NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[HedleyLamarr]

Up until the last 3-4 years, the Lakers and Clippers couldn't have been any more opposite of each other. One has 16 championships, a ton of banners and retired numbers, and was always a contender....and the other couldn't shoot their way out of a wet paper bag. One team was the envy of most of the league, and the other team was the butt of jokes in the league. Plus, the Lakers have been there like 50 years or so, while the Clippers are well behind that. That's why there was such a difference in the two.

Should it be the Rams and Chargers, both are going in on equal terms. One's not coming in to another team's long-established town. It's not like one franchise is significantly head-and-shoulders above the other. You'll probably wind up with a lot of crossover fans that'll have fandom for both teams and like the ability to get to go up to 16 games in a season.

Besides, like I said...NFL games are events. The gameday buildup and experience simply blows the other three leagues out of the water. 'Being football' is all they have to do to sell tickets and getting the city excited on Sundays. Being glamorous or blue-collar doesn't really matter.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, I don't see this as a Dodgers/Angels situation at all. Inglewood is not Anaheim. Stadium location doesn't matter too much when they're both in the same city. And the Lakers/Clippers is such a stretch - the Lakers are more glamorous because of their history. Much of which was played in Inglewood.

I'm sure that Stan would prefer to rent his stadium to another team when his isn't playing, but I don't see the lack of that as seriously impacting his plans.

[2001mark]

How comparable is a home NFL team to NBA/MLB/NHL in terms of absolute location? LA's new team shouldn't have to cater too much should it??

We're talking 8 guaranteed games, I would imagine ppl are more willing to commute/travel further away for football.

Toronto isn't an NFL town yet hundreds of ppl drive to Buffalo 8x a year I know that.

[Brian in Boston]

An NFL franchise playing in an Inglewood stadium will have no problems tapping into the "glitzy LA scene". After all, the Lakers franchise played at the Forum in Inglewood from 1967 through the end of the 1998-99 NBA season, and that is where the team established its glitzy, glamorous, celebrity-supported "Showtime" persona.

In fact, despite ground being broken on the Staples Center-adjacent LA Live entertainment complex in 2005, downtown Los Angeles has only recently gained traction as anything approaching a "glitzy" destination on the "LA scene". Why? Because the majority of LA wealth - as well as the see-and-be-seen celebrity crowd that possesses it - is still concentrated in such Westside cities and neighborhoods as Malibu, Pacific Palisades, Santa Monica, Brentwood, Bel Air, Westwood, Century City, etc. Adjacent communities such as Playa Vista and parts of Culver City are seen as hot new areas on the upswing. Downtown is regarded as being a pain-in-the-ass to get to from all of these areas at the best of times, never mind on an NFL game-day. A stadium in Inglewood, itself located southwest of Downtown LA, would be seen as an easier destination to access by affluent, Westside-based fans.

Further, there's a reason that the official training centers for the Clippers (Playa Vista), Lakers and Kings (both in El Segundo) are all located on the Westside: athletes on all three of the teams have shown a marked preference for living in the aforemetioned communities, as well as in such beach cities as Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Redondo Beach.

So long as its a first-rate facility, built to include all of the state-of-the-art bells and whistles that modern sports consumers have come to expect, an NFL stadium in Inglewood should have no trouble drawing the "glitzy LA scene". Particularly if it is home to a competitive team.

[Still MIGHTY]

Yup. All of that.

As long as it's not the City of Industry, people will go and you'll still get the "LA Scene"

[STL FANATIC]

FWIW, I never doubted that Inglewood could house a glitzy team. My suggestion was that they might end up playing 2nd fiddle to the downtown team. But you all make good points. Perhaps order of "glitz" will simply be determined by which team can have some real success early on.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, I think the teams themselves will establish that.

[STL FANATIC]

PREFACE: I have no idea how Andy Strickland would have this report and nobody else. His role in the St. Louis media has varied, but the only time he really got any scoops was as a Blues writer, and he was hit and miss on those. I don't think he's making this up, but I'm extremely skeptical of how good his information is. Like I said, it's very weird that he would have this and nobody else would.

