Proposed stadium in the City of Industry (a Los Angeles suburb) for a NFL team. The stadium would be part of a development that includes offices, restaurants, movie theaters and a theater for live shows. The stadium would seat 75,000, 11,000 of which would be in club seats. There would be 175 suites. The stadium would be built into a hill with all the suites and the press box on one side to reduce the cost. The stadium will be able to expand to 80,000 for Super Bowls and other major events.

Recently, the City of Industry approved the EIR and voted to approve $500 million in bonds that would pay for improved infrastructure around the stadium. The entire cost of the stadium, $800 million, would be privately funded by Majestic Realty, a company run by billionaire Ed Roski who helped build Staples Center. The stadium can be built in 2 years and construction can begin as soon as a team commits to moving to Los Angeles. That team would spend 2 years playing at either the Rose Bowl or Los Angeles Coliseum while the stadium is under construction.

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/image/LAStadium.jpg
http://static.losangelesfootballstadium.com/photo-1.jpg
http://static.losangelesfootballstadium.com/photo-7.jpg
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0b9N9VNbtI2p7/340x.jpg

More information and photos can be found at losangelesfootballstadium.com

It looks very similar to Soldier Field on the inside.

Nice stadium, but why are the tribunes not covered?

Nice stadium, but why are the tribunes not covered?

Because it seldom rains in Southern California.

Dodger Stadium was built in 1962 and has seen fewer than 20 rainouts.

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

Because it seldom rains in Southern California.

Dodger Stadium was built in 1962 and has seen fewer than 20 rainouts.

It's not just about rain, imagine when there's 100 degrees outside and the sun is grilling everything, a roof could give a nice shade.

It's not just about rain, imagine when there's 100 degrees outside and the sun is grilling everything, a roof could give a nice shade.

It usually doesn't get that hot in LA, either, even in the summer. Temps rarely exceed 90ºF (32ºC) in the summer months, and during football season (August-January) usually fall within the range of 65-85ºF (18-29ºC)

Didn't this render come out like, three years ago? Looks familiar.

Didn't this render come out like, three years ago? Looks familiar.

A little less than a year ago.

It's not just about rain, imagine when there's 100 degrees outside and the sun is grilling everything, a roof could give a nice shade.

Americans are not botherd by a littls sun like the Europeans. Look at the stadium sin the deep south where it gets over 100 with humidity. woooweee, thats HOT

Ugly, only Chicago and New England could compete with that for ugliest NFL stadium.

your forgetting The Link in Philly too

very nice project

Ugly, only Chicago and New England could compete with that for ugliest NFL stadium.

The Bay Area alone has two stadiums uglier than this one.

The Bay Area alone has two stadiums uglier than this one.

Educated guess: Candlestick Park & Oakland Coliseum. Correct?

Nice stadium, but why are the tribunes not covered?

If by tribunes you mean press/media, then they are covered. There is a press box in the enclosed structure where the suites are.

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

The chances are pretty good. LA has been without a team for 14 years not because nobody wanted to play here, but because there wasn't a suitable stadium. With the infrastructure bonds approved, a vote of confidence from the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and the EIR approved, they're just about ready to go as soon as a team commits. I expect a team to make that commitment after the 2009 season so they'll begin playing here in 2010 and this stadium to open in 2012.

Educated guess: Candlestick Park & Oakland Coliseum. Correct?

:yes:

The chances are pretty good. LA has been without a team for 14 years not because nobody wanted to play here, but because there wasn't a suitable stadium. With the infrastructure bonds approved, a vote of confidence from the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and the EIR approved, they're just about ready to go as soon as a team commits. I expect a team to make that commitment after the 2009 season so they'll begin playing here in 2010 and this stadium to open in 2012.

Yup, Roski has had this $800M burning a hole in his pocket for quite some time--he badly wants to get this thing done while the money's still there.

Horrible

Horrible
What do you not like about it?

Americans are not botherd by a littls sun like the Europeans. Look at the stadium sin the deep south where it gets over 100 with humidity. woooweee, thats HOT

In June, July and early August it gets that hot. Not in September-December when the stadiums are used.

I think this is Soldier Field sans the charm associated with Soldier Field.

Jacksonville is the only team I can see moving to LA. New Orleans won't move, and the Vikings are getting their stadium in the Twin Cities. There are no other reasonable candidates. Not that LA needs a football team. They seem happy enough without one.

Buffalo - Questionable and flirting with Toronto, which is criminal.
Miami - Safe
New York J - No chance
New England - No chance

Baltimore - Safe
Cincinnati - Locked in with their newish stadium
Cleveland - Same
Pittsburgh - No chance

Houston - Safe
Indianapolis - Brand new stadium
Jacksonville - Questionable
Tennessee - Safe

Denver - Safe
Kansas City - Redeveloping stadium
Oakland - Who knows?
San Diego - Questionable

Dallas - You'd be shot for suggesting it
New York G - No chance
Philadelphia - No chance
Washington - See Dallas

Chicago - No chance
Detroit - Nobody cares
Green Bay - No chance
Minnesota - New stadium deal

Atlanta - Safe
Carolina - Safe
New Orleans - Safe
Tampa Bay - Safe

Arizona - New stadium deal
St. Louis - Outside possibility
San Francisco - No chance
Seattle - Safe

I'm not sure what Vikings stadium deal you're referring to. Only yesterday the NFL commissioner said getting the Vikings a new stadium was a priority and that that there was work to do. Here's a quote (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/38733282.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsA) from this morning in the local Minneapolis paper:

The Vikings, who are last in the league in revenue playing in the Metrodome, have a lease that expires after the 2011 season. The team is hoping to get the stadium issue before the Legislature, but that could be a difficult battle considering the state's $4.8 billion budget deficit.

I don't see the Vikings getting their deal done and with their owner's ties to LA I think they're going to be the team that ends up here. If not them, the Chargers will probably be the team. I can't see the Jaguars moving. In the past 30 or so years, the only NFL teams to move did so because of stadium issues and the Jaguars have a fine stadium. Attendance hasn't forced a team to move in a looooong time. I think the Vikings make the move, with the Chargers a possibility.

Ugly, only Chicago and New England could compete with that for ugliest NFL stadium.

You honestly believe Gillette Stadium is ugly? If you are going to call it ugly, you might as well throw in Lincoln Financial Field, The Metro Dome and Alltel Stadium.

Whether there are indications or not, I believe Jacksonville to be the best option or choice to move. They don't sell out, even when they have had a winning team that makes the playoffs. Also, no offense to those from there, but the Super Bowl in Jacksonville was easily one of the worst, along with Detroit.

In what I HOPE are the relocated teams.

Jacksonville - Florida already have two teams, the stadium isn't anything spectacular, and its a newer team anyhow in a small market.

Then a good ways down the list.....

Oakland - They at least played in LA before and the Bay Metro will still have the 49ers which were the original Bay team.
San Diego - Also played in LA at one point if I am correct. Not that far up the road and could still be viewed as a Southern Cal team.

Further down
New Orleans - Want N.O. to have every break it can get it. Eventually I have a feeling the team may move out but hopefully they are given every chance to stay.
Buffalo - If they are moved then Toronto makes the most sense. Again, I hope they are given every chance to keep it working in Buffalo.
Minnesota - Seems like its mostly posturing why a deal can't get done. Its a strong market with a rich tradition. If they do move they can leave the Viking name at home when one day Minnesota gets its team again.

Dallas - You'd be shot for suggesting it


beat to a pulp by the entire state.

It's so ugly, i thought Americans have this type of stadiums before with these stands but they still not given up...it's like Stade Velodrome equivalent in E.U. only that one was built 72 years ago.
Also the outside reminds me of the communist Lia Manoliu stadium in Romania built in the 50's.

Chicago - No chance
Detroit - Nobody cares
Green Bay - No chance
Minnesota - New stadium deal



There would probally be riots here that make the 92' ones look like temper tantrums if a Packers to L.A. move was ever proposed by the NFL.

It's so ugly, i thought Americans have this type of stadiums before with these stands but they still not given up...it's like Stade Velodrome equivalent in E.U. only that one was built 72 years ago.
Also the outside reminds me of the communist Lia Manoliu stadium in Romania built in the 50's.


Whaaaaaatttt??

The stadium looks like from another century, stands are laid back, not steep this what gives a much worse view from the upper seats contrary to how new stadiums in Europe stadiums seem to evolve.

I understand there are old stadiums like this like Rose Bowl:

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/california/los_angeles_rose_bowl2.jpg

And the view ain't good at all from those seats, but whats the reason for building new stadiums like this?
Giants Stadium in New Jersey is a very good for example, steep high stands, good view from any angle.

terrible, horrible, awful buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu :ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno:

Oakland - Who knows?
St. Louis - Outside possibility




both are former LA teams

It's so ugly, i thought Americans have this type of stadiums before with these stands but they still not given up...it's like Stade Velodrome equivalent in E.U. only that one was built 72 years ago.
Also the outside reminds me of the communist Lia Manoliu stadium in Romania built in the 50's.
I knew it reminded me of something. :lol:

Ugly may be a bit too strong but I did expect better for LA.

There would probally be riots here that make the 92' ones look like temper tantrums if a Packers to L.A. move was ever proposed by the NFL.

The only way the Packers would move out of Green Bay would be if the fans wanted them to do that. The Green Bay Packers are the only NFL team that belongs to the fans, the club's charter says that anyone can only have a limited amount of stocks. That is the reason they still are situated in a small town. I think that is the reason the team has a different aura about them, the waiting period for season tickets is 30 years, even tough Lambeu Field is a an open air stadium in a very cold town.

http://static.losangelesfootballstadium.com/photo-2.jpg

http://static.losangelesfootballstadium.com/elevation-wireframe-big.gif

http://static.losangelesfootballstadium.com/photo-8.jpg

http://static.losangelesfootballstadium.com/photo-4.jpg

new home of the los angeles chargers
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f98/rigs6459/los-angeles-dodgers-jersey-road.jpg
http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/Clare619/San_Diego_Chargers_2.jpg
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f77/enrique_05/LA.jpg
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee99/KLIPSDA/chargers.gif

The only way the Packers would move out of Green Bay would be if the fans wanted them to do that. The Green Bay Packers are the only NFL team that belongs to the fans, the club's charter says that anyone can only have a limited amount of stocks. That is the reason they still are situated in a small town. I think that is the reason the team has a different aura about them, the waiting period for season tickets is 30 years, even tough Lambeu Field is a an open air stadium in a very cold town.

To even mention that the Packers, one of the NFLs most storied franchises as well as one the most popular teams, would move is nuts.

Again, my money is on Jacksonville. It is crazy when you think the NFL does not have a single franchise in the area when there are 2 NHL teams, 2 NBA teams and 2 MLB teams and it's the second largest metro area, TV market, etc.

first, love how this stadium is built into the ground

second, my money is on the Chargers, not that far of a move unlike Minnesota, easier for people in San Diego to root for the LA Chargers than it is for people in Minnesota to root for the LA Vikings

I do have concerns for what the view will look like from the top row of the stands built into the ground

can anyone post a picture of the hill as it is now?

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=665706

this is the Vikings Stadium that was referred to

second, my money is on the Chargers, not that far of a move unlike Minnesota, easier for people in San Diego to root for the LA Chargers than it is for people in Minnesota to root for the LA Vikings


I don't think people from the old town would support the team if it moved. In my experience I wish everyday that the Hornets not only lose games, but go bust.

interesting how they would try to build it within a hill, but still looks wayyy too much like the new soldier field with the asymmetrical upper decks and the huge wall of skyboxes on one side. plus i dont think los angeles is on the verge of a team moving in for probably a decade at the earliest. why did the raiders and rams move out of LA in the first place?

It's so ugly, i thought Americans have this type of stadiums before with these stands but they still not given up...it's like Stade Velodrome equivalent in E.U. only that one was built 72 years ago.
Also the outside reminds me of the communist Lia Manoliu stadium in Romania built in the 50's.
It's built into a freaking hill, what "outside?"

terrible, horrible, awful buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu :ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno:

Such an insightful critique. Please, do elaborate. :ohno:

The stadium looks like from another century, stands are laid back, not steep this what gives a much worse view from the upper seats contrary to how new stadiums in Europe stadiums seem to evolve.

I understand there are old stadiums like this like Rose Bowl:

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/california/los_angeles_rose_bowl2.jpg

And the view ain't good at all from those seats, but whats the reason for building new stadiums like this?
Giants Stadium in New Jersey is a very good for example, steep high stands, good view from any angle.

http://static.losangelesfootballstadium.com/elevation-wireframe-big.gif

Looks pretty steep to me.

interesting how they would try to build it within a hill, but still looks wayyy too much like the new soldier field with the asymmetrical upper decks and the huge wall of skyboxes on one side. plus i dont think los angeles is on the verge of a team moving in for probably a decade at the earliest. why did the raiders and rams move out of LA in the first place?

The Raiders and Rams moved out because the city would not publicly fund new stadiums for them.

And it's looking more and more likely that the Chargers will be relocating to this new stadium once it is given the green light. They have butted heads with the city of San Diego for nearly a decade trying to get a new stadium built and the city wouldn't budge--now this Roski guy ponies up $800 million of his own ched to build one? I'm pretty sure there'll be at least three or four franchises chomping at the bit to move there.

The only way the Packers would move out of Green Bay would be if the fans wanted them to do that. The Green Bay Packers are the only NFL team that belongs to the fans, the club's charter says that anyone can only have a limited amount of stocks. That is the reason they still are situated in a small town. I think that is the reason the team has a different aura about them, the waiting period for season tickets is 30 years, even tough Lambeu Field is a an open air stadium in a very cold town.

