It is currently Sun Nov 17, 2024 1:20 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55857
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
Hey, if you wanted more evidence that the NFL is stringing Chicago along on this draft thing and that we're about to see a hard push for a new NFL/Los Angeles marriage, here's something interesting. The league might just build Los Angeles's new stadium entirely with money from their new stadium fund, which in the past has doled out subsidies to the 49ers and the NY teams.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... s-landlord

Quote:
The newspaper writes that a team could move to L.A. the old-fashioned way by building a stadium itself (most likely with a loan from the NFL in order to do so) and then owning that stadium and all the profits that are generated by it. But ... the league also could pay for its own stadium and then reap the benefits of naming rights, personal seat licenses and whatever else could be sold.

Another reason that could benefit the NFL entirely: the other 31 teams could share in that stadium-generated revenue.

But why would a franchise that's relocating to L.A. agree to the NFL acting as its landlord?

"That's the pivotal question, and there are a lot of owners who wouldn't want Big Brother as a landlord," writes reporter Sam Farmer. "That said, the NFL could make it more enticing by giving tenants control of key revenue streams such as sales of suites, club and general admission seats, local sponsorship and advertising, parking and the like. The challenge for the league would be making the deal attractive enough."

Another advantage: the NFL could begin building the stadium right away in order to be ready for a team to be named later. That way, a franchise that's relocating could announce that its leaving its host city and already have a new stadium waiting in L.A., thereby avoiding the ire (and eventual disinterest) of the original city's fans who the team still would want to fill the lameduck stadium.


I don't think this is very likely. It doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. But neither does staging games in London, and they're doing that.

I do think it's inevitable that the NFL is back in Los Angeles very soon. Rams owner Stan Kroenke has bought up a big swath of land in Inglewood, of Fabulous Forum and "Compton, Long Beach, INGLEWOOOOOD" fame, which would be a better fit for a football stadium than the other locations that we've heard about. Meanwhile, Missouri and St. Louis don't seem too jazzed about building an expensive new stadium for the Rams after building the current one 19 years ago.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 40983
Location: Chicago
pizza_Place: Lou Malanati's
Agree, the NFL almost doesnt give a shit anymore about fans attending. Which works perfect for LA, but they want that market.

I would think Annaheim county (Angels country) might be on the menu too.

If they would build an amazing Super Bowl city, now that would be really cool!

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55857
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
They might be looking at Orange County for a second team down the road, but the LA Rams' move to Anaheim Stadium was a big part of their (intentional) undoing. I have a feeling the NFL wants to do this right and be as close to Los Angeles as possible. A quick look at Google Maps says Kroenke's stadium site (the old Hollywood Park racetrack, JORR) is just an eight-mile drive south of the LA Coliseum, about ten from Staples. That's reasonable, at least when it comes to the endless sprawl that is greater Los Angeles. You'd be looking at anywhere from thirty to fifty miles for an Orange County site.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 4:59 am
Posts: 283
Location: South (frickin') Bend. Dan Devine was here!
pizza_Place: Bruno's
Any other predictions on which team is going to be moved to LA, if not the Rams? Earlier the Jaguars were pegged as somewhat likely, now I've been hearing the Bills.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55857
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
Seems to be down to the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers. The Champaign-based owner of the Jags has inscrutably taken a liking to shithole Jacksonville and is investing a bunch of money in the region. The Bills are somewhat of a risk due to the auction factor, but the NFL would take a big hit if it were to cut and run on salt-of-the-earth football-lovin' Western New York. Some people say that Roger Goodell himself would stand in the way of the Bills leaving New York because Goodell is a New Yorker, but those people are making the mistake of ascribing human emotions to Roger Goodell. The tripartite bid of Bon Jovi, Rogers, and MLSE is compelling, because they swear they're going to keep the team in Buffalo when it was Rogers that subleased those horse abortions at the SkyDome. Also, because it's Rogers, MLSE, and fuckin' Jon Bon Jovi. Why? How?

The deal with the Rams is that their stadium lease says the Depressiondome has to rank among the top stadiums in the NFL by some metric or another. If you've ever watched a St. Louis Rams home game, you know that place ranks among the top of nothing. So they want a brand-new one already. Missouri doesn't want to build it. St. Louis can't build it. Missouri doesn't like St Louis City or Kansas City and gets in the way of their spending. Doesn't look good for them staying. The NFL can stomach the loss of St. Louis; outside of two seasons at the turn of the millennium it's been a big nothing for the league. Cardinals sucked, Rams sucked, and the window of years between teams allowed neighboring midwestern teams to gobble up potential fans. So bye.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 4:59 am
Posts: 283
Location: South (frickin') Bend. Dan Devine was here!
pizza_Place: Bruno's
Wow -- I think the Rams would at least match the record for modern professional team moves:

Cleveland to L.A.
L.A. to St. Louis
STL back to L.A.

_________________
"... go out there and hitch up your trousers, and say: 'Hey baby here I am now. Let me see you run through me now. Let me see you show some disrespect for me while I'm nose on your nose."
- Lou Holtz


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group