NFL unhappy with downtown L.A. plan

[AHcreative]

"During a Sept. 6 meeting at the NFL offices in New York, commissioner Roger Goodell told Los Angeles Councilwoman Jan Perry and political aide Bernard Parks, Jr. that neither the league nor any team interested in moving there would agree to the business proposal set forth by Anschutz Entertainment Group, according to three sources with knowledge of the conversation. AEG is the private company that has offered to build and operate a retractable-roof stadium, which would be named Farmers Field, on the site that is currently part of the Los Angeles Convention Center."

Full Story

What do you guys think? Will L.A. have a team by 2013 or 2014 like anticipated?

[pmoehrin]

I never thought LA was going to have a team by 2013/14 and don't know why people ever did. We were supposed to have an LA NFL team by now and that what was said back in '07-'08. Until I see a stadium being built and a team announcing they are coming to LA, I'm not buying a team is coming to LA.

The NFL wants this sweetheart deal to come to LA that isn't going to come. They're not going to get a publically financed stadium bulit for them and private stadium builder is going to want to have a stake in ownership over the team. Out of all the four major sports leagues, I'd say the NFL has the least turnover with ownership, which means very few owners are looking to sell. About 2/3 of the team owners were also owners 10 years ago. So good luck finding an NFL owner that's willing to move and give up ownership stake.

The owners also going to have a huge issue with one team moving into a market the size of LA, which is why I think the only way you'll ever see the NFL come back to LA is with two teams, not one.

Its one of those things that I think is going to take much longer then people think it will. Very possible that we could still be 10+ years away from seeing an NFL team return to LA. Nobody wants to think that, but I don't think anyone thought it would take this long for the NFL to return to LA when the Rams and Raiders left either.

[dbadefense1990]

"During a Sept. 6 meeting at the NFL offices in New York, commissioner Roger Goodell told Los Angeles Councilwoman Jan Perry and political aide Bernard Parks, Jr. that neither the league nor any team interested in moving there would agree to the business proposal set forth by Anschutz Entertainment Group, according to three sources with knowledge of the conversation. AEG is the private company that has offered to build and operate a retractable-roof stadium, which would be named Farmers Field, on the site that is currently part of the Los Angeles Convention Center."

Full Story

What do you guys think? Will L.A. have a team by 2013 or 2014 like anticipated?

Frankly, this is just another excuse for the owner's distaste the Los Angeles area in general. We've seen this kind of crap before, from Hollywood Park to Dodger Stadium to even an idea at the Pomona Fairgrounds.

I would go as far as saying the NFL hates Los Angeles, NFL fans hate LA, and always mock us and bring up the whole "your city is not a real American city because it has no NFL" thing. I see it all around; no matter what other sport we try to talk about, fans from other cities marginalize us because of the whole NFL thing. We've been the butt-of jokes for late-night comedy, and have been labeled as being "too liberal, too fake, too Hollywood" to have an NFL team.

Plus, the NFL owners see a goldmine of new publically-financed stadiums on the horizon. All they have to do is say "we're moving the team to LA" and that town's taxpayers fork over construction 100%, just so that they don't see their beloved team come here, and be saturated with all things negative about LA.

I not only think, I expect the Chargers, Vikings, Rams, Raiders and all other bubble teams to get new stadium deals within the next 5 years...and to shame LA once again for the NFL's own pleasure.

Every city that has lost the NFL has gotten them back (Cleveland, St. Louis, Baltimore, Oakland) except Los Angeles. Why? Because the NFL doesn't need LA to survive (it's even thrived in the 16+ years since two teams left our city), it can use us for leverage, and it can spit in our faces whenever we call upon the NFL to give us a team.

In simpler terms, Los Angeles is like a man with his head in a guillotine, with NFL owners controlling the blade, and other NFL fans in the audience. Every damn time we get close to getting a team, *slice* there go our chances.

[Quillz]

Well, if you makes you feel any better, NYC technically doesn't have any NFL franchises, either... *runs and hides*

[njmeadowlanders]

...then neither does Buffalo, Boston, Miami, Dallas, Phoenix, or Washington.

