plenzmd1 Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 Finally a realistic LA stadium proposal (no surprise who it's coming from): http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story/_/id/12537936/stan-kroenke-los-angeles-rams-owner-designs-2-team-stadium-los-angeles-area Amazing to read...guess rich guys get rich cause they smart. Building a stadium with a roof that becomes billboard for every flight flying into LAX....I mean who thinks of these things....just awesome
OCinBuffalo Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) And once again, I will take this opportunity to remind you all that: "LA is such a lucrative football market, that it's only been 20 years since a team played there". The one time billion+ the NFL wants in SD? That is nothing compared the every year, hundreds of millions(if not a billion itself) in government/political machine/kook and wingnut extortion $ that whichever team moves there will have to pay. Some of this is already on the books as law. For example: The NFL team will have to provide "alternative" entertainment, so that people who don't enjoy football, and therefore don't want to watch it, aren't excluded from the experience of going to the game/using the stadium, as it is a public resource(provided it is paid for with public money). And of course, that means "jobs"!...for yoga instructors, I guess. Or, the part about the NFL team, not the city, being responsible for dropping near a billion on upgrading the "infrastructure" around the stadium. Political hacks at work. Once and for all: We all know about LA's revenue potential That revenue potential is huge, and literally every team in the league, even people like the Pats and Cowboys, have a super-secret "move to LA plan" tucked away somewhere, solely due to that revenue potential. If this were merely a revenue-side argument, then we wouldn't be looking at 20 years of no NFL in LA. We are though, and the reason we are? People who are familiar with business(ahem, most NFL owners are self-made), are familiar with the word: cost. The costs that LA represents chew up that revenue potential in a hurry. LA is becoming a more terrible place to do business every year....which is exactly HOW you end up with a name like the California Angels of Ananhiem. When one does, what we call, their due dillegence(otherwise known as create a 5 year financial analysis of what moving the team would entail, and actually look like)? EVERY team in the NFL has chosen to stay home, year after year, for 20 years, not because of emotional reasons, but because of the all-powerful: bottom line. LA's environment of kooks, political crooks, and residents who believe they are entitled to take from whoever has more than them because ??? = more than enough cost to mitigate even the most massive revenue potential. And, finally, is the following demand being put to an LA team so hard to imagine? "Either you put Michael Sam on the team, or some other openly gay player on the team, because we know the NFL has them, or, we will boycott the team". LA county has a high concentration of lazy, kooks, and entitled wingnuts, which puts it in the running for highest concetration of lazy, kooks and entitled wingnuts world wide. So, no, the above quote is not only a likely outcome, it's a probable one. The real bottom line: All you ever hear from the media on this is the massive revenue side of the argument. Which is why some of you in this thread don't understand/can't believe a team hasn't moved there/what is SD thinking by not moving there. You never hear the cost side, or the kook side of the argument, because that side? That's not the side the media wants to talk about, because the reality of it exposes their ideology as: exactly what it is. Edited March 23, 2015 by OCinBuffalo
DC Greg Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 And once again, I will take this opportunity to remind you all that: "LA is such a lucrative football market, that it's only been 20 years since a team played there". The one time billion+ the NFL wants in SD? That is nothing compared the every year, hundreds of millions(if not a billion itself) in government/political machine/kook and wingnut extortion $ that whichever team moves there will have to pay. Some of this is already on the books as law. For example: The NFL team will have to provide "alternative" entertainment, so that people who don't enjoy football, and therefore don't want to watch it, aren't excluded from the experience of going to the game/using the stadium, as it is a public resource(provided it is paid for with public money). And of course, that means "jobs"!...for yoga instructors, I guess. Or, the part about the NFL team, not the city, being responsible for dropping near a billion on upgrading the "infrastructure" around the stadium. Political hacks at work. Once and for all: We all know about LA's revenue potential That revenue potential is huge, and literally every team in the league, even people like the Pats and Cowboys, have a super-secret "move to LA plan" tucked away somewhere, solely due to that revenue potential. If this were merely a revenue-side argument, then we wouldn't be looking at 20 years of no NFL in LA. We are though, and the reason we are? People who are familiar with business(ahem, most NFL owners are self-made), are familiar with the word: cost. The costs that LA represents chew up that revenue potential in a hurry. LA is becoming a more terrible place to do business every year....which is exactly HOW you end up with a name like the California Angels of Ananhiem. When one does, what we call, their due dillegence(otherwise known as create a 5 year financial analysis of what moving the team would entail, and actually look like)? EVERY team in the NFL has chosen to stay home, year after year, for 20 years, not because of emotional reasons, but because of the all-powerful: bottom line. LA's environment of kooks, political crooks, and residents who believe they are entitled to take from whoever has more than them because ??? = more than enough cost to mitigate even the most massive revenue potential. And, finally, is the following demand being put to an LA team so hard to imagine? "Either you put Michael Sam on the team, or some other openly gay player on the team, because we know the NFL has them, or, we will boycott the team". LA county has a high concentration of lazy, kooks, and entitled wingnuts, which puts it in the running for highest concetration of lazy, kooks and entitled wingnuts world wide. So, no, the above quote is not only a likely outcome, it's a probable one. The real bottom line: All you ever hear from the media on this is the massive revenue side of the argument. Which is why some of you in this thread don't understand/can't believe a team hasn't moved there/what is SD thinking by not moving there. You never hear the cost side, or the kook side of the argument, because that side? That's not the side the media wants to talk about, because the reality of it exposes their ideology as: exactly what it is.
