bubba9497 Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 NFL wants to put stars back in L.A. League has spent $1 million to study possibilities, but stadium funding remains roadblock. http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/052304/spo_15679395.shtml NFL owners meet this week in the Jacksonville area, the league's second-smallest market, to discuss ways of returning to Los Angeles, the nation's second-largest market. During their annual May meeting, Tuesday and Wednesday at Amelia Island, one of the major items on the league's agenda will be an update on the progress in making a deal to return a team to Los Angeles. The owners meetings are in the Jacksonville area because the city will host the Super Bowl for the first time on Feb. 6, 2005. The NFL even looked into the possibility of holding the meetings on a cruise ship, but it wasn't feasible to bring in a ship for just two days. The fact the NFL has a team and will stage a Super Bowl in Jacksonville, which has 587,200 TV households according to the NFL, and doesn't have one in Los Angeles, which has 5,318,040 TV households, illustrates the importance of revenue generating stadiums in today's NFL. Both the Rams and the Raiders left Los Angeles in 1995 because the city doesn't have a modern stadium with enough expensive luxury boxes and club seats. By contrast, Jacksonville began play in 1995 because Alltel Stadium produces the kind of revenue that makes an NFL team profitable with its luxury boxes and club seats. Though six of eight Jaguars regular-season home games did not sell out and were blacked out on TV last year, premium seat sales make the team lucrative. The NFL has been able to thrive in the last decade without a team in Los Angeles, but the league wants to return. Los Angeles is the only one of the top 18 TV markets in the country without an NFL team, and the league is on the verge of losing a generation of fans in Los Angeles since the Rams and Raiders left nine years ago. Taxpayers in Los Angeles have shown no interest in funding a new stadium the way St. Louis, Baltimore, Houston and Cleveland did after those cities lost teams. Even when the league awarded Los Angeles an expansion team in 1999, the city couldn't put a stadium deal together and the league gave the team that was ticketed for Los Angeles to Houston several months later. Finally, in 2002, NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue decided the league was going to have to be more proactive to get a team back to Los Angeles, and formed a working group to study the market. NFL senior vice president Neil Glat said the NFL has since spent more than $1 million studying the Los Angeles market possibilities. "We're making a lot of quiet progress," he said. "It's an important market for us for obvious reasons." Meanwhile, Rose Bowl officials hired John Moag, a consultant who was the head of the Maryland Stadium Authority when Baltimore lured the Browns from Cleveland, to lead their bid for a team about 18 months ago. Rose Bowl officials have traditionally been cool to the NFL. Former commissioner Pete Rozelle wanted to play the first Super Bowl there in Pasadena, and the Rose Bowl officials rejected the idea and the game was played at the Los Angeles Coliseum. It wasn't until Super Bowl XI that the Rose Bowl finally hosted the game. But Rose Bowl officials decided that if a new stadium is built in the Los Angeles area, it should be in Pasadena. They want to try to preserve some of the historic nature of the Rose Bowl in a new stadium. Moag is so confident the Rose Bowl will eventually get a team that he agreed to a deal that pays him $2 million if Pasadena lands a team. He doesn't get paid for his time and expenses if Pasadena is not selected. "I've bet on Pasadena," Moag said. "I think I bet correctly." Two other sites are being considered -- a rebuilt Los Angeles Coliseum and a vacant 157-acre site in nearby Carson. Pat Bowlen, the owner of the Denver Broncos who was on the committee that awarded an expansion team to Los Angeles in 1999 only to see it wind up in Houston, said, "I think the attitude has changed. I see a lot more cooperation from people interested [in Los Angeles] in seeing something done." Owners meetings When: Tuesday & Wednesday. Where: The Ritz-Carlton, Amelia Island. Who: NFL owners and league executives. Agenda: Topics include bringing team to LA., extending collective bargaining agreement, planning for future Super Bowls and new TV contract. Still, there's the question of how the stadium -- with an estimated cost of at least $400 million -- will be funded. "Where is the money going to come from?'' asked Dan Rooney, owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers and a member of the Los Angeles working group. Rooney's family put $75 million into Heinz Field in PIttsburgh. Glat said that "private money is our focus" for funding since there seems to be no interest in Los Angeles in putting taxpayer money into the deal. Glat suggested it would include a club contribution, a league contribution and funds from the selling of luxury boxes and private suites and naming rights in the new stadium. Moag said the Los Angeles market could support record prices for premium seats. "There are fabulous economics in Los Angeles," he said. "They're different than anywhere else in the country." The NFL also must determine whether the new franchise will be an existing team that will be moved or an expansion team. Los Angeles officials prefer an expansion team, but adding a 33rd team to the league would upset the balanced schedule of eight four-team divisions. "That's the real dilemma," Bowlen said. The Broncos owner said it would be more difficult to do it with a relocated team, but added, "I don't see the appetite [in the league] for 33 teams." Although the owners will debate the issue, Glat said they might not take any action until the 2005 meetings in Maui. Glat said he doesn't believe the process is being driven by the expiration of the league's TV contracts after the 2005 season, but Moag said, "Sure, it's a factor. I can't imagine it not being a factor." The remainder of next week's meetings will primarily cover committee reports, including the planning for the Jacksonville Super Bowl and future Super Bowls although no other games will be awarded at the meeting. There'll also be reports by various committees, including thebroadcast committee on the status of TV negotiations and the ManagementCouncil on the status of the talks on the new CBA. The highlight of the meeting will be a dinner Tuesday night on the USS John F. Kennedy for the owners that the NFL says is part of its ongoing NFL initiative to honor the U.S. military. It's also designed to salute Jacksonville's Navy presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kappaluvacee Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 