Yeah, thats what I love about them. And to a similar degree--teams like the Steelers. Traveling to either Wisconsin or Western Pennsylvania, there is no doubt about the passion for their teams. How the teams are a huge part of the local culture. This is something I wish people would think about when they say L.A. should not only get one team... but two. Will these teams be apart of the Angelino culture---or just another spectacle in a city of endless spectacles? Thats what you get looking at these renderings for the proposed L.A. stadium. I am not saying L.A. fans are bad or anything--but sometimes they sound like they are entitled to having an NFL team because of their enormous population.

yeah, what else is there in Green Bay other than the Packers

and a bunch of places with Favre's name on them

The Raiders and Rams moved out because the city would not publicly fund new stadiums for them.

And it's looking more and more likely that the Chargers will be relocating to this new stadium once it is given the green light. They have butted heads with the city of San Diego for nearly a decade trying to get a new stadium built and the city wouldn't budge--now this Roski guy ponies up $800 million of his own ched to build one? I'm pretty sure there'll be at least three or four franchises chomping at the bit to move there.

Maybe San Diego should trade the Chargers for the Clippers...I would go for that.

Maybe San Diego should trade the Chargers for the Clippers...I would go for that.

The Clippers played in San Diego for seven years...and I think neither the team nor the city miss one another.

The Clippers also recently built a practice facility in downtown LA. If anything, they might move to Anaheim.

So there will be no suites between the tiers around the stadium?

It's built into a freaking hill, what "outside?"

Thats exactly how some communist stadiums were built in Romania like in the 50's ( ex. National Stadium ) :ohno:

Looks pretty steep to me.

It doesn't look steep at all, if you have a image made from on top it might look almost like a pie.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0b9N9VNbtI2p7/340x.jpg

Thats exactly how some communist stadiums were built in Romania like in the 50's ( ex. National Stadium ) :ohno:



It doesn't look steep at all, if you have a image made from on top it might look almost like a pie.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0b9N9VNbtI2p7/340x.jpg

Trust me, its going to be much better than the Rose Bowl. And the Rose Bowl isnt even that bad.

The stadium looks like from another century, stands are laid back, not steep this what gives a much worse view from the upper seats contrary to how new stadiums in Europe stadiums seem to evolve.

I understand there are old stadiums like this like Rose Bowl:

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/california/los_angeles_rose_bowl2.jpg

And the view ain't good at all from those seats, but whats the reason for building new stadiums like this?
Giants Stadium in New Jersey is a very good for example, steep high stands, good view from any angle.

I think that's personal preference even if the general trend is going in that direction which you advocate. Soldier Field in Chicago has some of the most vertical stands in the NFL and yet in most cases I prefer the old Soldier Field which were known for their horizontal set up. Now I know plenty who would disagree with me on which is better but that is my personal preference. To me when you are to vertical or "on top of the action" it can look to much like the aerial view on a video game.

And it's looking more and more likely that the Chargers will be relocating to this new stadium once it is given the green light. They have butted heads with the city of San Diego for nearly a decade trying to get a new stadium built and the city wouldn't budge--now this Roski guy ponies up $800 million of his own ched to build one? I'm pretty sure there'll be at least three or four franchises chomping at the bit to move there.

I am usually for cities now keeping the team names and relocated teams having to adopt new nicknames. LA Chargers sounds pretty good though and originally they were the LA Chargers before they were the San Diego Chargers. Still, I guess I would like to see them leave the name behind so if a team ever gets a team down the road they could re up the name.

I tend not to like Stadiums that look that are built inside a hill. It's the same concept of the new Chivas Guadalajara Stadium for example, and it's ugly IMO.

But I think the stadium is ok in the inside, indeed looks quite south-american, but taking in consideration Los Angeles is one of the most latin-american cities of the USA, then it's ok.

Wondering why Los Angeles Galaxy doesn't build a new stadium for them, the Home Depot Center is too simple, with a modest design. For a glamoured team like that, it'd be cool to have a better and bigger stadium!

Wondering why Los Angeles Galaxy doesn't build a new stadium for them, the Home Depot Center is too simple, with a modest design. For a glamoured team like that, it'd be cool to have a better and bigger stadium!

the Home Depot center is only 6 years old, i believe. I think it serves its purpose just fine, as it is used for many different activities other than soccer.

On the topic of the Home Depot Center, Chivas and Chivas USA owner Jorge Vergara has discussed the possibility of building a scaled down replica of the new Chivas stadium elsewhere in Los Angeles.

As for this stadium, will it be able to host soccer?

The Galaxy won't be leaving the Home Depot Center, Chivas might though.

I like this design. Looks like they save money by digging into a hill.

I like this design. Looks like they save money by digging into a hill.

Depending on which report you believe, they saved either $200 or $300 million by doing so.

I am usually for cities now keeping the team names and relocated teams having to adopt new nicknames. LA Chargers sounds pretty good though and originally they were the LA Chargers before they were the San Diego Chargers. Still, I guess I would like to see them leave the name behind so if a team ever gets a team down the road they could re up the name.

In all likelihood, that'll be part of the stipulations for them leaving San Diego, kinda like how the new OKC team had to leave behind the "Sonics" moniker or the new Baltimore team had to leave behind the "Browns."

Depending on which report you believe, they saved either $200 or $300 million by doing so.
:yes

Also probably saved money building all of the luxury seating areas on one side of the stadium.

:yes

Also probably saved money building all of the luxury seating areas on one side of the stadium.

Yeah that was all part of it. They only had to build one super strong foundation.

In all likelihood, that'll be part of the stipulations for them leaving San Diego, kinda like how the new OKC team had to leave behind the "Sonics" moniker or the new Baltimore team had to leave behind the "Browns."

I think if the Chargers make the move here they'll be called the LA Chargers. After all, they were the LA Chargers before moving to San Diego. If the Vikings make the move, I expect the Vikings name to stay in Minnesota.

yeah, what else is there in Green Bay other than the Packers

and a bunch of places with Favre's name on them

well, it actually suprises some people that there are more things to do here then talk about the Packers!

How funny would it be with the L.A. Vikings/Lakers--both terribly missued names stolen from Minnesota?

I say Raiders try LA one more time.

well, it actually suprises some people that there are more things to do here then talk about the Packers!

CHEEEEESE!!!!!!!!

I say Raiders try LA one more time.

Not unless Al Davis dies. Roski and Davis don't get along at all and there's no way a Davis owned team plays in Roski's stadium.

well, it actually suprises some people that there are more things to do here then talk about the Packers!
How about those Phoenix! Ended Butler's conference win streak!

I think if the Chargers make the move here they'll be called the LA Chargers. After all, they were the LA Chargers before moving to San Diego. If the Vikings make the move, I expect the Vikings name to stay in Minnesota.

You might be right, but for some reason the Lakers come to mind.

It doesn't really matter now because the Lakers is a iconic name in sports. And that was only possible by them moving to Los Angeles.

How about those Phoenix! Ended Butler's conference win streak!

yeah, its always nice beating the L.A. Lakers of the Horizon League! I was pretty shocked when I heard about that.

Here is the site.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=diamond+bar+california&ie=UTF8&ll=34.014108,-117.826567&spn=0.03543,0.087547&t=h&z=14

This stadium is terrible, i mean its just like placing a bomb in the ground. A crater is created, flaten the base, put some cement on the sides. And look the stadium is ready.

Stadiums should be created for the good of the game, and spectators. And not so that companys can turn the whole thing into one big comercial.


About the lack of roof:

Fair it doesnt get warm, nor does it rains a lot, but i bet the amount of money wasted on creating a mountain for the stadium, could be better used on adding a roof.

This stadium is terrible, i mean its just like placing a bomb in the ground. A crater is created, flaten the base, put some cement on the sides. And look the stadium is ready.

Stadiums should be created for the good of the game, and spectators. And not so that companys can turn the whole thing into one big comercial.


About the lack of roof:

Fair it doesnt get warm, nor does it rains a lot, but i bet the amount of money wasted on creating a mountain for the stadium, could be better used on adding a roof.

http://k1ngsize.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/not-again-picard2.jpg

This already been addressed last page: building a stadium into a hill actually SAVES money, as fewer vertical structures must be constructed.

Forget a roof, I'd rather have wider concourses, better vertical circulation, more restrooms and kiosks, etc., etc..

Better yet, I'd rather have the couple hundred million saved instead invested in the TEAM.

Ye but the thing isnt actually getting built on a hill, it will be sorrouned by a fake hill, much like estado de chivas

This stadium is terrible, i mean its just like placing a bomb in the ground. A crater is created, flaten the base, put some cement on the sides. And look the stadium is ready.

Stadiums should be created for the good of the game, and spectators. And not so that companys can turn the whole thing into one big comercial.


About the lack of roof:

Fair it doesnt get warm, nor does it rains a lot, but i bet the amount of money wasted on creating a mountain for the stadium, could be better used on adding a roof.

No money could ever be used in the US by adding a roof on a stadium. You should know that.

delete

Ye but the thing isnt actually getting built on a hill, it will be sorrouned by a fake hill, much like estado de chivas

It will be built INTO a hill. The hill already exists.

http://static.losangelesfootballstadium.com/elevation-wireframe-big.gif

And can we please leave this roof/no roof thing at the door?

It will be built INTO a hill. The hill already exists.

http://static.losangelesfootballstadium.com/elevation-wireframe-big.gif

And can we please leave this roof/no roof thing at the door?

You know what sucks about that diagram?

It already has an advertisement in it.

Who thought the uneven big screen would be a good idea?

It will be built INTO a hill. The hill already exists.

http://static.losangelesfootballstadium.com/elevation-wireframe-big.gif

And can we please leave this roof/no roof thing at the door?

Ok my mistake.

The right side reminds me of the Quidditch Stadium in the Harry Potter film, dosent it?

Its cool that the stadium is being built into a hill being that L.A. is full of Hills.

http://itsjustanidea.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/stadium2.gif

http://www.truthvmachine.com/wp-content/uploads/stadium1.jpg

Gagh.

I THINK THIS WOULD BECOME DATED FAST

Walnut moves to file lawsuit over stadium
Posted: 03/12/2009 12:43:59 PM PDT

WALNUT - The City Council on Wednesday night directed its special attorney to move forward with a lawsuit against neighboring Industry over an environmental report for a proposed NFL stadium.

In a closed session, city officials directed attorney Jan Chatten-Brown to move forward with litigation, officials said. The city has taken a formal stance against the project and demanded Industry prepare a new environmental report for the project.

Developers want to build a 75,000-seat National Football League stadium on 600 acres northwest of the 57/60 freeway intersection. The project also includes a huge retail component similar to the Universal CityWalk.

A few months after the stadium was proposed, some in Walnut publicly expressed concern about the project's impact on the quiet, affluent community.

wow it was about time they put a football stadium in LA. every other city usually has one and LA is the 2nd biggest and i dont get why it doesnt. but anyways that is a very nice stadium i dont get why they say its ugly i mean at least its more unique than just a field, the bleachers, and a parking lot.. this is way better but hey thats my opinion and i dont care what anyone says . im proud of it :)

omg, this would be terrible stadium. where's the roof. i know there is no rain but there is so hot and sun is so strong so roof is obligate :ohno:

omg, this would be terrible stadium. where's the roof. i know there is no rain but there is so hot and sun is so strong so roof is obligate :ohno:

Ok i know youre new here so ill tell you this:

Do not bring up roofs or the necessity of roofs or how there should be roofs. We know what we need or dont need. The stadium will be fine without a roof.

omg, this would be terrible stadium. where's the roof. i know there is no rain but there is so hot and sun is so strong so roof is obligate :ohno:

The Yanks gets Ultra Sensitive when you mention roofs :D ;)

The Yanks gets Ultra Sensitive when you mention roofs :D ;)

yeah, but really they need to build the roof:tongue:

yeah, but really they need to build the roof:tongue:

can you give a reason?

yeah, but really they need to build the roof:tongue:

why

LA doesn't get that hot.

The Yanks gets Ultra Sensitive when you mention roofs :D ;)

I agree....
this is an US specificity....or not: Dallas, Washington DC, Seattle x2.

Their new retractable roofs are made like europeans ones (the first stadium of this type was the Amsterdam ArenA in 1996 or enventually the Montreal Stade Olympique designed by a French in 1976), the stands are always covered: Dallas, Phoenix, Indianapolis, Houston.

I agree....
this is an US specificity....or not: Dallas, Washington DC, Seattle x2.

Their new retractable roofs are made like europeans ones (the first stadium of this type was the Amsterdam ArenA in 1996 or enventually the Montreal Stade Olympique designed by a French in 1976), the stands are always covered: Dallas, Phoenix, Indianapolis, Houston.

Washington DC? No roof there. And where there are roofs they are only built out of necessity, hardy ever for an aesthetic purpose.

Retractable roof stadiums arent built to look "European", they're built the way they are because its the only way they really can be built. Its not to "cover" the fans with a roof in the middle, its just how it looks when its finished. Ask any American football fan if they would prefer a retractable roof stadium that removes the entire roof. They would most likely say yes.
If you think Indianapolis looks anything like a European design i would like to know what you're smoking.

I like it! perfect for L.A. I hope it has good public tranportation and connects to the mass transit system... good luck!

