The_Admiral Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Two football stadiums in the area and they want the baseball park. The NFL just likes to swing its dick around. 1 Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Frank McCort still control (or share) the parking lots with Guggenheim.I haven't seen anything since this L.A. Times story from 2013:http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/13/sports/la-sp-dn-frank-mccourt-dodgers-nfl-20130612 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I know City of Industry isn't a sexy place to have a Super Bowl, but why does the NFL really care if the new stadium is in Chavez Ravine versus downtown with Farmers Field? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 More room? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kewp80 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Already lots of parking space there too. Would probably be less expensive. Quote Cardinals -- Rams -- Blues -- Tigers -- Liverpool Check out my music! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerslionspistonshabs Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 The place is massive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbadefense1990 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Interesting NFL to Dodger Stadium?http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/10/07/dodger-stadium-los-angeles-nfl-team-relocateTwo football stadiums in the area and they want the baseball park. The NFL just likes to swing its dick around....why does the NFL really care if the new stadium is in Chavez Ravine versus downtown with Farmers Field?When you deal with a fiscally-dysfunctional city as Los Angeles is (and broadly the fiscally-dysfunctional California state legislatures), it's pretty hard to ask local taxpayers to foot a billion or two in an NFL megastadia (as they've done in other cities). It's bad business on their end to build a megastadia on private funds because "we're broke and it's bad for fantasy football!"So why not seize a 56,000 seater megalith of a ballpark and cram-in another 25-30k for eight games a year? The stadium's already there, and no NFL investor devotes an initial investment for the ultimate profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Interesting NFL to Dodger Stadium?http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/10/07/dodger-stadium-los-angeles-nfl-team-relocateSounds more like it's simply the NFL trying to drum up more scare in Oakland, Saint Louis and San Diego. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 So why not seize a 56,000 seater megalith of a ballpark and cram-in another 25-30k for eight games a year? The stadium's already there, and no NFL investor devotes an initial investment for the ultimate profit.That would be a terrible idea for many reasons. We don't need to ruin a classic ballpark cramming in extra seats for eight days, knowing that they would remain empty for 81 days. That great view of the mountains behind the outfield? Wouldn't be so great if instead of mountains we saw 200 vertical feet of empty seats. Go look at pictures of the Giants at Candlestick and the Angels at the Big A in the '80s and see how charming they looked.Besides, the NFL would never go for it, as it wants an arena which is specifically designed for football, which doesn't have a baseball team booting its games to different nights due to playoff conflicts, and one which would provide them with 100% of the revenue for that stadium. Most importantly, the NFL isn't cash strapped, and someone is going to build them a sparkling new stadium free of charge. They wouldn't settle for sharing Dodger Stadium. The only way I think the NFL would even play a few seasons at Dodger Stadium is if they end up building the football stadium across the parking lot. Otherwise, it's not worth the trouble when they could play at the better-equipped Coliseum or Rose Bowl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 So why not seize a 56,000 seater megalith of a ballpark and cram-in another 25-30k for eight games a year? The stadium's already there, and no NFL investor devotes an initial investment for the ultimate profit.That would be a terrible idea for many reasons. We don't need to ruin a classic ballpark cramming in extra seats for eight days, knowing that they would remain empty for 81 days. That great view of the mountains behind the outfield? Wouldn't be so great if instead of mountains we saw 200 vertical feet of empty seats. Go look at pictures of the Giants at Candlestick and the Angels at the Big A in the '80s and see how charming they looked.Besides, the NFL would never go for it, as it wants an arena which is specifically designed for football, which doesn't have a baseball team booting its games to different nights due to playoff conflicts, and one which would provide them with 100% of the revenue for that stadium. Most importantly, the NFL isn't cash strapped, and someone is going to build them a sparkling new stadium free of charge. They wouldn't settle for sharing Dodger Stadium. The only way I think the NFL would even play a few seasons at Dodger Stadium is if they end up building the football stadium across the parking lot. Otherwise, it's not worth the trouble when they could play at the better-equipped Coliseum or Rose Bowl.Exactly. Want to see how well Dodger Stadium would look with 18,000 extra seats cammed in... look at the Oakland Coliseum. It's a non-starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DustDevil61 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 So why not seize a 56,000 seater megalith of a ballpark and cram-in another 25-30k for eight games a year? The stadium's already there, and no NFL investor devotes an initial investment for the ultimate profit.That would be a terrible idea for many reasons. We don't need to ruin a classic ballpark cramming in extra seats for eight days, knowing that they would remain empty for 81 days. That great view of the mountains behind the outfield? Wouldn't be so great if instead of mountains we saw 200 vertical feet of empty seats. Go look at pictures of the Giants at Candlestick and the Angels at the Big A in the '80s and see how charming they looked.Besides, the NFL would never go for it, as it wants an arena which is specifically designed for football, which doesn't have a baseball team booting its games to different nights due to playoff conflicts, and one which would provide them with 100% of the revenue for that stadium. Most importantly, the NFL isn't cash strapped, and someone is going to build them a sparkling new stadium free of charge. They wouldn't settle for sharing Dodger Stadium. The only way I think the NFL would even play a few seasons at Dodger Stadium is if they end up building the football stadium across the parking lot. Otherwise, it's not worth the trouble when they could play at the better-equipped Coliseum or Rose Bowl.Pretty much this. I've been to Dodger Stadium, and it is nice. If the NFL is hell-bent on putting the Rams, Raiders, or Chargers (i.e., whoever moves) there, then the only real reason to do so is if a Chavez Ravine NFL stadium is the NFL's endgame. On