LOS ANGELES - Farmers Field (72,000)

[Marckymarc]

Originally Posted by pesto

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.

Kasten and Smith have said that all the renovations they want to do to Dodger Stadium could not be fitted into the time frame this off season. This implies even more reno work will be done after the 2013 season. Time will tell if they continue the work in order to stay long-term (10+ years) or if sometime soon they decide otherwise and start planning for a new stadium.

Personally, I hope Dodger Stadium outlives me. The thought of the Dodgers playing somewhere other than Chavez Ravine, or even a new stadium in the ravine is a sad thought. Dodger Stadium has now outlived old Yankee Stadium which "died" at 50.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Marckymarc

Kasten and Smith have said that all the renovations they want to do to Dodger Stadium could not be fitted into the time frame this off season. This implies even more reno work will be done after the 2013 season. Time will tell if they continue the work in order to stay long-term (10+ years) or if sometime soon they decide otherwise and start planning for a new stadium.

Personally, I hope Dodger Stadium outlives me. The thought of the Dodgers playing somewhere other than Chavez Ravine, or even a new stadium in the ravine is a sad thought. Dodger Stadium has now outlived old Yankee Stadium which "died" at 50.

Agree completely.

The next stage is to do the ring of improvments around DS (walkways, food, arcades, museum). I suppose you could even do this without fully committing to staying.

[Thebeekerham]

Originally Posted by jimkuback

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.



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.

Sp nice of you to leave out the rest of my quote - 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.

Jus' Sayin'

[pesto]

Just to change the subject a bit, I drove by the new 49er stadium for the first time in about 6 weeks and it is now a spectacular sight. Depending on the angle it looks like the framing for a gigantic ship or a stadium (about 8 stories?) where there used to be nothing. At night it is quite impressive even at a considerable distance. (I'm not commenting on the aesthetics of the completed stadium either way.)

http://www.newsantaclarastadium.com/live-view

This made me wonder if there really is enough room to get a good visual effect from a new stadium at the Farmer's site. This could be one reason that the NFL is hesitant about backing it whole-heartedly.

[bd popeye]

Chargers are NOT moving to LA next season.. they will remain in SD for at least one more season.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mayor-l...3686--nfl.html

SAN DIEGO (AP) -- The San Diego Chargers aren't moving to Los Angeles or anywhere else - at least not for another year.

Newly elected Mayor Bob Filner said in his first State of the City address Tuesday night that the Chargers will not opt out of their lease at Qualcomm Stadium in 2013, nor will they file an application to explore a move to Los Angeles. Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani later confirmed the decisions.

''We informed Mayor Filner that we would not be exercising our lease's termination clause in 2013, nor would we be filing an application with the NFL to relocate to Los Angeles in 2013,'' Fabiani told The Associated Press in an email.

The announcement, coming on the same day the Chargers introduced new coach Mike McCoy, was expected despite empty seats, TV blackouts, falling revenue and thus-far failed efforts toward a new downtown stadium.

The move is a blow to the NFL hopes of Los Angeles, which is looking to lure a team to town immediately but has no realistic suitors with Anschutz Entertainment Group, the company behind the proposed Farmers Field in downtown LA, up for sale.

The Chargers were at the top of many lists of likely LA franchises given their proximity and stadium struggles.

[pesto]

I guess this was pretty much expected. What I wasn't expecting is so little information about the AEG bidding process; hardly any news hitting the public news services.

Rams arbitration has now presumably started; should be getting some leaks soon. Raiders look dead in the water. Nothing but bad choices: 49ers are riding high and don't want them; Oakland is still broke; and I'm not sure the NFL considers their management group the right choice for LA.

Just as speculation, I suspect that either the Raiders or Chargers would be expected to beef up capital and management as part of a deal. Could mean taking in a new partner.

[pesto]

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/footb...e3f08ee75.html

Only two days into the negotiations and commentators are already talking about the arbitration just setting the stage for the real negotiations: a new stadium in the suburbs. Under this theory, the Rams and CVC agree to a year-to-year and best efforts to build a new stadium on land owned by Kroenke somewhere outside St. Louis proper.

Not too surprisingly, the article sends some implicit barbs in the direction of LA. They claim that building in the suburbs is necessary since parking and tailgating space would generate huge funds for the Rams and creates a festive atmosphere among the tailgaters. They quote an NFL Sr. VP and the builder of Met Life Stadium as saying that tailgating is a very important part of the total game day experience and that football fans are not interested in downtown bars; they want to throw footballs.

