LOS ANGELES - Farmers Field (72,000)

[will101]

Originally Posted by pesto

Same sort of comment: Berkeley, Oakland, SF (2), Palo Alto, Santa Clara, SJ, Fresno, LA (2), Pasadena, Anaheim, SD: every one of them uncovered. Same for the proposed stadiums in SJ and Industry.

When did Palo Alto build a stadium?

[bd popeye]

Originally Posted by will101

When did Palo Alto build a stadium?

Here ya' go..

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...nford-cardinal

Year Opened: 2006 | Field Surface: Natural Grass

The original Stanford Stadium opened in 1921. It became an almost entirely enclosed bowl after expansions in 1927 raised seating to 85,500. The attendance record of 94,000 was set during a 1935 game against California.

Stanford Stadium has hosted many events aside from Cardinal football games, including Super Bowl XIX, men's and women's World Cup soccer matches and even a Herbert Hoover presidential nomination by the Republican Party in 1928.

The stadium was demolished in 2005 and rebuilt as a more intimate, modern facility. The track was eliminated in the new design to help improve sightlines, and officials wanted a smaller seating capacity (50,000) to help increase season ticket sales. As explained in Stanford Magazine, an alumni publication: "The two-tier design creates a smaller 'bowl,' which brings everyone closer to the action. The nearest fans are only 45 feet from the sideline. The 50,000 figure was conceived by Athletics Department officials to create more demand for tickets, and to pump up the home-field advantage that a full house produces." The $100 million project was completed in 10 months and ready in time for the 2006 home opener against Navy.

[will101]

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Here ya' go..

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...nford-cardinal

Actually that was a rhetorical question. I live about 15 minutes away from there (depending on traffic). The point is Stanford University is not in Palo Alto, and never has been.

[SJAnfield]

Originally Posted by pesto

Just to clarify a little: AEG manages the Oakland Coliseum (the name changes regularly) but doesn't own it. Farmer's doesn't exist and AEG does not own the land so it doesn't really own anything except the right to spend a billion or so, which Anschutz has nixed as being a losing proposition unless he gets a team at a discount.

In any event AEG has no ownership interest in the Raiders and no influence on whether they stay in Oakland, move to Santa Clara, LA or some other location. The new owners will presumably renegotiate the deal with the city consistent with whatever plans they have and synergies they can find.

Your sentiments nails it on the head.

I believe the Raiders are trying to share/rent the new 49ers stadium. If I'm not mistaken, they have asked the league to step in and help them secure a deal. The stadium is public funded, and I'm sure the city would love the extra revenue. The 49ers appear to be the ones trying to block the move.

[will101]

Originally Posted by SJAnfield

Your sentiments nails it on the head.

I believe the Raiders are trying to share/rent the new 49ers stadium. If I'm not mistaken, they have asked the league to step in and help them secure a deal. The stadium is public funded, and I'm sure the city would love the extra revenue. The 49ers appear to be the ones trying to block the move.

No on several counts. The Raiders have stated they are not interested in sharing with the Niners. The Niners stadium is not publicly funded. There is a public/private group that has a line of credit to get it built, but so far no monies have been borrowed. The Niners have raised about $700 million on their own, and with the $200 million from the G-4 fund, they have raised more than 75% of the money necessary for completion. And claiming that the league has been asked to step in is pure science fiction. The Niners own the place. Period.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by will101

No on several counts. The Raiders have stated they are not interested in sharing with the Niners. The Niners stadium is not publicly funded. There is a public/private group that has a line of credit to get it built, but so far no monies have been borrowed. The Niners have raised about $700 million on their own, and with the $200 million from the G-4 fund, they have raised more than 75% of the money necessary for completion. And claiming that the league has been asked to step in is pure science fiction. The Niners own the place. Period.

I'm beginning to think you work for the 49ers.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by will101

Actually that was a rhetorical question. I live about 15 minutes away from there (depending on traffic). The point is Stanford University is not in Palo Alto, and never has been.

Getting pretty technical. How about "across the street from Palo Alto"?

[will101]

I guess that I was a bit snippy. Apologies.

[pesto]

A bit marginal to the topic, but downtown LA voters have approved new taxes for a trolley which wil connect LA Live (and Farmer's Field, if and when) to the Broadway shopping and theater district, Civic Center, Little Tokyo, Bunker Hill and the arts area (Music Center, Disney, etc.). Should help restaurants that are a little further from the stadium get in on the action.

Although some funding is still open, it should be completed well before the stadium.

[pesto]

AEG is pleased with the first round of bids, which means they must be at least 8-10B with reasonable mixes of cash from bidders with (Wall) street cred. Since no one is likely to want the whole thing, I imagine that 1 or 2 leaders have emerged who have done their homework and have found uses for all the pieces. Now it's probably Blackstone working with the lead bidders to review where the pieces are going, and to see if more value can be squeezed out of the process.

As for Farmer's, it's somewhere in the mix. Hope for some news soon.

Meanwhile, back in STL, I believe the real negotiating starts in mid-January.

