Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[FiddySicks 11,031]

On 8/24/2020 at 10:25 AM, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Man, that stadium is something else. SoFi and the Cowboys stadium make the rest of the league kind of look like garbage.

Cowboys Stadium is an oversized trash heap. It’s flashy because it’s gargantuan and has a lot of shiny windows, but the interior looks like a bloated Costco warehouse. Think of later year Ford Excursions and translate that to a football stadium and you’ve got Jerryworld to a T. CenturyLink is so much nicer of a venue that it really doesn’t even compare. 

[doctorpeligro 136]

On 8/27/2020 at 7:31 PM, Gothamite said:

As a lifelong Packers fan, I found their insistence on public dollars to be particularly scummy.

 

Stadiums are expensive, it's rare when a team (or teams) can build a stadium on its own.  Regarding the Chargers, once the vote went down the way it did, being relegated to a 50 year-old dual-purpose stadium with no leverage was the worst of their options.  The Chargers thought they were popular enough within the San Diego city limits that voters would approve re-allocation of Convention Center funds towards a football stadium.  They were wrong.  And with 32 teams in the NFL right now, it's unlikely San Diego will ever get another NFL team.

[selgy 405]

2 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

Cowboys Stadium is an oversized trash heap. It’s flashy because it’s gargantuan and has a lot of shiny windows, but the interior looks like a bloated Costco warehouse. Think of later year Ford Excursions and translate that to a football stadium and you’ve got Jerryworld to a T. CenturyLink is so much nicer of a venue that it really doesn’t even compare. 

Couldn't agree more. Another terrible oversized stadium is the new Yankees stadium. It is just concrete and steel and pure blah. And now that fans aren't there for games it's ugliness really shines. 

[Gothamite 23,650]

1 hour ago, doctorpeligro said:

Stadiums are expensive, it's rare when a team (or teams) can build a stadium on its own.

 

That’s simply not true. NFL teams print money.  Their payroll is covered from television revenues, before they sell a single ticket, jersey, tshirt, or PSL.  And with interest rates so low, it costs nothing to borrow the money they need for construction. 
 

NFL owners don’t ask the public for money because they can’t afford to pay for it themselves, but because they don’t want to.  There’s a big difference. 

 

 

[DG_ThenNowForever 15,227]

4 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

Cowboys Stadium is an oversized trash heap. It’s flashy because it’s gargantuan and has a lot of shiny windows, but the interior looks like a bloated Costco warehouse. Think of later year Ford Excursions and translate that to a football stadium and you’ve got Jerryworld to a T. CenturyLink is so much nicer of a venue that it really doesn’t even compare. 

 

Interesting to hear you say that because all I see on TV is a beautiful building with tons of seating levels, glass, and an enormous scoreboard. In contrast, CenturyLink is pretty basic -- two levels, some suits, wide concourses (that you really see in person and not TV) and a relatively intimate feel. Compared to US Bank in Minneapolis or now SoFi, CenturyLink feels pretty quaint.

[WSU151 9,465]

We're probably in a revenue bubble, but with the ridiculous increases we've seen in team valuations over the last 10-20 years, an investment in a stadium with an expected 30-year shelf life (even with amenity improvements every 7-10 years) is financially possible for 97% of team owners. Owners will make their money back. There might have been a more compelling argument in the 80s and 90s that NFL team owners need assistance, but not any more. 

[the admiral 28,177]

I have my doubts that the McCaskeys could build a stadium befitting the city of Chicago and the Bears. Then again, Virginia McCaskey still lives in an unremarkable ranch house in Des Plaines like an old-school low-profile mob boss. It's possible there's a closet in the guest room that's just stacked floor-to-ceiling with money. 

[FiddySicks 11,031]

1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Interesting to hear you say that because all I see on TV is a beautiful building with tons of seating levels, glass, and an enormous scoreboard. In contrast, CenturyLink is pretty basic -- two levels, some suits, wide concourses (that you really see in person and not TV) and a relatively intimate feel. Compared to US Bank in Minneapolis or now SoFi, CenturyLink feels pretty quaint.

A lot of it has to do with the quality of the facility IMO. CenturyLink was built to withstand the weather and excess water it’ll see over the course of a year. It’s fairly simple, sure. But there’s also a beauty to that IMO. It’s built to last. Jerryworld in contrast just felt stark in the concourses, has elements that were strangely cheap (the seats are AWFUL), and the place is just WAY too big. It’s hard to concentrate on the field in the upper levels because everything is so far away and that huge gimmicky screen is a big distraction. I never felt that way at CenturyLink, and thought the upper level seats were great. The field didn’t seem as far away, and the view of the surrounding area is amazing. 