Washington DC? No roof there.

http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/10041956A~RFK-Stadium-Washington-Redskins-World-Champions-1991-Posters.jpg

http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/10041956A~RFK-Stadium-Washington-Redskins-World-Champions-1991-Posters.jpg

Thats not a roof. Its nothing more than an overhang.

i didn't met on roof over whole stadium, only for fans, so they can watch game without being disturbed by sun :lol:

i didn't met on roof over whole stadium, only for fans, so they can watch game without being disturbed by sun :lol:

We know what you meant. Again, no roof is needed. If you knew anything about watching sports in Los Angeles you would know that. Please stop telling us how to build our stadiums, i think we have the process down pretty well.

We know what you meant. Again, no roof is needed. If you knew anything about watching sports in Los Angeles you would know that. Please stop telling us how to build our stadiums, i think we have the process down pretty well.

We already know.....You are better in everything...

But, this is an old fight, why don't you build other stadiums like Toronto Skydome (you could see the clouds from your seat :lol:)......

PS: remember all old stadiums in USA they had a roof for many of them ! I wonder what has happened ??

by the way I have a question: have you ever been in an european stadium (with an evil roof), because I know some US stadiums so I can compare....Can you ?

This is a stupid fight. There are plenty of roofed, retractable roofed and domed stadiums in the US. Its a design choice. Some places like LA have great weather, so no need for a roof. Places like Seattle or Phoenix have their reasons to have roofs, and their stadiums do have roofs. What is the big deal?

This is a stupid fight. There are plenty of roofed, retractable roofed and domed stadiums in the US. Its a design choice. Some places like LA have great weather, so no need for a roof. Places like Seattle or Phoenix have their reasons to have roofs, and their stadiums do have roofs. What is the big deal?

There is no big deal !
In Europe (and also in the rest of the world) we made the choice to cover all our stadiums (whatever the weather) !!!
From Beijing to Lisbon, from Oslo to Rio de Janeiro, From Moscow to Johannesburg, From Sydney to Sevilla, From Tokyo to Tunis, From Istanbul to Hong-Kong...Seoul, Jakarta, London, Melbourne, Berlin, St Petersburg, Dublin, Montreal, Mexico City, Barcelona, Paris, Kiev, Cap Town, Pyongyang Abu Dhabi, Vancouver.....etc....

There is no big deal !
In Europe (and also in the rest of the world) we made the choice to cover all our stadiums (whatever the weather) !!!
From Beijing to Lisbon, from Oslo to Rio de Janeiro, From Moscow to Johannesburg, From Sydney to Sevilla, From Tokyo to Tunis, From Istanbul to Hong-Kong...Seoul, Jakarta, London, Melbourne, Berlin, St Petersburg, Dublin, Montreal, Mexico City, Barcelona, Paris, Kiev, Cap Town, Pyongyang Abu Dhabi, Vancouver.....etc....

You are certainly trying to make it a big deal. Great...you just listed a bunch of cities. Am I supposed to care? You made the choice to add them despite the weather? Woohoo! More power to you. Despite your best efforts, and your stereotypical view of Americans, I'm not offended by your ability to be different than the United States.

However...

Do you even know why there is a tradition of putting roofs on in Europe but not over here? Go look that up, then things might make a little more sense to you.

We already know.....You are better in everything...

But, this is an old fight, why don't you build other stadiums like Toronto Skydome (you could see the clouds from your seat :lol:)......

PS: remember all old stadiums in USA they had a roof for many of them ! I wonder what has happened ??

by the way I have a question: have you ever been in an european stadium (with an evil roof), because I know some US stadiums so I can compare....Can you ?

My God you are stuck up!

I never said I was better than you, I just said that we dont like roofs. It doesnt rain here, theres no need for them. We only use them where they are needed. I dont think roofs are evil. if you want to put one on your stadium then so be it. I dont care, just dont go and tell me that I need one just because you do. I never said that you shouldnt have roofs did I? No!

I see you are new here, so I'll let you know that most people aren't going to put up with your stereotypical view of the world. Assuming that I think I'm better than you just because I'm American is pretty dumb. There have been plenty of people like you who have gone the way of the Dodo on SSC.

There was a proposal to build a stadium in downtown LA in the late 90's and the preliminary design had a roof. The majority of people opposed it because they wanted to enjoy the 70 degrees and sun that LA usually offers and the design was later changed to one without a roof before the proposal failed. The majority of us in LA do not want a roof.

You are certainly trying to make it a big deal. Great...you just listed a bunch of cities. Am I supposed to care? You made the choice to add them despite the weather? Woohoo! More power to you. Despite your best efforts, and your stereotypical view of Americans, I'm not offended by your ability to be different than the United States.

However...

Do you even know why there is a tradition of putting roofs on in Europe but not over here? Go look that up, then things might make a little more sense to you.



My God you are stuck up!

I never said I was better than you, I just said that we dont like roofs. It doesnt rain here, theres no need for them. We only use them where they are needed. I dont think roofs are evil. if you want to put one on your stadium then so be it. I dont care, just dont go and tell me that I need one just because you do. I never said that you shouldnt have roofs did I? No!

I see you are new here, so I'll let you know that most people aren't going to put up with your stereotypical view of the world. Assuming that I think I'm better than you just because I'm American is pretty dumb. There have been plenty of people like you who have gone the way of the Dodo on SSC.

I never said all american stadiums must be covered, I said some stadiums are covered (like in all world).I mentioned the Skydome because it can be entirely opened.

Maybe I'm new here but I had the time (....before) to travel in the world...even in USA and I think my opinion is far from stereotypes.
I'm sorry if you understood it like that, I have nothing against you personally but I suggest you to travel a little more. I think you're too much touchy and I tried to make understand it to you !

There is no big deal !
In Europe (and also in the rest of the world) we made the choice to cover all our stadiums (whatever the weather) !!!
From Beijing to Lisbon, from Oslo to Rio de Janeiro, From Moscow to Johannesburg, From Sydney to Sevilla, From Tokyo to Tunis, From Istanbul to Hong-Kong...Seoul, Jakarta, London, Melbourne, Berlin, St Petersburg, Dublin, Montreal, Mexico City, Barcelona, Paris, Kiev, Cap Town, Pyongyang Abu Dhabi, Vancouver.....etc....


In certain countries roofs are an absolute necessity and in other places they are not. In Europe, roofs have always been standard fare in northern leagues such as England but much more of a recent phenomenon in places where they are more luxury than necessity. It is becoming that way as they become an architectual norm for football stadia but climate still is a big indicator as to whether a roof is a necessity or a luxury. In Spain for instance, roofs are a very recent phenomenon because the warm and dry climate has never made them a necessity. Of the 20 teams in La Liga, 11 only have roofs over their VIP stand as is mandated by FIFA while leaving the rest of the stadium exposed. You see the same thing in warm and dry climates across southern Europe. In Italy there are indeed a lot of crap run down stadiums but the new and renovated stadiums built in southern Italy don't bother with roofs. Just look at Messina, Reggina and Palermo to name a few. Greece is much the same. New stadiums with the necessary budget will incorporate them but most stadiums in Greece remain roofless.

The City of Walnut has filed a law suite against Majestic and the City of Industry mainly saying that the Environmental Impact Report doesn't sufficiently addresses all concerns (traffic, views, glare, noise, ect.). It likely will put the project on-hold. We'll see.

people bitch to much.

Los Angeles should have their own Maracanã!

Its own what?

Its own what?

Maracana. I think he means a gigantic stadium like Brazil has in Rio.

hmmm.... I thought they had 2 already. Coliseum and Rose Bowl

hmmm.... I thought they had 2 already. Coliseum and Rose Bowl

We do. Too bad neither is of high enough quality for the NFL. If only our city council weren't composed of idiots and we'd already have our stadium. It'd be beautiful, right in the heart of downtown and have been open for about 6 years now.

What movies had the stadium that was going to be build out in the LA Harbor?

You are certainly trying to make it a big deal. Great...you just listed a bunch of cities. Am I supposed to care? You made the choice to add them despite the weather? Woohoo! More power to you. Despite your best efforts, and your stereotypical view of Americans, I'm not offended by your ability to be different than the United States.

However...

Do you even know why there is a tradition of putting roofs on in Europe but not over here? Go look that up, then things might make a little more sense to you.

Thank God you are doing so good without steretypes :)
I can easily recall you mentioning some time ago that watching the gridirons in winter, with snowfall, doesn't bother Americans, they don't need roofs. Over here, snowfall, rainfall, soaring heat or even heavy winds are the reasons for covering stadiums. The sole fact that the whole world apart from USA moved on to roofed stadiums doesn't make the world, as you put it, "able to be different than the USA". It makes USA different than the rest of the world. And as much as you may like it (are entitled to) - you are the odd ones (treat it positively or negatively) in the bunch, not the rest odd compared to you. It's a choice everyone can take, you made it, ok.

In certain countries roofs are an absolute necessity and in other places they are not. In Europe, roofs have always been standard fare in northern leagues such as England but much more of a recent phenomenon in places where they are more luxury than necessity. It is becoming that way as they become an architectual norm for football stadia but climate still is a big indicator as to whether a roof is a necessity or a luxury. In Spain for instance, roofs are a very recent phenomenon because the warm and dry climate has never made them a necessity. Of the 20 teams in La Liga, 11 only have roofs over their VIP stand as is mandated by FIFA while leaving the rest of the stadium exposed. You see the same thing in warm and dry climates across southern Europe. In Italy there are indeed a lot of crap run down stadiums but the new and renovated stadiums built in southern Italy don't bother with roofs. Just look at Messina, Reggina and Palermo to name a few. Greece is much the same. New stadiums with the necessary budget will incorporate them but most stadiums in Greece remain roofless.

You are correct apart from the part about "recent phenomenon". It's neither recent for Spain, nor is it for Italy or Greece. And in some places it's not about climate neccessities, but more about, as you put it, budget. USA remains the only country with the budget and without the will to cover the grounds. There's no rush as long as their games are concerned - as you've said, it's a choice. But for World Cup internationals that may be a factor for FIFA (I'm far from saying it could be decisive). I don't recall ONE person I talked to that would be happy about World cup in Rose Bowl and it's alikes. Reliant, Arizona State, Cowboys, Lucas Oil or even the likes of Qwest Field are in my omain closer to being chosen for the sole reason they have a roof. Though, of course, it doesn't have to be decisivie, after all stadium is just one of infrastructural criterias and it's roof is just part of it...

You are correct apart from the part about "recent phenomenon". It's neither recent for Spain, nor is it for Italy or Greece.

That depends what you consider to be "recent". The only fully roofed stadiums in Greece were built or renovated within the last 7 years. Finding a full roof in Spain 15 years ago was like a needle in a haystack.

Thank God you are doing so good without steretypes :)
I can easily recall you mentioning some time ago that watching the gridirons in winter, with snowfall, doesn't bother Americans, they don't need roofs. Over here, snowfall, rainfall, soaring heat or even heavy winds are the reasons for covering stadiums. The sole fact that the whole world apart from USA moved on to roofed stadiums doesn't make the world, as you put it, "able to be different than the USA". It makes USA different than the rest of the world. And as much as you may like it (are entitled to) - you are the odd ones (treat it positively or negatively) in the bunch, not the rest odd compared to you. It's a choice everyone can take, you made it, ok.



You are correct apart from the part about "recent phenomenon". It's neither recent for Spain, nor is it for Italy or Greece. And in some places it's not about climate neccessities, but more about, as you put it, budget. USA remains the only country with the budget and without the will to cover the grounds. There's no rush as long as their games are concerned - as you've said, it's a choice. But for World Cup internationals that may be a factor for FIFA (I'm far from saying it could be decisive). I don't recall ONE person I talked to that would be happy about World cup in Rose Bowl and it's alikes. Reliant, Arizona State, Cowboys, Lucas Oil or even the likes of Qwest Field are in my omain closer to being chosen for the sole reason they have a roof. Though, of course, it doesn't have to be decisivie, after all stadium is just one of infrastructural criterias and it's roof is just part of it...

Take a look at stadiums in north and south america and see how many have a roof.

We arent the only ones.

"sole fact"...?

not quite.

It should be kept in mind the different sports that stadiums are built for in Europe and the USA.

Incidentally how many stadiums are there in Europe that hold more than 60,000 people? How many are there in the USA?



About the lawsuit from Walnut; wealthy NIMBY's are the bane of human existence. Gah!

what ever happened to the idea to rebuild the LA coliseum?

what ever happened to the idea to rebuild the LA coliseum?

The Coliseum Commission, which runs the Coliseum, is full of incompetent fools that did their very best to ruin any chance of a renovated Coliseum and they succeeded. Now, the cost of renovating the Coliseum is well over $1 billion and USC got a new lease that gives them veto power of any new team or renovations so there won't be a NFL team there.

It should be kept in mind the different sports that stadiums are built for in Europe and the USA.

Incidentally how many stadiums are there in Europe that hold more than 60,000 people? How many are there in the USA?



About the lawsuit from Walnut; wealthy NIMBY's are the bane of human existence. Gah!

There are 26 european stadiums 60,000 or over (www.worldstadiums.com)

There are 26 european stadiums 60,000 or over (www.worldstadiums.com)

There are 109 US stadiums of 60,000 or more according to worldstadiums.

There are 109 US stadiums of 60,000 or more according to worldstadiums.Most of those, however, are collegiate venues with bleacher seating and minimal luxury amenities. To say nothing of being in more remote locations.

You've got 32 NFL stadiums that do fit the bill, though a handful (Metrodome, Superdome) aren't ideal. Maybe a handful of college stadiums could be in the mix with minimal renovation. Throw in a few stadiums without regular tenants (Citrus Bowl, AlamoDome) and I'd say the first realistic cut falls around 35-40 quality, 60k+ stadiums in preferred host cities.

