NFL option to buy 50 acres of land in L.A. (1 Viewer)

[John Mamula]

The NFL just bought a 50 acre piece of land in Anaheim that is the latest in a curious timeline surrounding the NFL and Los Angeles...

1994: Rams / Raiders move out of Los Angeles creating a void in the NFL's second largest market.

2002: After years of trying to get a team back in Los Angeles with plans to renovate the Coliseum and/or Rose Bowl and multiple other private bids falling through the Houston Texans get the 32nd NFL franchise, a number that will likely not change for quite some time given the symmetry of 32 teams.

2004-2005: Rumors of Tom Benson wanting to move the New Orleans Saints surface due to lack of support for the team and an antiquated stadium. These rumors are heightened when Hurricane Katrina ravages much of New Orleans making the Saints play on the road for home games in New York and at LSU in 2005. Los Angeles is the most likely spot for a franchise to relocate to, although the stadium issues persist with no public support for taxpayers to carry the burden and no feasible plan for the Coliseum or Rose Bowl exists.

2005: Reggie Bush is pegged to be the most exciting player to come out of college in years, if not ever. Bush plays at USC in the heart of Los Angeles.

April 2006: The Houston Texans with the #1 pick of the draft pass on Reggie Bush to the suprise of every NFL expert. The New Orleans Saints pick 2nd in the NFL draft and immediately pick Reggie Bush.

May 2006: Charlie Casserly, the GM of the Texans who passed on Bush resigns his post as GM and takes a position with the NFL league office.

May 2006: The NFL announces that it buys a 50 acre site in Anaheim. Rumors abound that it is to build a new stadium in L.A. when a team moves there, eliminating the constant Coliseum / Rose Bowl road blocks that have prevented a team from moving to L.A. in the past.

This brings us to today. In light of all of these events, what is the next possible step? L.A. is notorious for not wanting to support a team without star power, and nobody has more star power and/or hype around him than Reggie Bush. Combined with Benson's desire to move it makes perfect sense for the Saints to move by 2008 to Los Angeles with one of the greatest stars to ever come out of the Southern CA area.

However, what is even more curious is the thought that Charlie Casserly purposely passed on Bush knowing he would take an NFL position after the draft and could very well benefit from Bush landing to the Saints and the Saints moving to Los Angeles. This also comes at a time when the NFL Commissioner resigns early to many surprised people, perhaps finding out what happened or getting out of dodge before the word got out.

What I propose to all of you is this: the NFL directed Charlie Casserly to pass on the most prolific player to come out of college so he would go to the Saints as they knew the Saints would move to L.A. within a few years, benefiting the league as a whole to the detriment of the Texans. As a reward, Casserly would be rewarded with a cushy league position for his role in this cunning move.

 

[Tommy Collins]

 

[The Finist]

I had to check my internet address. Sounds exactly like stuff I read on PFT.

I like the way you think.

 

[crimsonrebel]

too bad LA has proven they cant support a team multiple times now

 

[Red Apples]

