bosrs1 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 It might work, but it would need the parking lots to be extended further, and it'd still be a bit of a squeeze.With two solid, legitimate proposals already in place for a stadium in LA this just feels very unnecessary.It feels unnecessary from the outside, but remember that neither of those proposals are from people involved currently with the NFL. And to top it off they both want into an ownership group of some kind (possibly eventually majority control). This proposal requires no ownership change at all, particularly if its the Rams eventually making the move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Both LA stadium proposals initially wanted ownership, but I believe both of them have backed down from that.But I agree - this would be much cleaner for the NFL. Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Both LA stadium proposals initially wanted ownership, but I believe both of them have backed down from that.But I agree - this would be much cleaner for the NFL.Well they both backed off wanting a controlling stake for now, but both still want a portion of the team coming in, particularly AEG (Roski has been hemming and hawing about it). What's not clear however is if their desire for the team would lead to an attempt at full control at a later date when it's less controversial. Either way however an incoming team will have to give up something to the stadium folks which as you say isn't as clean as just doing it themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njmeadowlanders Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 If this were to happen it absolutely cannot be built between the outfield and the rest of Chavez Ravine. They may as well just blow up Dodger Stadium if they were to do that. It must be out of sight from the seats of the ballpark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Wasn't there talk in the past -- maybe only from a neighbors group -- of replacing Dodger Stadium with an NFL stadium? Fewer disruptions. Not saying that's even conceivable now, but I'm pretty sure it's been floated before. Those Chavez Ravine folks don't like all the traffic, or something.Seems like Dodger Stadium is entering Fenway/Wrigley territory, but I guess anything is replaceable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I'd easily put Dodger Stadium up there with those two. Baseball will lose something very important the day that stadium is bulldozed. Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Wasn't there talk in the past -- maybe only from a neighbors group -- of replacing Dodger Stadium with an NFL stadium? Didn't you have time to search for such a story before asking us here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I'd easily put Dodger Stadium up there with those two. Baseball will lose something very important the day that stadium is bulldozed.With the Dodgers pushing the 50th anniversary thing very hard and continuing to try and get some renovation done to the place it seems they also see it as a Fenway type park that is above reproach. And rightly so as its probably the best stadium built in the mid century period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DustDevil61 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I'd easily put Dodger Stadium up there with those two. Baseball will lose something very important the day that stadium is bulldozed.With the Dodgers pushing the 50th anniversary thing very hard and continuing to try and get some renovation done to the place it seems they also see it as a Fenway type park that is above reproach. And rightly so as its probably the best stadium built in the mid century period.Looking at the front, it looks aged, but to paraphrase Sideshow Bob, it does have that "Retro 60s charm," which I tend to like. Going there in May.As for the NFL stadium, a site needs to be agreed on. I really don't get why the NFL had such a problem with Farmers Field; just about everything's in place there, last time I checked. Quote AKA @LanRovr0 on Twitter LED Sig Credits to packerfan21396 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Well the Dodgers didn't sell to Kroenke so the idea seems moot. Magic Johnson's group won, if you can call having to pay 2.3 billion dollars for a baseball team (or any team) a win. Sports franchise values have now jumped into the realm of the absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Wasn't there talk in the past -- maybe only from a neighbors group -- of replacing Dodger Stadium with an NFL stadium? Didn't you have time to search for such a story before asking us here?Actually, I've found that when digging up older info on a topic that is back at the top of the news cycle, Google is not always your friend. I thought a quick poll of those who are actively participating in this topic and have shown an interest in it might be a better, quicker resource to see if my memory served me right. I wonder how you could have better spent your time.All that said, it turns out the topic of an NFL stadium in Chavez Ravine has bubbled up from time to time, more often and more recently than I realized. The earliest Field of Schemes seems to mention it is 2010, and Frank McCourt was the source.This piece from 2011 seems to describe some of what I recall hearing, with the exception being that the Dodgers would take AEG's downtown site:http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2011/05/4540_mccourt_sale_to.htmlThe main push of what I read long ago was that the Chavez Ravine residents wanted the NFL to cut down on disruptions. I broke down and tried a few specific Google searches with no luck... which I guess would make that a waste of time. Imagine that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 From reading that, it appears the idea was entirely Frank McCourt's. An idea that nobody, not even the NFL, was interested in."We told the McCourt group we were not interested in proceeding unless we're unable to close deals with the Coliseum and Anaheim," (NFL spokesman Greg) Aiello said. "There are no further discussions planned. There are no next steps. We're not negotiating with them." Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Yeah, it was never an NFL-driven push in the story I remember. Community-oriented. However, in the Dodgers and NFL L.A. categories, there does seem to be that suggestion. But most of that can be traced back to McCourt, too.EDIT: Well, except for this quote from a Nov. 2011 ESPN LA story (but then again, just whose "word" is it?):"I have a close eye on the NFL because the word is they love Chavez Ravine," Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas told the Times.Of course, the story is titled "Blue Heaven unlikely to be NFL haven," so there's that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 So the NFL decided not to award Super Bowl L at the owners' meeting. Tonight, it is being widely reported that this is because they are hoping to have a stadium in LA by 2016. Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian in Boston Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 So the NFL decided not to award Super Bowl L at the owners' meeting. Tonight, it is being widely reported that this is because they are hoping to have a stadium in LA by 2016.Well, it has always been a goal of AEG's downtown LA stadium initiative to have the facility completed in time to host Super Bowl L, thereby bringing the 50th edition of the game back to the city that hosted the first such contest in 1967. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEW.ERA Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Couldn't they just have it at LA Coliseum? Or is bench seating not good enough?Though I guess if you pay 1000 dollars or up for a ticket, you would want to at least sit in a seat. Hopefully LA can get that stadium. Quote JETS|PACK|JAYS|NUFC|BAMA|BOMBERS|RAPS|ORANJE| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Maybe they will award it to the Coleseum or Rose Bowl. Could be an excellent fallback.But the NFL can use the Super Bowl as leverage to get a new building construed and a team moved to LA. Why throw that away by awarding it to an existing facility (which would do nothing to advance either of their goals) before the last possible minute? Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Rich Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Couldn't they just have it at LA Coliseum? Or is bench seating not good enough?Though I guess if you pay 1000 dollars or up for a ticket, you would want to at least sit in a seat. Hopefully LA can get that stadium.More important than them having a new stadium is that they are not sure they will have a franchise in LA by the date. And that is the big point. Super Bowls have never been played in a city (or metro area if you will) without a franchise. Has been that way since the beginning. They have played in stadiums that were NOT the home city franchise stadium (Rice University, Stanford Stadium, and most notably several times in the Rose Bowl) but they have NEVER had a Super Bowl in a non-NFL location, which is why there hasn't been a Super Bowl in the Rose Bowl since 1993.Of course, precedent can always be broken; the NBA was the same way with All-Star games until a few years back when they held one in Las Vegas. And look how that one turned out.... Quote It is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 More important than them having a new stadium is that they are not sure they will have a franchise in LA by the date. .Six of one...If there is a franchise in LA in 2016, there will be a new stadium. If there is a new stadium in LA in 2016, there will be a franchise.There will not be one without the other. Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrySmalls Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Downtown LA Stadium proposal in trouble. Quote 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.