NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[bosrs1]

As expected, Roski has sweatened the pot on his stadium plans now that the AEG downtown stadium has hit it's first significant snag with the league. Looks like Roski's dropping the "no cash" minority stake requirement of his plan and replaced it with a straight market value purchase of a portion of the team that moves in first. Suddenly his terms look a heck of a lot more palatable then his competitors.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-1011-farmer-nfl-20111011,0,5838238.column

He also had a pretty new rendering done.

What amazes me about Grand Crossing is the engineering cleverness behind building it. It's an NFL stadium to be carefully built on molehills and use all the advantages of the land to maximize the effort with little cost. Mountains will be used as support beams and placers instead of steel. An engineering mecca if the NFL does say yes to Ed Roski's idea.

I too like the design of grand crossing better. Particularly the open air stadium. While I understand AEG's stadium having a roof as a necessity to for fooling the city into supporting it, it seems inexcusable to me to have a covered stadium in Southern California.

[TheOldRoman]

After reading the above article, Roski wouldn't get an ownership share for free or even at a discount, he would have to pay full price, AND he would completely give up development rights to the team for a square mile, agreeing not to build anything there. What the hell am I missing? Is this a toxic wasteland which Roski wouldn't be able to put anything on? What is his incentive to give up the land and development rights for free just so he can own an undisclosed share of a team (less than 25%)? Why doesn't he just buy a share of a team?

[bosrs1]

After reading the above article, Roski wouldn't get an ownership share for free or even at a discount, he would have to pay full price, AND he would completely give up development rights to the team for a square mile, agreeing not to build anything there. What the hell am I missing? Is this a toxic wasteland which Roski wouldn't be able to put anything on? What is his incentive to give up the land and development rights for free just so he can own an undisclosed share of a team (less than 25%)? Why doesn't he just buy a share of a team?

He would be buying a share of the team now under his latest proposal. He'd transfer the land to the team (essentially giving them the land for free), and then he'd buy a portion of the team for market value. He's not looking for a discount anymore or for a controlling interest as he saw how that didn't go over for AEG. It's actually a great deal for the team in that they get a place to build but it still leaves the finances of the stadium itself a bit murky beyond it being "shovel ready" as Roski has previously stated.

[dbadefense1990]

The only reason I don't like the City of Industry proposal is because the stadium isn't even in L.A. and if I were to ever go to a game, the drive would take about an hour to an hour and a half depending on traffic.

If know the LA area, it takes 30 mins/1 hour (without/with traffic time) from downtown to Grand Crossings. And you don't like it because it's in a suburb (Industry is an LA suburb) and not in downtown? OK then, so by your logic, you hate the stadiums for the 49ers, Giants, Jets, Pats, Dolphins, Cowboys and Cardinals because those aren't in that city but in that town's suburb.

However Farmer's Field would be only a 30 minute drive and it's actually in Los Angeles.

Where exactly are you starting that drive from. Santa Monica? Because with traffic, there to downtown is 1 hour on weekdays.

[bosrs1]

The only reason I don't like the City of Industry proposal is because the stadium isn't even in L.A. and if I were to ever go to a game, the drive would take about an hour to an hour and a half depending on traffic.

If know the LA area, it takes 30 mins/1 hour (without/with traffic time) from downtown to Grand Crossings. And you don't like it because it's in a suburb (Industry is an LA suburb) and not in downtown? OK then, so by your logic, you hate the stadiums for the 49ers, Giants, Jets, Pats, Dolphins, Cowboys and Cardinals because those aren't in that city but in that town's suburb.

However Farmer's Field would be only a 30 minute drive and it's actually in Los Angeles.

Where exactly are you starting that drive from. Santa Monica? Because with traffic, there to downtown is 1 hour on weekdays.

Good thing Football is played on Sundays then

[TheOldRoman]

After reading the above article, Roski wouldn't get an ownership share for free or even at a discount, he would have to pay full price, AND he would completely give up development rights to the team for a square mile, agreeing not to build anything there. What the hell am I missing? Is this a toxic wasteland which Roski wouldn't be able to put anything on? What is his incentive to give up the land and development rights for free just so he can own an undisclosed share of a team (less than 25%)? Why doesn't he just buy a share of a team?

