L.A. Leaders Support NFL Stadium

[Ed]

It looks like there's a good chance the NFL is coming back to L.A. at some point in the near future. I noticed the Bills aren't listed in the article as a team that could relocate. Colin Cowherd has been talking about it a lot this morning on his show. He thinks the Chargers are the best option to move and makes the most sense. The article is below.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-sp-la-nfl-stadium-20110120,0,7459705.story

[THATHURMANATOR]

That would be perfect!

[Ed]

I don't think the Bills have ever been a realistic option for L.A. There are just too many better candidates. And as much as some fans hate Ralph Wilson, as long as he's the owner he would never move them to L.A.

[JD]

Jacksonville should move before ANYONE

[trapezeus]

there was an article a couple months ago outlining how the NFL really got burned on the moving costs of moving the rams to St louis. So much so that when the expansion fees came out for the texans and browns, St louis did not get an equal cut and instead had to pay back the $80MM in fees.

I think moving a west coast team is much easier than asking the bills or jags (as much as they need to move) to move.

the schedules get messed up in the divisions, the costs are a lot, and i think they know buffalo is a good market to have. people attend the games and they watch the games that prop up the exorbinant tv contract, which at the end of the day is the life blood of the NFL's money.

[OpIv37]

For the last time people: the Jacksonville Jaguars are NOT moving anytime soon. Their stadium lease is far too expensive to break.

[Johnny Bugmenot]

For the last time people: the Jacksonville Jaguars are NOT moving anytime soon. Their stadium lease is far too expensive to break.
There is option B: fold the Jaguars, form an expansion team for Los Angeles, and transfer all Jaguars personnel under the new entity. That's technically what the Baltimore Ravens did in '96.

[Ingtar33]

the vikings are probably a fair bet to move to LA as well... with the immense damage to the metro dome and their lease up i wouldn't be surprised to see them bolt.

[better days]

I still want to see where the money will come from to build this GRAND Stadium. Because California is in the RED, it has to be PRIVATE money, & that is a lot of money to invest by someone that does not even own a team.

[Ed]

I still want to see where the money will come from to build this GRAND Stadium. Because California is in the RED, it has to be PRIVATE money, & that is a lot of money to invest by someone that does not even own a team.
Well I don't know if you read the article, but it says in the second paragraph that the stadium would be privately financed by AEG. That's where the money would come from, not California.

[trapezeus]

what that article doesn't say is that the estimated costs are way under what the designs and the state of the art desires the builderes want. so they are going to have to pay $1bn for the team and possibly $1-2BN for the stadium. $3bn in financing will put a huge strain on the LA franchise. especially if it isn't good and exciting out the gate.

The LA option isn't a slam dunk. I think the brains in the NFL know that and are treading carefully.

[Ed]

what that article doesn't say is that the estimated costs are way under what the designs and the state of the art desires the builderes want. so they are going to have to pay $1bn for the team and possibly $1-2BN for the stadium. $3bn in financing will put a huge strain on the LA franchise. especially if it isn't good and exciting out the gate.

The LA option isn't a slam dunk. I think the brains in the NFL know that and are treading carefully.
I don't think the plan is to buy the team. Whatever owner moved their team to L.A. would still be the owner.

[better days]

I don't think the plan is to buy the team. Whatever owner moved their team to L.A. would still be the owner.

OK then what is in it for the PRIVATE owner of the stadium? Is he going to let the owner of the NFL team play there for free out of the goodness of his heart? Or does he want to be paid for the use of his stadium?

[better days]

Well I don't know if you read the article, but it says in the second paragraph that the stadium would be privately financed by AEG. That's where the money would come from, not California.

Where is AEG getting all this money from? If I were a taxpayer of California, I would want to see the books before approving this. Aside from the cost of construction, there is the cost of upkeep & game day expenses is AEG going to pay that as well?

[YardRat]

OK then what is in it for the PRIVATE owner of the stadium? Is he going to let the owner of the NFL team play there for free out of the goodness of his heart? Or does he want to be paid for the use of his stadium?

Obviously there would be a lease, and the other details regarding concessions, parking, etc would have to be negotiated but most likely fall in favor of the stadium owner.

Not to mention other revenue streams available when football isn't being played. You could almost guarantee a Super Bowl in LA within 2-3 years of stadium completion, and probably another bid for the Summer Olympics.

As a fan, Jacksonville makes the most sense, but logistically San Diego should be the favorite.

[better days]

Obviously there would be a lease, and the other details regarding concessions, parking, etc would have to be negotiated but most likely fall in favor of the stadium owner.

Not to mention other revenue streams available when football isn't being played. You could almost guarantee a Super Bowl in LA within 2-3 years of stadium completion, and probably another bid for the Summer Olympics.

As a fan, Jacksonville makes the most sense, but logistically San Diego should be the favorite.

Exactly, the owner of the stadium would stand to reap the profits, not the NFL owner, therefore why would any NFL owner want to move his team there? Name me even one other NFLteam/stadium set up like that.

NFL owners are used to getting the revenue streams themselves. They will not want an outsider horning in on their action. The only way I see that Stadium being viable is for the owner of the stadium to at least own a large piece of the team.

As has been said before, Jacksonville PAYS to have the Jags there & it would cost a lot of money to break the lease for a while yet. Even with the small crowds they are drawing, I think the owner of the Jags makes out better in Jacksonville than he would in LA if he had to pay a private owner of the Stadium to play there.

[Ed]

Exactly, the owner of the stadium would stand to reap the profits, not the NFL owner, therefore why would any NFL owner want to move his team there? Name me even one other NFLteam/stadium set up like that.

NFL owners are used to getting the revenue streams themselves. They will not want an outsider horning in on their action. The only way I see that Stadium being viable is for the owner of the stadium to at least own a large piece of the team.

