There IS public money in the AEG proposal. $350 million in city bond payments and an unknown amount of infrastructure improvements that would be needed around the stadium. What is unclear is how the developer proposes to guarantee repayment. The developer wants the same deal that was originally proposed by the developer of Staples Center, but that guarantee was rejected by the City Council for being inadequate and a new one was agreed to.

It isn't AEG's proposal. The developer is the L.A. Event Center, LLC. The "LL" stands for limited liability. The guaranty would not come from AEG or Anschutz. That was the deal that the City Council rejected in the Staples deal.

LAEC, LLC wants to see the bonds paid off using taxes and fees that everyone else pays and that would go to the City. So, no matter how you cut it, the public is being asked to subsidize the project. The stadium won't produce anymore than a handful of jobs, so if the City isn't going to get any taxes and fees, how does the project benefit the City?

Ultimately, my points are these:

The Vikings and Chargers are the most likely candidates to move to Los Angeles due to a lease expiration (Metrodome) and a lease escape clause (Qualcomm Stadium), respectively. Neither team in playing in a jurisdiction that appears willing to contribute the levels of public financing that the teams are demanding (the Vikings are demanding roughly $700 million and the Chargers $500 million).

If the Vikings or Chargers are not willing to take part in a privately-financed stadium in their respective cities, then they will not be interested in the nearly fully privately-financed Farmers Field project in Los Angeles, where the costs would be significantly higher, and include the $350 million expense of replacing the West Hall of the Los Angeles Convention Center.

The city of Los Angeles will not contribute a significant amount of funding for the project because there are no resources or political will for it to do so (I think we can all agree on this point).

Ticket taxes will not be a significant source of funding for the project.

Those people who suggest AEG will be able to provide its own funding comparable to levels of public funding in other cities (i.e., Arlington or Indianapolis) without demanding a sizable percentage of stadium revenue are being naive and/or overly optimistic.

How long would it take a $2 surcharge (even if you include all events at Staples) to pay off a $350 million bond?

The math doesn't add up.
Well, let's play with some numbers. The Lakers draw roughly 19,000 per game, times 41 games (minimum) times $2 equals $1,558,000 per year. Assume the Clippers average 17,000, that gets $1,394,000. And for the Kings, 16,000 per contributes $1,312,000 each season. They claim that Staples is used 200 times per year, so we will tack on 80 more events, at an arbitrary figure of 15,000 per event, for another $2.4 million. Now we have the football stadium. Call it 70,000 for simplicity, times 10 games, plus 10 more sold out events each year, giving another $2.8 Mil. So paying back about $9.5 million per year, that bond will vanish in about 36.8 years. Of course I was assuming that the $350 mil is the total cost. Interest will stretch things a bit. But it doesn't look too bad.

will101:

Your math is faulty. The amount of money that city taxpayers need to payoff on a $350 million bond has to include interest for 30 years to those who buy the bonds. It's like a mortgage on your house. The total bill will be over $1 billion. So figure $29 million a year in payments just on that bond. The the developer needs to pay off the money it will borrow to build a stadium that will exceed $1 billion.

Money generated from Staples Center is used to pay off that borrowed money and won't be used for the football stadium deal.

pudgie_child:

Any team moving to L.A. can strike any kind of deal they want with the builder of the stadium. A stadium without a team is a money drain, so it's entirely possible that someone will have to pay a team to move here. So now you look at the Vikings and Chargers facing the choice of paying for a share of new stadium in their own cities, vs. moving to L.A. for free or at a profit and using their leverage to hammer out an annual rental fee.

will101:

Your math is faulty. The amount of money that city taxpayers need to payoff on a $350 million bond has to include interest for 30 years to those who buy the bonds. It's like a mortgage on your house. The total bill will be over $1 billion. So figure $29 million a year in payments just on that bond. The the developer needs to pay off the money it will borrow to build a stadium that will exceed $1 billion.

AEG is covering the annual shortfall of the bonds. Until someone finds evidence indicating otherwise, it's not worth debating.

AEG hasn't said that it will cover the shortfall on the bond repayments. The developer, the LLC that has been formed to build the stadium is saying it, and it has not offered any specifics about the quaranty that it proposes to provide. In its proposal to the City, the developer said that it wants the same deal that was originally proposed in the Staples Center deal. That deal, especially the guaranty, was found by the City Council to be woefully inadequate and the developer was forced into agreeing to a new guaranty.

The City should not be accepting a handshake guaranty from anyone, and certainly not from a developer who wants the taxpayers to front a ton of money. You wouldn't do that with your own money. Why would you do it with the public's money?

The City should not be accepting a handshake guaranty from anyone, and certainly not from a developer who wants the taxpayers to front a ton of money. You wouldn't do that with your own money. Why would you do it with the public's money?

Because a modern contiguous convention center and new stadium has high potential to attract peripheral development to downtown. More construction jobs, more permanent jobs, more taxes to the city.

Because a modern contiguous convention center and new stadium has high potential to attract peripheral development to downtown. More construction jobs, more permanent jobs, more taxes to the city.

The incremental increase in tax revenues to the city and county may be large enough to help pay for a fraction of the building (a Super Bowl or Final Four every three years would bring in a fair amount of revenue). The problem is that the city/county/state doesn't appear to be interested in returning some of that money to the project because it would be political suicide.

The only public funding being discussed is a return of ticket tax money to the project ($2 on a $50 ticket?), but that will be a relatively negligible source of revenue for a project that will run around $1.5 billion (including the cost of the new convention hall).