Most of those, however, are collegiate venues with bleacher seating and minimal luxury amenities. To say nothing of being in more remote locations.

You've got 32 NFL stadiums that do fit the bill, though a handful (Metrodome, Superdome) aren't ideal. Maybe a handful of college stadiums could be in the mix with minimal renovation. Throw in a few stadiums without regular tenants (Citrus Bowl, AlamoDome) and I'd say the first realistic cut falls around 35-40 quality, 60k+ stadiums in preferred host cities.
I dunno, a lot of college stadiums have some pretty posh amenities (to appease the rich alumni and boosters)--Oklahoma, Ohio State, Texas, about half of the SEC, and pretty soon Michigan come to mind.

the project is pretty, but it is not surprising

I dunno, a lot of college stadiums have some pretty posh amenities (to appease the rich alumni and boosters)--Oklahoma, Ohio State, Texas, about half of the SEC, and pretty soon Michigan come to mind.

UConn has a nice new one and Minnesota is building a state of the art one too.

Minnesota, Stanford and a few others could host, given that they have the field width, enclosed premium seating, urban location and could change to an all chairback very quickly, although expect it would come down to entirely NFL facilities in the end.

I WOnder what teams would wanna play in LA if the Project goes successful? any Guesses? Rams? Raiders? lol

I WOnder what teams would wanna play in LA if the Project goes successful? any Guesses? Rams? Raiders? lol

Here's what I said earlier in the thread:

I don't see the Vikings getting their stadium deal done and with their owner's ties to LA I think they're going to be the team that ends up here. If not them, the Chargers will probably be the team. I can't see the Jaguars moving. In the past 30 or so years, the only NFL teams to move did so because of stadium issues and the Jaguars have a fine stadium. Attendance hasn't forced a team to move in a looooong time. I think the Vikings make the move, with the Chargers a possibility.

Here's what I said earlier in the thread:

I don't see the Vikings getting their stadium deal done and with their owner's ties to LA I think they're going to be the team that ends up here. If not them, the Chargers will probably be the team. I can't see the Jaguars moving. In the past 30 or so years, the only NFL teams to move did so because of stadium issues and the Jaguars have a fine stadium. Attendance hasn't forced a team to move in a looooong time. I think the Vikings make the move, with the Chargers a possibility.

yeah but the Jags have trouble filling the stadium, which is grounds to move IMO.

yeah but the Jags have trouble filling the stadium, which is grounds to move IMO.

Precedent says no. Teams have had trouble filling their stadium before and they've stayed put so long as they have a capable stadium, which the Jaguars do. The fact the Jacksonville also has a metro area growing at a fast rate leads me to believe they'll stay put. Not that it can't happen, but I don't think it will. The Vikings and Chargers would top my list of likely relocators to LA, with Minnesota a big front runner. They don't have a new stadium in a time that every other Metrodome team has gotten one and it doesn't look like they'll get one either. Their owner also has a lot of ties to LA. Buffalo is a possibility too.

Either way, I think nobody moves until after the NFL and NFLPA agree to a new CBA. A stronger revenue sharing agreement tilts it so Minnesota or San Diego can definitely leave, while less revenue sharing puts the Jaguars right there on the brink. I think more revenue sharing will be the outcome, but only after a fight.

I WOnder what teams would wanna play in LA if the Project goes successful? any Guesses? Rams? Raiders? lol

The NFL needs to add new franchises, not relocate existing ones, IMO.

Expand by two teams in each conference, eliminate the divisional format, play a 17-game round-robin.

Top 1/3rd of each conference makes the playoffs.

I would expand to the following cities:

1. Los Angeles (of course)
2. Toronto (isaidso will kill me if he sees this :D)
3. San Antonio (Alamodome needs a little bit of work)
4. Orlando (Citrus Bowl needs a lot of work)

3. San Antonio (Alamodome needs a little bit of work)

It will cost more to up grade it then it did to build it.

I think it's worth saying, the NFL got more popular without LA.

It will cost more to up grade it then it did to build it.
But it'll cost a shit-ton less than to build a new one.

I think it's worth saying, the NFL got more popular without LA.
The NFL became more popular because of Paul Tagliabue, not because they left LA.

The NFL needs to add new franchises, not relocate existing ones, IMO.

Expand by two teams in each conference, eliminate the divisional format, play a 17-game round-robin.

Top 1/3rd of each conference makes the playoffs.

I would expand to the following cities:

1. Los Angeles (of course)
2. Toronto (isaidso will kill me if he sees this :D)
3. San Antonio (Alamodome needs a little bit of work)
4. Orlando (Citrus Bowl needs a lot of work)

Not a chance. 32 teams is perfect. Adding more would just mess things up more.

There are teams that can be moves, and thats the only way to go if you want to keep things fair.

stadium ;)

Not a chance. 32 teams is perfect. Adding more would just mess things up more.

There are teams that can be moves, and thats the only way to go if you want to keep things fair.
No, 34 or 36 teams is perfect, because you could eliminate the divisional format and play a round-robin slate, which scraps the strength of schedule component.

And how is moving a team from Buffalo or San Diego, cities that have loyally supported their franchises through thick-and-thin, even remotely fair?

Anyway, back to the stadium: does anyone else think UCLA moving their games here would be a good decision? They play in the 90,000-seat Rose Bowl which dwarfs the 60,000-65,000 fans a game they normally average. I think 75,000 would be the ideal sise for UCLA football.

Here's what I said earlier in the thread:

I don't see the Vikings getting their stadium deal done and with their owner's ties to LA I think they're going to be the team that ends up here. If not them, the Chargers will probably be the team. I can't see the Jaguars moving. In the past 30 or so years, the only NFL teams to move did so because of stadium issues and the Jaguars have a fine stadium. Attendance hasn't forced a team to move in a looooong time. I think the Vikings make the move, with the Chargers a possibility.

Another Minnesota team making the move to LA, eh? First the Lakers, now the Vikings. The names are so incongruous, though. No lakes in LA County, and not many people of nordic descent (vikings) as in Minn. Oh, well. Think of the Utah Jazz. Not the Mormons' favorite music, either.

I think "L.A. Raiders" sounds great. Oakland? thats not intimidating at all.

Thats not a roof. Its nothing more than an overhang.

Well from now on, when us Europeans say a 'roof', that's what we mean!:) Covering all the fans would be best, but some is better than none. :D

As for the stadium, it looks a bit disjointed and for no good reason. They're building a brand new stadium, whats the point in making it look like you've just added bits on?

Well from now on, when us Europeans say a 'roof', that's what we mean!:) Covering all the fans would be best, but some is better than none. :D

As for the stadium, it looks a bit disjointed and for no good reason. They're building a brand new stadium, whats the point in making it look like you've just added bits on?

It's built into a hill. As a result, the parts with less of the hill need less of a foundation than others, which is why it's a bit disjointed. The tactic saves somewhere between $200 and $300 million.

No, 34 or 36 teams is perfect, because you could eliminate the divisional format and play a round-robin slate, which scraps the strength of schedule component.

And how is moving a team from Buffalo or San Diego, cities that have loyally supported their franchises through thick-and-thin, even remotely fair?

Anyway, back to the stadium: does anyone else think UCLA moving their games here would be a good decision? They play in the 90,000-seat Rose Bowl which dwarfs the 60,000-65,000 fans a game they normally average. I think 75,000 would be the ideal sise for UCLA football.

Actually 34 to 36 teams dilutes the talent pool. 32 teams is even too much.

If the league goes to 36 teams, the would have to cut the team roster down from 53 players to something less.

Well from now on, when us Europeans say a 'roof', that's what we mean!:) Covering all the fans would be best, but some is better than none. :D

As for the stadium, it looks a bit disjointed and for no good reason. They're building a brand new stadium, whats the point in making it look like you've just added bits on?

Covering all fans is BAD :)

In the polls they did for this stadium, they found that over 85% of fans would rather not be under a roof. They wanted to be out in the sun and were willing to take the chance of occasional rain.

I think "L.A. Raiders" sounds great. Oakland? thats not intimidating at all.

LOL, you've never been to Oakland, I take it?

Actually 34 to 36 teams dilutes the talent pool. 32 teams is even too much.

If the league goes to 36 teams, the would have to cut the team roster down from 53 players to something less.
Sorry, I don't buy the talent pool argument at all, especially with the NFL's stringent salary cap restrictions and players like Kurt Warner, Marques Colston, London Fletcher, Brian Westbrook, etc, who came from small schools and/or were drafted in late rounds (if at all), excel on the same level as players drafted in the earlier rounds or from the big schools.

Poorly-managed teams such as the Lions or Bengals are NOT an argument for the dilution of talent.

Looks like nobody read my post

It's built into a hill. As a result, the parts with less of the hill need less of a foundation than others, which is why it's a bit disjointed. The tactic saves somewhere between $200 and $300 million.

Fair enough. As long as there's a sensible engineering reason for it.

Fair enough. As long as there's a sensible engineering reason for it.

ridiculous statement. There's no engineering reason for 90% of things in a stadium.

Fair enough. As long as there's a sensible engineering reason for it.

its an American stadium.

get used to it.

Economics is part of engineering as well if that's you are getting at?

Fair enough. As long as there's a sensible engineering reason for it.

There is no sensible engineering reason for any stadium!

That's why the stay standing after 30 years then?

Economics is part of engineering as well if that's you are getting at?


No, in America we build stadiums that are different from the rest of the world.

That's why the stay standing after 30 years then?

Because the masses demand it.

What are you guys on about? I apologise but I don't follow. I asked a question about the structural design/layout of the stadium. I was given an answer which I read as because that is the most economic way of building the stadium.

Are you saying that in anywhere else in the world they wouldn't have done it that way?

What are you guys on about? I apologise but I don't follow. I asked a question about the structural design/layout of the stadium. I was given an answer which I read as because that is the most economic way of building the stadium.

Are you saying that in anywhere else in the world they wouldn't have done it that way?

it is a very economical design, but is also American through and through.

Agreed.

This stadium should be called: City of Industry American Football Stadium. Otherwise you can get really mixed up with a football stadium, and an American Football stadium.

I see your point but if you going to be that pedantic all football stadiums should be called 'association football' stadiums.

This stadium should be called: City of Industry American Football Stadium. Otherwise you can get really mixed up with a football stadium, and an American Football stadium.
http://cache.hyves-static.net/images/smilies/default/smiley_fishing.gif

This stadium should be called: City of Industry American Football Stadium. Otherwise you can get really mixed up with a football stadium, and an American Football stadium.

oh shut up. Its a football stadium, whether you like it or not.

This stadium should be called: City of Industry American Football Stadium. Otherwise you can get really mixed up with a football stadium, and an American Football stadium.

the way its spelled should set it apart. Futbal (soccer) Football (football)

We call it what we call it, you call it what you call it.

What the hell is futbol? :P

Its not soccer, its football!!! Besides, our sport is older than your sport, and we named our sport before you named yours!!

P.S- In American Football they hardly use their feet. In Football they practically only use their feet.

next person to satrt this "football" thing will get an infraction

next person to satrt this "football" thing will get an infractionWould that be a yellow card or a yellow flag?!

I keed, I keed. :cheers:

Would that be a yellow card or a yellow flag?!

I keed, I keed. :cheers:

^^ Yellow card is correct

But possibly a red card ;)


This wasn't about the football situation sercan, its was just a joke ;)

In June, July and early August it gets that hot. Not in September-December when the stadiums are used.

I think this is Soldier Field sans the charm associated with Soldier Field.

Jacksonville is the only team I can see moving to LA. New Orleans won't move, and the Vikings are getting their stadium in the Twin Cities. There are no other reasonable candidates. Not that LA needs a football team. They seem happy enough without one.

Buffalo - Questionable and flirting with Toronto, which is criminal.
Miami - Safe
New York J - No chance
New England - No chance

Baltimore - Safe
Cincinnati - Locked in with their newish stadium
Cleveland - Same
Pittsburgh - No chance

Houston - Safe
Indianapolis - Brand new stadium
Jacksonville - Questionable
Tennessee - Safe

Denver - Safe
Kansas City - Redeveloping stadium
Oakland - Who knows?
San Diego - Questionable

Dallas - You'd be shot for suggesting it
New York G - No chance
Philadelphia - No chance
Washington - See Dallas

Chicago - No chance
Detroit - Nobody cares
Green Bay - No chance
Minnesota - New stadium deal

Atlanta - Safe
Carolina - Safe
New Orleans - Safe
Tampa Bay - Safe

Arizona - New stadium deal
St. Louis - Outside possibility
San Francisco - No chance
Seattle - Safe
I reckon 3 NFL teams per state is more than enough.

NY has 3, although New Jersey kinda "shares" 2 of them.
Florida also has 3.
And California has 3.

If Jaguars move to LA, that would make California bloat with 4 teams, which I think is one too many for any state across America.

I personally think every major US city should have at least 1 NFL team for its local and sorrounding people to support. But theres just too many crammed teams in Cali if this Jaguars move happens.

I think Raiders should move back to Los Angeles. Afterall theyre in close proximity to 49ers, their stadium is also used for baseball matches, etc.

San Diego deserve to keep their franchise in my opinion. The city is a wonderful place to play football. As for Jaguars, theyre keeping the balance in Florida.

So really, I think any move should be from Raiders.

I think Vikings should also stay in Minnesota.

