LOS ANGELES - Farmers Field (72,000) - Page 106

pesto · January 2nd, 2013, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackcat23

Happy New Year, everyone!

Leiweke verifying what everyone assumed.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_2...idding-la-move

Report: No NFL teams seriously bidding for LA move

Happy New Year to you too (and everyone) and let's hope for a great sports year in LA (and in your town too)!

This sounds about right. It was almost 2 years now since the NFL said that the Farmer's proposal was unaccepatable to any owners or the NFL (control of concessions and non-football revenues). It would have been nice if Leiweke had been more candid with fans, many of whom believed a team was moving imminently.

The new AEG owners are going to be able to find some synergies (I hope) that will bring this back to life; maybe at Farmers, maybe somewhere else. It's going to be exciting for a few months.

btw, blackcat: I saw you walking down Fig a couple of days ago taking pictures; I tried to talk with you, but you wouldn't answer. lol.

Lakeland · January 2nd, 2013, 08:46 PM

No NFL team is losing money especially with all the revenue sharing. If Los Angeles wants a team, it will have to be someone like the Rams who might not be able to build a new stadium to satisfy their owner. In a perfect world, LA would have kept the Rams while St Louis got an expansion team back in 95. Instead, Tagliabue for some reason thought it was a better idea to give Florida a third team in Jacksonville.

Topher51 · January 3rd, 2013, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakeland

No NFL team is losing money especially with all the revenue sharing. If Los Angeles wants a team, it will have to be someone like the Rams who might not be able to build a new stadium to satisfy their owner. In a perfect world, LA would have kept the Rams while St Louis got an expansion team back in 95. Instead, Tagliabue for some reason thought it was a better idea to give Florida a third team in Jacksonville.

Actually, the potential St. Louis ownership group is to blame for them not getting a frnachise in 1993. The NFL held off on awarding the 30th franchise for a month because they wanted to give the St. Louis group time to work out a lease with the Edward Jones Dome, but they couldn't come to agreement. The NFL awarded Jacksonville the franchise as plan B. That scenario should sound familiar since it is pretty much the same reason Houston was given a franchise over LA back in the early 2000's.

You could argue Baltimore should have gotten a team before Jacksonville, but that is easy in hindsight. Back in the 1980's, several teams flirted with moving to Jacksonville (including the Baltimore Colts) in order to get new stadiums or a more favorable lease from their current cities.

pesto · January 4th, 2013, 12:45 AM

Pardon me, but am I the only one who noticed? Leiweke has now made two balls-out, no-shame lies without blinking an eyelash.

For two years he has been assuring LA, the Mayor, the city council, etc., that they were talking to teams and that teams were interested in moving to LA. He stuck to this even after the NFL issued a statement that no teams or the NFL were interested in the current proposal. Now he says that there are no teams they have talked to that are interested.

Some time ago he told Mayor V that the sale of AEG would not slow down the Farmer's Field process. A day ago he said that teams have been scared off by the sale of AEG.

I suppose you could spin this as "predictions" or "puffery" or "enthusiasm"; or that he meant "at the moment" or "in my opinion"; or that the Mayor mis-understood him. But, if so, he had plenty of time to clarify and never bothered.

slipperydog · January 4th, 2013, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

I suppose you could spin this as "predictions" or "puffery" or "enthusiasm"; or that he meant "at the moment" or "in my opinion"; or that the Mayor mis-understood him. But, if so, he had plenty of time to clarify and never bothered.

This seems like a non-issue. Clarification of what, and to whom? Sounds like a typical salesman to me.

pesto · January 4th, 2013, 07:20 PM

Me too. But many on this and other threads (and the city council and mayor?) treated his comments as accurate and staked the city money's and reputation on it.

The key point is that he did not position himself as a "salesman" but as an investor or "partner" of the city in downtown development projects. I didn't hear Mark Walter or anyone else from Guggenheim (or Colony or Disney, etc.) making flat-out inaccurate public statements about their plans or how negotiations were proceding. This would be harmful to one's credibility if you plan to have a long-term relationship with the LA public. Only flakes talk big and then fold when called.

pesto · January 5th, 2013, 07:57 PM

(This can probably be ignored unless you are heavily into local LA machinations.)

http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_fo...nfl-cliff.html

Ouch! A commentator makes two interesting comments:

- the sale of AEG is more complex than expected and could take 1-2 years to sort out
- it is generally agreed that AEG will be split up into parts after the sale; since Farmers has never made sense except as a marketing aid to LA Live; if they are split, Farmer’s dies

Other points are true but not news: the NFL has repeatedly used LA as leverage for getting new stadiums (from Oakland to Buffalo); no one has expressed any interest in coming to LA this year; no one has met the NFL requirements; the NFL runs a monopoly and dictates terms and conditions to cities, who either pay-up or get no team.

