Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma

Recommended Posts

Two 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)?

Pyc5qRH.gifRDXvxFE.gif

usu-scarf_8549002219_o.png.b2c64cedbb44307eaace2cf7f96dd6b1.png

AKA @LanRovr0 on Twitter

LED Sig Credits to packerfan21396

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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-stadium

The 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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-stadium

The 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.