And if that's the case the Rams left Anaheim not LA...

[AHcreative]

"During a Sept. 6 meeting at the NFL offices in New York, commissioner Roger Goodell told Los Angeles Councilwoman Jan Perry and political aide Bernard Parks, Jr. that neither the league nor any team interested in moving there would agree to the business proposal set forth by Anschutz Entertainment Group, according to three sources with knowledge of the conversation. AEG is the private company that has offered to build and operate a retractable-roof stadium, which would be named Farmers Field, on the site that is currently part of the Los Angeles Convention Center."

Full Story

What do you guys think? Will L.A. have a team by 2013 or 2014 like anticipated?

Frankly, this is just another excuse for the owner's distaste the Los Angeles area in general. We've seen this kind of crap before, from Hollywood Park to Dodger Stadium to even an idea at the Pomona Fairgrounds.

I would go as far as saying the NFL hates Los Angeles, NFL fans hate LA, and always mock us and bring up the whole "your city is not a real American city because it has no NFL" thing. I see it all around; no matter what other sport we try to talk about, fans from other cities marginalize us because of the whole NFL thing. We've been the butt-of jokes for late-night comedy, and have been labeled as being "too liberal, too fake, too Hollywood" to have an NFL team.

Plus, the NFL owners see a goldmine of new publically-financed stadiums on the horizon. All they have to do is say "we're moving the team to LA" and that town's taxpayers fork over construction 100%, just so that they don't see their beloved team come here, and be saturated with all things negative about LA.

I not only think, I expect the Chargers, Vikings, Rams, Raiders and all other bubble teams to get new stadium deals within the next 5 years...and to shame LA once again for the NFL's own pleasure.

Every city that has lost the NFL has gotten them back (Cleveland, St. Louis, Baltimore, Oakland) except Los Angeles. Why? Because the NFL doesn't need LA to survive (it's even thrived in the 16+ years since two teams left our city), it can use us for leverage, and it can spit in our faces whenever we call upon the NFL to give us a team.

In simpler terms, Los Angeles is like a man with his head in a guillotine, with NFL owners controlling the blade, and other NFL fans in the audience. Every damn time we get close to getting a team, *slice* there go our chances.

I sure hope you're right about St. Louis to get that stadium deal done. However, I really don't think our dome is in that bad of shape. From what I can remember of the Georgia dome 10+ years ago when I was there for SB XXXIV, it's not any more/less better than ours. Sure, it might be a little cookie-cutter, no flashy million dollar TV screens. It's not like it's literally falling apart either.

[dbadefense1990]

Well, if you makes you feel any better, NYC technically doesn't have any NFL franchises, either... *runs and hides*

But there's still championship parades for the Giants in Manhattan, despite the team playing in East Rutherford, NJ. But it's because that's just a huge megacity area (Metro NY and vicinity) which the Giants can blanket all their games in.

Here in Cali, the Chargers over the last 5 years have attempted to be the Greater LA area's cousin team (our local CBS affiliate's sports department gushes the Chargers with hand lotion so much) but, in my judgment, it's been a push. There's still a loyal Raider and Ram fanbase here, and we have a hodgepodge of other fans sprinkled in.

Apparently to the NFL, the Chargers' attempt to capture LA is just enough for us to be satisfied. According to the NFL, Los Angeles is full of Charger heads who are pleased with the current structure. "They don't need a team," they'll always say.

[dbadefense1990]

"During a Sept. 6 meeting at the NFL offices in New York, commissioner Roger Goodell told Los Angeles Councilwoman Jan Perry and political aide Bernard Parks, Jr. that neither the league nor any team interested in moving there would agree to the business proposal set forth by Anschutz Entertainment Group, according to three sources with knowledge of the conversation. AEG is the private company that has offered to build and operate a retractable-roof stadium, which would be named Farmers Field, on the site that is currently part of the Los Angeles Convention Center."

Full Story

What do you guys think? Will L.A. have a team by 2013 or 2014 like anticipated?

Frankly, this is just another excuse for the owner's distaste the Los Angeles area in general. We've seen this kind of crap before, from Hollywood Park to Dodger Stadium to even an idea at the Pomona Fairgrounds.