His bottom line is that there may be a buyer, but the stadium will be stripped down considerably to reflect economic reality and more city subsidies will be required.

A vague reference to “environmental issues” is also interesting. AEG settled with the NRDC to stop their threats of delaying construction through endless litigation. This sort of shakedown is rampant in California and has recently become the object of leaks from City Hall and rumblings about legal changes in Sacramento. An investigation of the terms of the deal, which city council members got AEG contributions or NRDC support, etc., could cause further delays.

Hard to say how much reality here and how much cynicism; it’s so difficult to separate the two these days.

pudgie_child · January 6th, 2013, 12:34 AM

I admire AEG's ambition, but let's be honest: there is no NFL team that is willing to pay a hefty NFL-imposed relocation fee to move into a fully privately-financed domed stadium.

AEG should be negotiating directly with the NFL on the amount of the relocation fee. A relocation fee in the $100s of millions is what has been discussed in the media.

Since no public money will be going into stadium construction (all TIF will go toward rebuilding the West Hall of the LACC), AEG should be coming up with a relatively frugal stadium design that maximizes revenues and lowers construction costs.

Think "Lambeau Field West": a single bowl with one general concourse and one club concourse that places suites at the rim of the seating bowl.

will101 · January 6th, 2013, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pudgie_child

I admire AEG's ambition, but let's be honest: there is no NFL team that is willing to pay a hefty NFL-imposed relocation fee to move into a fully privately-financed domed stadium.

AEG should be negotiating directly with the NFL on the amount of the relocation fee. A relocation fee in the $100s of millions is what has been discussed in the media.

Since no public money will be going into stadium construction (all TIF will go toward rebuilding the West Hall of the LACC), AEG should be coming up with a relatively frugal stadium design that maximizes revenues and lowers construction costs.

Think "Lambeau Field West": a single bowl with one general concourse and one club concourse that places suites at the rim of the seating bowl.

Seriously? In the place where nouveau snobbery was invented? No self-respecting wannabe or Hollywood A-lister would be caught dead in a place like that. Especially when compared to what the Niners are building, six hours up the road.

Dale · January 6th, 2013, 01:56 AM

Isn't Santa Clara Stadium being built on a comparative shoestring though ? It looks nice, but is far from spectacular.

pudgie_child · January 6th, 2013, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will101

Seriously? In the place where nouveau snobbery was invented? No self-respecting wannabe or Hollywood A-lister would be caught dead in a place like that. Especially when compared to what the Niners are building, six hours up the road.

The Coliseum is a single bowl design; that fact hasn't kept people from spending a lot of money to go to USC games.

pudgie_child · January 6th, 2013, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale

Isn't Santa Clara Stadium being built on a comparative shoestring though ? It looks nice, but is far from spectacular.

Recent estimates place cost of Santa Clara Stadium at about $1,200,000,000.

http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/...on-3406744.php

The new Niners' stadium could have been designed a lot wiser.

For instance, why extend the upper decks into the end zones if those upper decks are only going to be 7 rows deep?

Dale · January 6th, 2013, 02:23 AM

^ Wow, costlier than I thought. Again, looks nice enough, but not exactly a show-stopper.

But I'll echo your previous thought, bring a team to the Coliseum and we know that Will Ferrel will show.

blackcat23 · January 6th, 2013, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pudgie_child

I admire AEG's ambition, but let's be honest: there is no NFL team that is willing to pay a hefty NFL-imposed relocation fee to move into a fully privately-financed domed stadium.

AEG should be negotiating directly with the NFL on the amount of the relocation fee. A relocation fee in the $100s of millions is what has been discussed in the media.

Some relevant information per a relocation fee:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teddy94

Some recent info from Yahoo Sports

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

pudgie_child · January 6th, 2013, 03:14 AM

Does anyone recall if the Raiders had to pay a relocation fee to move back to Oakland? I suppose that could set some sort of precedent for the Rams if they were to consider moving back to L.A.

will101 · January 6th, 2013, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pudgie_child

The Coliseum is a single bowl design; that fact hasn't kept people from spending a lot of money to go to USC games.

