LOS ANGELES - Farmers Field (72,000)

[blackcat23]

Anschutz has some pretty hardcore Christian/right wing political views, so I could understand other NFL owners feeling that he might poison the brand.

I used to work for a very liberal Democratic Congressman, and I was cracking up when one of the campaign staffers wound up trying to solicit a political donation from Anschutz. The guy has given millions to fund conservative anti-gay groups. He wouldn't be caught dead donating to a socially liberal Dem, and we'd have looked bad taking his money had he been willing to give.

Interesting read from the Daily News on the perennial NFL/LA rumors, featuring some enlightening commentary from Steve Soboroff:

http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci...fl-speculation

Developer and philanthropist Steve Soboroff was a senior adviser to then-Mayor Richard Riordan back in the 1990s, when he was the administration's point man on the original South Park development, which is now such a civic success. Since then, he's helped bring in the massive Playa Vista project and spearheaded a host of public interest initiatives.

In a conversation last week, he recalled that Riordan asked him to take a stab at bringing pro football back to L.A. Soboroff hired a helicopter to fly the NFL's Goodell over L.A., and it was on that flight that the commissioner's interest in Chavez Ravine first was kindled.

While L.A. may be a great sports market, The Dodgers, which command baseball's second-largest television audience, are the world's sixth most-valuable sports franchise; the Lakers are one of only two NBA teams on that list and attract more TV viewers than any other NBA team.

Soboroff points out that neither that nor the interests of local football fans ultimately will determine the NFL's decision here. That, he said, will be based on their collective belief that a new L.A. stadium and its ownership arrangement will somehow increase the value of their own franchises.

"They know that football has failed twice here," he said, "and they don't want it to happen again. They have narrowed things down to a top tier of sites that make sense to them: Chavez Ravine is one of those; I think they think it's an `A.' I believe they think Leiweke's deal is an `A,' too - but a notch behind Chavez. Roski's deal is an `A-'. From there, it's a matter of who is willing to do things with their property that will do the most to make the other owners' franchises more valuable. They also don't want to set what they regard as a dangerous precedent by letting a deal here go forward without public subsidies.

"I think both Ed and Tim have figured out a way to deal with that, while adding value to their developments beyond football. Ultimately, it will go to one of them and not Dodger Stadium."

Maybe, ... but not this season.

[Dale]

Although I have noted that most NFL owners are Republican.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

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.

Strikes me as doubtful. First, he doesn't own a football team, but he is involved in soccer, hockey, basketball and smaller sports (to say nothing of entertainment booking and production, oil, real estate, etc.) I haven't heard any news that the owners in those leagues or industries don't like him. Second, the NFL proposal is an immaterial part of AEG. He didn't even think about it when he decided to put AEG up for sale (some analysts value it at zero). Third, there are already perfectly rational business and financial explanations for the sale, which have been addressed by the financial press.

The only common thread among NFL owners is wanting to make their franchises as valuable as possible. The problem is that Anschutz doesn't see the profit potential, and the current owners don't either, so far.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

Anschutz has some pretty hardcore Christian/right wing political views, so I could understand other NFL owners feeling that he might poison the brand.

I used to work for a very liberal Democratic Congressman, and I was cracking up when one of the campaign staffers wound up trying to solicit a political donation from Anschutz. The guy has given millions to fund conservative anti-gay groups. He wouldn't be caught dead donating to a socially liberal Dem, and we'd have looked bad taking his money had he been willing to give.

Interesting read from the Daily News on the perennial NFL/LA rumors, featuring some enlightening commentary from Steve Soboroff:

http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci...fl-speculation

Soboroff's comments sound pretty accurate. His only probable error is the ranking , where the NFL has consistently said they favor DS and I don't see why the wouldn't. It has the room, the lack of neighbors and now an owner with a very deep pocket, broadcast and production connections, Magic Johnson for PR and an obvious attitude of making their investments worth beau coup bucks.

[slipperydog]

Stan Kroenke talking to Patrick Soon-Shiong at halftime of the Lakers-Nuggets game.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by slipperydog

Stan Kroenke talking to Patrick Soon-Shiong at halftime of the Lakers-Nuggets game.