========

Speaking of which, perhaps 32 teams is little for a country of 300 million, which is more like a continent of 50 countries than a country of 50 states. Perhaps the NFL needs to expand to 36 for this kind of population. Besides, teams should be more evenly distributed across america so every american gets to enjoy the game.

As for this stadium, i think its good. Not my type of thing, nevertheless it looks cool and unique in its own way.

Perhaps the NFL needs to expand to 36 for this kind of population.

That would be the best decision.

L.A.
Vegas
Virginia
Portland

just stadium please ;)

I reckon 3 NFL teams per state is more than enough.

NY has 3, although New Jersey kinda "shares" 2 of them.
Florida also has 3.
And California has 3.

If Jaguars move to LA, that would make California bloat with 4 teams, which I think is one too many for any state across America.

I personally think every major US city should have at least 1 NFL team for its local and sorrounding people to support. But theres just too many crammed teams in Cali if this Jaguars move happens.
L.A. is a metropolitan area of about 15 million people -- more than enough for one NFL franchise.

I think Raiders should move back to Los Angeles. Afterall theyre in close proximity to 49ers, their stadium is also used for baseball matches, etc.
I think a few people might have something to say about that...

http://i.pbase.com/g5/53/688553/2/68063579.8aIxCa0n.jpg
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u255/theblackhole105/TheBlackHole.jpg
http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/multimedia/photo_gallery/0810/halloween.trick.or.treat/images/001080776.jpg

Besides, they just built a stand for football not too long ago, which is why the A's are looking to move.

http://www.baseballpilgrimages.com/american/coliseum.jpg


San Diego deserve to keep their franchise in my opinion. The city is a wonderful place to play football. As for Jaguars, theyre keeping the balance in Florida....

...I think Vikings should also stay in Minnesota.

========

Speaking of which, perhaps 32 teams is little for a country of 300 million, which is more like a continent of 50 countries than a country of 50 states. Perhaps the NFL needs to expand to 36 for this kind of population. Besides, teams should be more evenly distributed across america so every american gets to enjoy the game.

As for this stadium, i think its good. Not my type of thing, nevertheless it looks cool and unique in its own way.
All of this I agree with.

That would be the best decision.

L.A.
Vegas
Virginia
Portland

Los Angeles
San Antonio
Orlando? (Citrus Bowl needs major renovation)
One of the three other places you listed

I'd at least expand to 34 teams, so the NFL can eliminate the divisional format and play a 16-game round-robin.

Anyway, back to the stadium: If Roski wants to build this thing with his own money, what's the big hold-up?

Anyway, back to the stadium: If Roski wants to build this thing with his own money, what's the big hold-up?

Lawsuits from Walnut and other places contending that the stadium would affect them negatively, although they are willing to drop their lawsuits for a payment. The other is a commitment from a team to move there.

I'd at least expand to 34 teams, so the NFL can eliminate the divisional format and play a 16-game round-robin.

16 game round robin? Where does anything like that work in American Sports?

Win your devision and your in the play-offs. Simple enough
2 best non division winners get Wild card.
best 2 records get a bi week in 1st round of playoffs.

Win your last game, win the championship.... I like that. No one argues with that.



Anyways i dont see any new teams being added unless you have 6 to add (LA, Orlando, San Antonio, Salt Lake City, 2nd in Chicago, OKC) and you get 1 more week of games added to the schedule and start the pre season and training camps and OTA's earlier.

One team will have to pick up shop and move to LA or this never gets built. LA market is already over saturated with 2 pro level stadiums. If you were to shut down the Rose Bowl or Colosseum and get the games played at one to move to this then it would get built. But at this time I dont see a reason to build it.

Sale the design to San Francisco/Oakland and let them use it as a joint stadium.

16 game round robin? Where does anything like that work in American Sports?

Win your devision and your in the play-offs. Simple enough
2 best non division winners get Wild card.
best 2 records get a bi week in 1st round of playoffs.

Win your last game, win the championship.... I like that. No one argues with that.
A round-robin format eliminates strength-of-schedule complaints -- everybody plays everybody.

The playoff format wouldn't even have to change, really.

One team will have to pick up shop and move to LA or this never gets built. LA market is already over saturated with 2 pro level stadiums. If you were to shut down the Rose Bowl or Colosseum and get the games played at one to move to this then it would get built. But at this time I dont see a reason to build it.

Sale the design to San Francisco/Oakland and let them use it as a joint stadium.
http://ultimatesportsboards.com/forums/img/smilies/spit.gif

The Rose Bowl and Coliseum are "pro-level?!" You're kidding, right?

And no way in hell do the Niners and Raiders share a stadium.

The Rose Bowl and Coliseum are "pro-level?!" You're kidding, right?

And no way in hell do the Niners and Raiders share a stadium.

Coliseum or Rose Bowl could be upgraded in a year for a pro team. I believe there were extensive plans for the Coliseum once that looked nice. And Commissioner Giddell is pushing the Raiders and 49ers to do a joint stadium since both play in horrible baseball stadiums and nether has the money to build a true gem alone.

Coliseum or Rose Bowl could be upgraded in a year for a pro team. I believe there were extensive plans for the Coliseum once that looked nice. And Commissioner Giddell is pushing the Raiders and 49ers to do a joint stadium since both play in horrible baseball stadiums and nether has the money to build a true gem alone.

The Rose Bowl may be renovated, but not for a NFL team because the Pasadena residents don't want it. They've voted against bringing a NFL team there multiple times and by a large margin. Any renovations or NFL team would require a majority vote, which won't happen.

The Coliseum would need a multiple year renovation that would cost hundreds of millions more than a new stadium. USC also has the right to veto any new tenant, which they would do for a NFL team because the renovations would lower capacity, which they don't want. They like having their own stadium and complete control over it. Neither the Rose Bowl or the Coliseum is an option.

This City of Industry Stadium will likely meet its fate next March or April, when the lawsuits are heard and hopefully dismissed.

Coliseum or Rose Bowl could be upgraded in a year for a pro team. I believe there were extensive plans for the Coliseum once that looked nice. And Commissioner Giddell is pushing the Raiders and 49ers to do a joint stadium since both play in horrible baseball stadiums and nether has the money to build a true gem alone.

The Rose Bowl may be renovated, but not for a NFL team because the Pasadena residents don't want it. They've voted against bringing a NFL team there multiple times and by a large margin. Any renovations or NFL team would require a majority vote, which won't happen.

The Coliseum would need a multiple year renovation that would cost hundreds of millions more than a new stadium. USC also has the right to veto any new tenant, which they would do for a NFL team because the renovations would lower capacity, which they don't want. They like having their own stadium and complete control over it. Neither the Rose Bowl or the Coliseum is an option.

This City of Industry Stadium will likely meet its fate next March or April, when the lawsuits are heard and hopefully dismissed.
Not only that, this stadium will require virtually zero public dollars, and I doubt Roski will scrap his plan in favor of funding a Rose Bowl or Coliseum upgrade.

the question remains though... WHO WILL PLAY IN IT?

the question remains though... WHO WILL PLAY IN IT?

I believe it will be the Vikings or Chargers. While many say the Jaguars, NFL teams don't move due to empty seats so I don't think they're as much of a candidate as maybe they should be. Teams move because of stadium issues so the Vikings, whose owner has strong ties to LA, and the Chargers top my list of candidates.

I believe it will be the Vikings or Chargers. While many say the Jaguars, NFL teams don't move due to empty seats so I don't think they're as much of a candidate as maybe they should be. Teams move because of stadium issues so the Vikings, whose owner has strong ties to LA, and the Chargers top my list of candidates.
Moving the Vikings to LA makes no sense... :ohno: How can a team from southern California play in the NFC North? If any team moves, it will be the Jags because empty seats in a small college football market is not what the NFL wants. The only reason they got a team in the first place was because their owner (Wayne Weaver) is from Jacksonville... if he sells the team (there was rumors he was shopping them last year) then that will signal the end for them. The stadium does not matter much if you have 10 blackouts (which is what is predicted to happen) and it only sells out for the Florida-Georgia game. The best thing for the NFL would be to move the Raiders back to LA, i bet if you took a poll in LA most people are still Raider fans.

Not only that, this stadium will require virtually zero public dollars, and I doubt Roski will scrap his plan in favor of funding a Rose Bowl or Coliseum upgrade.
Plus no matter how much you upgrade or renovate an old stadium, it will never have luxury suites and all the modern amenities that owners now a days want.

Plus no matter how much you upgrade or renovate an old stadium, it will never have luxury suites and all the modern amenities that owners now a days want.
Huh? That's precisely what they do when upgrading an older stadium.

Lambeau before renovations:
http://www.bestsportsphotos.com/images/t_25657_06.jpg

After:
http://www.bestsportsphotos.com/image.php?productid=25658
http://rootzoo.com/article_photo_uploads/Packersrock247_1618_633.jpg
http://provsgijoe.com/multimedia/news_images/LambeauFieldAtriumInside.jpg

Moving the Vikings to LA makes no sense... :ohno: How can a team from southern California play in the NFC North? If any team moves, it will be the Jags because empty seats in a small college football market is not what the NFL wants. The only reason they got a team in the first place was because their owner (Wayne Weaver) is from Jacksonville... if he sells the team (there was rumors he was shopping them last year) then that will signal the end for them. The stadium does not matter much if you have 10 blackouts (which is what is predicted to happen) and it only sells out for the Florida-Georgia game. The best thing for the NFL would be to move the Raiders back to LA, i bet if you took a poll in LA most people are still Raider fans.


Plus no matter how much you upgrade or renovate an old stadium, it will never have luxury suites and all the modern amenities that owners now a days want.

Check your logic. If a team from the NFC north cant play in the west, then a team in the AFC south cant play in the west.

Check your logic. If a team from the NFC north cant play in the west, then a team in the AFC south cant play in the west.
I never said the Jags should move to LA. I was just trying to make a point that the stadium situation will not keep them in Jacksonville because the NFL wants to move them to a bigger market. Personally i think everything is just fine and if LA really wants a team then move back the Raiders. They have a big fan base there and the Oakland Coliseum is getting up there in age. Seriously though what is going on with California and its NFL facilities? 49ers are five time SB champs and still play in a dump while the Chargers and Raiders play in insufficient stadiums that were fine 30 years ago when they were used for football/baseball. Time to get with the times...

I never said the Jags should move to LA. I was just trying to make a point that the stadium situation will not keep them in Jacksonville because the NFL wants to move them to a bigger market. Personally i think everything is just fine and if LA really wants a team then move back the Raiders. They have a big fan base there and the Oakland Coliseum is getting up there in age. Seriously though what is going on with California and its NFL facilities? 49ers are five time SB champs and still play in a dump while the Chargers and Raiders play in insufficient stadiums that were fine 30 years ago when they were used for football/baseball. Time to get with the times...
The Raiders are not leaving behind one of the best fanbases in the NFL. Period.

Oakland built an entire stand specifically for football, with new club seats and skyboxes, not too long ago, and the Niners are planning to build their own stadium in the near-future.

I never said the Jags should move to LA. I was just trying to make a point that the stadium situation will not keep them in Jacksonville because the NFL wants to move them to a bigger market. Personally i think everything is just fine and if LA really wants a team then move back the Raiders. They have a big fan base there and the Oakland Coliseum is getting up there in age. Seriously though what is going on with California and its NFL facilities? 49ers are five time SB champs and still play in a dump while the Chargers and Raiders play in insufficient stadiums that were fine 30 years ago when they were used for football/baseball. Time to get with the times...

No NFL team has moved in the last 40+ years due to empty seats. It would be essentially unprecedented if the Jaguars were moved.

As for California, the taypayers are unwilling to give any public money to a stadium, which doesn't happen in most other places. While there are arguments in other places about how much money will be diverted to a stadium, there is almost always always some public money involved. California residents are unwilling to divert any money whatsoever.

raiders they will move to L,A no money in oakland alot crime in the city so 49ers they wiil build his stadium :cheers:

The Raiders are not leaving behind one of the best fanbases in the NFL. Period.

Oakland built an entire stand specifically for football, with new club seats and skyboxes, not too long ago, and the Niners are planning to build their own stadium in the near-future.

The original part was built in 1966 and mount davis in 1996. Even the new part is 13 years old so its not that new. If the A's ever get a new stadium I wonder if they would tear down the old side and rebuild it to mirror mount davis.

NFL teams don't move due to empty seats

Houston Oilers (Tennessee Titans), Cleveland Rams/LA Rams (St. Louis Rams), LA Raiders (Oakland Raiders) LA Chargers (San Diego Chargers), St Louis Football Cardinals (Arizona Cardinals), Dallas Texans (Kansas City Chiefs)

So other then those 6 teams no other NFL teams move because of empty seats. Not to mention 3 have moved out of LA because of empty seats.

^^ Empty seats or more lucrative new stadium deals?

Houston Oilers (Tennessee Titans), Cleveland Rams/LA Rams (St. Louis Rams), LA Raiders (Oakland Raiders) LA Chargers (San Diego Chargers), St Louis Football Cardinals (Arizona Cardinals), Dallas Texans (Kansas City Chiefs)

So other then those 6 teams no other NFL teams move because of empty seats. Not to mention 3 have moved out of LA because of empty seats.

None of those LA teams moved because of empty seats. All were due to ownership and new stadium issues. LA and California cities do not chip in any public funds for stadiums and arenas, it just doesnt happen, so that lead to the teams moving.

The Goal is to have two LA area teams. I think the Chargers and Jaguars might both move to LA eventually, but more likely the Chargers first.