The speculation that the Convention Center will see more business because of the presence of the stadium is exactly that: speculation. It's not clear how much the presence of a NFL stadium will enhance the center's ability to attract conventions when so many factors go into those decisions.

pudgie_child:

Any team moving to L.A. can strike any kind of deal they want with the builder of the stadium. A stadium without a team is a money drain, so it's entirely possible that someone will have to pay a team to move here. So now you look at the Vikings and Chargers facing the choice of paying for a share of new stadium in their own cities, vs. moving to L.A. for free or at a profit and using their leverage to hammer out an annual rental fee.

Agreed, but won't AEG (or the LLC) need stadium revenue to pay off their > $1.5 billion debt on the stadium/convention center? Why would a team be able to move to L.A. "for free" or for a small "annual rent fee"?

The biggest advantage to moving to Greater Los Angeles is the likelihood of another NFL team to share costs (although that can be a double-edged sword); but if the overall costs of a retractable dome/convention center expansion are so much higher, the wisdom of the project (especially when these teams have expressed their disdain for domes) becomes more questionable.

With NFL owners it's all about money. Majestic is really to make a deal to get a team here and break ground on their stadium right now. AEG's subsidiary has many more hurdles to get over before they are ready.

There is no set amount of money that a team moving to the L.A. area would have to pay in rent. It's all negotiable and depends upon the financial consequences of a team staying where it is vs. coming to L.A. I expect L.A. to go after the team that is ready, willing, and able to move here at the least expense to the stadium owner.

As to the economic benefits and the jobs that might be created, every independent study that has ever been done throughout the country, and there have been scores of them, have found that the benefits ended up being negligible. Developers, as a matter of practice, always oversell the economic benefits in order to get cities to help the developer reduce the amount of his own money he has to put into the project.

There is no evidence of any sort showing that Los Angeles was affected economically after the Rams and Raiders left. Same for Orange County after the Rams left there.

You cannot find a single businessperson who would be motivated to open a new business downtown just because there would be a football stadium there.

You cannot find a single businessperson who would be motivated to open a new business downtown just because there would be a football stadium there.

:wallbash:

AEG Set to Announce New Hotel Next to L.A. Live
By Eric Richardson
Published: Friday, March 11, 2011, at 03:41PM

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Officials with AEG have been consistent in saying that their proposed $1.4 billion NFL stadium and events center would stimulate new developments in Downtown's hotel industry.

The company appears set to back that talk up by kicking off development of an entitled hotel site it owns just north of L.A. Live.

On Wednesday morning, Ted Tanner told the members of the Los Angeles Convention and Exhibition Authority that the company is under contract with a hotel developer and plans to announce the development deal within the next two weeks.

Tanner, who heads up real estate development for the company, said the 375-room development would include "two brands," but did not specify what they would be.

The project could be the first of several to get announced for South Park.

"Every major brand is interested in being Downtown right now," Tanner said.

While much of that interest is being driven by the stadium project and the promise of a renewed Convention Center, the first year performance of the 1,001 rooms in the JW Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hasn't exactly hurt. AEG projected first year occupancy rates in the two hotels to be 56%, but hit 64% instead. Room rates are similarly 10% higher than the company had projected.

The soon-to-be-announced hotel could get company on AEG's Olympic North parcel, which sits north of Olympic between Francisco and Georgia. The site is currently entitled for 600,000 square feet of office and broadcast studio space, but Tanner said that AEG may look to change some of that to hotel rooms. Since AEG first applied for the broadcast entitlement in 2009, Comcast purchased NBC Universal, giving the Comcast Entertainment Group a more natural home in the Universal City development.

http://blogdowntown.com/2011/03/6175-aeg-set-to-announce-new-hotel-next-to-la

Hotel deals like this do not develop overnight. This one has been in the making for a long time. To say that the possibility of a football stadium caused someone to want to build a hotel there is absurd on its face. AEG wants you to believe that to be true but it can't even bring itself to say it because it would damage their credibility. What you need to see is how much more tourist activity is projected for the area because of the presence of a stadium. And remember that football teams don't attract tourists who stay in hotels. And neither do trade shows such as the Auto Show, the Boat Show, etc.

You cannot find a single businessperson who would be motivated to open a new business downtown just because there would be a football stadium there.


this is, by far, the dumbest comment in the history of SSC.

Think about it. Every independent economic study has shown that football stadiums don't affect the economy of the immediate area. If you don't believe the studies look at the area around the Coliseum before, during, and after the Rams and Raiders were there. See any difference?

8-10 games a year doesn't generate enough business to cause anyone to start a business there. The talk of 50+ events a year ends with that claim. There have been no realistic specific events mentioned. No one is going to open a business next to the stadium because once or twice in 10 years it will hold a Super Bowl.

Businesses were created around South Park when it became clear that Staples Center and LA Live would have activities over 300 days a year. Whatever additional activity would be added by a football stadium would be insignificant.

So let's think this out. Can anyone name a type of new business that would possibly be created just because of the presence of a football stadium in South Park?

no specific events have been named? final fours, superbowls, bowl games, concerts, NFL Combines, and pretty much every other major event has expressed interest in the event center. obviously nothing concrete has been announced because there is no event center yet, but i have no doubt that they would easily get 50 + events a year at the event center.

also, this event center will not be a standalone stadium, it will be part of a larger entertainment district, so the addition of the event center will bring even more business to the area. its not very hard to imagine this. ive spoken to various investors and building owners in the downtown area and ALL, i repeat, ALL are extremely excited and eager for this event center and all it will bring.