He would be buying a share of the team now under his latest proposal. He'd transfer the land to the team (essentially giving them the land for free), and then he'd buy a portion of the team for market value. He's not looking for a discount anymore or for a controlling interest as he saw how that didn't go over for AEG. It's actually a great deal for the team in that they get a place to build but it still leaves the finances of the stadium itself a bit murky beyond it being "shovel ready" as Roski has previously stated.

Right, those are largely the points I made. The question is - why? Why would he give up the land and development rights for free just so he could buy a percentage of the team at market value? It makes no sense. Why wouldn't he just buy the percentage of a different team at market value and develop the land the stadium would be on?

[bosrs1]

After reading the above article, Roski wouldn't get an ownership share for free or even at a discount, he would have to pay full price, AND he would completely give up development rights to the team for a square mile, agreeing not to build anything there. What the hell am I missing? Is this a toxic wasteland which Roski wouldn't be able to put anything on? What is his incentive to give up the land and development rights for free just so he can own an undisclosed share of a team (less than 25%)? Why doesn't he just buy a share of a team?

He would be buying a share of the team now under his latest proposal. He'd transfer the land to the team (essentially giving them the land for free), and then he'd buy a portion of the team for market value. He's not looking for a discount anymore or for a controlling interest as he saw how that didn't go over for AEG. It's actually a great deal for the team in that they get a place to build but it still leaves the finances of the stadium itself a bit murky beyond it being "shovel ready" as Roski has previously stated.

Right, those are largely the points I made. The question is - why? Why would he give up the land and development rights for free just so he could buy a percentage of the team at market value? It makes no sense. Why wouldn't he just buy the percentage of a different team at market value and develop the land the stadium would be on?

Because he'll still own the land and will be reaping the rewards of it's value increasing and the lease all the developments including the stadium will be signing with. Remember he's not giving them the land, just the right to develop on it. He'll still be the owner. So it's a great deal for him long term. It turns what is now an unused piece of property in a somewhat out of the way place into a very valuable piece of property.

[Gothamite]

True - Industry isn't exactly known as a destination place right now. Land is relatively cheap. Those will change pretty quickly if he has his way.

Not to mention that his stake in the team will increase dramatically in value.

Say he pays market value for 25% of the St. Louis Rams in 2014. He sells his 25% of the Los Angeles Rams in 2020, and in the meantime has possibly doubled his investment.

[bosrs1]

True - Industry isn't exactly known as a destination place right now. Land is relatively cheap. Those will change pretty quickly if he has his way.

Not to mention that his stake in the team will increase dramatically in value.

Say he pays market value for 25% of the St. Louis Rams in 2014. He sells his 25% of the Los Angeles Rams in 2020, and in the meantime has possibly doubled his investment.

Same will go for the land. He'll still own it and it's worth X today, it'll be worth X*2 or 3 in a few years. And meanwhile he doesn't piss of the NFL by trying to control things like ticketing that the guys at AEG want a slice of. So overall Roski did exactly what he needed to do. He's made his deal a much easier sell to the NFL and a team.

[Rockstar Matt]

The only reason I don't like the City of Industry proposal is because the stadium isn't even in L.A. and if I were to ever go to a game, the drive would take about an hour to an hour and a half depending on traffic. However Farmer's Field would be only a 30 minute drive and it's actually in Los Angeles.

It's in Los Angeles County

I've also preferred the downtown, because of the downtown aspect. Industry would be a shorter drive for me, but eh. (As always in SoCal, drive times vary based on traffic, so who knows. I'm only taking two freeways to either location.) I don't think the difference between the two really changes much for an NFL game, at least for me. Usually, people aren't leaving to get to an NFL game right on time. Most people get there early, tailgate, explore around. There's things to do or party areas or game watching areas. (Both sites would have that in spades. Tailgating would be less for downtown, but again eh.)

I know it is, but I just love the idea of our football team actually playing in the City of Los Angeles. Traffic is a big reason why I don't want the stadium in the City of Industry. For me, to get to the stadium in L.A. live, I would only have to take one freeway. To get to the City of Industry I'd probably have to take 3 or 4.

The only reason I don't like the City of Industry proposal is because the stadium isn't even in L.A. and if I were to ever go to a game, the drive would take about an hour to an hour and a half depending on traffic.

