"Los Angeles Stadium is the working title to a proposed 75,000-seat football stadium in the City of Industry, California. If approved, it is expected to be completed by the 2012 season. Edward P. Roski, a part-owner of the Los Angeles Lakers of the NBA and Los Angeles Kings of the NHL, has announced plans for the stadium on the northern side of the interchange of routes 57 and 60 (28 miles driving distance east of Los Angeles Civic Center [1]) with the purpose of attracting a NFL team to the Los Angeles region. The Greater Los Angeles Area is the nation's largest media market without a NFL team since 1995.
The Los Angeles County site would put it in reach of 12 million people in a 25-mile radius, including in Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. A football stadium in the city could mean as much as $400 million in yearly revenue to businesses and bring more than 3,000 jobs to the area. [3] Aspects of the stadium design, such as the use of hilly terrain to vastly reduce the cost of construction and the multi-use capabilities of the planned surrounding development, as well as Roski's success in gaining support from local elected officials in the City of Industry, where the proposed stadium site is located, gives the plan a strong possibility of success
Possible candidates for the move are the San Diego Chargers, Buffalo Bills, Jacksonville Jaguars, Oakland Raiders, San Francisco 49ers, Minnesota Vikings and St. Louis Rams. "
I'll take the Vikings or the Jaguars, thanks.
Posts: 1859 | Location: Anaheim Hills, CA | Registered: Nov 18, 2007
Originally posted by Juicy: Why would Los Angeles want an NFL team? It is difficult to fund a stadium with public money since the state is BROKE.
On any given Sunday, EVERYONE in the greater LA metro area basically gets the game of the week in both the NFC and AFC. Would you prefer to watch the Vikings/Patriots game this weekend or the Rams/Chiefs? Many in LA are transplants and would prefer to watch the best game of the week versus a possibly less quality game even it is the home team. There are 15 million plus in the greater LA metro area, how many of those 15 million can the cram into a football stadium? The advertisers of the best games in the NFL are reaching the No. 2 market in the U.S. every week. With a team in LA, they would not always do that. Would a company pay more for ads placed on a Kansas City/Seattle game or a New York Giants/Dallas game?
If the NFL wanted a team in LA, it would already be there. No one has posted enough money to be in LA.
yes & no
the billionaire owners of the development company that put the stadium proposal through the other day have said they believe it can be built without anymore public money than the $150m bond that has already been approved
in addition, LA is basically the second home to the Chargers - the Bolts are on local TV pretty much every week (unless its blacked out locally, and then all of LA county reverts to the national telecast)... so you're point about the prime NFL national telecast reaching LA every week isnt necessarily true.
that being said, im unsure about an NFL team being successful here for two reasons. LA loves a winner, and if the team sucks it will go the way of the Rams & Raiders, i truly believe that. theres too many other entertainment/sports options, and too many transplants (as youve stated) that will revert (or still cheer) for their "home team." and the 2nd reason which really piggy backs off the first is prices... the owners are gonna charge bank to get their ROI, and if the team sucks, well, Industry isnt exactly in the marquee part of LA and i just dont see many people/companies pony-ing up money for boxes if the team sucks... the Lakers (and USC to a point) really are the sports identity of this town and the only way, in my opinion, that will change for an NFL team is if they win & win big.
Thank you for the information. Still do not see a reason why the locals would want a team in LA. The investors, yes or maybe, but the locals, no.
$150 million in bond money is still alot of public money.
And what happens if the new team does not win big every year? Do they leave as a result of non-participation from the fans? What is the loss for the investors in that scenario?
The state of California has 3 teams in the NFL now, how many do we need? What are the NET benefits of another team?
My crux is that the SF Giants baseball team built a privately funded stadium that is hugely successful. It does take away from the bottom line but no public funds were used. It is possible to do something without the use of public funds, voter approved or otherwise.
Who pays for the $150 million of voter approved funding?
So California has 3 NFL teams, and? You 10 have teams bunched up in a smaller area around New York.
I would love to see a team in Los Angeles. People forget LA had one of the early franchises in 1946.
If it is such a good deal, there should be no need for any public money to be used to build a stadium.
Well, my predictive abilities have completely sucked this year, so time to improve my average.
By the end of this weekend, the Donkeys will remain undefeated.
Word.
Moo
Your share of the national debt has increased by $6,180 from 10/1 - 9/30/09. Have you told your kids and grand kids they will be paying back your share in addition to their own?
Limit all politicians to two terms. One in office, one in prison. Follow the lead of Illinois...
Posts: 932 | Location: East BF, Egypt | Registered: May 15, 2002
Originally posted by Juicy: Why would Los Angeles want an NFL team? It is difficult to fund a stadium with public money since the state is BROKE.