Think about it. Every independent economic study has shown that football stadiums don't affect the economy of the immediate area.

Funny, Semcken was singing a different song when he was begging the legislature for his exemptions.

Boom! and honestly, i would like to see the sources for these "reports" i believe its one report from a USC professor that keeps on getting circulated and it was regarding a specific situation if i recall correctly.

To find the studies all you need to do is a Google search. Try keywords like football stadium, economic benefits, costs.

The first book on the subject was called "Sports, Jobs, and Taxes." It was written by 17 economists from universities who had no financial ties with any team, developer, or government. Many of them went on to update the findings in other writings. They include Roger Noll (Stanford), Mark Rosentraub (Indiana U), Allen Sanderson (U of Chicago), Andrew Zimbalist (Smith College), Dennis Zimmerman (Library of Congress), Robert Baade (Lake Forest College), and Peter Kahn (Johns Hopkins).

You have to compare their findings to those of the firms that are hired by the developers. In those studies, the firms rely on the data given to them by the developer. So if Leiweke tells them that 8 billion people will attend events each year, that's the number they use. This is how the developers normally overstate the benefits in order to get public support and quick buy-ins from government officials. However, in this case, Leiweke even skipped that step. We're just asked to believe him.

I'll bet that the people who trusted Bernie Madoff wished they had asked more questions.

To find the studies all you need to do is a Google search. Try keywords like football stadium, economic benefits, costs.

The first book on the subject was called "Sports, Jobs, and Taxes." It was written by 17 economists from universities who had no financial ties with any team, developer, or government. Many of them went on to update the findings in other writings. They include Roger Noll (Stanford), Mark Rosentraub (Indiana U), Allen Sanderson (U of Chicago), Andrew Zimbalist (Smith College), Dennis Zimmerman (Library of Congress), Robert Baade (Lake Forest College), and Peter Kahn (Johns Hopkins).

You have to compare their findings to those of the firms that are hired by the developers. In those studies, the firms rely on the data given to them by the developer. So if Leiweke tells them that 8 billion people will attend events each year, that's the number they use. This is how the developers normally overstate the benefits in order to get public support and quick buy-ins from government officials. However, in this case, Leiweke even skipped that step. We're just asked to believe him.


The wild card regarding Farmers Field is that it will be a domed stadium, and that aspect may enhance the ability of the Convention Center to attract events, which will make the project more appealing to the City and to the stadium's name sponsor (Farmers Insurance).

I am a skeptical, however, to what degree the presence of a domed football stadium will make an impact to groups who are choosing sites for their conventions. The new modern hall over Pico will have a greater impact, in all likelihood.

No offense all, but let's try to stay on topic. This thread is about the COI stadium. If you have an opinion on the merits or shortcomings of the AEG proposal, feel free to comment on that thread. And FWIW, I don't necessarily think the two sides need to be so antagonistic towards one another. Just because you support one site more than the other does not mean you have to slam the other. It comes across as defensive.

http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/images/stories/gallery/photo-24.jpg

This is the first image I've seen with parking on the other side of Grand Avenue.

I actually kinda digged this design when they first launched it. My problem has always been the location. At the same time, it seemed to me that they wanted to create an "LA Live East" to compete with their old one time partner.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the design. I actually prefer this design over the early renders of MushRoof Field. But I prefer the downtown SITE much more, mainly because of the presence of Staples, ESPN and the Blue Line.

http://www.ocregister.com/sports/teams-294664-angeles-semcken.html

Published: April 1, 2011
Updated: April 4, 2011 4:13 p.m.

NFL team's value could improve with move
BY SCOTT M. REID
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

LOS ANGELES – Moving an existing National Football League franchise to the Los Angeles-Orange County market will not come cheap.

A franchise looking to relocate into the nation's second largest media market can expect to pay the NFL a relocation fee nearly 10 times the $29 million the Rams paid the league to move from Anaheim to St. Louis following the 1995 season, according to economists and sports consultants.

A $200 million relocation fee, Marc Ganis, president of SportsCorp, a Chicago-based sports business firm, "is a reasonable number."

While the size of the relocation fee could be an issue in a team moving to Southern California, sports business analysts and officials involved in both the City of Industry and downtown Los Angeles stadium projects point out that a franchise will dramatically increase its value to potentially as much as $1 billion with the move.

San Diego, Buffalo, Minnesota, Jacksonville, Oakland and St. Louis have all been mentioned as franchises that could possibly relocate to Southern California.

"The minute a team moves to Los Angeles they become the richest team in the NFL," said John Semcken, vice president of Majestic Reality, the group behind the Industry project.

Both Majestic and the Anschutz Entertainment Group and its political allies behind a downtown stadium said they believe two teams will eventually relocate in Southern California.

"They're going to put two teams in Los Angeles in one building," Semcken said referring to the NFL. "We talk to them every week. I know they want."

Both groups are also in active conversations with NFL franchises about relocating to their proposed stadiums.

"We're in negotiations with several teams," AEG chief operating officer Dan Beckerman said this week.

Said Semcken, "We are talking to teams. We're making progress with teams."

Billionaire developer Ed Roski Jr., head of Majestic, would like to buy at least a share of a team moving to the Los Angeles-Orange County market. Beckerman said AEG is also considering partial ownership.

"I would not rule out AEG owning part of a team," Beckerman said.

Neither group will disclose the names of the teams they are in talks with although Semcken might have provided a hint this week.