one hand, I don't mind the idea of football being played at such a nice, classic venue like Dodger Stadium (I've been there and it is nice). On the other hand, however, I have my doubts after seeing what Mt. Davis did in Oakland and apparently the dual-configurations at Candlestick and Anaheim.But still, what exactly is wrong with the Rose Bowl or Coliseum (except, perhaps, logistics)? Quote AKA @LanRovr0 on Twitter LED Sig Credits to packerfan21396 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 So why not seize a 56,000 seater megalith of a ballpark and cram-in another 25-30k for eight games a year? The stadium's already there, and no NFL investor devotes an initial investment for the ultimate profit. That would be a terrible idea for many reasons. We don't need to ruin a classic ballpark cramming in extra seats for eight days, knowing that they would remain empty for 81 days. That great view of the mountains behind the outfield? Wouldn't be so great if instead of mountains we saw 200 vertical feet of empty seats. Go look at pictures of the Giants at Candlestick and the Angels at the Big A in the '80s and see how charming they looked.Besides, the NFL would never go for it, as it wants an arena which is specifically designed for football, which doesn't have a baseball team booting its games to different nights due to playoff conflicts, and one which would provide them with 100% of the revenue for that stadium. Most importantly, the NFL isn't cash strapped, and someone is going to build them a sparkling new stadium free of charge. They wouldn't settle for sharing Dodger Stadium. The only way I think the NFL would even play a few seasons at Dodger Stadium is if they end up building the football stadium across the parking lot. Otherwise, it's not worth the trouble when they could play at the better-equipped Coliseum or Rose Bowl. Pretty much this. I've been to Dodger Stadium, and it is nice. If the NFL is hell-bent on putting the Rams, Raiders, or Chargers (i.e., whoever moves) there, then the only real reason to do so is if a Chavez Ravine NFL stadium is the NFL's endgame. On one hand, I don't mind the idea of football being played at such a nice, classic venue like Dodger Stadium (I've been there and it is nice). On the other hand, however, I have my doubts after seeing what Mt. Davis did in Oakland and apparently the dual-configurations at Candlestick and Anaheim.But still, what exactly is wrong with the Rose Bowl or Coliseum (except, perhaps, logistics)?The Coliseum's revenue now goes to USC as part of the 99 year lease agreement they signed last September.http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/09/05/39083/usc-granted-final-control-over-la-coliseum/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 It's been a long time since I've been there, but I think the Rose Bowl would be a fine temporary home for the team. Pasadena is a bit out there, but the stadium has good freeway access. They used to have something of a parking problem; not enough spots, so they had overflow lots with shuttles to the stadium. Don't know if that's still the case. But the NFL team wouldn't own it, of course, so it's just a temporary solution. Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadmanLA Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Bucky Larson, er...Mark Davis is considering moving the Raiders to the NFC if they do decide to move to L.A., according to Bleacher Report...http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2224854-insider-buzz-raiders-would-agree-to-nfc-west-move-to-land-los-angeles-stadium#articles/2224854-insider-buzz-raiders-would-agree-to-nfc-west-move-to-land-los-angeles-stadiumThe only way that may makes some sense is if the Chargers make the move to L.A. also, and some team willing to move to the AFC West to replace the Raiders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 It's been a long time since I've been there, but I think the Rose Bowl would be a fine temporary home for the team. Pasadena is a bit out there, but the stadium has good freeway access. They used to have something of a parking problem; not enough spots, so they had overflow lots with shuttles to the stadium. Don't know if that's still the case.But the NFL team wouldn't own it, of course, so it's just a temporary solution.I was there for the 2008 Rose Bowl and it seemed like there was a half mile of grass fields for parking surrounding the stadium in each direction. I don't know if they didn't allow parking on those fields until recently or what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 It's been a long time since I've been there, but I think the Rose Bowl would be a fine temporary home for the team. Pasadena is a bit out there, but the stadium has good freeway access. They used to have something of a parking problem; not enough spots, so they had overflow lots with shuttles to the stadium. Don't know if that's still the case.But the NFL team wouldn't own it, of course, so it's just a temporary solution. I was there for the 2008 Rose Bowl and it seemed like there was a half mile of grass fields for parking surrounding the stadium in each direction. I don't know if they didn't allow parking on those fields until recently or what.The Rose Bowl sits on two golf courses. The shuttles run from Pasadena City College. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Bucky Larson, er...Mark Davis is considering moving the Raiders to the NFC if they do decide to move to L.A., according to Bleacher Report...http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2224854-insider-buzz-raiders-would-agree-to-nfc-west-move-to-land-los-angeles-stadium#articles/2224854-insider-buzz-raiders-would-agree-to-nfc-west-move-to-land-los-angeles-stadiumThe only way that may makes some sense is if the Chargers make the move to L.A. also, and some team willing to move to the AFC West to replace the Raiders.Considering it's Bleacher Report assume it's wrong and simply move on. They're not a news source, they're a fanboy marketplace of BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadmanLA Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Yeah, I take it with a grain of salt as well, and in fact the writer was just on one of the sports radio stations here in town, pretty much confirming it as rumor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garydavison Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 It's laughable how pro sports teams that make millions of annual profit can get taxpayers to pay for their stadiums/arenas. As a taxpayer you pay their facility and then when you want to watch a game in the stadium your tax dollars paid for... you pay crazy parking and ticket prices and ridiculous food and beverage prices. A loan is one thing but to just give hundreds of millions of dollars for a stadium is a :censored:ing joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Agreed. I'm in favor of Kroenke building his stadium at Hollywood Park for just that reason. The city can streamline the process, perhaps some tax incentives. but the developer who will benefit from the stadium has to pay for it. 1 Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.