On any given Sunday, EVERYONE in the greater LA metro area basically gets the game of the week in both the NFC and AFC. Would you prefer to watch the Vikings/Patriots game this weekend or the Rams/Chiefs? Many in LA are transplants and would prefer to watch the best game of the week versus a possibly less quality game even it is the home team. There are 15 million plus in the greater LA metro area, how many of those 15 million can the cram into a football stadium? The advertisers of the best games in the NFL are reaching the No. 2 market in the U.S. every week. With a team in LA, they would not always do that. Would a company pay more for ads placed on a Kansas City/Seattle game or a New York Giants/Dallas game?
If the NFL wanted a team in LA, it would already be there. No one has posted enough money to be in LA.
yes & no
the billionaire owners of the development company that put the stadium proposal through the other day have said they believe it can be built without anymore public money than the $150m bond that has already been approved
in addition, LA is basically the second home to the Chargers - the Bolts are on local TV pretty much every week (unless its blacked out locally, and then all of LA county reverts to the national telecast)... so you're point about the prime NFL national telecast reaching LA every week isnt necessarily true.
that being said, im unsure about an NFL team being successful here for two reasons. LA loves a winner, and if the team sucks it will go the way of the Rams & Raiders, i truly believe that. theres too many other entertainment/sports options, and too many transplants (as youve stated) that will revert (or still cheer) for their "home team." and the 2nd reason which really piggy backs off the first is prices... the owners are gonna charge bank to get their ROI, and if the team sucks, well, Industry isnt exactly in the marquee part of LA and i just dont see many people/companies pony-ing up money for boxes if the team sucks... the Lakers (and USC to a point) really are the sports identity of this town and the only way, in my opinion, that will change for an NFL team is if they win & win big.
Thank you for the information. Still do not see a reason why the locals would want a team in LA. The investors, yes or maybe, but the locals, no.
$150 million in bond money is still alot of public money.
And what happens if the new team does not win big every year? Do they leave as a result of non-participation from the fans? What is the loss for the investors in that scenario?
The state of California has 3 teams in the NFL now, how many do we need? What are the NET benefits of another team?
My crux is that the SF Giants baseball team built a privately funded stadium that is hugely successful. It does take away from the bottom line but no public funds were used. It is possible to do something without the use of public funds, voter approved or otherwise.
Who pays for the $150 million of voter approved funding?
So California has 3 NFL teams, and? You 10 have teams bunched up in a smaller area around New York.
I would love to see a team in Los Angeles. People forget LA had one of the early franchises in 1946.
If it is such a good deal, there should be no need for any public money to be used to build a stadium.
I'm sure all the non-football fans will be thrilled that they can't get their tax return back on time because the state is almost bankrupt but they can raise plenty of cash for a new stadium that at this point doesn't even have a team to play in it.
Jolly good show by the Pats today. That gives me a game lead in the Caymus division standings.
And there's the Brett Favre we all know and love. That could be the beginning of the end for the purple people eaters. What's that, like 150 INT return yards and 2 TD's for him today?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Icewino,
If it is such a good deal, there should be no need for any public money to be used to build a stadium.
Yep.
-------------------- "One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."
Marcel Ayme`
Posts: 6957 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001
Originally posted by Icewino: Jolly good show by the Pats today. That gives me a game lead in the Caymus division standings.
And there's the Brett Favre we all know and love. That could be the beginning of the end for the purple people eaters. What's that, like 150 INT return yards and 2 TD's for him today?
Did I miss something, or didn't Vavre play at Heinz Field? Tough place to play, Minnesota will be fine. And, nice win against an 0 fer Bucs team, I guess, plus two picks of Brady. What's wrong with your boy?
-IB
"Wine only turns into alcohol if you let it sit."---Lindsay Bluth
Posts: 6264 | Location: Naptown | Registered: Nov 24, 2006
Originally posted by Icewino: Jolly good show by the Pats today. That gives me a game lead in the Caymus division standings.
And there's the Brett Favre we all know and love. That could be the beginning of the end for the purple people eaters. What's that, like 150 INT return yards and 2 TD's for him today?
Did I miss something, or didn't Vavre play at Heinz Field? Tough place to play, Minnesota will be fine. And, nice win against an 0 fer Bucs team, I guess, plus two picks of Brady. What's wrong with your boy?
Nothing's wrong with Brady. Quietly having another pro-bowl season. Can't wait until our boys get to go head to head in a few weeks. Should be an exciting game.