I would go as far as saying the NFL hates Los Angeles, NFL fans hate LA, and always mock us and bring up the whole "your city is not a real American city because it has no NFL" thing. I see it all around; no matter what other sport we try to talk about, fans from other cities marginalize us because of the whole NFL thing. We've been the butt-of jokes for late-night comedy, and have been labeled as being "too liberal, too fake, too Hollywood" to have an NFL team.

Plus, the NFL owners see a goldmine of new publically-financed stadiums on the horizon. All they have to do is say "we're moving the team to LA" and that town's taxpayers fork over construction 100%, just so that they don't see their beloved team come here, and be saturated with all things negative about LA.

I not only think, I expect the Chargers, Vikings, Rams, Raiders and all other bubble teams to get new stadium deals within the next 5 years...and to shame LA once again for the NFL's own pleasure.

Every city that has lost the NFL has gotten them back (Cleveland, St. Louis, Baltimore, Oakland) except Los Angeles. Why? Because the NFL doesn't need LA to survive (it's even thrived in the 16+ years since two teams left our city), it can use us for leverage, and it can spit in our faces whenever we call upon the NFL to give us a team.

In simpler terms, Los Angeles is like a man with his head in a guillotine, with NFL owners controlling the blade, and other NFL fans in the audience. Every damn time we get close to getting a team, *slice* there go our chances.

I sure hope you're right about St. Louis to get that stadium deal done. However, I really don't think our dome is in that bad of shape. From what I can remember of the Georgia dome 10+ years ago when I was there for SB XXXIV, it's not any more/less better than ours. Sure, it might be a little cookie-cutter, no flashy million dollar TV screens. It's not like it's literally falling apart either.

The advantage for St. Louis is time. While the Chargers and Vikings' leases are up as of February 1 2012, the Rams have 3 more full seasons after the current one to get a new deal done. Their lease ends after the 2014 season (after Super Bowl 49 for you simpletons). I really think Stan Kroenke will get public bonds to pay for renevations or for a new stadium there, or if he has to, sell the team to a native St. Louis person. Politics in Missouri cannot be as much of a pain as in Cali or Minnesota. The Rams are St. Louis' to lose, their permanent residence.

P.S: I still cringe my teeth every time I see the Rams winning Super Bowl 34, because that should have been ours. F*** you Frontierre; hope you, Hitler, and Satan are dancing the waltz in hell.

[Gothamite]

You guys should check out the Farmers Field thread, where we've been discussing this very issue.

The lede is very misleading. It's not that the NFL has a problem with LA, or even the downtown stadium plan.

The NFL is concerned primarily about two facets of AEG's plan, both of which involve financing.

1. AEG wants to handle operations the way it does for the Lakers, Clippers and Kings in the same complex. Namely, it handles all the details from ticket sales to ad space to naming rights, then takes a cut and passes the rest of the money to the teams. The NFL isn't so desperate as to accept that scam.

2. Anschutz wants to buy an equity share at a discounted rate. The value of his (discounted) share would then rise dramatically once the team relocates to the lucrative LA market, meaning that he's actually asking for the right to buy in at pennies on the dollar. Once again, that's something that desperate teams agree to. He needs the NFL far more than the NFL needs him, so again they're refusing to dance to his tune.

Frankly, I think he's talking him out of a franchise. His negotiating position is greatly weakened by the presence of a competing stadium plan, Grand Crossing in the City of Industry. That plan, which is farther along in most respects but losing the PR war, can only be the beneficiary of Anschutz's high-handed, unreasonable demands.

So the short answer is that LA's chances to get the Rams, Chargers or Jags are every bit as strong as they were last month. Just not necessarily downtown.

[The_Admiral]

One little snag over real estate and suddenly the NFL doesn't want Los Angeles and never did? Slow your roll, man. Don't think for a minute the league doesn't want to be there.

[Gothamite]

One little snag over real estate and suddenly the NFL doesn't want Los Angeles and never did? Slow your roll, man. Don't think for a minute the league doesn't want to be there.

Exactly.