Going over the proposed stadium's energy use and that the venue would not have roof, Semcken said, "the guys in Buffalo wanted to know what are you going to do in the winter? I said 'I'm going to change from a tank top to a T-shirt.'"

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dwyre-ed-roski-20110813,0,3428496.column

Ed Roski and the other Los Angeles NFL stadium idea

It's easy to forget about billionaire Ed Roski's idea for an NFL stadium in Industry with the bright lights firmly fixed on another billionaire, Philip Anschutz, and his sexy downtown proposal.

By Bill Dwyre
August 12, 2011

The big headlines and media noise swirling around the proposed downtown stadium have given new life to the nearly forgotten concept that the NFL might have a team in Los Angeles again.

One thing is certain. Tim Leiweke and his Anschutz Entertainment Group have won the battle of perception. The only way Leiweke could have made a bigger splash would have been to don a Paul Revere hat and ride through the streets of Los Angeles, yelling: "The NFL is coming! The NFL is coming!"

The implication of his proposed site, next to Staples Center, is that it would make L.A. Live even livelier. It is a sexy place after years of being a no-man's land.

Want some action? Come see an NFL game and stay that night to see Kobe. Hungry? Have Wolfgang Puck rustle up dinner. Make it an overnight? No Motel 6's here. Hand your platinum card to the J.W. Marriott. ESPN is here, too, zoned for food and for dishing out scoops of media self-importance.

It is a sort of Disneyland, a place to be for those who need a place to be.

Now, after years of nothing happening on the NFL front, this deal seems inevitable. The NFL has finished its labor problems. All parties — other than the long-forgotten and long-suffering retired players — seem happy. And the NFL has indicated it will now focus on Los Angeles.

You can chalk it up. Leiweke will build it downtown, and they will come. It is done.

Interestingly, there remains a quiet dissenter 20 miles or so to the east. Think of Ed Roski as a man in waiting.

Roski is the billionaire from Industry who has his own stadium proposal. Oh, yes. Remember him?

He is 72 and looks 52. He climbs mountains and rides bicycles all around countries the size of Ireland. He lives next to the golf course at Lakeside Country Club in Toluca Lake, is a member, and never plays golf.

"I love the game, love to watch it on TV," he says. "I just never started to play, and now it's too late."

He is a real estate executive, the head of Majestic Realty, who counts among his friends the man who is financing Leiweke's Paul Revere rides around downtown.

"Phil Anschutz has been a tremendous asset to Southern California," Roski says. "We talk to each other all the time."

Were Roski a reporter, he'd never get to talk to Anschutz, but that's a story for another day.

Roski and Anschutz are the strangest of competitors. They started doing deals together more than 30 years ago when Anschutz, then a newly rich Denver oilman, called about a parcel of land near Union Station and both chatted about the need for a new stadium in the Los Angeles area. Now Roski owns a piece of Anschutz's Staples Center and has ownership pieces, as does Anschutz, in Jerry Buss's Lakers. Roski also has a piece of Anschutz's ownership of the Kings.

A bitter rivalry for the NFL's hand in marriage this is not.

"If the downtown site wins," Roski says, "the first thing is that I will be happy the city got a team. It's one of those things where I don't care if it is in my backyard or your backyard — let's just get a team back."

That being said, Roski thinks his stadium concept, on his own 600-acre plot of land where the 57 and 60 freeways meet near the cities of Industry, Walnut and Diamond Bar, is the best one. He says his wide-open spaces provide outside parking that creates what he calls "the fan experience." He says that, more than anything else, drives the NFL.

He wrinkles his nose at the thought of tailgate parties in parking structures, which is where the downtown site would stash most of its fans.

"You want it outside, with big tents and room for parties, even room for things to do after the games," Roski says. "This is Southern California. We have the weather."

In true real-estate vernacular, Roski says this is all about "location, location, location." He points to a huge map on the wall that shows L.A., Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange Counties — with his stadium site near the center. His implication was that this would be a truly Los Angeles-area team, giving fans from all over a chance to attend.

Roski says all his work is done, all the environmental action has been taken, no bonds need to be floated, no communities are objecting. He said the NFL does not allow owners to have ownership of casinos, and if he got a team, he would give his Las Vegas Silverton to his children. He says he released his architect, for the moment, to do other work "because it is work, and I won't take that away from people." And he said he hasn't acquired naming rights for his stadium, unlike Leiweke did with his lucrative deal with Farmers Insurance, because "it makes more sense to do that once you have a team."

Roski says: "We could put a shovel in the ground tomorrow."

Also a dagger in the heart of Phil Anschutz.

You gotta love Los Angeles' dueling billionaires. The NFL certainly should.

http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/images/stories/gallery/photo-24.jpg

This is the first image I've seen with parking on the other side of Grand Avenue.

Are you kidding me?! Where did all green areas come from? Looks like Ireland or Holland and not parched soil of southern California.

Are you kidding me?! Where did all green areas come from? Looks like Ireland or Holland and not parched soil of southern California.

:lol:

Are you kidding me?! Where did all green areas come from? Looks like Ireland or Holland and not parched soil of southern California.

:lol::lol:

Are you kidding me?! Where did all green areas come from? Looks like Ireland or Holland and not parched soil of southern California.

If Palm Springs can do it, so can a few acres in Industry.

http://0.tqn.com/d/golftravel/1/0/X/3/-/-/DS-aerial-2.jpg

If Palm Springs can do it, so can a few acres in Industry.

http://0.tqn.com/d/golftravel/1/0/X/3/-/-/DS-aerial-2.jpg


Huge waste of precious water resourses.