I'm all for a team back in LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 It appears someone is going to have to fork over some money to build a new stadium besides the tax payers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 The group that built the Staples center offered to build a stadium without tax money, but the city council rejected the plan. The Coliseum commision is very powerful and they want a team to return to that worthless stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 I see it being the Saints in 2 or 3 years as soon as a stadium agreement can be worked out, especially since the Saints have been getting zilch from their proud city or stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfdc Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 You can't force your well to do's and the like, folks with nice hard working values to fight through that sh** again of traffic, theft, lack of interest in the general area or even patronage (the well off and Hollywood mogules aren't regulars really, just have more attention when when they show up (0nly when they win- not good). Why isn't Al Davis still in LA. No stadium or no stadium and deminishing revenue also. That later is it and it stings. LA only wants a team until the fad wears off again. Then that team will move to Las Vegas, or Salt Lake City (which is the plan all along). hey crazier things have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 I'd like to see the Saints stay in New Orleans. I was just on a trip down there and got the feeling that they have solid fan support. The local news loves 'em, and they are a decent team overall. The Cardinals seem like a better fit to me. Arizona stinks and they have almost no one in the stands at games. To me, the fan base means almost as much as selling luxury boxes because the league ends up looking weak by having teams unable to draw crowds for games. If there are no fans, they don't deserve the team. Period. Besides, if they DO take the Saints, we won't be able to have all those Superdome Superbowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 Originally posted by rfdc You can't force your well to do's and the like, folks with nice hard working values to fight through that sh** again of traffic, theft, lack of interest in the general area or even patronage (the well off and Hollywood mogules aren't regulars really, just have more attention when when they show up (0nly when they win- not good). Why isn't Al Davis still in LA. No stadium or no stadium and deminishing revenue also. That later is it and it stings. LA only wants a team until the fad wears off again. Then that team will move to Las Vegas, or Salt Lake City (which is the plan all along). hey crazier things have happened. I agree. If there is lack of interest with the "locals", why bother. They will have to spend monumental money for a stadium that will most-likely consistently lose money (IMO). I think at this point, if they are going to lose an entire generation of fans, they might as well just leave it alone now. It will be at least 4 more years before the team is actually in place & by then, they will have lost that generation. It will just sap the league moneywise & they will ultimately have to move the team anyway. A very bad investment I think based on this article. A good choice would be to look at cities that ARE interested locally in a team. Vegas, I believe is one of those cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 Originally posted by CowboyzSuckAzz I agree. If there is lack of interest with the "locals", why bother. They will have to spend monumental money for a stadium that will most-likely consistently lose money (IMO). I think at this point, if they are going to lose an entire generation of fans, they might as well just leave it alone now. It will be at least 4 more years before the team is actually in place & by then, they will have lost that generation. It will just sap the league moneywise & they will ultimately have to move the team anyway. A very bad investment I think based on this article. A good choice would be to look at cities that ARE interested locally in a team. Vegas, I believe is one of those cities. Vegas!?! Pffffttt. C'mon. I can't see them drawing any more fans than Arizona. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinFaninOKC Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 The NFL doesn't need Los Angeles. Anyway when you think of sports and L.A. the first things that come to mind are Shaq, Kobe, Phil, and the Dodgers. The Clippers?? No one cares. The Angels?? Too bad they don't have more of a following, the franchise is run pretty good and they have quality players. The Kings and Ducks are boring. The NHL should move those teams to Winnipeg and Quebec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlitzFiftySix Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 The Benson family wont move from NO to LA. They are native Loosiannians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Originally posted by CowboyzSuckAzz I agree. If there is lack of interest with the "locals", why bother. They will have to spend monumental money for a stadium that will most-likely consistently lose money (IMO). I think at this point, if they are going to lose an entire generation of fans, they might as well just leave it alone now. It will be at least 4 more years before the team is actually in place & by then, they will have lost that generation. It will just sap the league moneywise & they will ultimately have to move the team anyway. A very bad investment I think based on this article. A good choice would be to look at cities that ARE interested locally in a team. Vegas, I believe is one of those cities. The NFL is about TV revenue. LA is the 2nd largest market and the NFL wants it back before the next tv contract negotiations. LA will add significantly to the overall cap of all of the teams. You're smoking crack if you think the NFL will put a team in vegas before LA. There has been a lot of talk about the Colts moving here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaganaut Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Let em have their stinking basketball and silicone breasts. Washington DC is the antithesis of LA and if they don't want violent football games in their city then screw them. We have enough teams already. La-who-sirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZkinsFan Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 LA, is there enuff interest out there with the people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panthro Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 I bet LA gets another team in the next 3-5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlinginSammy HOF '63 Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Colts is an interesting suggestion. I've heard this also. Any word on Minnesota moving to San Antonio or is that a dead isuue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 :welcome: back Indy...'er rfdc. Long time no see. Why the new account and change in handle ? In any event, glad to see you're back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyG3 Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Originally posted by ZkinsFan LA, is there enuff interest out there with the people? The people here generally could go either way. Most football fans here already have a team anyway. I do think, however, that if a team were to move here, and change it's name and image, it would be well recepted. These are the things that need to happen: 1) It must be an NFC team. (Can't compete with the Raider fans who dominate the area) 2) Must change the name and image to something the LA people can identify with. 3) Must play in a new or vastly renovated stadium with nice amenities. 