The REPORT: Andy Strickland, a St. Louis media member, reports that Chargers owner Dean Spanos has a deal with Goldman-Sachs to build an LA stadium but has been asked by the league to hold off on announcing his plans.

No word on where this stadium would supposedly be built, though I have not actually listened to the interview yet, so I'm not sure if any other details are included.

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/STLSports/STLRams/tabid/137/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/16185/Strickland-Chargers-Owner-Goldman-Sachs-Agree-to-Build-LA-Stadium.aspx

[WinTheDay8]

This is about to get interesting. Like Baltimore Colts middle of the night interesting.

I've read it would be nearly impossible to pull off that stunt in today's age of social media and 24 hour news, but what about a team moving while the sports world has its eyes on one event, like the upcoming Super Bowl?

I'm grabbing my popcorn for this.

[rams80]

This is about to get interesting. Like Baltimore Colts middle of the night interesting.

I've read it would be nearly impossible to pull off that stunt in today's age of social media and 24 hour news, but what about a team moving while the sports world has its eyes on one event, like the upcoming Super Bowl?

I'm grabbing my popcorn for this.

In a word, no, it wouldn't happen.

[Gothamite]

So a St. Louis hockey reporter somehow got an exclusive scoop about financing an NFL stadium in Los Angeles? Color me ever-so-slightly skeptical.

But if they do actually have the money in place, that's a huge hurdle surmounted. More than Peacock has been able to do.

[bosrs1]

Wait... so now Kroenke wants a 60/40 Private/Public split on the Inglewood stadium? He does realize that pretty much kills its chances right?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000463601/article/rams-owners-stadium-plan-pushes-nfl-closer-to-la-return

[patsox]

Wait... so now Kroenke wants a 60/40 Private/Public split on the Inglewood stadium? He does realize that pretty much kills its chances right?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000463601/article/rams-owners-stadium-plan-pushes-nfl-closer-to-la-return

The 60-40 split was in reference to the St. Louis stadium. The LA stadium as far as anyone knows is going to be privately financed by Kroenke.

[Gothamite]

And the article doesn't state that 60/40 split is what Kroneke wants, but what Peacock and Blitz are eventually going to propose. Whenever they get around to figuring out what their financing plan is.

The only split Kroenke himself is proposing is 100/0 private/public in Los Angeles, although there would be up to $60 million in tax rebates for the infrastructure improvements (sewer, sidewalks, etc) he makes to the site.

Meanwhile, signature-gatherers in Inglewood have turned in 20,000 signatures to put the stadium zoning on a public referendum, twice the amount needed.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-inglewood-stadium-plan-garners-20k-signatures-20150126-story.html

A public referendum could be held as early as the summer and, if successful, will streamline the approval process and avoid environmental review. That would remove all significant roadblocks in Stan's way, making this huge news.

The other news from today is that the Rams have officially opted out from their lease at the Dome, converting to year-to-year. But that's long been suspected, no matter where you think they'll end up.

http://stltoday.com/sports/football/rams-notify-st-louis-they-ll-go-year-to-year/article_71e952d4-66c0-54d8-aa70-38b0505e3b3d.html

[rams80]

Yeah, the St. Louis blog is making a big brouhaha about the Rams' treachery regarding tax rebates for infrastructure and the like, while not pointing out that in 21st Century America, this is basically expected of any municipality that wants to have a major business come to town.

Whether it's right or not is another issue, but seriously when's the last time tax "incentives" weren't given for something like this?

[Gothamite]

True - if, for example, Coca-Cola wants to build a new bottling plant, they'll ask for (and receive) tax rebates for infrastructure if not outright public contributions to it.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/northampton_coca-cola_bottling.html

This applies equally to a law firm wanting to locate a white-collar IT center.

http://www.thinkkentucky.com/newsroom/NewsPage.aspx?x=09122012_bingham.html

Pretty standard across the board, actually.