Huge waste of precious water resourses.

I disagree. The state pays for the water and gets millions back in tax revenue from its many uses.

I disagree. The state pays for the water and gets millions back in tax revenue from its many uses.
I agree with 'dande'. Just because a resource like water generates tax revenue, doesn't change the fact that there is not enough to go around.

I agree with 'dande'. Just because a resource like water generates tax revenue, doesn't change the fact that there is not enough to go around.

Imperial County is the richest, most productive farmland in the United States. Palm Springs gets its water from local mountains and wells. Who exactly is starving for water in SoCal?

Huge waste of precious water resourses.Our world is 72% water, all of which that can be converted into Fresh Water, human kind hasn't even decreased it one, one hundreth of a percent, due to Human kind, it's actually going up! The caps are melting, that much is fact, by the time they are gone, Earth will be covered in about 80% of water, How on Earth is that precious?

It's exactly what George Bush said.

"Sure it'll be a couple of degree's hotter, but we will be knee deep in water!"

Our world is 72% water, all of which that can be converted into Fresh Water, human kind hasn't even decreased it one, one hundreth of a percent, due to Human kind, it's actually going up! The caps are melting, that much is fact, by the time they are gone, Earth will be covered in about 80% of water, How on Earth is that precious?

It's exactly what George Bush said.

"Sure it'll be a couple of degree's hotter, but we will be knee deep in water!"

I thought people had stopped listening to Al Gore's doomsday reports...

Our world is 72% water, all of which that can be converted into Fresh Water, human kind hasn't even decreased it one, one hundreth of a percent, due to Human kind, it's actually going up! The caps are melting, that much is fact, by the time they are gone, Earth will be covered in about 80% of water, How on Earth is that precious?

It's exactly what George Bush said.

"Sure it'll be a couple of degree's hotter, but we will be knee deep in water!"


Well for one, it´s salt water. It´s pretty much useless for human consumption. If they used salt water in Palm Springs to irrigate all those golf courses, lawns and spray salt water mist in the air then sure, no prob. Go ahead and water your plant with salt water. See what happends after a while.
Really, get your head out of your ass.

Well for one, it´s salt water. It´s pretty much useless for human consumption. If they used salt water in Palm Springs to irrigate all those golf courses, lawns and spray salt water mist in the air then sure, no prob. Go ahead and water your plant with salt water. See what happends after a while.
Really, get your head out of your ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination

Our world is 72% water, all of which that can be converted into Fresh Water, human kind hasn't even decreased it one, one hundreth of a percent, due to Human kind, it's actually going up! The caps are melting, that much is fact, by the time they are gone, Earth will be covered in about 80% of water, How on Earth is that precious?

It's exactly what George Bush said.

"Sure it'll be a couple of degree's hotter, but we will be knee deep in water!"


bs i wanna see a video of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination


I am aware but it´s still very expensive and energy consuming proces not to mention ratio of 1l salt water you get 0.4 l fresh water tops.

Our world is 72% water, all of which that can be converted into Fresh Water, human kind hasn't even decreased it one, one hundreth of a percent, due to Human kind, it's actually going up! The caps are melting, that much is fact, by the time they are gone, Earth will be covered in about 80% of water, How on Earth is that precious?

It's exactly what George Bush said.

"Sure it'll be a couple of degree's hotter, but we will be knee deep in water!"

Bush never said that and I can't believe that warmers still exist. I think birthers, truthers and warmers should start their own country; Conspiristan.

I guess this is what happens when news is slow. Do we need a "water policy" thread somewhere?

http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_18761758

Industry mayor: Roski uncertain about NFL stadium plans, discusses building retail stores instead

Thomas Himes, Staff Writer
Posted: 08/26/2011

Developer Ed Roski Jr. has talked to Industry officials about the possibility of building retail stores instead of an NFL stadium on 600 acres of open space near the junction of the 57 and 60 freeways, Mayor Dave Perez said Thursday.

Perez said Roski is uncertain about whether his plans for an $800 million NFL stadium will ever come to fruition and wants a contingency in place.

"(Roski) doesn't know where this stadium will go at the end of the day," Perez said. "I got a feeling if he can still get the football stadium, he would love to have it, but he's covering all of his bases."

Long before Roski announced plans in April 2008 to build a 75,000-seat stadium at the site, he intended to use the land for retail stores and other businesses, Perez said. Roski's environmental impact report for such a project was approved.

But about a month ago, Roski expressed renewed interest in developing the site without a stadium, Perez said. And city officials gave him the OK, Perez said.

"He asked us if we have a problem with going back to the original plan," Perez said. "He's looking at retail again."

The only piece missing from Roski's plan to build a stadium has been the absence of an agreement with an NFL team to play in it.

And the competition to buy a team was ratcheted up last year when Anschutz Entertainment Group announced plans to build an NFL stadium of its own in downtown Los Angeles.

Perez said that AEG's proposal has contributed to Roski's interest in a contingency option.

"They're moving fast down there in Los Angeles," he said.

But the man who has been leading the stadium effort for Roski, Majestic Realty vice president John Semcken, said Thursday he met with his boss Wednesday and that he's still committed to building a stadium.

"(Roski) looked me in the eye, and he said, `John, we are 1,000 percent closer than we were a month ago,"' Semcken said.

Roski could not be reached for comment.