[pesto]

duplicate

[weava]

Originally Posted by pesto

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/footb...e3f08ee75.html

Only two days into the negotiations and commentators are already talking about the arbitration just setting the stage for the real negotiations: a new stadium in the suburbs. Under this theory, the Rams and CVC agree to a year-to-year and best efforts to build a new stadium on land owned by Kroenke somewhere outside St. Louis proper.

Not too surprisingly, the article sends some implicit barbs in the direction of LA. They claim that building in the suburbs is necessary since parking and tailgating space would generate huge funds for the Rams and creates a festive atmosphere among the tailgaters. They quote an NFL Sr. VP and the builder of Met Life Stadium as saying that tailgating is a very important part of the total game day experience and that football fans are not interested in downtown bars; they want to throw footballs.

wouldn't it make more sense for Kronke to just buy the surrounding lots if he wants the parking revenue?

[will101]

Originally Posted by weava

wouldn't it make more sense for Kronke to just buy the surrounding lots if he wants the parking revenue?

They will just come back and say that there aren't enough of them. And there is probably some sort of ordinance in the city against charging $25 per car like Kroenke wants to.

[Dale]

Just build a new stadium for the Dodgers downtown, for crying out loud. Are baseball fans that big on tailgating ?

[wukikimonkey]

Originally Posted by Dale

Just build a new stadium for the Dodgers downtown, for crying out loud. Are baseball fans that big on tailgating ?

I think that depends on the team. The Brewers and White Sox both have big parking lots and tailgating is huge at both teams' parks.

[pesto]

I would say that tailgating is common for baseball but huge in football.

From the article, the choices in STL seem to be to take what the CVC has offerred plus maybe a bit more plus some rights to parking revenues; or develop new (what Kroenke did to make his money) in the suburbs, presumably with STL and the NFL subsidizing, and reap parking and development revenues.

The basic problem for LA is that Kroenke (or Spanos or Davis) appears to have no interest in selling or giving up control, Dr. S-S seems to want ownership and Guggenheim wants control and has no interest in giving up related revenues; and the NFL like big, splashy and with parking lots. That's what needs to be negotiated.

I’m thinking that Leiweke was right when he said this could take through 2015.

[bd popeye]

The basic problem for LA is that Kroenke (or Spanos or Davis) appears to have no interest in selling or giving up control

In the case of the Spanos family this is absolutely true. They bought 60% of the Chargers in 1984 and over the years have acquired a total of 97% of the team. There is one minority partner left. The Spanos have no intention of selling the Chargers.

[BoulderGrad]

Originally Posted by bd popeye

In the case of the Spanos family this is absolutely true. They bought 60% of the Chargers in 1984 and over the years have acquired a total of 97% of the team. There is one minority partner left. The Spanos have no intention of selling the Chargers.

In the sports world, that translates to ' they wont give them up for nothing'. If the price is right, I'm sure they'd all be happy to sell. Its not a good negotiating position to be looking to get rid of something so the default is to look as if you'll never sell. That's also not to say they WILL sell tho. Just not that they WONT SELL.

[RMB2007]

Just expand the league to 34 teams. One for Los Angeles and one for London.

[blacktrojan3921]

Ugh, why in gods name would the NFL expand to London?

A) Football is not a popular sport in London.

B) The issue of traveling across the atlantic from the pacific side of the country will be a huge sticking point for the players.

[JJG]

Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921

Ugh, why in gods name would the NFL expand to London?

A) Football is not a popular sport in London.

B) The issue of traveling across the atlantic from the pacific side of the country will be a huge sticking point for the players.

He was joking.

We in the States know that shit's not gonna happen...

[bd popeye]

Originally Posted by BoulderGrad

In the sports world, that translates to ' they wont give them up for nothing'. If the price is right, I'm sure they'd all be happy to sell. Its not a good negotiating position to be looking to get rid of something so the default is to look as if you'll never sell. That's also not to say they WILL sell tho. Just not that they WONT SELL.

Yep they won't sell I'll end it at that with this;

Spanos will not sell the Chargers - Yahoo! Search Results

[typo86]

Long time browser...

Have there been any proposal for the stadium's location to be somewhere on Dodgers Stadiums enormous lot? Looking at Google's satellite photos there seems to be ample room for a pro football stadium...