And even with privately-funded ballparks like Pac Bell in San Francisco or Yankee Stadium, municipalities kicked in a little for infrastructure.

To equate that with direct public funding is disingenuous at best.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Three key passages reinforcing what I've believed for quite some time about the other projects in the area and Kroenke's 60-acre site. The Hollywood Park addition changed the game. Despite reports to the contrary, NFL.com -- of all places -- reports that there was "quiet applause in league offices." Not so sure Kroenke is going rogue as was suggested by insiders when the announcement was made.

The bottom line is, this L.A. proposal is not like its predecessors. It's the first led by a team owner, blowing up the league's long-held belief that juggling the task of running a team with managing such a project in the nation's second biggest city would be too big a burden. It's on the largest plot of land of any of the proposed L.A. sites. It's in a more desirable end of the region. It's to be privately funded by a man who can afford it.

....

The 60-acre plot Kroenke bought in January 2014 is approved for a stadium, but the adjacent 238-acre area owned by the Stockbridge Capital Group isn't. Once all 298 acres are zoned properly, shovels can break ground.

The other difference in Inglewood: the size of the area where the stadium would go up. By comparison, the NFL's largest physical structure, Cowboys Stadium, sits on a plot of just 73 acres.

...

The way it's been laid out to the clubs, the league wants the L.A. stadium to be an iconic venue that's a sports and entertainment destination. This vast property would satisfy that, with a number of projects expected to pop up on the periphery within the grounds around the team's home, creating a West Coast headquarters of sorts for the league.

So I know they repeatedly said 60 was too small, but if AT&T Stadium (kangaroo court is gonna get Breer for that slip-up) is on 73... no matter. 300 will do for the level of stadium complex the NFL is demanding for L.A.

[STL FANATIC]

The St. Louis Stadium task force released this statement:

The Rams told us today of their decision to engage in an annual one-year lease with the CVC, as well as their submission of petition signatures for the ballot initiative in Inglewood. We appreciate the Rams personally informing us of their decision here in St. Louis as well as their filing in Inglewood. Neither of these actions was unexpected, nor do they have any effect on our stadium plans for the north riverfront of St. Louis.

Anyways, they're pretty much gone. I actually just wish Kroenke would make the announcement. The idea that there is any hope just makes it worse and is threatening to make St. Louis do some really stupid stuff.

Only hope is Peacock and Blitz accelerating their process a lot, the funding getting approved, and even then just hoping the NFL says that's good enough and forces the Rams to stay. And I can't really even root for that, because none of those things is healthy for the city of St. Louis.

Not an enjoyable spot to be in.

[Still MIGHTY]

[colortv]

Report: Rams L.A. plans met with “quiet applause” by NFL

Posted by Josh Alper on January 26, 2015, 6:09 PM EST

AP

The news that Rams owner Stan Kroeneke’s plans to build a football stadium in Los Angeles have been met with a variety of public reactions from other owners, but a new report indicates that the private response inside the league office has been positive.

Albert Breer of NFL Media reports that Kroenke’s plan to build a stadium in Inglewood with designs on the Rams moving there in the near future was met by “quiet applause” at the league office. One league source told Breer that “we’re beginning to see the goal line” in the league’s efforts to return to Los Angeles.

Per Breer, the plan was proposed to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in December and should take two steps forward this week. The first was the Rams providing notice to St. Louis on Monday that they will go year-to-year on their lease at the Edward Jones Dome and the other is the presentation of 8,500 signatures on a petition to Inglewood to set up a public vote on rezoning 238 acres of land around 60 owned by Kroenke so that all of it is zoned for a stadium.

St. Louis is still trying to keep the Rams and are working on plans for a new stadium, but they have to sort out financing and the Rams seem disinterested about working with local officials about getting a deal done in Missouri.

Breer reports that Kroenke is “amenable” to another team playing at the stadium, something that could help get three-quarters of the other owners to give a green light to a move for the 2016 season although Kroenke is reportedly prepared to move the team with or without such approval.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/26/report-rams-l-a-plans-met-with-quiet-applause-by-nfl/