Semcken said that the prospect of reaching an agreement with an NFL team is more promising than ever, but an announcement cannot come until after this season's Super Bowl at the earliest.

"There's no team that's going to make a deal until the end of the football season," Semcken said. "It's just not going to happen because it would absolutely devastate a team to play in a market when everybody already knows they're leaving."

Roski has been ready to break ground on a stadium since October 2009, when former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an exemption to state environmental laws that cleared the way for construction - stopping a lawsuit by Walnut residents that threatened to stall the Industry project.

The governor and Legislature approved the exemption, they said, because Roski's project promised to stimulate the economy and bring thousands of jobs to the area.

Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon, D-Industry, provided key support for the exemption and expressed dismay at the news the stadium might not be built.

"Quite frankly, I'm taken by surprise at that information," Calderon said. "If that's true, it would be a major loss of jobs and commerce in our community."

Calderon pointed out that AEG's hopes to build a stadium remain in the early stages of planning.

"What a loss to the Los Angeles community," Calderon said. "This other stadium deal in Los Angeles is anything but a done deal."

AEG has yet to fulfill any of the state's stringent environmental requirements, which can take years and millions of dollars before construction can start.

And Calderon said legislators would be hard-pressed to support any kind of exemption for a downtown stadium in the foreseeable future - because of the substantial impacts it would likely have on its urban surroundings.

"In order for that project to go through, they're going to have to get an exemption," Calderon said. "And I think that's going to be a heavy, heavy lift in the capital, no matter who's behind it."

A state Senate panel is scheduled to convene today in Los Angeles to discuss the downtown stadium's likely environmental impacts "should any proposal arise that would grant AEG an exemption to any level of review," according to a statement from the office of Sen. Kevin DeLeon, D-Los Angeles.

It looks like it all comes down to next February. If AEG is still mired in legalities and such as to whether their project can be built next February, I think Roski becomes the front-runner in the "stadium showdown". In that scenario, Roski could swoop in and make a deal with a team and put shovel-to-ground by March, 2012.

I'm actually hoping Roski wins out. I always liked his open-air, tailgating friendly stadium better than the roofed parking garage glitz palace Downtown.

It looks like it all comes down to next February. If AEG is still mired in legalities and such as to whether their project can be built next February, I think Roski becomes the front-runner in the "stadium showdown". In that scenario, Roski could swoop in and make a deal with a team and put shovel-to-ground by March, 2012.

I'm actually hoping Roski wins out. I always liked his open-air, tailgating friendly stadium better than the roofed parking garage glitz palace Downtown.

To each his own. I know a lot of football fans like their tailgating, but I think a downtown festival is just as fun. Partying at a bar beforehand, or maybe even street fairs near by. Seattle does pretty well with its stadium downtown. Don't see why it wouldn't be just as cool in LA where the weather isn't quite as suicide inducing.

To each his own. I know a lot of football fans like their tailgating, but I think a downtown festival is just as fun. Partying at a bar beforehand, or maybe even street fairs near by. Seattle does pretty well with its stadium downtown. Don't see why it wouldn't be just as cool in LA where the weather isn't quite as suicide inducing.

I've seen quite a few downtown NFL stadiums (CenturyLink Field, Ford Field, Georgia Dome) that have little in the way of on-site parking.

In cases like those where there's almost no tailgating space, what do football fans do for pre-game festivities?

I've seen quite a few downtown NFL stadiums (CenturyLink Field, Ford Field, Georgia Dome) that have little in the way of on-site parking.

In cases like those where there's almost no tailgating space, what do football fans do for pre-game festivities?

Go to bars and restaurants. All the pubs in Pioneer square are packed before Seahawks and Sounders games.

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

NFL's return to L.A. takes new twist as Ed Roski retools offer

Roski drops demand for no-cash minority share of a franchise that chooses to play at City of Industry site, people familiar with revised offer say. AEG's downtown stadium proposal has had momentum.

By Sam Farmer
October 11, 2011

The NFL stadium derby in Southern California is likely to get more interesting and competitive.

Real estate magnate Ed Roski, whose bid for a stadium in City of Industry has for months been lost in the shadows of a rival proposal next to Staples Center, has changed his offer to teams eyeing a relocation.

Roski has dropped his demand for a no-cash minority share of a franchise and instead is offering to hand over the 600 acres he controls to any team that relocates there. The team would then finance the stadium Roski has proposed, at a site recently renamed Grand Crossing, and sell him a share of the franchise at market rate.

Individuals familiar with the revised offer have confirmed it to The Times and spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality of the proposal's specific details.

Asked to comment on the information obtained, Roski said in an email: "I am continuing to work to bring NFL football back to Los Angeles. The stadium at Grand Crossing creates a winning environment for fans, for the community and for the NFL now.

"My goal is to bring football back to Los Angeles, create jobs now, and to create an incredible NFL experience every game day for fans."

The AEG and Roski proposals are markedly different.

The downtown deal would call for AEG to assume the risk of financing and building the stadium. The team would not own the venue but would receive a large share of the revenue that the facility generates from football games and other events, similar to the deal the Lakers and Kings have at AEG's Staples Center.

The Grand Crossing deal calls for the team to take the financial risk of building a stadium on no-cost land, and capture all of the revenue associated with the facility.

Roski touts his site as one ideally located to draw fans not just from L.A. but from Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange counties. He says it would take far less time and money to build the stadium he is proposing, one that has ample room for on-site parking and tailgating and could be ready for the 2014 season.

