Master Index of Archived Threads


The NFL Back to L.A.?

Valadius Apr 17 2008 11:58 AM

]Roski to unveil concept for NFL stadium By JOHN NADEL, AP Sports Writer 8 hours, 54 minutes ago LOS ANGELES (AP)—Plans for a 75,000-seat stadium that is hoped would help lure an NFL team back to the Los Angeles area will be announced Thursday. Edward P. Roski Jr., a part owner of the Kings and Lakers, will unveil his idea for a stadium in the City of Industry, said John Semcken, vice president of Majestic Realty, Roski’s real estate company. The proposed stadium, near the southern intersection of the 57 and 60 freeways some 20 miles east of Los Angeles, would be surrounded by a high-end shopping mall, and located on a vacant property which Roski already owns, Semcken said. “We’ve spent the last year designing a football stadium that is ideally suited for the Southern California marketplace that will be a part of a major entertainment, retail and office development,” Semcken told The Associated Press. “We want to take all of the uncertainty out of this stadium situation,” he said. If a team committed to moving to Los Angeles, “we could begin construction in the final quarter of this year and have it ready for play for the first exhibition game in 2011,” Semcken said. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told the AP that the league wasn’t involved in Thursday’s news conference. Los Angeles, the second-largest media market in the country, has been without an NFL team since 1995, when the Raiders moved back to Oakland after playing 13 years at the Los Angeles Coliseum and the Rams moved from Anaheim to St. Louis. Proposals have been made for numerous stadium sites in the area over the years including the Coliseum and the Rose Bowl in Pasadena as well as in Irwindale, Inglewood, Carson and Anaheim. Associated Press Writer Steve Lawrence in Sacramento, Calif., contributed to this report. I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on how the NFL ultimately returns to Los Angeles. What teams could move? How does that affect the divisional alignment?

Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2008 12:01 PM

The franchise instability in the NFL over the last couple of decades has been unbelievable. How many cities have lost one team and regained another? Baltimore, Houston, St. Louis, Cleveland. It's crazy. At least Cleveland still has its Browns, even though it's the second franchise with that name. It gives them some kind of continuity with their history. I'm glad I'm not a football fan.

sharpie Apr 17 2008 12:03 PM

Unless they offer a team a great lease I don't know why anyone would move. Since almost all teams sell out anyway and all revenues are shared then being in a major market doesn't help you. That's why teams move to smaller markets -- Houston to Tennessee; LA Raiders back to Oakland; LA Rams to St. Louis -- the only thing that matters is how much the local community wants to bend over to provide the team with additional revenue.

HahnSolo Apr 17 2008 02:04 PM

Look for a team with a crappy stadium situation that might be willing to move, and who do you find? The upper California teams, Oakland and SF, have bad facilities. Would never be a shock if Al Davis moved his team back to LA. Other possible movers? Minnesota - the Dome's s dump and I don't think the Vikes have a new stadium plan in place. The Twins are building a baseball only place downtown. That will make the Vikings antsy for their own new place. New Orleans - Benson has wanted to look into moving for a while. Post-Katrina it would be hard to move, but I think once Katrina is a few years removed, he'll try to get them out of there. Buffalo - Ralph Wilson is really really old. If his family sells after his death, it would not be surprising in the least if they were to move. They're already giving up home games to play in Toronto. I like the look of the LA Stadium drawings, btw.

sharpie Apr 17 2008 02:24 PM

Metrodome is a dump for baseball, not so bad for football. I don't think they're a candidate. Oakland would be the most likely candidate I would guess but, again, they'd have to get a sweetheart deal and I'm not sure that part is being offered.

Frayed Knot Apr 18 2008 11:17 AM

My opinion in the whole matter is that the NFL likes NOT having a team in LA. On a league-wide basis the NFL views stadiums as nothing more than huge TV studios anyway so they barely care where the teams are located. But from the point of view of TV and the revenue a stadium provides to the local ownership, not having a team in the 2nd largest city is an advantage in a couple ways. - it gives the TV networks an "open" city, one where they can beam in the most wanted game of the week without having to worry about conflicts with a home team. NYC fans who don't follow one of the locals know all about getting shut out of certain sexy matchups. - and mainly an empty L.A. gives the league a sword to hang over over cities' heads as a threat that they better come up with the new crib (at city expense of course) or at least renovations to the existing one or their team will follow the yellow brick road to SoCal. Selig takes some abuse (and rightfully so) for the sort of velvet extortion game he's played with cities in order to get stadium upgrades. But (as usual) the NFL gets a pass from the press on an issue where they've been far worse over the years.