L.A.'s Play for NFL Raises ConcernsBy Jim Newton and Steve Hymon, Times Staff WritersMay 19, 2006 A proposal to upgrade Exposition Park and the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum to pave the way for a return of pro football sailed through public approvals Thursday. But its progress masked quieter concerns about the project, which some insiders warned would deliver few tangible benefits to the Los Angeles city and county governments even as it would require them to invest in the park and stadium.Critics of the proposal have not said much publicly, for fear of upending the long-awaited return of professional football to Los Angeles more than a decade after the Rams and Raiders left. But in many private and some on-the-record conversations, they questioned whether the terms were smart for the city and county.Under the deal being discussed, the city's Community Redevelopment Agency would pledge $25 million to pay for public improvements to the area around the Coliseum right away and would reimburse the city for $112.6 million more in projects later if the stadium produced enough tax revenue to support them. That is so-called tax "increment" money, meaning that it would be generated by the increased property taxes on the stadium; in this case, however, the city would not see the full benefit of that increase because it would funnel the money back into improvements around the stadium. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and other city and county leaders have pledged not to commit public money to the project, but critics complain that the increment financing as proposed represents a substantial public investment."We can't forget our basic obligations to our constituents," Councilman Ed Reyes said. "We could be forgoing opportunities to keep millions of dollars in the city and in the neighborhood."Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, though emphasizing that he supported bringing the NFL back to Los Angeles, said he too was bothered by the proposed deal. "It's clear to me that the NFL and their supporters are still looking for the county and the city to use … public tax dollars to help finance this deal," he said. "Such an arrangement would be fiscally irresponsible and contrary to the promises that have been publicly made by most public officials involved in this project."Local governments sometimes do forgo their tax increment, but only rarely and usually for projects that carry extraordinary public benefits. Yaroslavsky questioned whether this deal qualified."This is not a children's hospital we're building here," he said. "This is not a high school or university. This is a for-profit business. They ought to pay taxes."If everybody did this," he said, "we'd have no taxes."Those concerns, along with those of preservation advocates who warn that the proposed renovation of the Coliseum could threaten its historic stature, rumbled along the margins of the stadium debate Thursday, but did not derail the project's speedy trip through the city and county bureaucracies.The Community Redevelopment Agency's seven-member board, which argued for hours over a downtown high-rise proposal that was not even up for a vote, dispatched the stadium proposal in a few minutes, unanimously agreeing to the terms of the proposed agreement.Later on Thursday, the City Council's special committee on the subject also granted quick approval. The full council is expected to take it up today so that the results of its work can be forwarded to National Football League owners who are meeting next week in Denver, where they are expected to consider selecting the Coliseum, a site in Anaheim or both for design and engineering studies. The speed of local decision-making, said Councilman Bernard C. Parks, whose district includes the Coliseum and who is an ardent supporter of the proposal, was meant to "send a clear message to the NFL" that Los Angeles is ready for a team.Parks and other defenders of the financing arrangement said the tax dollars would be spent in the surrounding area only because of the stadium construction, and emphasized that no general fund money from the city or county would help pay for the stadium. The projected $800-million stadium construction cost would be borne by the NFL.Parks argued that the other benefits of the stadium — potential development of hotels or restaurants in the neighborhood surrounding Exposition Park and the lure of future Super Bowls — justify the forgoing of tax increment money."The community is going to get all that," Parks said.The draft agreements circulated Thursday separate the public improvements into two categories — "initial" improvements and "extended" ones. The first improvements, which come to $25 million, include widening streets and adding turn lanes near the Coliseum; demolition and site clearing, as well as removing asbestos as part of the stadium's renovation, would later be reimbursed by tax revenue generated by the football team.The extended improvements, totaling $112.6 million, include parking structures, fencing, a promenade and even a light-rail station near the stadium. Officials on Thursday referred to those projects as the "wish list."Although the public financing of the facility attracted most concern Thursday, some also questioned whether the proposed stadium would damage the historic stature of the Coliseum, home of two Summer Olympics and scores of other memorable moments in Los Angeles sports history. The stadium proposal under consideration involves constructing a facility within the walls of the existing Coliseum. But some worry that the new stadium would overshadow its host.

 

[John Mamula]

too bad LA has proven they cant support a team multiple times now

Are you telling me the NFL will not go back to their 2nd largest market?I am not making a statement of the support the Saints would get once they move. Only that they will move.

Why did the NFL buy that land? To build a theme park? DitkaWorld coming in 2010.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

San Diego will move to Anaheim, GUARANTEED.

I live in Southern California, and I have

my finger on the pulse of what is going on

with the local San Diego political scene,

this will not end nicely for the Chargers fans

who want to see this team stay in SD.

Stay tuned.

 

[John Mamula]

L.A.'s Play for NFL Raises Concerns

By Jim Newton and Steve Hymon, Times Staff Writers

May 19, 2006

A proposal to upgrade Exposition Park and the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum to pave the way for a return of pro football sailed through public approvals Thursday. But its progress masked quieter concerns about the project, which some insiders warned would deliver few tangible benefits to the Los Angeles city and county governments even as it would require them to invest in the park and stadium.

Critics of the proposal have not said much publicly, for fear of upending the long-awaited return of professional football to Los Angeles more than a decade after the Rams and Raiders left. But in many private and some on-the-record conversations, they questioned whether the terms were smart for the city and county.

Under the deal being discussed, the city's Community Redevelopment Agency would pledge $25 million to pay for public improvements to the area around the Coliseum right away and would reimburse the city for $112.6 million more in projects later if the stadium produced enough tax revenue to support them.