It's not even a snag over real estate. It's a snag over dividing the massive profits everybody expects an LA team to see, which means this maneuvering is actually encouraging for those who want to see a team in Los Angeles.

[dbadefense1990]

One little snag over real estate and suddenly the NFL doesn't want Los Angeles and never did? Slow your roll, man. Don't think for a minute the league doesn't want to be there.

If you live here, you already know how many times have we Angelinos reached this point, then something wrong happens which destroys everything. The NFL approved a deal for Hollywood Park in 1995 for the Raiders to stay, but he didn't want to share the site, so he moved the Raiders back to Oakland.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/25/sports/pro-football-owners-give-raiders-reason-to-stay.html

The NFL gave LA a 32nd franchise in 1999, but our idiot politicians blew that chance, and that team would be later known as the Houston Texans.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/columns/story?id=6057731

To other fans, they laugh at the idea that we "panic" for every little detail about the NFL in LA, but we've been tortured before and our fears have usually come true. We're like Cubs fans; everything might go great, but then a curse awakens and unleashes hell a minute before midnight occurs.

[bosrs1]

...then neither does Buffalo, Boston, Miami, Dallas, Phoenix, or Washington.

And if that's the case the Rams left Anaheim not LA...

Boston doesn't have an NFL team, and they don't claim to.

[pmoehrin]

...then neither does Buffalo, Boston, Miami, Dallas, Phoenix, or Washington.

And if that's the case the Rams left Anaheim not LA...

Boston doesn't have an NFL team, and they don't claim to.

Foxoboro is nowhere near Boston compared to how far away the other teams are from their primary cities such as the Giants/Jets, Cowboys and Redskins. Its actually slighlty closer to Providence then it is to Boston so the New England name is an accurate one.

[Still MIGHTY]

One little snag over real estate and suddenly the NFL doesn't want Los Angeles and never did? Slow your roll, man. Don't think for a minute the league doesn't want to be there.

If you live here, you already know how many times have we Angelinos reached this point, then something wrong happens which destroys everything. The NFL approved a deal for Hollywood Park in 1995 for the Raiders to stay, but he didn't want to share the site, so he moved the Raiders back to Oakland.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/25/sports/pro-football-owners-give-raiders-reason-to-stay.html

The NFL gave LA a 32nd franchise in 1999, but our idiot politicians blew that chance, and that team would be later known as the Houston Texans.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/columns/story?id=6057731

To other fans, they laugh at the idea that we "panic" for every little detail about the NFL in LA, but we've been tortured before and our fears have usually come true. We're like Cubs fans; everything might go great, but then a curse awakens and unleashes hell a minute before midnight occurs.

Slow your roll buddy.

Born and raised in SoCal/Greater LA area/Orange County, tried and true Duck, Angel, and Laker fan, and me personally, I think you'er going a little overboard. I'd drop everything and pick up LA's NFL team if it came (except the Chargers). Frustrating? Sure. But I don't see it as a "panic" or a "curse." If anything it's more of a malaise to me at this point. We have been tugged around so much on this that when stuff does come out, I just take it with a grain of salt. When the deal is signed, sealed, delivered, and LA has a playing and functioning NFL team, then I'll be full force LA NFL. But until the day it actually happens, I'm not too freaked out over it.

The Rams and Raiders left when I was 6, so for really my entire conscious sports life I've had no real local NFL team and my NFL life has been dictated by this type of rigmarole. (I remember a little bit of the Rams I guess, but not enough to make a difference.) Every time I hear a rumor of it, sure I get a little excited, but I try to step back and see the actual validity of the opportunity. The only time I was super disappointed was the 1999 bid that Houston got, and a little less disappointed when the Anaheim idea fell through (because it'd be a lot closer and more accessible for me).

Basically, I personally think you're overreacting. Like Gothamite said, it's not even a dead in the water thing. The NFL is just not totally in line with Anschutz and his potential stipulations for the downtown plan. The City of Industry plan is still alive and well. Now I'd prefer the downtown stadium to the Industry stadium, but if LA gets the NFL back, I don't think people are going to care all that much. Just sit back, relax, and wait.