Extremely cool and great for stirring up rumors. Both want a football stadium (one for the Rams; the other for some health business or because he's a fan). "So, you think there's enough room for a stadium out there?" "Maybe a bit tight and I'm not sure I spend 8B to get it; I don't know squat about promoting Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga" "Let's go up to the Lakers box and talk to Magic about Dodger Stadium. He's got Mark Walter's private number."

Or maybe they were going to talk to Buss about getting their money back.

[Thebeekerham]

Originally Posted by Dale

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

$1.2 Billion ain't a shoestring budget. And look how fast that stadium is being built. 95% of Steelwork done in 7 months. 25% of seating installation (pre-formed concrete base) installed. 10% electrical installed in the Suite Tower. 10% plumbing installed in Suite Tower.

The biggest issue with Farmers Field is that no team really WANTS to move to L.A. Without an NFL tenant, the stadium is a money pit. Best case scenario is the Chargers move north. USC and UCLA have no interest in playing downtown. Could probably get a mid-tier bowl game there, possibly the Holiday Bowl. I just don't see the DTLA stadium getting built. And truth be told, I wish they WOULD and bring back the Rams. Ever since they moved to St. Louis, it just ain't been the same rivalry with my 49ers.

[Thebeekerham]

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?

The stadium is planned to be a showpiece of green technology is part of the reason the cost is $1.2 billion. It is expandable for major events (i.e. Super Bowl) to 75K, from 68.5K seats. Personally, I think it looks a million times better than the dump known as the New Meadowlands, and better than Jerry's Palace. Lastly, there is a different breed of 49er fan that want the "all around" experience being built into the stadium. Touch screens at a majority of the seats, wait staff service, upscale grub, etc. These folks have ponied up over $650 million in suite and PSL fees. The NFL kicked in $200 million. Several tech companies have already signed on as partners, best estimate on that is another $150 million so far. Hmmm ... and they haven't sold the naming rights yet. so, looks like about $950 million of the cost has been secured already. Think they can scrape up another $250 million in naming rights? The Yorks are laughing all the way to the bank.

[Thebeekerham]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

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

What do you have against the 49er organization in general and the new stadium in particular? I read through the entire Santa Clara stadium thread, and all you did was b!tch and moan through the entire thread - well, at least until they broke ground for it. You want so see a dump of a stadium? Come to Glendale and look go to UOP. I've been there - it's a cavern. 6 years old and already showing significant signs of wear and tear.

[Topher51]

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?

Most baseball stadiums built in the past 5 years have features like this. It's to allow people in the concourses who are up getting food or going to bathroom keep an eye on the game, not just watch it on TV's. You can see the gap in the upper deck on the sidelines too. The worst seats in the stadium are in the upper deck end zones, so this is the best place to put something like this.

[jimkuback]

Originally Posted by Thebeekerham

The biggest issue with Farmers Field is that no team really WANTS to move to L.A.

No, the issue with Farmers Field is finding out who the next owner of AEG will be. Franchises are not going to file for relocation until that's sorted out, even if they're privately determined to move to LA at some point down the line.

Plus, there are teams who are still sorting out the stadium situation in their current markets. If the Rams win their arbitration battle with the St. Louis CVC, or if a compromise is reached which is subsequently determined to be unpalatable to St. Louis taxpayers, the team can escape from its lease after the 2014 season, with a potential buyout allowing an expedited relocation before then. The Raiders might end up returning to SoCal if they decide against building their own new stadium in the East Bay or sharing with the 49ers in Santa Clara. And the Chargers don't seem any closer to building a new stadium in San Diego than they were ten years ago, so they still have to be considered a prime relocation candidate as well.

Finding a team is not going to be a problem once these things are sorted out. AEG should have a new owner sometime in the spring. The Rams and the St. Louis CVC will have heard from the arbitrator by mid-March. And the Raiders and Chargers are near the end of the line with their current stadium leases; at some point, they're either going to resolve their stadium issues in their current markets, or they're going to move to LA.

Of course, the deadline to file for relocation is mid-February, so it's highly unlikely that any team will relocate to LA for the 2013 season. But things could be different a year from now.