If know the LA area, it takes 30 mins/1 hour (without/with traffic time) from downtown to Grand Crossings. And you don't like it because it's in a suburb (Industry is an LA suburb) and not in downtown? OK then, so by your logic, you hate the stadiums for the 49ers, Giants, Jets, Pats, Dolphins, Cowboys and Cardinals because those aren't in that city but in that town's suburb.

However Farmer's Field would be only a 30 minute drive and it's actually in Los Angeles.

Where exactly are you starting that drive from. Santa Monica? Because with traffic, there to downtown is 1 hour on weekdays.

I don't mind stadiums in suburbs, but I prefer for teams to actually play in the City for which they're named after.

I do know the LA area as I've lived here my entire life. I go to college in Santa Monica, but I live in the South Bay, beach cities area. I can usually get into downtown LA in about 30-45 minutes depending on traffic.

I just prefer Farmer's Field because I love the new downtown area. It'd be fun to go games because it's in LA. In the City of Industry, I may as well drive down to San Diego to see a game. It'd have the same feel for me. It wouldn't feel like our stadium/team.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I might have said this before, but I really think the NFL might only be thinking one team in L.A., likely the Chargers. Once the stadium is a go and a team commits, there's no incentive to move a second until they can milk a stadium out of every other area they can.

Look at MLB, Tampa Bay and Oakland have been the last two standing for a while, largely because they have nowhere to go since D.C. was filled. The NFL might be smart to leave a slot open in L.A. and try to get stadiums done for the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, Rams, etc. Ultimately, they may end up with one team, which might be enough for a city that hasn't had even one for so long. Or they could move a 2nd in as a last resort.

[dbadefense1990]

I might have said this before, but I really think the NFL might only be thinking one team in L.A., likely the Chargers. Once the stadium is a go and a team commits, there's no incentive to move a second until they can milk a stadium out of every other area they can.

Look at MLB, Tampa Bay and Oakland have been the last two standing for a while, largely because they have nowhere to go since D.C. was filled. The NFL might be smart to leave a slot open in L.A. and try to get stadiums done for the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, Rams, etc. Ultimately, they may end up with one team, which might be enough for a city that hasn't had even one for so long. Or they could move a 2nd in as a last resort.

Preferably, the NFL wants to plan to bring both an AFC and NFC team here, for all purposes of TV rights, demography and revenues (so that CBS, NBC, ESPN and FOX pay more to televise games from LA, with a reach of 18 million new viewers). The shoo-in is the Chargers, and there's speculation about the Rams and Vikings, but with Al Davis' death, the Raiders are suddenly in the mix.

But like you said, the NFL has always relied on us as a bargaining chip for other people's fans to fork over public money for stadiums, for NFL owners to split the profits on. Since the NFL abandoned us, 23 of the 32 teams have either gotten upgrades or new stadiums. Three of the oldest stadiums now rely in California, while new massive deals have been made elsewhere (Meadowlands, Philly, Foxboro, Pittsburgh).

And there has been anti-LA sentiment over the last 16 years, from the owners who view LA as a joke market with bandwagon fans, to fans who always discredit Los Angeles from any sports talks because of a lack of an NFL team.

The NFL has attempted to give LA a team back, but everytime a small snag appears on the side of the road, then pooof, the NFL says a big F U to us in disgust and laughter. Being put through this kind of hell, any kind of roadblock to me is seen as a major one for us, and the possible moment when NFL pulls the trigger and shuts down a return to Los Angeles.

[Rockstar Matt]

I might have said this before, but I really think the NFL might only be thinking one team in L.A., likely the Chargers. Once the stadium is a go and a team commits, there's no incentive to move a second until they can milk a stadium out of every other area they can.

Look at MLB, Tampa Bay and Oakland have been the last two standing for a while, largely because they have nowhere to go since D.C. was filled. The NFL might be smart to leave a slot open in L.A. and try to get stadiums done for the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, Rams, etc. Ultimately, they may end up with one team, which might be enough for a city that hasn't had even one for so long. Or they could move a 2nd in as a last resort.

Preferably, the NFL wants to plan to bring both an AFC and NFC team here, for all purposes of TV rights, demography and revenues (so that CBS, NBC, ESPN and FOX pay more to televise games from LA, with a reach of 18 million new viewers). The shoo-in is the Chargers, and there's speculation about the Rams and Vikings, but with Al Davis' death, the Raiders are suddenly in the mix.