[guest23 1,445]

57 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

We're probably in a revenue bubble, but with the ridiculous increases we've seen in team valuations over the last 10-20 years, an investment in a stadium with an expected 30-year shelf life (even with amenity improvements every 7-10 years) is financially possible for 97% of team owners. Owners will make their money back. There might have been a more compelling argument in the 80s and 90s that NFL team owners need assistance, but not any more. 

 

I agree but I don't think there has ever been a compelling element for taxpayers to kick in to support such a niche style of business like pro sports. They don't generate remotely the amount of tax revenue as advertised and the economic activity claims are regularly debunked.

[WSU151 9,465]

15 minutes ago, guest23 said:

 

I agree but I don't think there has ever been a compelling element for taxpayers to kick in to support such a niche style of business like pro sports. They don't generate remotely the amount of tax revenue as advertised and the economic activity claims are regularly debunked.

 

That's debatable on a case by case basis. Several publicly financed stadiums (in pro sports) have completely changed downtown areas. 

[Gothamite 23,650]

6 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

That's debatable on a case by case basis. Several publicly financed stadiums (in pro sports) have completely changed downtown areas. 

Have they changed the areas themselves, though, or have they jumped on the bandwagon of urban re-development and investment that was already there?  Would the development not possibly have happened without the stadium?

[WSU151 9,465]

16 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Have they changed the areas themselves, though, or have they jumped on the bandwagon of urban re-development and investment that was already there?  Would the development not possibly have happened without the stadium?

 

The biggest example is Coors Field. There was absolutely nothing in lower downtown Denver before they started building the stadium.

 

The public debt for initial construction was paid off in 2001, and the economic activity in that part of town has been exponential. 

 

And that example also exists in Atlanta/Gwinnett now, too, and probably a few others. The area around Truist park was all because of the stadium. The public investment in Baltimore has probably paid off. Similarly, Nationals Park has completely changed that part of SE DC. 

 

It's easy to recoup taxes for baseball stadiums because baseball stadiums host 10x (or more) the events that football stadiums hold.

[Gothamite 23,650]

Not sure that Gwinnett is the best example - aren’t the Braves paying off the bonds?   Which is as it should be.
 

 

[DEAD! 1,899]

57 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Have they changed the areas themselves, though, or have they jumped on the bandwagon of urban re-development and investment that was already there?  Would the development not possibly have happened without the stadium?

 

I would say a few office/residential gentrification type buildings have more of an impact than a stadium would. Think about how much space a stadium takes up. You could build at least a couple of reasonable sized residential/office tower which would have more activity year-round than a stadium (especially a football stadium) would. 

[WSU151 9,465]

I'm not saying every stadium is an economic boom - far from it - but there have been successess.

 

In DC, economic activity around Nationals Park has been crazy since I moved here a decade or so...so much economic activity (condos, apartments, retail, office) that they built a brand new MLS stadium next door to it. 

 

Quote

It’s hard to avoid construction crews in the neighborhood. 

Twenty more residential buildings are being built, two hotels and two office buildings, which will house the National Association of Broadcasters’ headquarters and the District Department of Transportation.

The area is expected to be built out entirely by 2030.

 

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/navy-yard-changes-through-the-years/65-7c3705fa-bc18-4e1e-b02c-fa9aea16abe5

[FiddySicks 11,031]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

Have they changed the areas themselves, though, or have they jumped on the bandwagon of urban re-development and investment that was already there?  Would the development not possibly have happened without the stadium?

The only area I know of that substantially improved due to a stadium being built is the China Basin in San Francisco. But even then, that area was likely to blow up regardless. I will give them the credit for being privately financed and the catalyst tenant, though. 

[Sec19Row53 3,704]

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Have they changed the areas themselves, though, or have they jumped on the bandwagon of urban re-development and investment that was already there?  Would the development not possibly have happened without the stadium?

Are you saying the area around Lambeau Field would look anything like it does without Lambeau and its renovation?

[CaliforniaGlowin 2,058]

Bone looks better here, almost white in the light.  Now I don't feel so bad about it.

 

[AgentColon2 2,411]

That number font is Busch league.

[dont care 6,024]

34 minutes ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

Bone looks better here, almost white in the light.  Now I don't feel so bad about it.

 

The second they are next to anything white then they look like pure garbage