Ideally, there would be an LA team at a renovated Colosseium or a new Stadium in the Downtown LA vicinity, and a second team in the city of Industry for the Inland Empire and Orange County fan base.

In regards to divisions, when teams move, the teams get realigned. its happened before and thats what will happen again.

Houston Oilers (Tennessee Titans), Cleveland Rams/LA Rams (St. Louis Rams), LA Raiders (Oakland Raiders) LA Chargers (San Diego Chargers), St Louis Football Cardinals (Arizona Cardinals), Dallas Texans (Kansas City Chiefs)

So other then those 6 teams no other NFL teams move because of empty seats. Not to mention 3 have moved out of LA because of empty seats.

The Oilers, Rams and Raiders moved due to stadium issues, not empty seats. The Chargers moved when they were in the AFL so it's not really applicable and that was almost 50 years ago, which is past my timeline of roughly 40 years. The Cardinals moved from St. Louis when their push for a football-only stadium was shut down and the Texans/Chiefs were in the AFL and almost 50 years ago. Try again.

raiders they will move to L,A no money in oakland alot crime in the city so 49ers they wiil build his stadium :cheers:

http://jamie-online.com/random-jamz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/facepalm.jpg

None of those LA teams moved because of empty seats. All were due to ownership and new stadium issues. LA and California cities do not chip in any public funds for stadiums and arenas, it just doesnt happen, so that lead to the teams moving.

The Goal is to have two LA area teams. I think the Chargers and Jaguars might both move to LA eventually, but more likely the Chargers first.

Ideally, there would be an LA team at a renovated Colosseium or a new Stadium in the Downtown LA vicinity, and a second team in the city of Industry for the Inland Empire and Orange County fan base.

In regards to divisions, when teams move, the teams get realigned. its happened before and thats what will happen again.

I think the owners like things the way it is. 3 teams have left LA because of lack of interest and lack of investment by LA. Everyone knows its a College Football Market and NBA market. San Diego will do something to keep their team, so will Oakland and San Fran and Jacksonville i dont see moving ether.

I think the owners like things the way it is. 3 teams have left LA because of lack of interest and lack of investment by LA. Everyone knows its a College Football Market and NBA market. San Diego will do something to keep their team, so will Oakland and San Fran and Jacksonville i dont see moving ether.

It's a college football market? College football always played second fiddle to the NFL here until the Raiders and Rams left and USC got really good again. For Pete Carroll's first game at USC there were under 50,000 people in the reported attendance. Those who were there say it was under 40,000 people in the stands. This market was fine for the NFL, but the stadium situation is abysmal and that is the only reason both the Raiders and Rams left. Both were prepared to stay had they gotten a new stadium, but the many plans for the stadiums all fell apart.

i think its time to go back to topic.

I don't like this proposal, I rather have a Stadium closer to Downtown L.A.

(Hint, renovate the Coliseum)

I don't like this proposal, I rather have a Stadium closer to Downtown L.A.

(Hint, renovate the Coliseum)
There have been several proposals to renovate the Coliseum and they've all been turned down.

It's quite possible that USC will buy the property and renovate the stadium themselves.

There have been several proposals to renovate the Coliseum and they've all been turned down.

It's quite possible that USC will buy the property and renovate the stadium themselves.

I know, they've all failed. I'm sorely aware :( But there's still hope.

USC cannot buy the Coliseum, ever. It is a City, State and Federal historical landmark.

1932 Olympics
1984 Olympics
Super Bowl I
Dodgers won a championship there in '59

etc. etc.


It's the way negotiations went, the Coliseum Commission is a retarded bunch who needs to wake up.

They could lease it to X developer; I'm sure USC wont mind a spanking new state of the art venue, sharing wont be a problem.

http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Article:Should_USC_be_looking_to_buy_the_LA_Coliseum%3F

USC can buy the Coliseum

USC can buy the Coliseum, but it won't matter whether or not they do. They have veto power in their lease, have made it clear they don't want to share the stadium with a NFL team and are not willing to decrease capacity, which would be necessary to have a NFL team.

The Coliseum is not going to host a NFL team. It's time to stop bringing it up.

I am all for expanding the NFL. If markets like Nashville, St, Louis and Charlotte can support teams, cities like Orlando, San Antonio, Portland, etc surely can.

Might it dilute the talent pool, maybe? There is no shortage of football players coming out of college though. I doubt the drop off would be all that large.

The NFL had no trouble making out a schedule back when the Panthers and Jags came into the league when there were an odd number of teams in several divisions or when there were 31 teams. If they added 2 or 4 teams, they'd just realign the divisions in some way that made sense.

BTW, the reason why Jacksonville's stadium is so big is b/c the original Gator Bowl was and they have sold out college games there forever, so they didn't want to build a smaller one. Granted, for a while the Jags sold out the whole stadium as well, but now with the tarped off seats it still holds around 68,000, which is typical for the NFL. Give the team some time to turn their play around and they'll sell out again. Let's not forget the Jags were one of the elite teams for about 5 years in the late 90's / early 2000's.

http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Article:Should_USC_be_looking_to_buy_the_LA_Coliseum%3F

USC can buy the Coliseum

"First off, I’m not entirely sure that Arnold is able to sell the Coliseum in the first place. In 1984, the Coliseum became a National Historic Landmark, and as far an I am aware, you are unable to sell them to private industries, which would include USC."

From that same article.

Arnold says a lot of nonsense. I'm not sure if he knows laws and codes.

"First off, I’m not entirely sure that Arnold is able to sell the Coliseum in the first place. In 1984, the Coliseum became a National Historic Landmark, and as far an I am aware, you are unable to sell them to private industries, which would include USC."

From that same article.

Arnold says a lot of nonsense. I'm not sure if he knows laws and codes.

actually that's what the author says he believes initially, but it does say they that even with its historic status, USC can buy the Coliseum.

I know from someone who works at USC. They can buy the Coliseum, they would just have to have any renovations get an ok from the historical buildings people. Whether or not USC can or cannot buy the place doesn't affect whether or not a NFL team will move in there though. It's a no regardless.

why do you need permission to renovate a historic stadium? It is still a historic stadium even if you renovate it. Like in Chicago. Soldier lost historic status after the renovation... why? Same Stadium, same grounds just with a major major upgrade. Sorry the Old shit does not last forever. Improvements are a must.

why do you need permission to renovate a historic stadium? It is still a historic stadium even if you renovate it. Like in Chicago. Soldier lost historic status after the renovation... why? Same Stadium, same grounds just with a major major upgrade. Sorry the Old shit does not last forever. Improvements are a must.

Can you please explain to me how old and new Soldier Field are in any way the same stadium? When a place is historical, it usually has some sort of sentimental value. You dont just go change something like that without losing historical status.

Old Soldier Field no longer exists. In reality, its no longer the same stadium.

You logic confuses me. Whats new.

why do you need permission to renovate a historic stadium? It is still a historic stadium even if you renovate it. Like in Chicago. Soldier lost historic status after the renovation... why? Same Stadium, same grounds just with a major major upgrade. Sorry the Old shit does not last forever. Improvements are a must.

They need permission because the renovations need to be keep the stadium somewhat similar to what it was, specifically the historic parts. The Coliseum is also far more historic than Soldier Field so there would be more of a fight to keep it somewhat like it is now. Renovations could be done so long as the peristyle end is kept, like this renovation would have done.

http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/Pac10/USC/newaerial.jpg

The problem with renovating the Coliseum is not its historic status though. That can be worked around pretty easily as the above picture shows. The problem is the area the stadium is in being undesirable, finding a way to fun a renovation, finding a way to get USC to agree to any renovations and dealing with the Coliseum Commission.

I don't know if anyone read the article, but over on Yahoo! Sports, there's an article about how the NFL has failed in Jacksonville. The article touched on some things people may have heard/seen. The Jags simply are not selling tickets. Some estimations put 25,000 empty seats at last Sunday's game against Arizona. That's pathetic.

Jacksonville should play out the next 3 seasons and then be moved to Los Angeles once a stadium is built.

I don't know if anyone read the article, but over on Yahoo! Sports, there's an article about how the NFL has failed in Jacksonville. The article touched on some things people may have heard/seen. The Jags simply are not selling tickets. Some estimations put 25,000 empty seats at last Sunday's game against Arizona. That's pathetic.

Jacksonville should play out the next 3 seasons and then be moved to Los Angeles once a stadium is built.
All they need to do is start sharply discounting tickets just to put arses in seats. The NFL's TV and revenue sharing deals are set up in a way that every franchise is virtually guaranteed to turn a profit without even selling a ticket. It doesn't help that the cheapest seat in the house costs $55, I know that much.

All they need to do is start sharply discounting tickets just to put arses in seats. The NFL's TV and revenue sharing deals are set up in a way that every franchise is virtually guaranteed to turn a profit without even selling a ticket. It doesn't help that the cheapest seat in the house costs $55, I know that much.

The Jaguars actually have the 2nd lowest ticket prices in the league and will almost assuredly lose money this year. The teams get a lot of money from TV, but that doesn't cover everything. The way to NFL is currently set up, when teams build new stadiums and reap the rewards from the luxury suites and club seats, as well as sponsorships, it pushes the costs of running a team for each team higher. The problem is they don't get a share of the money generated from those avenues so essentially, the costs are rising for teams like the Jaguars and the revenue is not.

This is why there is labor unrest in the NFL and a work stoppage is very possible. Not only are there differences between the owners and players, but the owners do not like the current CBA and they can't even agree among themselves about how to go forward. The NFL is working under a broken business model and teams like the Jaguars are suffering and will lose money.

While the Chargers and Vikings seem to be logical choices because of their stadium situations, this Jaguars deal looks to be pretty bad right now. It would be pretty irresponsible to leave the team in Jacksonville at this point while they're hemorrhaging money. Now I think the NFL will be pushing Weaver to sell the team to Roski or move it to LA. How could you say no to a new stadium in Southern California that's practically being GIVEN to you?

First of all, we're not sure this stadium will get built. It looks more promising than the former proposals, but this is LA and we have a history of screwing up even the most ideal stadium situations.

I've also read that Roski may want to own the team, but isn't sure and definitely doesn't need to own the team to build the stadium so whoever the team is that moves here should the stadium be built, could be sold to someone else or not sold at all.

I doubt we'll see any movement on this situation until the next CBA is signed. Even if Roski gets approval to build the stadium tomorrow, he won't build it until a team has committed to playing there and I don't think a team will decide on its future until the CBA is signed. How revenue is shared will determine the importance of attendance and sponsors (Jacksonville) versus luxury suites, club suites and other amenities of the modern stadium (Minnesota and San Diego).

Walnut, a city that has threatened a lawsuit that posed the greatest threat to the City of Industry project agreed to a settlement tonight and will drop their lawsuit. Whether or not the citizen's group is part of the settlement is not known, but if they are, this is a MAJOR hurdle cleared for the project.

The NFL has failed in Jacksonville because the team has failed the fans there. Lets face it: the Jags havn't been very good lately. I'm sure if they started being competitive again they'd sell out more. No one wants to watch and losing team (and spend $50 a ticket for the privilage).

Moving to Los Angeles wouldn't make much difference in this regard. Sure, initially they would sell out every game but if the team were persistent losers the novelty would soon wear out and they'd be left playing in a sparkling but half empty stadium.

By the way, Minnesota has already lost one franchise (the Lakers) to Los Angeles (where there are no lakes). I can't imagine it would go down well in the Twin Cities if the Vikings also went there.

I think the Rams or the Raiders should make a return to LA. I think the Jags can stay put in Jacksonville. They are the smallest market and still have good attendance. I went to a Jags/Texans game when both of them sucked and the attendance was pretty good. Also, the Jags went to the AFC championship game in their second year as a franchise. The fans aren't like Buccaneer fans who had to go through years of agony before they got good.

Oh wait the Bucs went to the NFC championship game in their third year, nevermind!

I think the Rams or the Raiders should make a return to LA. I think the Jags can stay put in Jacksonville. They are the smallest market and still have good attendance. I went to a Jags/Texans game when both of them sucked and the attendance was pretty good. Also, the Jags went to the AFC championship game in their second year as a franchise. The fans aren't like Buccaneer fans who had to go through years of agony before they got good.

The Jags do not have good attendance. They lowered capacity of their stadium with tarps over seats to 67,000 or so, yet still sold only 45,000 seats for last week's game and there were only 36,000 there. While this is a new low of attendance, non-sell outs aren't uncommon.

The NFL has failed in Jacksonville because the team has failed the fans there. Lets face it: the Jags havn't been very good lately. I'm sure if they started being competitive again they'd sell out more. No one wants to watch and losing team (and spend $50 a ticket for the privilage).

Moving to Los Angeles wouldn't make much difference in this regard. Sure, initially they would sell out every game but if the team were persistent losers the novelty would soon wear out and they'd be left playing in a sparkling but half empty stadium.

By the way, Minnesota has already lost one franchise (the Lakers) to Los Angeles (where there are no lakes). I can't imagine it would go down well in the Twin Cities if the Vikings also went there.

The Jaguars have been getting bailed out of blackouts by companies buying out the remaining tickets for years. Even in years they made the playoffs they had games blacked out or would have been blacked out should a company not bailed them out. The Jaguars problem in Jacksonville isn't just attendance though. There are only two Fortune 500 companies in Jacksonville and neither is in the top 200 so they struggle to sell the premium seats necessary to survive in the current NFL business model. They also struggle to sell sponsorships, as evidenced by their stadium lacking a naming rights deal for two years now.

