Aug 26, 2010; Foxboro, MA, USA; St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke on the sideline prior to game against the New England Patriots at Gillette Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Stew Milne-US PRESSWIRE

The details for the Rams proposal to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome were released as promised, and they were eye-opening to say the least. The retractable roof story wasn’t exactly accurate, but the plan does call for an operable roof panel to let natural light in and it calls for the eastern half of the Dome to be demolished and rebuilt over what is now Broadway.

The entire proposal is projected to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $700 million, which seems high until you consider that most new stadiums cost close to $1 billion or so. I know that doesn’t make anyone feel better, but it’s true.

The potential new stadium would feature much more natural light, which looks to be a focal point for the plan. For those of us who are regulars at the current Dome, we know that’s a good thing. The new east side would be a glass wall, which would be very nice. There would also be more seating and wider concourses.

This is a lot to take in. The price tag is high, but the new Dome would be an exciting facility for a fraction of the price of building a new one. The CVC almost certainly won’t accept the proposal, however, so the quest will continue on.

Aug 20, 2011; St. Louis, MO, USA; A general view as the St. Louis Rams take the field before the game against the Tennessee Titans at the Edward Jones Dome. Mandatory Credit: Photo by Scott Rovak-US PRESSWIRE

I haven’t talked much about the back and forth between the CVC and the Rams regarding upgrading the Edward Jones Dome recently because the details submitted by the team to the CVC have been under wraps. That is, at least, until Wednesday night. Fox 2 news in St. Louis is reporting that the biggest feature of the Rams’ counter-proposal is that they want to tear out the current roof on the dome and replace it with a retractable roof. We will find out all of the details of the proposal on Monday, but the Rams didn’t include any cost projections in the proposal so we don’t know what this would cost.

I think a retractable roof is a great idea. I’ve been saying for years that the football experience in St. Louis would be far better if we could open up the roof and let some of the elements in. I’m not claiming to know what something like this would cost, but it seems impossible to me that this could actually be a possibility. There is no way the CVC is going to accept this proposal, which means the two sides will go to arbitration on June 15. I guess what I’m saying is, this idea is good in theory, but this thing is far from over and this proposal doesn’t look like it got us any closer.

We are going to find out the rest of the details next week, so there’s no use jumping to conclusions or anything just yet. At least we know something, which is more than we have been able to say for the last several days. We are going to hear plenty more about this situation in the coming weeks and months, so buckle up. It’s going to be a long ride.

As you may know, the CVC has told the Rams that playing their Oct. 28 “home” game against the aforementioned Patriots in London is a violation of their lease agreement. That problem could be a thing of the past, however, as the organization and CVC are nearing an agreement that would allow the Rams to play the Patriots and games the following two seasons overseas.

Rams VP Kevin Demoff said the deal is nearing completion and tickets for the Patriots ame could go on sale as soon as this week. Tickets sales were postponed when the CVC announced the issue, so the fact that they are planning to go on with sales is a very good thing. I was afraid this was going to be the first major issue between the two sides, but the fact that they resolved this so easily and quickly gives hope that the two sides will be able to play nice in future negotiations as well. We still have a long way to go, but this is one crisis averted.