But what you missed was Favre's recent history of fast starts and then the age sets in and his teams crumble down the stretch, miss playoffs, get coaches fired and then throwing them all under the bus as he skips town. Other than that you got it all.
Can the phins please cut Ted Ginn. I haev never seen a top 10 pick drop so many balls that hit him in the hands. He is soft and doesnt fight for the ball in the air either. At least he is a great kick return man . . . oh wait, HE SUCKS AT THAT TOO!!!!!!
Nothing's wrong with Brady. Quietly having another pro-bowl season, as is Manning . Can't wait until our boys get to go head to head in a few weeks. Should be an exciting game. True that! I'll be there.
What I'm really hoping for is for both the Colts and Donkeys to go undefeated into week 14, so Denver can suffer their nearly annual humiliation at the hands of the Colts. Mostly, because the Chargers are in no position to punk anybody these days.
-IB
"Wine only turns into alcohol if you let it sit."---Lindsay Bluth
Posts: 6264 | Location: Naptown | Registered: Nov 24, 2006
Originally posted by jburman82: Can the phins please cut Ted Ginn. I haev never seen a top 10 pick drop so many balls that hit him in the hands. He is soft and doesnt fight for the ball in the air either. At least he is a great kick return man . . . oh wait, HE SUCKS AT THAT TOO!!!!!!
He's absolutely terrible. Terrible.
What's with Mark Sanchez? The guy is completely over-rated, eating hot dogs during the game and then slam dunks his TD run over the goal post? Someone tell this kid he isn't playing at USC anymore.
Nothing's wrong with Brady. Quietly having another pro-bowl season, as is Manning . Can't wait until our boys get to go head to head in a few weeks. Should be an exciting game. True that! I'll be there.
What I'm really hoping for is for both the Colts and Donkeys to go undefeated into week 14, so Denver can suffer their nearly annual humiliation at the hands of the Colts. Mostly, because the Chargers are in no position to punk anybody these days.
Originally posted by jburman82: Can the phins please cut Ted Ginn. I haev never seen a top 10 pick drop so many balls that hit him in the hands. He is soft and doesnt fight for the ball in the air either. At least he is a great kick return man . . . oh wait, HE SUCKS AT THAT TOO!!!!!!
Agreed. I am still bitter about this defeat.
Posts: 1623 | Location: NC | Registered: May 01, 2007
Originally posted by MiamiWineNovice: What's with Mark Sanchez? The guy is completely over-rated, eating hot dogs during the game and then slam dunks his TD run over the goal post? Someone tell this kid he isn't playing at USC anymore.
I can't stand this guy. What the hell?? I think I read a stat somewhere (before the Oakland game) that he was on pace to throw 27 INTs this year. He turns the ball over like it is his job. Now that I have said this, he will torch the Phins next week and everybody will be talking about how amazing he is again
Posts: 1623 | Location: NC | Registered: May 01, 2007
The Vikings actually went up and down the field on the Steelers. Give credit to the Steelers though. The phantom tripping call that took away a touchdown for us and gave them a defensive touchdown a few plays later killed us. We are a better team than the Packers, but that doesn't mean anything this sunday. I hope we expose the iffy Packers offensive line which we should dominate. It will be a close game we need. 7-1 vs 4-3 with two wins against the Packers would probably clinch the division. If we lose it will be a very dicey second half of the season.
Posts: 5238 | Location: minneapolis minnesota usa | Registered: Dec 17, 2003
Originally posted by DoubleD: Maybe the team should move to LA and get an expansion team in 3 years.
I'd rather have USC take the field against an NFL team than the Browns.
You're kidding, right? The best college team would get crushed by the worst NFL team. I'd take the 0-16 2008 Lions over ANY college team, past, present, or future. Too big, too strong, too fast.
-IB
"Wine only turns into alcohol if you let it sit."---Lindsay Bluth
Posts: 6264 | Location: Naptown | Registered: Nov 24, 2006
Hey all you disgruntled NFL fans, you poor Brown , Oakland,Washington, TB, and KC, etc. Now you can sell your team loyalty on ebay! Make good money of your misguided fan support! Loyalty for Sale
Posts: 674 | Location: New home of the Dallas Cowboys | Registered: Oct 31, 2003
BIG GAME in Green Bay today. It's hard to imagine him not bringing it today. The analysts on NFL countdown sure are emotional and fired up about it. Good stuff.
I decided to bench Matt Schaub and start Favre this week in FF 'cause I just have a feeling. I'll never forget how he beat the tar out of my Raiders on MNF shortly after his dad died. It's hard to argue that he's not a gamer.
Posts: 1043 | Location: ATL | Registered: Mar 20, 2007