Walnut, a city that has threatened a lawsuit that posed the greatest threat to the City of Industry project agreed to a settlement tonight and will drop their lawsuit. Whether or not the citizen's group is part of the settlement is not known, but if they are, this is a MAJOR hurdle cleared for the project.

The citizens' lawsuit was not part of this agreement, they are still negotiating apparently...this is another article from the Star News:
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_13395720

Here is another link that details the actual agreement:
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_13402094

It will be interesting to see how well the citizens' lawsuit holds up without the support of the city and whether or not the State Senate has a special session to meet on the issue like they said they would.

Cross the Chargers off the list?

There is a new proposal that the owner thinks is promising...looks like an interesting idea:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/rumors/post/Chargers-might-get-new-stadium?urn=nfl,191466

I remember reading somewhere that there would be lawsuits if that project was agreed to. Hopefully not because I'd love if LA got a team and the Chargers were still in San Diego. It would make for a fun rivalry.

It will be interesting to see how well the citizens' lawsuit holds up without the support of the city and whether or not the State Senate has a special session to meet on the issue like they said they would.

Semcken said on the radio today that he is positive that either way the stadium deal would be done by October. So yes, if necessary, the legislature would pass the resolution and negate the citizens lawsuit. It really looks like this is happening though as he said they are aiming to start negotiations with teams after the Super Bowl.

Assuming they can get the bank loans to build, the only potential roadblock would be trying to obtain a team while the CBA negotiations are ongoing. Even so, he said he didn't think that would be a major problem since the stadium isn't scheduled to be ready until the 2013 season, and no one expects a work stoppage to last for over three years. Even if that happened, that would just reduce the number of years the new team would have to temporarily play in the Rose Bowl/Coliseum.

The problem I see is that I doubt a team commits to moving here until the CBA is finalized and I don't see them breaking ground until a team has committed so we may not see a team commit and playing in LA until 2012 with this stadium completed for the 2014 season.

Raiders will be coming home.


Their lease is up in 2010. Al Davis owns the rights to the L.A. market.



The Raiders still have a huge fan base in L.A.


The Jags and Chargers would be rejected by the fans.


Chargers would lose home field advantage in L.A. ------ Raider fans out number Charger fans 15-1


It would be an insult to this market if the Chargers or the Jags moved there.

^^^ Roski and Al Davis have a frosty relationship and considering the timing of the Raiders' lease expiration, they are not an ideal candidate to move here. The NFL will most likely block any move of a team here until the new CBA is agreed to because it will be unknown until then whether or not the best candidate is one with an unfavorable stadium or one who is struggling to draw fans. That means we're waiting until at least 2011 and maybe 2012. Any lease extension the Raiders have to stay in Oakland until then will likely be five years minimum, eliminating them from the list of candidates to move here. Even if the Raiders were a possibility, there are other teams that would fare far better in LA and would get along with Roski. The Jaguars, Vikings and Chargers are far better candidates and I can't see in any way how it would be an insult to the market.

It makes so much more sense to simply expand to two cities -- Los Angeles and San Antonio -- scrap the divisions, and play a 16-game round-robin. No more bickering over strength of schedule! http://ultimatesportsboards.com/forums/img/smilies/yipee.gif

It makes so much more sense to simply expand to two cities -- Los Angeles and San Antonio -- scrap the divisions, and play a 16-game round-robin. No more bickering over strength of schedule! http://ultimatesportsboards.com/forums/img/smilies/yipee.gif

Unless you're a current owner and would then have to split your money 34 ways instead of 32. Also, it's hard enough to get a stadium built here in LA, let alone find someone willing to build the stadium and pay the $1 billion expansion fee.

Unless you're a current owner and would then have to split your money 34 ways instead of 32. Also, it's hard enough to get a stadium built here in LA, let alone find someone willing to build the stadium and pay the $1 billion expansion fee.

expansion wouldn't surprise me. The part of the pie owners are getting has increased a lot since the last CBA. It may be in the owners best interest to have the excuse of expansion if the players want a more conventional CBA this time.

^ Roski and Al Davis have a frosty relationship and considering the timing of the Raiders' lease expiration, they are not an ideal candidate to move here. The NFL will most likely block any move of a team here until the new CBA is agreed to because it will be unknown until then whether or not the best candidate is one with an unfavorable stadium or one who is struggling to draw fans. That means we're waiting until at least 2011 and maybe 2012. Any lease extension the Raiders have to stay in Oakland until then will likely be five years minimum, eliminating them from the list of candidates to move here. Even if the Raiders were a possibility, there are other teams that would fare far better in LA and would get along with Roski. The Jaguars, Vikings and Chargers are far better candidates and I can't see in any way how it would be an insult to the market.

This is a confusing post. It sounds like you dislike the Raiders.

Timing is everything. Raiders lease is up in 2010, the NFL is pushing hard for a team.

Al Davis owns the Rights to the L.A. market. The Jaguars have no fanbase here.

Nobody in L.A. is going to come support the Jags and the AFC opponents such as, the Texans,Titans and Colts. Nobody.

The whole idea of bringing a team to L.A. is to be supported and have the team broadcasts on TV with sellouts.

The Raiders have a strong fan base here. They would be supported and welcomed. The Chargers?

As of now the Chargers have a fan base in San Diego. They also have a home field advantage.

Raider fans out number Charger fans 15-1 in L.A.

Having the Chargers move to L.A. would destroy this franchise. Plus the team is in talks about a new stadium in San Diego.

The Vikings? They are in talks as well. They have plans to build a stadium in Minnesota.

Teams that would do well in L.A? The 49ers or Rams.

The 49ers lease is up. They are planning on building a stadium in Santa Clara. If that deal falls through-who knows?(I doubt it does)

The Rams? Lease is up in 2012. Depending on who buys this franchise will determine where they will play. Most think the Rams will stay in St. Louis.

Thats it.

As an NFL fan who doesn't have a horse in the race I would most like to see the Jags move to LA with Minneapolis the least I would like to see. The long term viability and support of Jacksonville is probably the weakest and Florida would still have two other NFL franchises. If one of the Cali teams would relocate I think Oakland makes more sense then San Diego as has been said they already have a base of support there and the Bay Metro can live with one NFL team. Moving the Niners would seem all sorts of wrong. I don't think expansion is the answer as the current set up aligns divisions and schedules perfectly.

If the Jags move to LA though a name change is probably in order.


Al Davis owns the Rights to the L.A. market. The Jaguars have no fanbase here.

[I] Nobody in L.A. is going to come support the Jags and the AFC opponents such as, the Texans,Titans and Colts. Nobody.

The Rams? Lease is up in 2012. Depending on who buys this franchise will determine where they will play. Most think the Rams will stay in St. Louis.

Thats it.

You move the Chiefs to the AFC South and put the new team in the AFC West.

The Rams make sense since they have always seemed out of place in St. Louis but then you are just moving pieces from a market which deserves a team IMO. Also I don't like the idea that a franchise can bail on a city just twenty years after a city builds a new stadium for them. The ideal might for the Rams to go back to LA while the Jags go to St. Louis.

As an NFL fan who doesn't have a horse in the race I would most like to see the Jags move to LA with Minneapolis the least I would like to see. The long term viability and support of Jacksonville is probably the weakest and Florida would still have two other NFL franchises. If one of the Cali teams would relocate I think Oakland makes more sense then San Diego as has been said they already have a base of support there and the Bay Metro can live with one NFL team. Moving the Niners would seem all sorts of wrong. I don't think expansion is the answer as the current set up aligns divisions and schedules perfectly.

If the Jags move to LA though a name change is probably in order.



You move the Chiefs to the AFC South and put the new team in the AFC West.

The Rams make sense since they have always seemed out of place in St. Louis but then you are just moving pieces from a market which deserves a team IMO. Also I don't like the idea that a franchise can bail on a city just twenty years after a city builds a new stadium for them. The ideal might for the Rams to go back to LA while the Jags go to St. Louis.

The Chiefs aren't moving divisions buddy, the cheifs/oakland rivalry is one of biggest in league and is 50 years old.

This is a confusing post. It sounds like you dislike the Raiders.

Timing is everything. Raiders lease is up in 2010, the NFL is pushing hard for a team.

Al Davis owns the Rights to the L.A. market. The Jaguars have no fanbase here.

Nobody in L.A. is going to come support the Jags and the AFC opponents such as, the Texans,Titans and Colts. Nobody.

The whole idea of bringing a team to L.A. is to be supported and have the team broadcasts on TV with sellouts.

The Raiders have a strong fan base here. They would be supported and welcomed. The Chargers?

As of now the Chargers have a fan base in San Diego. They also have a home field advantage.

Raider fans out number Charger fans 15-1 in L.A.

Having the Chargers move to L.A. would destroy this franchise. Plus the team is in talks about a new stadium in San Diego.

The Vikings? They are in talks as well. They have plans to build a stadium in Minnesota.

Teams that would do well in L.A? The 49ers or Rams.

The 49ers lease is up. They are planning on building a stadium in Santa Clara. If that deal falls through-who knows?(I doubt it does)

The Rams? Lease is up in 2012. Depending on who buys this franchise will determine where they will play. Most think the Rams will stay in St. Louis.

Thats it.

I don't dislike the Raiders. They're like any other team to me so it doesn't matter, but they have little chance of moving here so they're not worth the serious analysis.

Leases mean close to nothing when they're in the final years. They can be bought out too easily for them to matter. Also, the NFL is pushing for a team in LA, but it doesn't take precedence over negotiating a new CBA, which will take up the owner's time over the next two offseasons so it's doubtful any team in playing here in the next two years. Even if you cared about leases, anyone who has one that runs out between 2010 and 2012 are applicable here.

The 49ers stadium deal in Santa Clara is unlikely to pass, forcing them to go back to the drawing board and the NFL will be sure to keep the Raiders in San Francisco so the shared stadium is still an option. The NFL won't let the Raiders move and take away any of the leverage there could have in the Bay Area with a shared stadium.

As for the attendance issue, there doesn't need to be a built in fan base for the team to draw well here. The location of the Industry Stadium, if built, is perfectly situated to not only bring in the LA market, but the Inland Empire market, which is one of the country's 15th biggest metropolitan markets. You don't need the built in fan base of the Raiders to draw crowds here. Regardless of which team comes here, the stadium will sell out. A LA stadium has never been situated to bring in the Inland Empire before and if this market is so dependent on a built in fan base then we shouldn't have a team. This market will support whichever team has LA in its name. Also, while you claim the market needs the Raiders' fan base and the Chargers have a small fan base here, the fact is TV ratings for Chargers games have surpassed those for Raiders games in the LA market for a few years now.

Ed Roski has little interest in the Raiders playing at his stadium. He wants nothing to do with Al Davis. The NFL also has no interest in cooperating with Davis and won't allow him to move just because he wants to. They're going to pick the team they want to move.

The Raiders, while playing in a poor stadium, are not in as bad of a situation as others. It's not a great place to watch a game, but it still provides pretty good revenue streams. They have the 14th most suites in the league. The Oakland stadium situation is far superior to the situations in Minneapolis and San Diego so if the NFL needs to pick a team to move for stadium reasons, the Raiders are the third choice at best. If they're picking a team to move because of attendance concerns, the Jaguars are far and away the first choice. Either way, the Raiders aren't at the top of the list for teams to move here.

I don't dislike the Raiders. They're like any other team to me so it doesn't matter, but they have little chance of moving here so they're not worth the serious analysis.

Leases mean close to nothing when they're in the final years. They can be bought out too easily for them to matter. Also, the NFL is pushing for a team in LA, but it doesn't take precedence over negotiating a new CBA, which will take up the owner's time over the next two offseasons so it's doubtful any team in playing here in the next two years. Even if you cared about leases, anyone who has one that runs out between 2010 and 2012 are applicable here.

The 49ers stadium deal in Santa Clara is unlikely to pass, forcing them to go back to the drawing board and the NFL will be sure to keep the Raiders in San Francisco so the shared stadium is still an option. The NFL won't let the Raiders move and take away any of the leverage there could have in the Bay Area with a shared stadium.

As for the attendance issue, there doesn't need to be a built in fan base for the team to draw well here. The location of the Industry Stadium, if built, is perfectly situated to not only bring in the LA market, but the Inland Empire market, which is one of the country's 15th biggest metropolitan markets. You don't need the built in fan base of the Raiders to draw crowds here. Regardless of which team comes here, the stadium will sell out. A LA stadium has never been situated to bring in the Inland Empire before and if this market is so dependent on a built in fan base then we shouldn't have a team. This market will support whichever team has LA in its name. Also, while you claim the market needs the Raiders' fan base and the Chargers have a small fan base here, the fact is TV ratings for Chargers games have surpassed those for Raiders games in the LA market for a few years now.

Ed Roski has little interest in the Raiders playing at his stadium. He wants nothing to do with Al Davis. The NFL also has no interest in cooperating with Davis and won't allow him to move just because he wants to. They're going to pick the team they want to move.

The Raiders, while playing in a poor stadium, are not in as bad of a situation as others. It's not a great place to watch a game, but it still provides pretty good revenue streams. They have the 14th most suites in the league. The Oakland stadium situation is far superior to the situations in Minneapolis and San Diego so if the NFL needs to pick a team to move for stadium reasons, the Raiders are the third choice at best. If they're picking a team to move because of attendance concerns, the Jaguars are far and away the first choice. Either way, the Raiders aren't at the top of the list for teams to move here.



Your telling me that the Jags will sellout on a consistant basis in L.A.?

People are going to sell out the new Stadium watching the Jags vs Texans??

BTW Weaver doesnt want to move to L.A.