And yet the Lakers moved Heaven and Earth to get Staples built, and leave behind the indoor equivalent of the Coliseum. They can put up with retro if it means identifying with the college days for a few hours, but a professional team needs a fancier venue.

will101 · January 6th, 2013, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pudgie_child

Recent estimates place cost of Santa Clara Stadium at about $1,200,000,000.

http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/...on-3406744.php

The new Niners' stadium could have been designed a lot wiser.

For instance, why extend the upper decks into the end zones if those upper decks are only going to be 7 rows deep?

There 's nothing wrong with the design in Santa Clara. $1.2 billion is just what it costs to build a stadium on soft alluvium, when you are within five miles of three major faults. This isn't Texas, where you can throw any old thing together. Here's a little tip: if they do build Farmer's, look for their price to go above $1.6 billion.

That empty area in the end zones (which really didn't add much to the cost) is for part of the 8-10,000 seats that will be added for the Super Bowl, and any possible World Cups. Those seats are the hardest to sell on a week in-week out basis, but will go easily for a special event. This way you have the foundation in place, with no modifications required.

pudgie_child · January 6th, 2013, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will101

There 's nothing wrong with the design in Santa Clara. $1.2 billion is just what it costs to build a stadium on soft alluvium, when you are within five miles of three major faults. This isn't Texas, where you can throw any old thing together. Here's a little tip: if they do build Farmer's, look for their price to go above $1.6 billion.

That empty area in the end zones (which really didn't add much to the cost) is for part of the 8-10,000 seats that will be added for the Super Bowl, and any possible World Cups. Those seats are the hardest to sell on a week in-week out basis, but will go easily for a special event. This way you have the foundation in place, with no modifications required.

True, but, as Cowboys Stadium has taught us, it ain't easy adding temporary seats to elevated decks . . . at least not in a timely manner:

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nfl...ory?id=6096112

pesto · January 6th, 2013, 06:57 PM

Since the NFL presumably wants something iconic and which attracts media attention (and celebs), I can see how they would prefer Dodger Stadium: fewer neighbors to deal with and more room for the pompous monstrosities which pass for attractive in the NFL. I suspect they are flexible on relocation fees because they don't want skimping on the stadium or team quality. (btw, some time ago the Jets owner suggested 2B was more reasonable, based on his experience).

With Guggenheim bidding and with their ownership of the Dodgers and an economic interest in developing the lot, there seems to be a lot of money and talent focused on DS. You have to believe that Dr. S-S doesn't care between Farmer's and DS, so long as he can get an iconic marketing platform for his health products.

The wildcard is that the NFL is in no hurry and if the right deal doesn't come up, they can look again in 5 years. After all, they are in it for the money.

***LosAngelesSportsFan*** · January 6th, 2013, 09:10 PM

i was talking to to someone last night who has worked with AEG and local sports teams and according to him, the main reason AEG is for sale is because no one from the NFL likes Anshutz. The owners are a very tight group and they do not want Anshutz involved in any way.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

January 2nd, 2013, 08:46 PM	#2102
Lakeland Registered User Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: MI Posts: 59 Likes (Received): 3	No NFL team is losing money especially with all the revenue sharing. If Los Angeles wants a team, it will have to be someone like the Rams who might not be able to build a new stadium to satisfy their owner. In a perfect world, LA would have kept the Rams while St Louis got an expansion team back in 95. Instead, Tagliabue for some reason thought it was a better idea to give Florida a third team in Jacksonville.

January 4th, 2013, 12:45 AM	#2104
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,149 Likes (Received): 26	Pardon me, but am I the only one who noticed? Leiweke has now made two balls-out, no-shame lies without blinking an eyelash. For two years he has been assuring LA, the Mayor, the city council, etc., that they were talking to teams and that teams were interested in moving to LA. He stuck to this even after the NFL issued a statement that no teams or the NFL were interested in the current proposal. Now he says that there are no teams they have talked to that are interested. Some time ago he told Mayor V that the sale of AEG would not slow down the Farmer's Field process. A day ago he said that teams have been scared off by the sale of AEG. I suppose you could spin this as "predictions" or "puffery" or "enthusiasm"; or that he meant "at the moment" or "in my opinion"; or that the Mayor mis-understood him. But, if so, he had plenty of time to clarify and never bothered.