OCinBuffalo Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 No. -20 As in: 20 years with no football. Be coy all you want, talk/don't talk all you want, when you get done? 20 years of No NFL, and the simple and straightforward reasons why, remains reality. As per normal, you can't argue with the facts/reality, otherwise known as the content....so you attack the process. Old trick, new thread. Just as ineffective.
Prickly Pete Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) For example: The NFL team will have to provide "alternative" entertainment, so that people who don't enjoy football, and therefore don't want to watch it, aren't excluded from the experience of going to the game/using the stadium, as it is a public resource(provided it is paid for with public money). And of course, that means "jobs"!...for yoga instructors, I guess. Or, the part about the NFL team, not the city, being responsible for dropping near a billion on upgrading the "infrastructure" around the stadium. Political hacks at work. LA's environment of kooks, political crooks, and residents who believe they are entitled to take from whoever has more than them You find that unreasonable? Edited March 23, 2015 by HoF Watkins
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 City council approves stadium: http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-carson-20150422-story.html
Mr. WEO Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 City council approves stadium: http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-carson-20150422-story.html The consultant projected a one-team stadium would boost city revenue by $800,000 in its first year and $168 million over 40 years. What a joke. I wonder who commissioned that study. There are environmental considerations, too. Remediation measures for the parcel that sits above deposits of oil, solvents and heavy metals are about 80% complete and need another year to finish. This is the best part! Hey, it's "80%" complete...no worries!
ALF Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) Raiders could share brand new 49er stadium and keep there long time fans or move to St Louis if Rams go to LA. The Rams owner has the deep pockets to have his way over not deep pocket Raiders. 9 Possible outcomes St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke has released plans for a futuristic stadium on 298 acres at Hollywood Park in Inglewood and he has the required entitlements to start construction this year. 8 San Diego Chargers owner Dean Spanos and Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis want to build on 168 acres just off the 405 Freeway in Carson, and they are weeks away from obtaining the same entitlements. http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-0408-nfl-stadium-scenarios-20150408-story.html#page=1 Edited April 22, 2015 by ALF
YoloinOhio Posted April 22, 2015 Author Posted April 22, 2015 Who's building that stadium in Carson City?I believe the raiders and Chargers are splitting the cost.
Mr. WEO Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 I believe the raiders and Chargers are splitting the cost. Are they? The City of SD still seems tho think they are negotiating with the Chargers..in fact, the city is hiring a banking frim to explore the possibility of finacing a new stadium.