That is so-called tax "increment" money, meaning that it would be generated by the increased property taxes on the stadium; in this case, however, the city would not see the full benefit of that increase because it would funnel the money back into improvements around the stadium.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and other city and county leaders have pledged not to commit public money to the project, but critics complain that the increment financing as proposed represents a substantial public investment.

"We can't forget our basic obligations to our constituents," Councilman Ed Reyes said. "We could be forgoing opportunities to keep millions of dollars in the city and in the neighborhood."

Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, though emphasizing that he supported bringing the NFL back to Los Angeles, said he too was bothered by the proposed deal.

"It's clear to me that the NFL and their supporters are still looking for the county and the city to use … public tax dollars to help finance this deal," he said. "Such an arrangement would be fiscally irresponsible and contrary to the promises that have been publicly made by most public officials involved in this project."

Local governments sometimes do forgo their tax increment, but only rarely and usually for projects that carry extraordinary public benefits. Yaroslavsky questioned whether this deal qualified.

"This is not a children's hospital we're building here," he said. "This is not a high school or university. This is a for-profit business. They ought to pay taxes.

"If everybody did this," he said, "we'd have no taxes."

Those concerns, along with those of preservation advocates who warn that the proposed renovation of the Coliseum could threaten its historic stature, rumbled along the margins of the stadium debate Thursday, but did not derail the project's speedy trip through the city and county bureaucracies.

The Community Redevelopment Agency's seven-member board, which argued for hours over a downtown high-rise proposal that was not even up for a vote, dispatched the stadium proposal in a few minutes, unanimously agreeing to the terms of the proposed agreement.

Later on Thursday, the City Council's special committee on the subject also granted quick approval. The full council is expected to take it up today so that the results of its work can be forwarded to National Football League owners who are meeting next week in Denver, where they are expected to consider selecting the Coliseum, a site in Anaheim or both for design and engineering studies. The speed of local decision-making, said Councilman Bernard C. Parks, whose district includes the Coliseum and who is an ardent supporter of the proposal, was meant to "send a clear message to the NFL" that Los Angeles is ready for a team.

Parks and other defenders of the financing arrangement said the tax dollars would be spent in the surrounding area only because of the stadium construction, and emphasized that no general fund money from the city or county would help pay for the stadium. The projected $800-million stadium construction cost would be borne by the NFL.

Parks argued that the other benefits of the stadium — potential development of hotels or restaurants in the neighborhood surrounding Exposition Park and the lure of future Super Bowls — justify the forgoing of tax increment money.

"The community is going to get all that," Parks said.

The draft agreements circulated Thursday separate the public improvements into two categories — "initial" improvements and "extended" ones. The first improvements, which come to $25 million, include widening streets and adding turn lanes near the Coliseum; demolition and site clearing, as well as removing asbestos as part of the stadium's renovation, would later be reimbursed by tax revenue generated by the football team.

The extended improvements, totaling $112.6 million, include parking structures, fencing, a promenade and even a light-rail station near the stadium. Officials on Thursday referred to those projects as the "wish list."

Although the public financing of the facility attracted most concern Thursday, some also questioned whether the proposed stadium would damage the historic stature of the Coliseum, home of two Summer Olympics and scores of other memorable moments in Los Angeles sports history. The stadium proposal under consideration involves constructing a facility within the walls of the existing Coliseum. But some worry that the new stadium would overshadow its host.

This is exactly the problem with renovating the Coliseum. Taxpayers won't pay for it. A privately funded stadium by the league makes perfect sense to get back into their 2nd largest market.

 

[Red Apples]

San Diego will move to Anaheim, GUARANTEED.

I live in Southern California, and I have

my finger on the pulse of what is going on

with the local San Diego political scene,

this will not end nicely for the Chargers fans

who want to see this team stay in SD.

Stay tuned.

The Southern California Chargers?The California Chargers?

The Los Angeles Chargers?

 

[Bri]

NFL's spring meeting is Monday and Tuesday and they'll discuss LA then. We should hear more soon

 

[cstu]

"This is not a children's hospital we're building here," he said. "This is not a high school or university. This is a for-profit business. They ought to pay taxes."If everybody did this," he said, "we'd have no taxes."

