Jump to content


NFL team in LA pretty much dead....


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 Just Jack

Just Jack

    Lifting things up and putting them down

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,936 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 01:14 AM

http://sports.yahoo....-000059874.html

Quote

As people in Los Angeles await word on the sale of the Anschutz Entertainment Group, the NFL doesn't sound too enthusiastic about the firm's plan to build a downtown stadium. Less than six months after the L.A. city council voted unanimously to support AEG's plan, the concept is essentially dead to the NFL, according to two sources. The problems with the plan are numerous, but the most essential one is the economics.


#2 mrags

mrags

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,746 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 01:48 AM

With just about everything else in this country right now, city and state government is in a serious financial crisis. There's no way an approved "new" team and "new" stadium gets built in these times. A city that already has team is a safer bet right now. The NFL knows that.

#3 bbb

bbb

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,620 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 03:28 AM

The problem is them getting their crap together in 7 years.

#4 Buffalo Barbarian

Buffalo Barbarian

    Kyle Williams 95

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,849 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 03:35 AM

good, the longer they are with out a team the better.

#5 bbb

bbb

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,620 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 03:54 AM

I don't know.  They are always being played off as blackmail to the current teams.  What would have been ideal is somehow they get their teams in in the next few years, before the 7 years on our new lease.

#6 BillnutinHouston

BillnutinHouston

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,730 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:18 AM

The Buffalo waterfront stadium proposal is a bad idea on many levels, but even so, if the NFL believes LA can't swing a $1.8 billion stadium deal, how do the Buffalo developers think they can do a $1.4 billion stadium?

#7 ALF

ALF

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,320 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:24 AM

Buffalo waterfront dome , Warren Buffet money could afford, is just a nice dream for WNY

#8 ganesh

ganesh

    You can do things on a football field that are severely illegal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,996 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:08 AM

View PostBillnutinHouston, on 06 March 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

The Buffalo waterfront stadium proposal is a bad idea on many levels, but even so, if the NFL believes LA can't swing a $1.8 billion stadium deal, how do the Buffalo developers think they can do a $1.4 billion stadium?
It is just insane. I am glad the Bills shut down all these notions and simply signed the 7 year lease agreement.

#9 BuffaloWings

BuffaloWings

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,910 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:54 AM

The whole idea of putting a team back in LA was just insane. The people there just don't seem to care.

#10 Turbosrrgood

Turbosrrgood

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,646 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:17 AM

I didn't at all take away from this article that the idea of bringing an NFL team to LA is dead. What is apparently dead is the current proposal from AEG for a downtown stadium to host an NFL team. Actually, the article made it sound like there are still several companies interested in making something happen via a different plan. Certainly it sounds like any prospect of a new LA team is delayed at the very least though. I just hope that timing isn't say around the 7 year mark, when the Bills lease expires.

LA is too big of a city not to have a team, there will always be someone wanting to try this. Even with a solid record of failure.

Edited by Turbosrrgood, 06 March 2013 - 08:26 AM.


#11 Shoutbox

Shoutbox

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 263 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:42 AM

View Postbbb, on 06 March 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:

I don't know.  They are always being played off as blackmail to the current teams.  What would have been ideal is somehow they get their teams in in the next few years, before the 7 years on our new lease.

Agreed. If the LA market gets their 2 teams (Raiders, Chargers, Rams?) before Ralph dies, the bidding price for the Bills franchise goes WAY down.

#12 Mr. WEO

Mr. WEO

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,628 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:51 AM

Hopefully this will finally put an end to the rantings of the "Bills could move to LA" whackos here....

#13 JohnC

JohnC

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,624 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:07 AM

View PostBillnutinHouston, on 06 March 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

The Buffalo waterfront stadium proposal is a bad idea on many levels, but even so, if the NFL believes LA can't swing a $1.8 billion stadium deal, how do the Buffalo developers think they can do a $1.4 billion stadium?

I doubt that the waterfront stadium will ever materialize. The economics and finances don't seem to allow it. But slowly I am coming around that there is a way to make the waterfront stadium project become more realistic. If they build a stadium it can't merely be a stadium; it has to be a combo facility that also includes a convention center. The model would be the closed stadium in Indianapolis. It is a football stadium, a convention center and a multi-used facility in the heart of the downtown.

The waterfront development in Buffalo is steadily materializing. There is now a medical corridor that is downtown and is expanding. Building projects that lingered on the drawing board for years are now at the stage where shovels have hit the dirt. My point is that what was once inconceivable now seems less crazy and possible.

#14 dpberr

dpberr

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:17 AM

As a guy who grew up watching the Rams, the day Georgia Frontiere took the Rams out of LA was the end of football in Los Angeles forever.  I don't think you'll ever see a team back in the confines of the city.

You want a dramatic movie about football with intrigue, politics and backroom dealing, that story would be a top nominee in my opinion.

And...the Bills were involved, ironically.