He has budgeted $16 million over the next six months to complete construction documents on an open-air stadium built into a hillside. That asymmetrical bowl would feature all general-admission seating on one side, with a gigantic video board facing those seats, and a tower of luxury suites on the other.

Tim Leiweke, point man for the downtown stadium, believes AEG's Philip Anschutz could put a venue in a more strategic and appealing location, and that the deal — complete with naming rights already in place — would be much more financially attractive for a team. That stadium would rely primarily on existing parking and convenient public transportation.

NFL owners have quietly expressed concern that Anschutz is seeking to buy a non-controlling share of a franchise at a deep discount. That's probably a jumping-off point for negotiations, although it is not known whether the Denver billionaire is willing to pay closer to market value for a piece of a team.

Representatives from AEG declined to comment for this story.

At their annual fall meeting Tuesday in Houston, NFL owners are expected to get a brief update on the L.A. situation, but there will not be presentations from either of the competing projects.

In his original offer, Roski wanted to trade the opportunity to build on his land — a plot near the intersection of the 57 and 60 freeways that is entitled for a stadium —– for one-quarter ownership of a team. There were no takers. The new offer calls for his buying an undisclosed percentage in a team — after selling his Las Vegas hotel and casino, in accordance with NFL rules — with no path to controlling ownership of the team.

Roski also would allow the team to control the entire site, nearly a rectangular mile, with the understanding that he would never use any part of it for a development of his own.

The San Diego Chargers are believed to be the most likely team to relocate, although the Raiders also have the ability to get out of their lease in Oakland, and the death of owner Al Davis on Saturday could leave that franchise in flux, possibly increasing the likelihood of relocation.

Other teams in the mix include the St. Louis Rams, Minnesota Vikings, Jacksonville Jaguars, Buffalo Bills and San Francisco 49ers, although some of those would be extremely difficult to move.

It remains to be seen if, and/or how, Roski's retooled offer will change the stadium competition. For more than a year, AEG has had all the momentum, securing a naming-rights deal with Farmers Insurance for its proposed stadium, a nonbinding agreement with the city that paves the way to relocate the West Hall of the convention center — where the new venue would be situated — and striking a deal with the state creating legal limitations for anyone looking to challenge the stadium's environmental impact report (EIR), which has yet to be completed.

AEG is in the process of completing an EIR on the project and construction papers on the stadium and a replacement for the West Hall.

It suits the NFL to have as many legitimate stadium options as possible to create competition that leads to a more favorable deal for a team.

Asked specifically about the Roski deal, and how it could affect the decision-making process for a team and the NFL, league spokesman Brian McCarthy said: "We continue to closely monitor all developments in the Los Angeles area. At the moment, there's nothing to make a decision about."

I've seen quite a few downtown NFL stadiums (CenturyLink Field, Ford Field, Georgia Dome) that have little in the way of on-site parking.

In cases like those where there's almost no tailgating space, what do football fans do for pre-game festivities?

The Georgia Dome has quite a bit of on site parking. Granted, much of it is below grade in parking garages, but there are a few surface lots on the east and south sides and a good bit of surface parking a few blocks away at Philips Arena. I have never tailgated there for a Falcons game, but for the SEC Championship game and the Peach Bowl the tailgating atmosphere is pretty good.

This deal has Raiders written all over it, although SD could like it as well. The cashing out of some ownership would be good for paying Al Davis' death taxes. And financing should be relatively easy with free land, a square mile to develop and the Raider's intangibles and the LA market all to yourself (assuming this kills the AEG project).

Plus it gives the Raiders the opportunity to put up plenty of Al Davis, John Madden, etc., memorials, banners, etc., without the Niners getting in the way.

btw, Will: I notice SF is still on the list.

No way will the 9ers move to LA ! I do like the look of this stadium would love to see bot stadiums being built and having teams but thats a dream really. Would move the Raiders and Rams or maybe the Chargers

Speculating about which team(s) might move to L.A. is fun, but it's putting the cart before the horse. The big issue now is whether or not the NFL will allow any move to move here, and right now that appears to be "no."

The deals that AEG and Majestic are offering aren't appealing enough to the teams or the league. It appears that Majestic has the best ability and willingness to bend, and has started doing that. But if AEG really needs the stadium to fill out its monopoly in South Park, we should see some movement from them soon.

By Sam Farmer
October 11, 2011
The San Diego Chargers are believed to be the most likely team to relocate, although the Raiders also have the ability to get out of their lease in Oakland, and the death of owner Al Davis on Saturday could leave that franchise in flux, possibly increasing the likelihood of relocation.

Other teams in the mix include the St. Louis Rams, Minnesota Vikings, Jacksonville Jaguars, Buffalo Bills and San Francisco 49ers, although some of those would be extremely difficult to move.
Sam Farmer is an idiot.

Speculating about which team(s) might move to L.A. is fun, but it's putting the cart before the horse. The big issue now is whether or not the NFL will allow any move to move here, and right now that appears to be "no."
Actually the NFL cannot stop a team from moving to LA, as long as they are not breaking a lease in doing so. Remember Davis, et. al.; v NFL? Probably Rozelle's worst defeat.

Actually the NFL cannot stop a team from moving to LA, as long as they are not breaking a lease in doing so. Remember Davis, et. al.; v NFL? Probably Rozelle's worst defeat.

There is no stadium without Super Bowls. The NFL can just say "you won't get a Super Bowl" if they don't like the terms of the move or which team makes the move.