But like you said, the NFL has always relied on us as a bargaining chip for other people's fans to fork over public money for stadiums, for NFL owners to split the profits on. Since the NFL abandoned us, 23 of the 32 teams have either gotten upgrades or new stadiums. Three of the oldest stadiums now rely in California, while new massive deals have been made elsewhere (Meadowlands, Philly, Foxboro, Pittsburgh).

And there has been anti-LA sentiment over the last 16 years, from the owners who view LA as a joke market with bandwagon fans, to fans who always discredit Los Angeles from any sports talks because of a lack of an NFL team.

The NFL has attempted to give LA a team back, but everytime a small snag appears on the side of the road, then pooof, the NFL says a big F U to us in disgust and laughter. Being put through this kind of hell, any kind of roadblock to me is seen as a major one for us, and the possible moment when NFL pulls the trigger and shuts down a return to Los Angeles.

The only chance the Raiders have of coming back is if Rowski's stadium gets built. AEG has repeatedly said the Raiders will not be moving into their stadium mostly because they don't want the Raider culture in L.A. Live. Oakland Raider fans support the team more than we do and their scariest Raider fans aren't like scary LA Raider fans. Scary LA Raider fans are most likely gangbangers and our gangs are notoriously violent.

As previously mentioned, I too believe that the Chargers are the team to most likely to move and the only other team that has a realistic chance of moving to Los Angeles, in my opinion, is the Rams. Chargers will be heavily supported if they come to LA first, but if the Rams come back and/or if they come back first (unlikely) they'll be beloved. We'll embrace the Rams as if they had never even left. Chargers will be supported as well, but not as much as the Rams if they come back.

If we just get the Chargers, they will be our team, if that makes sense. We'll rally around them. But, only if they're the only team we get.

[Gothamite]

Pretty ironic, a Cowboys fan objecting to a suburban stadium.

I do agree about the Rams. They're the only team that can be second in the LA market and end up #1 in the hears of the fans.

[TBGKon]

I might have said this before, but I really think the NFL might only be thinking one team in L.A., likely the Chargers. Once the stadium is a go and a team commits, there's no incentive to move a second until they can milk a stadium out of every other area they can.

Look at MLB, Tampa Bay and Oakland have been the last two standing for a while, largely because they have nowhere to go since D.C. was filled. The NFL might be smart to leave a slot open in L.A. and try to get stadiums done for the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, Rams, etc. Ultimately, they may end up with one team, which might be enough for a city that hasn't had even one for so long. Or they could move a 2nd in as a last resort.

There will be 2 teams in LA sooner, rather than later. The assumed reason why is because of TV contracts. If the AFC gets LA, it makes the CBS deal far superior to the Fox NFC deal and vice versa. The only way to keep things even is to have 2 teams there.

[Rockstar Matt]

Pretty ironic, a Cowboys fan objecting to a suburban stadium.

I do agree about the Rams. They're the only team that can be second in the LA market and end up #1 in the hears of the fans.

Yeah, and I didn't want the Cowboys to leave Texas Stadium either. Don't get me wrong, I love our new stadium, but Texas Stadium is better.

Plus, they're the only team the majority of Angelinos actually want back.

[ninersdd]

I don't think that the AFC getting LA makes them the better deal. The NFC still has the Cowboys, Giants, Eagles, Skins, Packers, Bears, all big ticket teams. (Not to mention the #1 West Coast team in the Niners)

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I think if you bring up traffic obstacles to attending games then you should automatically be disqualified from professional sports relocation consideration.

[bosrs1]

I think if you bring up traffic obstacles to attending games then you should automatically be disqualified from professional sports relocation consideration.

Why is that? In LA it's a very legitimate consideration of where to put a stadium as it can be a real obstacle to even moving around let alone attending again.

As for the Rams, I agree of the Angelenos I've talked to online they're the definite favorite. I've actually been pretty surprised how few want the Chargers. Particularly among LA fans who already root for the Chargers. They like them just where they are in SD.

[WJMorris3]

Why not move the Eagles to Los Angeles? It's not like the city of Philadelphia deserves a football team.