January 4th, 2013, 07:20 PM	#2106
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,149 Likes (Received): 26	Me too. But many on this and other threads (and the city council and mayor?) treated his comments as accurate and staked the city money's and reputation on it. The key point is that he did not position himself as a "salesman" but as an investor or "partner" of the city in downtown development projects. I didn't hear Mark Walter or anyone else from Guggenheim (or Colony or Disney, etc.) making flat-out inaccurate public statements about their plans or how negotiations were proceding. This would be harmful to one's credibility if you plan to have a long-term relationship with the LA public. Only flakes talk big and then fold when called.

January 5th, 2013, 07:57 PM	#2107
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,149 Likes (Received): 26	(This can probably be ignored unless you are heavily into local LA machinations.) http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_fo...nfl-cliff.html Ouch! A commentator makes two interesting comments: - the sale of AEG is more complex than expected and could take 1-2 years to sort out - it is generally agreed that AEG will be split up into parts after the sale; since Farmers has never made sense except as a marketing aid to LA Live; if they are split, Farmer’s dies Other points are true but not news: the NFL has repeatedly used LA as leverage for getting new stadiums (from Oakland to Buffalo); no one has expressed any interest in coming to LA this year; no one has met the NFL requirements; the NFL runs a monopoly and dictates terms and conditions to cities, who either pay-up or get no team. His bottom line is that there may be a buyer, but the stadium will be stripped down considerably to reflect economic reality and more city subsidies will be required. A vague reference to “environmental issues” is also interesting. AEG settled with the NRDC to stop their threats of delaying construction through endless litigation. This sort of shakedown is rampant in California and has recently become the object of leaks from City Hall and rumblings about legal changes in Sacramento. An investigation of the terms of the deal, which city council members got AEG contributions or NRDC support, etc., could cause further delays. Hard to say how much reality here and how much cynicism; it’s so difficult to separate the two these days.

January 6th, 2013, 12:34 AM	#2108
pudgie_child Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 53 Likes (Received): 0	I admire AEG's ambition, but let's be honest: there is no NFL team that is willing to pay a hefty NFL-imposed relocation fee to move into a fully privately-financed domed stadium. AEG should be negotiating directly with the NFL on the amount of the relocation fee. A relocation fee in the $100s of millions is what has been discussed in the media. Since no public money will be going into stadium construction (all TIF will go toward rebuilding the West Hall of the LACC), AEG should be coming up with a relatively frugal stadium design that maximizes revenues and lowers construction costs. Think "Lambeau Field West": a single bowl with one general concourse and one club concourse that places suites at the rim of the seating bowl.

January 6th, 2013, 01:56 AM	#2110
Dale Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Orlando,FL Posts: 7,731 Likes (Received): 25	Isn't Santa Clara Stadium being built on a comparative shoestring though ? It looks nice, but is far from spectacular.

January 6th, 2013, 02:23 AM	#2113
Dale Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Orlando,FL Posts: 7,731 Likes (Received): 25	^ Wow, costlier than I thought. Again, looks nice enough, but not exactly a show-stopper. But I'll echo your previous thought, bring a team to the Coliseum and we know that Will Ferrel will show.

January 6th, 2013, 03:14 AM	#2115
pudgie_child Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 53 Likes (Received): 0	Does anyone recall if the Raiders had to pay a relocation fee to move back to Oakland? I suppose that could set some sort of precedent for the Rams if they were to consider moving back to L.A.

January 6th, 2013, 06:57 PM	#2119
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,149 Likes (Received): 26	Since the NFL presumably wants something iconic and which attracts media attention (and celebs), I can see how they would prefer Dodger Stadium: fewer neighbors to deal with and more room for the pompous monstrosities which pass for attractive in the NFL. I suspect they are flexible on relocation fees because they don't want skimping on the stadium or team quality. (btw, some time ago the Jets owner suggested 2B was more reasonable, based on his experience). With Guggenheim bidding and with their ownership of the Dodgers and an economic interest in developing the lot, there seems to be a lot of money and talent focused on DS. You have to believe that Dr. S-S doesn't care between Farmer's and DS, so long as he can get an iconic marketing platform for his health products. The wildcard is that the NFL is in no hurry and if the right deal doesn't come up, they can look again in 5 years. After all, they are in it for the money.

January 6th, 2013, 09:10 PM	#2120
*LosAngelesSportsFan* Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,919 Likes (Received): 15	i was talking to to someone last night who has worked with AEG and local sports teams and according to him, the main reason AEG is for sale is because no one from the NFL likes Anshutz. The owners are a very tight group and they do not want Anshutz involved in any way.