As has been said before, Jacksonville PAYS to have the Jags there & it would cost a lot of money to break the lease for a while yet. Even with the small crowds they are drawing, I think the owner of the Jags makes out better in Jacksonville than he would in LA if he had to pay a private owner of the Stadium to play there.
Of course the NFL owner would profit. Higher ticket prices, seat licensing, more luxury suites, and more corporate sponsors. Moving to L.A. would be a sweet deal for any team. And it works out well for California since they don't have to fund it and it would create thousands and thousands of jobs.

[trapezeus]

sweet deal in the short term. the buzz is always high for new things in LA. sustainability of sales is always a problem as evidenced by three teams that have moved out of LA in the last 20 years.

[better days]

Of course the NFL owner would profit. Higher ticket prices, seat licensing, more luxury suites, and more corporate sponsors. Moving to L.A. would be a sweet deal for any team. And it works out well for California since they don't have to fund it and it would create thousands and thousands of jobs.

How do you know how much the NFL owner would profit? How can it be a sweet deal to have to pay to play in a private stadium? As I said name me one other team that does so. The Jags on the other hand already have a sweet deal in Jacksonville.

[Ed]

How do you know how much the NFL owner would profit? How can it be a sweet deal to have to pay to play in a private stadium? As I said name me one other team that does so. The Jags on the other hand already have a sweet deal in Jacksonville.
I don't know the details of other teams stadium deals, but whether they are privately or publicly owned, they all have lease agreements with those stadiums. And the new stadium for the Giants and Jets were built with private funds. AEG owns a number of sports arenas all around the world including the Staples Center. You don't think the Lakers are profitable playing in the Staples Center?

AEG is obviously not going to be able to entice a team to come to L.A. unless they can provide them with a more lucrative situation.

I personally hate the idea of teams relocating and I couldn't care less if L.A. ever got a team again, but the league is not going to expand and everyone seems to want a team in L.A. so I think it's inevitable.

[Ed]

And the Jags deal isn't sweet because they can't sell any tickets. It may be too expensive for them to ever move, but their situation blows.

[better days]

And the Jags deal isn't sweet because they can't sell any tickets. It may be too expensive for them to ever move, but their situation blows.

It is sweet because Jax pays the Jags for tickets not sold. LA would surely sell out for a few years but by year 5 after the luster has worn off if the team is not great, a team in LA will have problems selling tickets and the team would still have to pay the owner of the stadium.

[better days]

I don't know the details of other teams stadium deals, but whether they are privately or publicly owned, they all have lease agreements with those stadiums. And the new stadium for the Giants and Jets were built with private funds. AEG owns a number of sports arenas all around the world including the Staples Center. You don't think the Lakers are profitable playing in the Staples Center?

AEG is obviously not going to be able to entice a team to come to L.A. unless they can provide them with a more lucrative situation.

I personally hate the idea of teams relocating and I couldn't care less if L.A. ever got a team again, but the league is not going to expand and everyone seems to want a team in L.A. so I think it's inevitable.

The only things in life that are inevitable are death, taxes & war. The only privately owned stadiums in the NFL at this time are owned by the teams that play in them. LA will most likely get a team at some point, but I will be surprised if the private stadium owner does not own at least a good part of the team.

[trapezeus]

but what i don't get is why a private builder of a stadium would give a team a more lucrative deal than the sweetheart deals counties and states provide and NOT get ownership of the team.

From the perspective of the stadium builder, you have to put up between $1bn and $3BN to build the "state of the art" building. This is what i meant from my previous post. the builders keep promising items in the new stadium proposals but they are low balling the numbers. The stadium, based on current "wow" factors have the stadium more in the $2BN range.

Now the chargers are stuck in an old stadium, but the state and the counties cut deals like parking revenues, and renovation costs to be paid by the city. The catch is that you have to stay.

What could a builder who is out $3BN get out of this if he isn't getting ticket revenue sales, he isn't getting parking revenues, he isn't getting food concessions sales, and is responsible for the upkeep of the stadium? The ancillary concerts and events that builders and owners talk about are negligible in turning a profit.

Therefore, unless you got ownership of the team, you've essentially just purchased the brooklyn bridge. There is zero revenue coming in, you had to give the owner preferential lease terms than his previous deal, and you have to give him at least the same renovation costs that his other deal had to get him to move and pay the moving fees that the NFL hates.

It's a lot of cash out the door to get very little low lying fruit in the door.

I think ownership and stadium building has to go hand in hand.

[Johnny Bugmenot]

It is sweet because Jax pays the Jags for tickets not sold. LA would surely sell out for a few years but by year 5 after the luster has worn off if the team is not great, a team in LA will have problems selling tickets and the team would still have to pay the owner of the stadium.
As long as they don't overdo it on the size of the stadium the #2 market in the U.S. should never have a problem filling a regular-sized NFL stadium.

[better days]

As long as they don't overdo it on the size of the stadium the #2 market in the U.S. should never have a problem filling a regular-sized NFL stadium.

You wouldn't think so, but who would have thought two teams would leave the #2 market in the U.S.? Wouldn't you think at least one of them would have stayed & tried to get a new stadium built?

[Johnny Bugmenot]

You wouldn't think so, but who would have thought two teams would leave the #2 market in the U.S.? Wouldn't you think at least one of them would have stayed & tried to get a new stadium built?
It was sheer coincidence both left at the same time. The Rams (who moved first) had been second-banana ever since the Raiders moved in, and the Raiders were in a fight with the city of L.A. over stadium repairs after the earthquake. Besides, the Raiders played in a huge stadium that fit over 90,000 people. Had the Raiders moved first, I have a feeling the Rams would still be in Anaheim.