Without an NFL tenant, the stadium is a money pit.

Construction on Farmers Field would not begin until an NFL franchise is secured. If no team reaches an agreement to move to LA and play at Farmers Field, then the facility will not be constructed at all.

[pesto]

Isn't this fun? Your analysis sounds quite accurate. You are really saying that SD and Oakland don't want to move to LA but may be forced to to get decent stadiums, and that Kroenke wants to move to LA but can't get NFL permission until he resolves the existing lease (no hard evidence on Kroenke, but it sounds reasonable).

It's still very messy on the stadium side, since the NFL prefers to build at Dodger Stadium, presumably because of greater space and possibilities. The NFL is not likely to grant permission to move to Farmer's unless DS is not available on reasonable terms. But Guggenheim already owns DS and is negotiating to buy AEG, which means they control the terms at both Farmer's and DS. This kind of flips the discussion: the team that will be allowed to move may be the one willing to lease in DS.

And the possibility of tearing down DS altogether for a super-stadium brings up other possibilities.

[will101]

Originally Posted by pesto

And the possibility of tearing down DS altogether for a super-stadium brings up other possibilities.

Not really. I can't think of any team in either baseball or football who would voluntarily move into a multi-purpose stadium.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by will101

Not really. I can't think of any team in either baseball or football who would voluntarily move into a multi-purpose stadium.

Me either, but the theory is that they tear down DS, build a football stadium (plus broadcast and production facilities, hotels, etc.) in Chavez Ravine and build new Dodger Stadium near Union Station, at the Farmer's site or you name it (a recent proposal is to build it near the Marina with ocean views).

Yet another is to have no stadiums in Chavez Ravine: stick to mid-rise condos, offices and entertainment. This would mean two new stadiums somewhere.

And, of course, who knows what the eventual purchaser of AEG might have in mind.

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by pesto

(a recent proposal is to build it near the Marina with ocean views).

Pesto, would this actually have a chance?

I'd assume they'd want to build on the Ballona wetlands in between the creek and the Marina. Conservationists have been fighting developers over that area for years.

I'm not sure that Marina Del Rey has the infrastructure to handle the crowds for a football stadium, even if this somehow fast tracked a Lincoln Blvd. Green Line extension.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by pesto

(a recent proposal is to build it near the Marina with ocean views).

where did you hear this? i have a hard time believing this would be a serious proposal

[ielag]

Guggenheim has already begun work on a $100 million renovation to DS.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...=715496&page=8

[pesto]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

Pesto, would this actually have a chance?

I'd assume they'd want to build on the Ballona wetlands in between the creek and the Marina. Conservationists have been fighting developers over that area for years.

I'm not sure that Marina Del Rey has the infrastructure to handle the crowds for a football stadium, even if this somehow fast tracked a Lincoln Blvd. Green Line extension.

I don't believe it has a chance in the world. Personally I would guess that Dodger Stadium stays where it is, but Guggenheim has carefully not committed to this.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by ielag

Guggenheim has already begun work on a $100 million renovation to DS.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...=715496&page=8

I think you have to view Guggenheim's strategy in two pieces. First, the short-term, which is to make DS about as good as any in MLB. This is what the 100M will do for, say, 5 years while the new master plan is developed and the first phases executed. It's not cheap but it sets the tone from day 1 that this is a first class outfit.

Thereafter, everything is on the table, which makes sense since who knows what will happen with AEG, the NFL, the economy, etc. Dr. S-S looks like a player but he is having issues with St. John's which was going to be one of his vehicles; they may not find the synergies they are hoping for with the AEG concert business; someone may out-bid them (lots of Middle-east and Chinese and Russian money out there).

[pudgie_child]

Originally Posted by pesto

Me either, but the theory is that they tear down DS, build a football stadium (plus broadcast and production facilities, hotels, etc.) in Chavez Ravine and build new Dodger Stadium near Union Station, at the Farmer's site or you name it (a recent proposal is to build it near the Marina with ocean views).

You can't build a Major League park with home plate facing west.

No ocean views for a So Cal ballpark, unless you build a ballpark in Downtown Long Beach or San Pedro and face home place toward the southeast.