4) Must market the crap out of it and generate a big stir. 5) The team must not suck. Reaganaut, you obviously have never been to LA so you should just :stfu:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Originally posted by ZkinsFan LA, is there enuff interest out there with the people? No there isnt. This is a area filled with out of town NFL fans now. The league screwed up long ago and destroyed any fan base that was here/could have been here for them to add a team. L.A. won’t see a successful NFL franchise again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 I think Las Vegas could work. Discounting the tourists that might try to catch a game, (how cool an away game would that be?), most Las Vegans are transplants. Would give the city and the area something to bond over. Plus, it is one of, it not the the, quickest growing areas of the country. They could build a nice dome stadium somewhere in the desert. It could also be used a convention center, like the Superdome is. The only downfall would be the NFL not trying to be associated with legalized gambling--err--gaming. I see their situation a lot like New Orleans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 This is stupid. The only reason they're even talking about a team in LA is money. Its all about money. They aren't going to have an expansion team so you can forget that. So what team can they possible move without screwing up the alignment of the divisions? No knock on LA, but I don't believe at this time we should put a team there. Things will change eventually, but right now they just need to eat it and just rout for the raiders like they've been doin for the past couple years. That's my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 If they build it it doesnt neccessarily means he will come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfdc Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Hey Yusof06 - it was like a an underwear thing, I just had to make a change. Felt more refreshing and I noticed a restaurant or bar in Northern VA, named Glorydays as well, and thought it wasn't a good idea. I wanted uniqueness, not relationship with that. SoCalSkins, You are the "second" person that has related a disagreement to me in relationship to DRUGS- Why? Aside from your acceptable atmospheric subterranian mental cultural preference, I prefer to keep it on the level that Las Vegas has better showgirls than, uh hum, HOLLYWOOD, but yet Hollywood is also the biggest competitor for sex, drugs, molesting superstars, etc., but it won't take away the fact, that the LA franchises suffer much harshly than most when losing and attendance, not NFL affiliation, along with MARKETING items to compete with the Lakers, Dodgers, 49ers, Raiders, is very telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canyonero! Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Vegas is the 51st largest media market in the US, which would make any football team there the one with the 2nd smallest media market. TV (and to a much smaller extent radio) makes the NFL its money. They would be stupid to put a team in a market that small (as they already were with Jacksonville), not to mention the assocation with legalized gambling. As for the possible transplants to LA, some make sense, others don't. The Vikings aren't going any where. Minneapolis-St. Paul is the 14th largest media market, and the team has sold out the Metrodome for over 6 years now. Them moving is just a ploy by McCombs to get a new stadium. Indy is the 25th largest market, but I'm not sure about their fan support. How old is the RCA dome? New Orleans is the 42nd largest market, but supposedly had nearly 68,000 in attendance per game last year. That seems crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfdc Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Canyonero! the RCA Dome (originally called the Hoosier Dome) is about 30 years old or so. As far as moving to LA, the fight is about 60-40 in favor of Indy. I am not a Hoosier, and politically, can't tell you anymore what they're going to do, because the Governor's candidate's are split on how they'd do it and the Mayor is getting warm support, but NO action has taken place, shortening Irsay's (owner) window a little. The talks are all preliminary, but will heat up immediately after the elections and when the NFL playoffs start. As for Las Vegas getting a team, like I said, stranger things have happened. The Indiana Pacers have a very, very, small market in the NBA and yet in 8 years, can you name the number of times they have exceeded their market share of revenue or made the Eastern Conference finals, or made the playoffs. All are multiple times. That's not defying logic, that's effective leadership in the face of the naysayers. As for the Colts, this team is just now , after all these years , feeling the pinch of investment in the NFL franchise. I'd say that's a conservative success up to this point. However, the investment heavy in a handful of players may doom them on not moving, because it comes on the heels of such a bad string economically, which is where I back off. Too political at this point, leave that to the experts. So far traditions keeping em still also. Las Vegas IS only a long shot at best but Lambeau Field is owned by enough people to fill the stadium and they are also the residents. It's the economy, but its also where the person chooses to invest and how its marketed. Why do the Skins sell out, even during losing seasons and why is the waiting list so long? Effective marketing and Tradition. Size doesn't matter in this case and if it did, Dan Snyder may actually earn 1 BILLION dollars ALL on just the Skins. Not including what he already has. The cap affects his team, but won't stop the swell in his wallet. Marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.