Other businesses don't bring in the kind of guaranteed money that an NFL franchise does. One Super Bowl will generate enough money to compensate for the lousy $25 million they are scrabbling over. My advice to Zev - take an economics class.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

It will be the Los Angeles Chargers,

and Bruce Henderson and his cronies,

who I believe are pawns in the

Spanos puppet theatre, may play a significant role

in driving this team north bound on the 405.

 

[John Mamula]

"This is not a children's hospital we're building here," he said. "This is not a high school or university. This is a for-profit business. They ought to pay taxes.

"If everybody did this," he said, "we'd have no taxes."

Other businesses don't bring in the kind of guaranteed money that an NFL franchise does. One Super Bowl will generate enough money to compensate for the lousy $25 million they are scrabbling over. My advice to Zev - take an economics class.

Actually, much of the revenue brought in is overstated. The majority of it is not new money being spent, but rather an alternative for other money that would have been spent elsewhere.But that is a different discussion for a different thread.

 

[ChampBailey24]

The Saints won't move there. The Saints are one of the only things to give hope to the population and it would not be fair to take their team away.

 

[redman]

The problem is, as it's always been, that the NFL needs Los Angeles more than Los Angeles needs the NFL.

The NFL has no bargaining power. Zero. What they want to have here, they'll have to pay for. Nothing else will fly.

 

[John Mamula]

The Saints won't move there. The Saints are one of the only things to give hope to the population and it would not be fair to take their team away.

at fair. The NFL is a business and Benson and the league are not going to cost themselves millions of dollars just to give the people who stayed in New Orleans a warm fuzzy feeling.Life isn't fair. The Hornets will not come back to New Orleans and will stay in Oklahoma City.

 

[LawFitz]

Can't find an article anywhere about this deal.

Anaheim seems pretty developed already... where is this mysterious 50 acre plot???

 

[John Mamula]

The problem is, as it's always been, that the NFL needs Los Angeles more than Los Angeles needs the NFL.

The NFL has no bargaining power. Zero. What they want to have here, they'll have to pay for. Nothing else will fly.

This is exactly true. Which is why they bought the land themselves to provide themselves the self-help to build a stadium. Instead of relying on L.A. to provide a solution as they have not for 12 years, they have finally realized that they need to buy the land and get the ball rolling themselves.

 

[ChampBailey24]

The Saints won't move there. The Saints are one of the only things to give hope to the population and it would not be fair to take their team away.

at fair. The NFL is a business and Benson and the league are not going to cost themselves millions of dollars just to give the people who stayed in New Orleans a warm fuzzy feeling.Life isn't fair. The Hornets will not come back to New Orleans and will stay in Oklahoma City.

It would be a lack of class. I know it's a business but that would be awful for a city. Relocating teams is normal (I'm from Montreal) but moving the Saints ATM would be a lack of class.

 

[John Mamula]

Can't find an article anywhere about this deal.

Anaheim seems pretty developed already... where is this mysterious 50 acre plot???

From the LA Times...

The Anaheim plan involves a 50-acre plot in the Angel Stadium parking lot. The city has offered to sell the land to the NFL under market value but has given the league until May 31 to make a deal before it explores other options for the parcel. Other details of the Anaheim deal have not been made public.

link

 

[Trig2U]

Everybody knows that Spanos is The Devil.

BTW, "Spanos County" by Pavement is a good song.

 

[Chaos Commish]

San Diego will move to Anaheim, GUARANTEED.

I live in Southern California, and I have

my finger on the pulse of what is going on

with the local San Diego political scene,

this will not end nicely for the Chargers fans

who want to see this team stay in SD.

Stay tuned.

I've been following it fairly closely myself, but I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you. So they amended the lease allowing the team to seek a new home within the county. The city is broke, but the county has significant land wealth. Chula Vista and National City have great sites for a modern stadium and they've already expressed interest. But the big piece of land west of Rancho Bernardo and Ranch Penasquitos is ideal. I think they'll find a sweet place to build.

 

[John Mamula]

The Saints won't move there. The Saints are one of the only things to give hope to the population and it would not be fair to take their team away.

at fair. The NFL is a business and Benson and the league are not going to cost themselves millions of dollars just to give the people who stayed in New Orleans a warm fuzzy feeling.Life isn't fair. The Hornets will not come back to New Orleans and will stay in Oklahoma City.

It would be a lack of class. I know it's a business but that would be awful for a city. Relocating teams is normal (I'm from Montreal) but moving the Saints ATM would be a lack of class.