[Teddy94]

Some recent info from Yahoo Sports

In another bit of good news for people who hope Los Angeles will get a team, two league sources said recently that the NFL may install an adjustable relocation fee for any team that moves there. In the past, the general feeling is that any team moving to L.A. would automatically be charged somewhere in the area of $250 million for the right to move. That money would be paid to the league and go to the other owners because of the vast increase in value any team would presumably get from moving there. However, the view among many in the league is that a high transfer fee might inhibit teams from going to L.A. because of the risks of not making money right away. "I think the league understands that a high fee would be a real burden, so the idea would be for a team to pay a smaller fee and then pay more if the team starts to make money," one source said. For example, whichever team moves there might pay only $30 million or $40 million initially, but could pay upwards of $250 million or $300 million over the years if the team is financially successful.

Then there's this tidbit about the relocation fee as it applies to the Rams possibly moving back: One source said recently that St. Louis owner Stan Kroenke would likely argue to his fellow owners that he doesn't have to pay a relocation fee because his team already paid one when it left Los Angeles for St. Louis. Likewise, Oakland owner Mark Davis would argue that the Raiders already paid a relocation fee once to move to Los Angeles, even though the team subsequently returned to Oakland.

[Dale]

Aren't the owners of the Dodgers making overtures about building one or more stadiums downtown ?

[pesto]

The NFL has been quoted as preferring a stadium near DS, perhaps with the stadium being removed to some other location downtown (Guggenheim is now doing quite a bit of upgrade work, so this seems unlikely).

Guggenheim has not committed to anything but it is commonly believed among local investors that the price they paid makes little sense without serious development around DS. The fact that they own DS and are bidding for AEG (and the rights to Farmer's) sort of focuses the idea that they could find a team that would partner with them to build in Chavez Ravine, perhaps with media facilities as well. But it is still entirely possible that they will stick to entertainment, hotels and condos in that area.

[Dale]

Originally Posted by pesto

The NFL has been quoted as preferring a stadium near DS, perhaps with the stadium being removed to some other location downtown (Guggenheim is now doing quite a bit of upgrade work, so this seems unlikely).

Guggenheim has not committed to anything but it is commonly believed among local investors that the price they paid makes little sense without serious development around DS. The fact that they own DS and are bidding for AEG (and the rights to Farmer's) sort of focuses the idea that they could find a team that would partner with them to build in Chavez Ravine, perhaps with media facilities as well. But it is still entirely possible that they will stick to entertainment, hotels and condos in that area.

So, if I understand you correctly, where Guggenheim is concerned, downtown will likely be left out altogether ?

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Teddy94

Some recent info from Yahoo Sports

I like that kind of thinking! And the Chargers would argue that they are already in the LA market since they have spent money advertising both single game and season tickets in LA print and broadcast media and developing the market that the Rams and Raiders left in shambles.

And the Jags and whoever else would find something equally creative to justify exempting themselves.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Dale

So, if I understand you correctly, where Guggenheim is concerned, downtown will likely be left out altogether ?

That's not what I'm saying.

Guggenheim is also bidding for AEG and could very well pursue a DT stadium themselves or in cooperation with someone else (Patrick Soon-Shiong being the "usual suspect" here). That would leave DS open for other development.

If they win they could contact potential teams and see which they prefer, DT or DS. If they lose, they could push the idea of Dodger Stadium but would seem to have less interest in DT. The new owner would then step into Anschutz's shoes and try to derive a business plan that works for the owner, the NFL and himself.

Just as a tidbit, the Dodgers had originally said that a gameplan for the Dodger Stadium renovations would be the subject of a media announcement two weeks after the season ended. That was then indefinitely postponed for undisclosed reasons; it is now scheduled for January. Seems to imply that there is still thought going on on this issue, which is no suprise since the AEG bidding process is now approaching its most intense and competitive period.

[Dale]

Originally Posted by pesto

That's not what I'm saying.

Guggenheim is also bidding for AEG and could very well pursue a DT stadium themselves or in cooperation with someone else (Patrick Soon-Shiong being the "usual suspect" here). That would leave DS open for other development.

If they win they could contact potential teams and see which they prefer, DT or DS. If they lose, they could push the idea of Dodger Stadium but would seem to have less interest in DT. The new owner would then step into Anschutz's shoes and try to derive a business plan that works for the owner, the NFL and himself.

Just as a tidbit, the Dodgers had originally said that a gameplan for the Dodger Stadium renovations would be the subject of a media announcement two weeks after the season ended. That was then indefinitely postponed for undisclosed reasons; it is now scheduled for January. Seems to imply that there is still thought going on on this issue, which is no suprise since the AEG bidding process is now approaching its most intense and competitive period.

... sitting on the edge of my sit then.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Dale

... sitting on the edge of my sit then.

I actually am too. Between this, the Dodger acquisition by Guggenheim and the Dodger/Fox negotiations, there is quite a story about how businesses work, where value comes from and how sports has become a huge industry, run by cartels and driven by brand marketers. I have worked in finance for some time, so some of it is predictable; but it's interesting to see what new value add propositions can actually be made to work.

Conversely, you also notice that there are 4-6 teams in every pro league that just sit on their asses, living on revenue sharing and loyal fans, not trying to build anything or win anything. Guess it shows that billionaires are like the population as a whole. Only richer.

In any event, it's a far cry from worrying about whether to try the squeeze or let the batter hit away.

[pesto]

sorry, double post

[Buffaboy]

Hi Los Angeles,

I love you guys and I've been there before but my Buffalo Bills are now officially out of this equation!