YoloinOhio Posted April 22, 2015 Author Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) Are they? The City of SD still seems tho think they are negotiating with the Chargers..in fact, the city is hiring a banking frim to explore the possibility of finacing a new stadium. yep , both discussions are taking place at the same time. It has been ongoing with the city of SD. Team wants to stay but city had been dragging their feet for too long. but Chargers are holding their feet to the fire and apparently will know in May whether they will be staying. Presentation scheduled by city to team. Edited April 22, 2015 by YoloinOhio
May Day 10 Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 wow. when it all shakes out, they are going to have like 8 stadiums in and around LA. Can play in a different one every home game
A Dog Named Kelso Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) I don't understand the Rams ability to move based on the stated NFL policy ... the other 2 I get, but the Rams? St.Louis has already said its willing to build a new stadium, hasn't it? Wouldn't that be considered "good faith"? It seems to me that if the NFL allows the move then technically no city would be "safe" and wouldn't give politicians the ammo they need to counter with "Monopoly Claims"? Edited April 22, 2015 by A Dog Named Kelso
K D Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 from no LA team to 3 in 2 different stadiums? hmmmm makes sense
OCinBuffalo Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) You find that unreasonable? It doesn't matter what I find unreasonable. What matters is what the NFL owners find unreasonable. The results speak for themselves: 20 years of no NFL in LA. Thus, NFL owners find LA: unreasonable. We all "know" LA is a great NFL market. No, we don't. We hear it is, from the media. We hear that from the media, for a simple reason. The 20 years of no NFL in LA proves that it is the fuedal city state that is it. It proves that it is corrupt, and nobody in their right business mind wants anything to do with it. The media hates that, because it exposes their and LA's shared ideology as the failure that it is. And, the NFL has no motivation to correct the media: because LA has been a wonderful stalking horse this entire time. Every time the NFL decides a new stadium is in order? They trot out "move to LA". The facts are as I stated above: only a fool would do business with LA...which is why CA has been losing jobs to TX for a decade now...and the NFL owners, also by definition, aren't fools when it comes to business. Daniel Synder is a buffoon as an NFL owner. But, he is an ace when it comes to business. I feel bad for the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams because they are literally forced to choose between cities that are ALL corrupt to the bone, and are going to screw them over regardless. Christ, every time I've been to St. Louis, I ask myself "Where the F does anyone get off talking smack about Buffalo, when this pile of ***** is here." Edit: Now that I think about it, I asked the same question about Oakland. Edited April 22, 2015 by OCinBuffalo
A Dog Named Kelso Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 It doesn't matter what I find unreasonable. What matters is what the NFL owners find unreasonable. The results speak for themselves: 20 years of no NFL in LA. Thus, NFL owners find LA: unreasonable. We all "know" LA is a great NFL market. No, we don't. We hear it is, from the media. We hear that from the media, for a simple reason. The 20 years of no NFL in LA proves that it is the fuedal city state that is it. It proves that it is corrupt, and nobody in their right business mind wants anything to do with it. The media hates that, because it exposes their and LA's shared ideology as the failure that it is. And, the NFL has no motivation to correct the media: because LA has been a wonderful stalking horse this entire time. Every time the NFL decides a new stadium is in order? They trot out "move to LA". The facts are as I stated above: only a fool would do business with LA...which is why CA has been losing jobs to TX for a decade now...and the NFL owners, also by definition, aren't fools when it comes to business. Daniel Synder is a buffoon as an NFL owner. But, he is an ace when it comes to business. I feel bad for the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams because they are literally forced to choose between cities that are ALL corrupt to the bone, and are going to screw them over regardless. Christ, every time I've been to St. Louis, I ask myself "Where the F does anyone get off talking smack about Buffalo, when this pile of ***** is here." Edit: Now that I think about it, I asked the same question about Oakland. None of the owners are forced to do anything. They could choose any number of cities to move to if they would fund their stadiums themselves.
Prickly Pete Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) It doesn't matter what I find unreasonable. What matters is what the NFL owners find unreasonable. I know it doesn't matter what you find unreasonable, but you are attaching it to your own opinion. I would rather a city squeeze whatever they can get out of a team, than have the public paying. They may be hacks, demanding the team improve the infrastructure, but that's way better than the kowtowing that happens in Buffalo to keep the Bills. LA doesn't need the NFL. I don't want a team here, because it won't be MY team, and it will just mean more traffic in my area. I hope CA keeps losing jobs to Texas, so people will start leaving. Unfortunately, people keep coming to LA in droves instead. Please, stay away, or leave if you are here. Edited April 22, 2015 by HoF Watkins
BillnutinHouston Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Amazing to read...guess rich guys get rich cause they smart. Building a stadium with a roof that becomes billboard for every flight flying into LAX....I mean who thinks of these things....just awesome Some pics of the Toyota Center roof (where the Rockets play). Passengers on incoming flights can see it, day or night.
Recommended Posts