This is a Southen franchise that plays in the AFC South. West Coast football fans are going to embrace these teams?

Raiders stadium in Oakland is a dump. Davis wants a new stadium period.

Davis is not going to share a new stadium with the Niners. He despises them

It would be an insult for the Raiders franchise to share a stadium with the hated 49ers.

They will not be building 2 stadiums in the Bay Area. One team will be leaving.

The only team from Florida that would be welcomed and would sell out the new stadium would be the Dolphins. I dont think they are moving any time soon.

The NFL wont allow Davis and the Raiders to move? I have never heard of this.

It doesnt matter, Davis moved the Raiders against the NFL wishes back in 83.

If you could find an article on Roski rejecting Davis, please post it.


'

Your telling me that the Jags will sellout on a consistant basis in L.A.?

People are going to sell out the new Stadium watching the Jags vs Texans??

People will show up to watch the LA's NFL team. When a team gets here, they're not going to sit here and think "this team is from city A. I don't want to see a team from there." They're going to say this is LA's NFL team. Teams in leagues have moved many a time and where the team came from has never been a deterrent. If this market is dependent on a specific team moving here then no matter what team moves here, it will fail because this market cannot support a team then.

BTW Weaver doesnt want to move to L.A.

Weaver has explored selling the Jaguars before and if the CBA makes teams more dependent on themselves, instead of reaping as much in revenue sharing, a team in Jacksonville won't be sustainable and he will sell.

Raiders stadium in Oakland is a dump. Davis wants a new stadium period.

Davis is not going to share a new stadium with the Niners. He despises them

It would be an insult for the Raiders franchise to share a stadium with the hated 49ers.

They will not be building 2 stadiums in the Bay Area. One team will be leaving.

The stadium in Oakland isn't a good place to watch a game, but that isn't what matters. What matters is the revenue streams that a stadium offers and the Oakland Coliseum offers plenty of them thanks to Mount Davis.

Stop with this "insult" stuff, whether it be to a franchise or a city. The NFL and its teams are a business. They only succeed if their business succeeds. Looking at this with your heart is misguided. Use your brain, look at the numbers and evaluate it from a business standpoint because that's what happens in the real world. If Davis cannot stand sharing a stadium with the Niners, he'll have to stay in Oakland.

The NFL wont allow Davis and the Raiders to move? I have never heard of this.

It doesnt matter, Davis moved the Raiders against the NFL wishes back in 83.

The NFL can't legally make the Raiders stay in Oakland or keep them from moving to LA, but that's only legally. In '83 the Raiders just picked up and moved to a stadium that was already there. Nothing was dependent on the NFL's approval. This time, the stadium is only built if the NFL is on board with everything that's going on.

The business model of the stadium is dependent on league meetings, league functions, cooperation with the NFL Network and most importantly, Super Bowls. If the NFL isn't on board and agree to everything involved with the stadium, they'll simply pull those things from the stadium and if they do that, the stadium doesn't get built.

The NFL will insure that the team that moves to LA isn't the first team to call dibs. It will be the team that needs it the most and it will come from one of two categories. 1) Desperately in need of a new stadium. 2) Unable to draw enough fans to make it financially viable. Which of the two categories they come from will be dependent on the revenue sharing agreement that comes out of the next CBA and the split with the players is net or gross. Regardless of which category the NFL feels it necessary to choose their team from though, the Raiders are not at the top of the list. Minnesota, San Diego and maybe even St. Louis top them from category 1, while Jacksonville tops them in category 2.

So the NFL has the leverage to make the entire stadium project prosper or fail. That's leverage that they didn't have in '83 and why the NFL can essentially hand pick which team will move so long as the team's owner agrees. By the time the stadium is a go, there will be teams ahead of Oakland on the list of teams to move and multiple ones with owners willing to do it. That's why the NFL will block a Raiders move. It's not what's best for the league as a whole and even if you want to make an emotional decision instead of business decision, Goodell is very loyal to Tagliabue, who despised Davis so the NFL won't do them any favors.

If you could find an article on Roski rejecting Davis, please post it.

I don't have any interest in looking for an article, although I'm sure it's been written somewhere. It's pretty common knowledge in the LA area and behind the scenes, Roski hasn't made a secret of it.

I don't have any interest in looking for an article, although I'm sure it's been written somewhere. It's pretty common knowledge in the LA area and behind the scenes, Roski hasn't made a secret of it.


If you dont have any facts or articles. Then its just worthless gossip.

I do have articles on Weaver wanting the Jags to stay in Jax. And the NFL did try to block Davis in 83 and won a court case against him, and he still moved.

Davis could give a rip about what the NFL thinks. Blocking him is useless.

Your pipe dream of the Jags coming to L.A. and selling out the new stadium for years, is just that- a pipe dream.

The Jags would sell out a few games, but after the honeymoon is over, there would be an empty TV -less team that would up becoming a joke.

If you are going to put a team in SO Ca it better be good and a team that has won some SB's.

L.A. doesnt need the NFL- the NFL needs L.A.

I don't have any interest in looking for an article, although I'm sure it's been written somewhere. It's pretty common knowledge in the LA area and behind the scenes, Roski hasn't made a secret of it.


If you dont have any facts or articles. Then its just worthless gossip.

You're right. In an era of rapidly declining journalism skills and the deterioration of the traditional media, that is what must be provided for fact. The fact that Roski does not like Davis is not much of a secret and much of the LA sports world knows about it. Regardless, that will have little to do with the Raiders being down on the list of teams to move here.

I do have articles on Weaver wanting the Jags to stay in Jax. And the NFL did try to block Davis in 83 and won a court case against him, and he still moved.

Davis could give a rip about what the NFL thinks. Blocking him is useless.

Of course Weaver is going to say he wants the Jags to stay in Jacksonville. Because it is not a stadium issue where he needs leverage over the city or state to provide funds for a new stadium, saying he is looking elsewhere would alienate an already small fan base. Just the same, there are plenty of articles indicating that he has explored the possibility of selling the team a few times now and would be willing to do so if the team is not financially viable, which is a distinct possibility following the new CBA.

Davis can want to move to LA all he wants, but this time if the NFL is not on board then there won't be a stadium for him. If the NFL isn't on board, where is Davis going to move to? The Coliseum? Yeah right. The Rose Bowl? Pasadena would never have it. Fact is, the NFL needs to be on board to get this new stadium built and that includes which team moves there. Without the NFL's support, the stadium is not viable and a shovel never gets put in the ground.

Your pipe dream of the Jags coming to L.A. and selling out the new stadium for years, is just that- a pipe dream.

The Jags would sell out a few games, but after the honeymoon is over, there would be an empty TV -less team that would up becoming a joke.

If you are going to put a team in SO Ca it better be good and a team that has won some SB's.

There aren't that many Raiders fans here. Yes, there's a chunk, but not nearly enough to sell out a stadium. The Chargers have better support here and the ratings prove it. The Chargers have increasingly built support in LA and the TV ratings for them has been superior to those for Raider games for a few years now. As for history, the football fans here aren't going to show up because the Raiders won Super Bowls 30 years ago, which will be the time table before this stadium is opened. This market needs to support whatever team has the name Los Angeles. If it cannot then what team moves here will be a moot point because it will not succeed.

As for the Jags, I've maintained that the Chargers or Vikings are more likely candidates to move. Whichever team moves though, I have no doubt that the stadium will be full and because Roski has placed no stipulations on what team could move here, he doesn't think so either.

L.A. doesnt need the NFL- the NFL needs L.A.

The NFL would like to be in LA. The NFL does not need LA in any way. Over $3 billion per year in TV money and astonishing growth since 1995 prove it. The NFL will continue to do just fine if a team never moves here, but if a stadium can be figured out, they would like to be here.

Basically your only argument is the stadium in Oakland sucks and the Raiders are the only team that can draw here. That's not such a strong argument there. You've ignored any monetary considerations, the health of the league as a whole, the upcoming CBA negotiations and those who actually have leverage in this situation. Your argument is less than convincing. I have no problem with people not agreeing with me. It's happened plenty of times on SSC, but at least those people brought numbers, logic and in depth thought to the table. Your argument hangs on emotion, which will lead you astray time and time again. The NFL is the one with the leverage here. Why would the NFL allow the Raiders to move above all of the other more desperate candidates?

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1670/2029/1600/708139/Olympic%203.gif

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1670/2029/1600/123920/Olympic%204.gif

Here is what I think should happen

The Jaguars would move to Los Angeles in 2010, and the Jaguars and USC would play at the Rose Bowl in 2010 and 2011, and then split the cost for a complete rebuild of the LA Coliseum. The stadium would accomodate both football and track and field for a future Olympic bid. We don't currently have a single large stadium in the United States of America capable of hosting Olympic Track and Field other than maybe Husky Stadium in Seattle.

My plan would construct a new two-level grandstand along the sidelines, while retaining the original peristyle entrance and East end seating. For football, capacity would be 81,500, and USC football can fill those as we've seen. The lower bowl would have 57 rows. The lower 14 rows (bright red) would be removed for track and field events, and the upper 8 rows along the sidelines would contain 6,000 club seats (gold). 76 suites would sit behind the club seats, and 26 more would be in a South tower above the second level, for a total of 102 suites. The upper levels along each sideline would hold 27,000. The stadium configuration wouldn't be quite as long as the existing Coliseum, so both ends of this new stadium could be used for football seating.


To convert to track and field, the lower 14 rows (About 10,000 seats) would be removed and the field raised about 16 feet, so the track wouldn't sit below the sightline of the spectators. Then about 4,000 seats would be added above the West end of the stadium, raising capacity back to 75,500 for track and field. This work could be done between the end of football season and the beginning of the Olympics, and football could still be played with the track and field configuration the season after the Olympics, but sightlines wouldn't be as good.

http://www.stadiumdrawings.blogspot.com

Here is what I think should happen

The Jaguars would move to Los Angeles in 2010, and the Jaguars and USC would play at the Rose Bowl in 2010 and 2011, and then split the cost for a complete rebuild of the LA Coliseum. The stadium would accomodate both football and track and field for a future Olympic bid. We don't currently have a single large stadium in the United States of America capable of hosting Olympic Track and Field other than maybe Husky Stadium in Seattle.

My plan would construct a new two-level grandstand along the sidelines, while retaining the original peristyle entrance and East end seating. For football, capacity would be 81,500, and USC football can fill those as we've seen. The lower bowl would have 57 rows. The lower 14 rows (bright red) would be removed for track and field events, and the upper 8 rows along the sidelines would contain 6,000 club seats (gold). 76 suites would sit behind the club seats, and 26 more would be in a South tower above the second level, for a total of 102 suites. The upper levels along each sideline would hold 27,000. The stadium configuration wouldn't be quite as long as the existing Coliseum, so both ends of this new stadium could be used for football seating.


To convert to track and field, the lower 14 rows (About 10,000 seats) would be removed and the field raised about 16 feet, so the track wouldn't sit below the sightline of the spectators. Then about 4,000 seats would be added above the West end of the stadium, raising capacity back to 75,500 for track and field. This work could be done between the end of football season and the beginning of the Olympics, and football could still be played with the track and field configuration the season after the Olympics, but sightlines wouldn't be as good.

http://www.stadiumdrawings.blogspot.com

Nobody wants to play football in a stadium with a track. There's a reason why tracks are removed from football stadiums. LA isn't even committed to an Olympics bid and neither is the USOC, but even if they were, LA would have an uphill battle. Also, no NFL team, nor the NFL wants to play in Exposition Park . Oh yeah, the Coliseum Commission still runs the Coliseum and they figure out how to screw up even the best of deals, let alone a half baked one. Throw in USC's veto power and the lack of funding for a Coliseum renovation as well as a competing stadium making progress in Industry and this stadium proposal for the Coliseum lacks any possibility of going forward, nor should it.

It sounds like the Jacksonville Jaguars will move to LA.

I'd just hate to see Jacksonville's relatively new stadium sit unoccupied.

It makes so much more sense to simply expand to two cities -- Los Angeles and San Antonio -- scrap the divisions, and play a 16-game round-robin. No more bickering over strength of schedule! http://ultimatesportsboards.com/forums/img/smilies/yipee.gif

I don't get this infatuation with a round robin. I love the fact that the Ravens get to play the Steelers twice a year, as well as the Browns and Bengals. I imagine the DC folks feel the same way about 'Skins/Cowboys/Giants/Eagles twice a year.

As for Jacksonville, they never should have gotten a team in the first place...that franchise should have gone to Baltimore. It didn't because Jack Kent Cooke (owner of the Redskins at the time) didn't want another team in the area. And Tagliabue had it in for Baltimore for some reason...to wit...his famous statement that Baltimore should build a museum instead of a new stadium.

I don't get this infatuation with a round robin. I love the fact that the Ravens get to play the Steelers twice a year, as well as the Browns and Bengals. I imagine the DC folks feel the same way about 'Skins/Cowboys/Giants/Eagles twice a year.

As for Jacksonville, they never should have gotten a team in the first place...that franchise should have gone to Baltimore. It didn't because Jack Kent Cooke (owner of the Redskins at the time) didn't want another team in the area. And Tagliabue had it in for Baltimore for some reason...to wit...his famous statement that Baltimore should build a museum instead of a new stadium.
A round-robin eliminates strength-of-schedule disputes that arise with divisional and interconference play.

I imagine the DC folks feel the same way about 'Skins/Cowboys/Giants/Eagles twice a year.


We do.

The teams in the NFC East would have it no other way most likely. No other division really comes close to the rivalry in the division.

To ruin that would be terrible.