#15 Steve O

Steve O

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:23 AM

View PostBuffaloWings, on 06 March 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

The whole idea of putting a team back in LA was just insane. The people there just don't seem to care.
they couldn't even get off their stoned butts long enough to vote to legalize recreational use of pot :lol:

#16 mrags

mrags

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,746 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:25 AM

View PostJohnC, on 06 March 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:



I doubt that the waterfront stadium will ever materialize. The economics and finances don't seem to allow it. But slowly I am coming around that there is a way to make the waterfront stadium project become more realistic. If they build a stadium it can't merely be a stadium; it has to be a combo facility that also includes a convention center. The model would be the closed stadium in Indianapolis. It is a football stadium, a convention center and a multi-used facility in the heart of the downtown.

The waterfront development in Buffalo is steadily materializing. There is now a medical corridor that is downtown and is expanding. Building projects that lingered on the drawing board for years are now at the stage where shovels have hit the dirt. My point is that what was once inconceivable now seems less crazy and possible.
to add to the point that Buffalo could never afford a 1.4B stadium center is the fact that its just a proposal. In the end, it would never be that much. Some slabs of Granite and Limestone are replaced with Brick, some luxury ideas become more standardized and boom, your talking $800m or even less. What's the price of some other large stadiums around the league? Not every team plays Giants, Jets, Cowboys money to build a stadium. Look at Pitt, New England, Arizona, Seattle, Indy. All new stadiums and none of them over $770M in today's dollars. And only Indy was that much. The rest of those stadiums right around $5M or under in today's dollars.


#17 JohnC

JohnC

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,624 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:35 AM

View PostMr. WEO, on 06 March 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

Hopefully this will finally put an end to the rantings of the "Bills could move to LA" whackos here....

Don't ever believe that it is impossible for a mega-billionaire to buy an auctioned  off team and move it to LA. Just because the extravagant stadium projects on the drawing board haven't yet materialize it doesn't mean that a team can't be procured and then allowed to play in an upgraded stadium that already exists.

If you look at the LA Dodgers auctioned off sale price you will realize that the economics and finances in southern Cal are at a level that can never be matched in western NY. In addition, the California business climate is definitely on an upswing. My point is don't assume that the threat of losing our franchise is still not a possiblity when the owner leaves the scene.

#18 Mr. WEO

Mr. WEO

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,628 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:43 AM

View PostJohnC, on 06 March 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

Don't ever believe that it is impossible for a mega-billionaire to buy an auctioned  off team and move it to LA. Just because the extravagant stadium projects on the drawing board haven't yet materialize it doesn't mean that a team can't be procured and then allowed to play in an upgraded stadium that already exists.

If you look at the LA Dodgers auctioned off sale price you will realize that the economics and finances in southern Cal are at a level that can never be matched in western NY. In addition, the California business climate is definitely on an upswing. My point is don't assume that the threat of losing our franchise is still not a possiblity when the owner leaves the scene.

There is no plan mentioned anywhere to upgrade an existing stadium.

The Dodgers were wildly over paid for.  The reason "Magic Jonson" and his group did so (and the exact reason why it has no relevance to an NFL team) is becuase of the value of the Dodgers TV revenue.  The Dodgers are a pretty crappy baseball team, but apparently a great TV show.

#19 JohnC

JohnC

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,624 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 10:13 AM

View PostMr. WEO, on 06 March 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

There is no plan mentioned anywhere to upgrade an existing stadium.

The Dodgers were wildly over paid for.  The reason "Magic Jonson" and his group did so (and the exact reason why it has no relevance to an NFL team) is becuase of the value of the Dodgers TV revenue.  The Dodgers are a pretty crappy baseball team, but apparently a great TV show.

The Rose Bowl in Passadena and the Coliseum were discussed as venue options.

As you noted the Dodgers were stunningly over payed for. That is my point. If a billionaire hedge fund mogul wants to over pay and win the auction then the team is bought  and moved. Sometimes ego trumps fiscal sanity. Sometimes people have so much money that a side hobby has little to do with making money and more to do with becoming a public figure.

The overwhelming majority of owners would be more than happy to have the Bills move out of western NY to southern Cal. If a winning bidder wants to do something that doesn't make financial sense but has the ability to do it he/group is going to do it. That's the nature of an auction. Winner takes all.

Edited by JohnC, 06 March 2013 - 10:16 AM.


#20 San Jose Bills Fan

San Jose Bills Fan

    San Jose Bills Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,764 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 11:02 AM

View Postganesh, on 06 March 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

It is just insane. I am glad the Bills shut down all these notions and simply signed the 7 year lease agreement.

That short lease is the answer to nothing. The Bills have stadium issues which need to be resolved in order for the Bills to remain viable in WNY.

The Bills have less than 7 years to figure out the solution.

As far as a stadium in WNY vs one in LA, the biggest difference is that developers in Buffalo would hope to get the land for free or for cheap while in LA, downtown development would be very pricey.