coliseum for their use, which will help USC a lot as well.

(01-13-2016 01:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:53 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I am not sure how that would be better. Especially since the stadium has been drastically downsized since then. I think it only seats 45,000 now. Plus I don't think it is configured to be rearranged to hold football like it used to be.

It is not like the Coliseum is Dilapidated . USC plays there now and while it is certainly no modern NFL stadium, or even college stadium, it will do for a couple of years. Maybe USC gets some free upgrades out of it.

Vikings paid for extensive upgrades to Univ of Minnesota stadium, as nice as it already was for a college stadium.

Granted, those were mostly related to cold weather.

The Vikings paid for a new heated playing surface, increased storage space throughout the stadium, and concession upgrades. Cost $7,000,000.

(01-13-2016 01:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Considering the scope of the new project, I would not count against the Rams dropping $20 million into the Coliseum for their use, which will help USC a lot as well.

USC is committed to making $270,000,000 of renovations to the Coliseum. I'm sure the rent charged to Kroenke won't be cheap.

(01-13-2016 03:10 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 01:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:53 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I am not sure how that would be better. Especially since the stadium has been drastically downsized since then. I think it only seats 45,000 now. Plus I don't think it is configured to be rearranged to hold football like it used to be.

It is not like the Coliseum is Dilapidated . USC plays there now and while it is certainly no modern NFL stadium, or even college stadium, it will do for a couple of years. Maybe USC gets some free upgrades out of it.

Vikings paid for extensive upgrades to Univ of Minnesota stadium, as nice as it already was for a college stadium.

Granted, those were mostly related to cold weather.

The Vikings paid for a new heated playing surface, increased storage space throughout the stadium, and concession upgrades. Cost $7,000,000.

They also added seats to the open end of the stadium.