There is no stadium without Super Bowls. The NFL can just say "you won't get a Super Bowl" if they don't like the terms of the move or which team makes the move.
There is no NFL without the owner's approval. If they don't like some edict from the league office, like the one you suggest, they take a vote at the next regular owners meeting, and order the league to change that decision.

When the owners say, "jump!", Goodell asks, "How high?" on the way up.

Why is Irsay telling the world what owners will and will not accept in a relocation to Los Angeles when his team isn't even one of the ones in the mix?

Why is Irsay telling the world what owners will and will not accept in a relocation to Los Angeles when his team isn't even one of the ones in the mix?

Isn't that what we do on this website every day? Everybody wants to get quoted and be in the news. Even better when you have no authority; it gives you the impression that people care what you think.

Isn't that what we do on this website every day? Everybody wants to get quoted and be in the news. Even better when you have no authority; it gives you the impression that people care what you think.

:cheers: Too right

Isn't that what we do on this website every day? Everybody wants to get quoted and be in the news. Even better when you have no authority; it gives you the impression that people care what you think.
:eek: I thought that I was here to chat and share information, not shape league policy.

Sorry for the sarcasm, especially when it's so close to being true. These threads really do add to my knowledge in a variety of areas where I really didn't know much.

But in my heart of hearts, I KNOW that I could run the league better than they can...don't you? lol

Sorry for the sarcasm, especially when it's so close to being true. These threads really do add to my knowledge in a variety of areas where I really didn't know much.

But in my heart of hearts, I KNOW that I could run the league better than they can...don't you? lol
Yes, and so could Goodell. But the owners won't ever give the commish a free hand like they did with Rozelle.

Pasadena studies letting NFL temporarily use Rose Bowl

October 20, 2011
Adolfo Flores

As community leaders try to lure professional football back to L.A., officials in Pasadena have begun a study to determine whether the city could profit by offering the Rose Bowl as a temporary home to the NFL.

Pasadena and NFL officials have discussed using the Rose Bowl as a venue for a football team while a permanent stadium is being built –- possibly in downtown L.A. or the City of Industry.

And now, city leaders and the Rose Bowl Operating Co., which manages the stadium, have moved forward with a traffic study to measure the effect of hosting a pro team, the Pasadena Sun reported.
More: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/pasadena-studies-letting-nfl-temporarily-use-rose-bowl-.html

^^ Another point is what does UCLA think about this? Sharing with the Raiders is what caused them to leave the Coliseum in the first place.

^^ Another point is what does UCLA think about this? Sharing with the Raiders is what caused them to leave the Coliseum in the first place.

UCLA has said they are open to it on a temporary basis if they feel they will also benefit from it. In short, throw them a little of the revenue and they'll be happy to share it for a few years.

UCLA has said they are open to it on a temporary basis if they feel they will also benefit from it. In short, throw them a little of the revenue and they'll be happy to share it for a few years.
So when they are in the driver's seat, they are more relaxed about dealing. That makes sense.

The Pac 12 is generally in upgrade mode. SC (Galen and Coliseum); UCLA (Rose Bowl and Pauley); Cal; Stanford; Oregon and others have put big money into facilities. I can only assume this is part of the marketing strategy for the future. In the last few years the universities have finally been convinced of the possibility of exploiting their associated brands (team names, the Rose Bowl, Coliseum, academic reputations) into serious money.

Who cares what some college thinks. They suck enough money out of students to build their own facility.

Who cares what some college thinks. They suck enough money out of students to build their own facility.

Well UCLA's long-term lease with the Rose Bowl is what gave them the security to go ahead with the current renovation. Also, UCLA takes less money from their students than any other school in the Pac-12 and zero from the school (at least as of the last article I saw on it from two or three years ago). UCLA would actually love to build their own facility, but the problem isn't the money. It's that there's limited land in Westwood and even if there was land, the neighbors would put up a huge fight if they tried to build an on-campus stadium.

Who cares what some college thinks. They suck enough money out of students to build their own facility.

An odd comment in several ways.

The major sports facilities tend to be alumini subsidized or profit generating. In any event, the trend is toward seriously monetizing this so that the universities can generate more money, which should make all taxpayers happy.

Interestingly, the top UC's (including Cal and UCLA) are among the best examples of the poor subsidizing the rich (though not as extreme as many other countries do). The people who actually go to these schools are generally well above average economically, yet the state of California and the feds heavily subsidize plant and operations. There is much documentation of people establishing California residence (legitimate or phony) just to qualify for the unbelievable deal that these schools provide.

Strange design looks very south american. What are the chances of an NFL team relocating to LA?

LOL very south american? what the heck is that suppose to mean? If anything that stadiums looks and has the feel of a lot of college football stadiums in the U.S.A. and a some pro stadiums as well.

Take a look at the L.A. Coliseum, the Rose Bowl of Pasadena, CA., the old Orange Bowl of Miami, Fl., Green Bay Packers Lambeau Field, Chicago Bears Soldier Field, etc.

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/untitleda.jpg

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site200/2011/0928/20110928__stadium_industry.JPG

http://kcoy.images.worldnow.com/images/15212837_BG1.jpg


http://www.protectconsumerjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/LA-football-stadium-vision.jpg

Here's a new render I haven't seen yet

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-10/65330531.jpg

Is that a video board above the suites?! That would make Cowboys Stadium's board look tiny!

Is that a video board above the suites?! That would make Cowboys Stadium's board look tiny!
The idea is obviously to make it large enough so it can be seen (on a clear day of course) in downtown LA. :lol: