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?

[Eleazar]

St. Louis is the top candidate to relocate IMO, and it's probably not close.

In the last several years, the five teams with the lowest attendance numbers:

2013:
Raiders (50k)
Rams (56k)
Steelers (57k)
Bucs (59k)
Jaguars (60k)

2012:
Raiders (54k)
Bucs (55k)
Rams (56k)
Dolphins (57k)
Chargers (60k)

2011:
Bengals (49k)
Rams (56k)
Bucs (56k)
Raiders (59k)
Dolphins (61k)

2010:
Raiders (46k)
Bucs (49k)
Rams (53k)
Lions (56k)
Vikings (59k)

2009:
Raiders (44k)
Lions (49k)
Jaguars (50k)
Rams (55k)
Bears (62k)


The only teams that are in the bottom 5 of attendance every year are Oakland and St. Louis.

Oakland has a horrible stadium, but the city basically pays them to play there. They have a sweetheart lease that means they pay very little in rent. This might be the only way the team stays afloat as bad as they have been.

St. Louis IIRC has a year-to-year lease starting soon. (Next year or the year after?) They have already been trying to remedy their poor support for a while. (They signed up for 3 London cames but I think someone from the city made them back out of it). There doesn't seem to be any kind of a new stadium effort going to keep the team in town, either.

Why wouldn't it be the Rams?

[Hoover]

Rams also make sense because they are in the NFC west.

[Mr. Laz]

makes financial sense for the league

Own the stadium in the LA and get that t.v. market into the equation. Then hold all the special events there and make money. Every 3rd super bowl probably ends up there as well.

don't know if a team will succeed there or not though

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Hoover

Rams also make sense because they are in the NFC west.

I think they would work best for the NFL. They aren't a team with a long history in St. Louis, nor do they have a massive amount of fan support. St. Louis already ran one NFL team out of town in any case. Division opponents would probably be in favor of it, because of travel. Makes all the sense in the world.

I think the NFL moves the Rams to LA, but rebrands them as something new to limit the perception that this is a vagabond franchise and more like an expansion into LA. It just helps the league solve more than one problem.

[ChiefsCountry]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11...rn-los-angeles

[Buck]

There's a post on r/NFL that ESPN radio announced the Rams will announce a relocation to LA after the super bowl.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Buck

There's a post on r/NFL that ESPN radio announced the Rams will announce a relocation to LA after the super bowl.

Makes all the sense in the world.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by bowener

I think the NFL should pay for a fairly large chunk of any new stadium or renovations, and not the local citizens.

Never happen.

[vailpass]

They ****ed up when they didn't let Ari Gold bring a team to town...

[Aries Walker]

I say they just add one new team to each division and call it a day. Maybe in Hartford, Nebraska, Louisville, Birmingham, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and Honolulu. That should about do it.

(Kidding.)

[Amnorix]

One really good idea would be for all governments to get out of the business of underwriting billionaires trying to make even more money at the expense of the taxpaying public.

Makes me want to vomit when cities build billionaires stadiums.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by 505 Chief

Never happen.

It WOULD if cities would just grow a pair and say no.

Boston/Massachusetts did a reasonably good job on that with the Krafts. Mostly some road/infrastructure improvements, but not hundreds of millions in giveaways. Hartford offered the Krafts the moon, and they tried to leverage that against us, but ultimately Kraft couldn't move the team to Hartford.

[Mojo Rising]

The Staples plan and City of Industry plan are both privately financed. The problem is that the builder in each wants to buy a percentage of the team at a discounted rate. The NFL also wants to charge a $500m relocation fee.

The Chargers are worth $800m in SD. In LA the team would be worth $1.8b but the Spanos family would only own $800m worth of equity.

It makes more sense to stay in SD and have them build him a stadium where his team would be worth $1.2b.

[ChiefsCountry]

From St. Louis radio
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLco...-Heats-Up.aspx

[ct]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

I say they just add one new team to each division and call it a day. Maybe in Hartford, Nebraska, Louisville, Birmingham, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and Honolulu. That should about do it.

(Kidding.)

How bout LA, San Antonio, Las Vegas, and Salt Lake City to expand West divisions, and Mexico City, Toronto, Montreal, and London for an international expansion