NFL considers paying for stadium in Los Angeles

[tk13]

The other interesting tidbit is they may start selling PSL's for Super Bowls.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la...720-story.html

NFL wants back in L.A, but questions must be answered first
By Sam Farmer

After 19 years of dead ends, the NFL is taking another run at returning to Los Angeles. Solving that riddle will require some creative thinking and possibly an outside-the-box approach.

The league is evaluating various sites in the L.A. area and looking into alternative financing models for a stadium, including paying for one itself as opposed to having an individual owner foot the bill.

"Whatever gets us a team in L.A., that would be awesome," said New England's Robert Kraft, among the league's most influential owners. "That might be the solution. Whatever it takes, I know I'd be willing to support."

How might the league approach the situation differently? Here are some answers to the primary questions:

What are the two main financing scenarios?

In the first, a club has a stadium site and concept in mind, puts together a financing plan and looks to the league for help. The NFL helps pay for the venue but also assesses a hefty relocation fee. The club then has full control of the stadium.

In the second, the league pays for the stadium, offsetting that $1-billion-plus investment by selling naming rights, personal seat licenses (PSLs) and the like. That becomes the home of one or two teams (perhaps to be named later), who don't have the astronomical cost of a stadium on their books. In theory, the relocation fee would be smaller because the NFL benefits from those sponsorship sales.


Why would a team want to have a stadium that's owned by the league?

That's the pivotal question, and there are a lot of owners who wouldn't want Big Brother as a landlord. That said, the NFL could make it more enticing by giving tenants control of key revenue streams such as sales of suites, club and general admission seats, local sponsorship and advertising, parking and the like. The challenge for the league would be making the deal attractive enough.


What could be different about a league-owned venue?

If all 32 teams are sharing in the revenue that stadium generates, those teams would probably push to hold major events there. For instance, the NFL has searched for ways to revamp (and pump interest) into the Pro Bowl. What if that annual event were staged at the league's stadium in L.A.? The league is already considering holding the 2015 draft in L.A. What about moving the scouting combine there? A West Coast hub of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, perhaps? And it's not a reach to think the league might want to relocate the NFL Network and NFL.com to an eventual L.A. stadium, if one ever happens.


Who would play there?

As soon as a team tips its hand that it's leaving, it's dead in its current market. In theory, the NFL could build a stadium without naming the teams that might play there until the last minute, thereby avoiding a lame-duck season. As it is, there's a very tight window for a team to announce it's relocating — from mid-January through February — precisely because the team would need time to sell season tickets in its new market. But were it a league-owned stadium, the NFL could start moving dirt at any time and simply say, "Stay tuned."


Is there another potential revenue stream out there, one the league might harness to finance a stadium?

Yes, Super Bowl PSLs. This idea has been floating around for years, and it's only a matter of time before it happens. If and when the league establishes a regular rotation of Super Bowl sites — and it's reexamining how it currently awards cities the marquee game — it can start selling seats years in advance. Well, the rights to seats, anyway. For instance, if L.A. were promised four Super Bowls in 20 years, the league could tell fans, "Pay X-thousand dollars now, and you will have the right to buy a face-value ticket for this seat for all four of those Super Bowls." You may not like it, and it's going to be pricey, but there's a good chance that's eventually going to happen.


Why would the league want to be back in L.A., anyway?

This market has already lost two teams, and three if you count the short-lived L.A. Chargers. In that sense, it's about as rock-solid reliable as a Hollywood marriage.

Then again, how well managed were the L.A. Raiders and Rams? At the same time those teams were struggling in Southern California, the New England Patriots were failing in Massachusetts. The Saints were always a mess in New Orleans, and they became hugely profitable with the same owner at the helm. The Seahawks were gasping for air in Seattle — and even briefly moved to Anaheim — before Paul Allen rebranded them.

The NFL says it wants to be back in L.A. The real question is, how much?

[Hootie]

well if that's true about Lakers games being sold out I can assume only two things

1) they obviously still have a ton of season ticket holders and

2) finally all those poor schmucks who used to loiter the shitty clippers when they would well $0.50 tickets on stubhub could afford to see the Lakers play

[DTLB58]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Just move the Raiders back to Los Angeles already.

Yep, that's what I'm thinking. This may be the only way the Raiders getting a decent freaking stadium.

[Baby Lee]

LA already has the KISS!!

[Valiant]

Owner paid for stadium? Wtf?

isn't there just only one owner that paid for his stadium? Jones. Every other stadium was basically paid the majority of the money from local taxpayers.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Just move the Jaguars to LA. I mean, really. I doubt Shad Kahn is really married to Jacksonville. And I highly doubt more than 10 people in Jacksonville would notice/care.

The penalties to the city under the Jaguars' new lease would be over $100 million if the team leaves the city before 2030. They would also have to pay the city for all the lost income up until the end of that lease, which would include several million more per year.

Their problem isn't the city, it's that the team hasn't had a winning record since 2007

[GoChargers]

If this happens, whoever moves to LA is going to get so many rigged calls in their favor, because it's in the NFL's best interest to a.) host as many games as possible and b.) make sure a winning product is on the field to attract paying customers.

[Bob Dole]

The constant push to put a team in a market that has repeatedly failed to support a team is just bizarre.

Hey! There have now been 2 failed Quizno franchises in Texarkana. Anyone want to fund Bob Dole opening another?

[GoChargers]

Originally Posted by Bowser

I think that's what the NFL ultimately wants. I get the feeling that they feel San Diego isn't a viable home for a franchise, despite the fact of San Diego being one of the original AFL franchises.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Qualcomm is a dump and a new stadium in San Diego hasn't progressed past the design stages. Additionally, the Spanos family doesn't give a shit about the fans.

I could even see both the Chargers and Raiders sharing the NFL-owned stadium in LA, TBH.

[Eleazar]

All three NFL teams in California play in a dump.

[Mojo Jojo]

Originally Posted by Bowser

I think that's what the NFL ultimately wants. I get the feeling that they feel San Diego isn't a viable home for a franchise, despite the fact of San Diego being one of the original AFL franchises.

Actually they were originally in LA in the AFL days...then moved to San Diego.

[GoChargers]

Originally Posted by Cochise

All three NFL teams in California play in a dump.

The Whiners are moving out of their dump, at least.

[Prison Bitch]

Dunno if anyone caught this part (since most don't read the articles posted) but it said "one or two" teams. Would the NFL be so stupid to pull a Meadowlands and stuff two teams in there? Also consider the NFL may just add #33 to get in LA rather than wait for relocation. Water it down more.

[Halfcan]

They could just fold the Fader franchise-I doubt they would be missed.

[displacedinMN]

What a mess in Oakland.

The Raiders want O.co demolished

The A's sign a 10 year lease to stay.

I can't see why the Raiders don't leave and take the deal in LA.

Or any deal.

[Hoover]

Horrible concept IMO

A lot of a team's value is the stadium, so I don't like the idea of the NFL owning a stadium that one franchise calls home. Frankly, I think its unfair. You know the lowly Raiders would gladly let the NFL build them a stadium because they play in a shit hole, and the only reason they play in Oakland is because it's cheap. If a team can not finance a stadium then it probably shouldn't move. I find it odd that LA is seen as a goldmine but the the team that moves there needs a helping hand building a stadium? Bullshit.

Now, if the NFL would like to build a stadium in Hawaii, London, or Mexico which would be used for pre-season, the pro-bowl, and perhaps a super bowl, I think that makes some sense.