[DarkJourney]

It comes down once again to something that has affected the human race: MONEY AND GREED

[BigMac12]

When was the last NFL stadium built in the downtown portion of a city?

[pmoehrin]

It comes down once again to something that has affected the human race: MONEY AND GREED

Pretty much. Logistically at this point there's no reason why a team shouldn't and can't be in LA. I'm sure the NFL could give the LA an expansion team and sell it to AEG or Roski tomorrow and have a NFL team in LA by no later then 2015.

Its just a shame that the reasons why this can't get done have nothing to do with whether or not LA has the market to allow for an NFL team to succeed.

[The_Admiral]

When was the last NFL stadium built in the downtown portion of a city?

Seattle's stadium is just south of "downtown," but it's still very much an urban stadium, I'd say. I think Lucas is downtown, too, but that's Indianapolis.

[AHcreative]

"During a Sept. 6 meeting at the NFL offices in New York, commissioner Roger Goodell told Los Angeles Councilwoman Jan Perry and political aide Bernard Parks, Jr. that neither the league nor any team interested in moving there would agree to the business proposal set forth by Anschutz Entertainment Group, according to three sources with knowledge of the conversation. AEG is the private company that has offered to build and operate a retractable-roof stadium, which would be named Farmers Field, on the site that is currently part of the Los Angeles Convention Center."

Full Story

What do you guys think? Will L.A. have a team by 2013 or 2014 like anticipated?

Frankly, this is just another excuse for the owner's distaste the Los Angeles area in general. We've seen this kind of crap before, from Hollywood Park to Dodger Stadium to even an idea at the Pomona Fairgrounds.

I would go as far as saying the NFL hates Los Angeles, NFL fans hate LA, and always mock us and bring up the whole "your city is not a real American city because it has no NFL" thing. I see it all around; no matter what other sport we try to talk about, fans from other cities marginalize us because of the whole NFL thing. We've been the butt-of jokes for late-night comedy, and have been labeled as being "too liberal, too fake, too Hollywood" to have an NFL team.

Plus, the NFL owners see a goldmine of new publically-financed stadiums on the horizon. All they have to do is say "we're moving the team to LA" and that town's taxpayers fork over construction 100%, just so that they don't see their beloved team come here, and be saturated with all things negative about LA.

I not only think, I expect the Chargers, Vikings, Rams, Raiders and all other bubble teams to get new stadium deals within the next 5 years...and to shame LA once again for the NFL's own pleasure.

Every city that has lost the NFL has gotten them back (Cleveland, St. Louis, Baltimore, Oakland) except Los Angeles. Why? Because the NFL doesn't need LA to survive (it's even thrived in the 16+ years since two teams left our city), it can use us for leverage, and it can spit in our faces whenever we call upon the NFL to give us a team.

In simpler terms, Los Angeles is like a man with his head in a guillotine, with NFL owners controlling the blade, and other NFL fans in the audience. Every damn time we get close to getting a team, *slice* there go our chances.

I sure hope you're right about St. Louis to get that stadium deal done. However, I really don't think our dome is in that bad of shape. From what I can remember of the Georgia dome 10+ years ago when I was there for SB XXXIV, it's not any more/less better than ours. Sure, it might be a little cookie-cutter, no flashy million dollar TV screens. It's not like it's literally falling apart either.

The advantage for St. Louis is time. While the Chargers and Vikings' leases are up as of February 1 2012, the Rams have 3 more full seasons after the current one to get a new deal done. Their lease ends after the 2014 season (after Super Bowl 49 for you simpletons). I really think Stan Kroenke will get public bonds to pay for renevations or for a new stadium there, or if he has to, sell the team to a native St. Louis person. Politics in Missouri cannot be as much of a pain as in Cali or Minnesota. The Rams are St. Louis' to lose, their permanent residence.

P.S: I still cringe my teeth every time I see the Rams winning Super Bowl 34, because that should have been ours. F*** you Frontierre; hope you, Hitler, and Satan are dancing the waltz in hell.

C'mon, you gotta give 'em credit for one of the most unbelievable seasons in recent NFL history. Super Bowl 34 will forever be in the Top 10 Greatest Super Bowls list, IMO.