How long should they stay there losing money compared to LA?

 

[Chaos Commish]

Can't find an article anywhere about this deal.

Anaheim seems pretty developed already... where is this mysterious 50 acre plot???

Disneyland?

 

[John Mamula]

Can't find an article anywhere about this deal.

Anaheim seems pretty developed already...  where is this mysterious 50 acre plot???

Disneyland?

See above.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

San Diego will move to Anaheim, GUARANTEED.

I live in Southern California, and I have

my finger on the pulse of what is going on

with the local San Diego political scene,

this will not end nicely for the Chargers fans

who want to see this team stay in SD.

Stay tuned.

I've been following it fairly closely myself, but I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you. So they amended the lease allowing the team to seek a new home within the county. The city is broke, but the county has significant land wealth. Chula Vista and National City have great sites for a modern stadium and they've already expressed interest. But the big piece of land west of Rancho Bernardo and Ranch Penasquitos is ideal. I think they'll find a sweet place to build.

I agree that Rancho Penasquitos would be a nice place to build.I don't see it happening in Chula Vista.

It's a shame because Mission Cyn, where they are currently based

is the ideal location.

 

[Big Score]

Can't find an article anywhere about this deal.

Anaheim seems pretty developed already... where is this mysterious 50 acre plot???

Where are all those old decommissioned Nuclear Reactor Sites in California?

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Can't find an article anywhere about this deal.

Anaheim seems pretty developed already... where is this mysterious 50 acre plot???

Where are all those old decommissioned Nuclear Reactor Sites in California?

Camp Pendleton area.

 

[Red Apples]

does it strike anyone as weird that the nfl bought 50 acres?

whats next a mule?

 

[cstu]

San Diego will move to Anaheim, GUARANTEED.

I live in Southern California, and I have

my finger on the pulse of what is going on

with the local San Diego political scene,

this will not end nicely for the Chargers fans

who want to see this team stay in SD.

Stay tuned.

Them moving to Anaheim is looking more and more likely. For SD fans it's at least better than having the team move to San Antonio. Anaheim is a 90 mile drive from SD so it's not that far to drive 8 times a year.

 

[Big Score]

Can't find an article anywhere about this deal.

Anaheim seems pretty developed already...  where is this mysterious 50 acre plot???

Where are all those old decommissioned Nuclear Reactor Sites in California?

Camp Pendleton area.

I didn't know the Santa Susana Sodium Reactor & Vallecitos Nuclear Power Plant were both in the Camp Pendleton area.

 

[cstu]

The problem is, as it's always been, that the NFL needs Los Angeles more than Los Angeles needs the NFL.

The NFL has no bargaining power. Zero. What they want to have here, they'll have to pay for. Nothing else will fly.

Seems like the NFL is doing fine without LA to me. I think LA is missing out more than the NFL since a decade's worth of taxes from a team and a Super Bowl or two is a lot of money.

 

[John Mamula]

does it strike anyone as weird that the nfl bought 50 acres?

whats next a mule?

I believe many would call Benson a jackaas.

 

[John Mamula]

The problem is, as it's always been, that the NFL needs Los Angeles more than Los Angeles needs the NFL. 

The NFL has no bargaining power.  Zero.  What they want to have here, they'll have to pay for.  Nothing else will fly.

Seems like the NFL is doing fine without LA to me. I think LA is missing out more than the NFL since a decade's worth of taxes from a team and a Super Bowl or two is a lot of money.

But they could be doing better with LA.

 

[redman]

The problem is, as it's always been, that the NFL needs Los Angeles more than Los Angeles needs the NFL. 

The NFL has no bargaining power.  Zero.  What they want to have here, they'll have to pay for.  Nothing else will fly.

Seems like the NFL is doing fine without LA to me. I think LA is missing out more than the NFL since a decade's worth of taxes from a team and a Super Bowl or two is a lot of money.

LA doesn't miss the taxes that come from ticket and concessions sales from 8+ sporting events per year. That doesn't even show up on the radar. This isn't Pacoima. Mind you, the team need not base itself (i.e. put its front office and executive operations) within the City of L.A., which means that much of their other income would be non-taxable as to the City. The Lakers, for example, are based in El Segundo, not in LA.

 

[John Mamula]

So what do people think about the possibility of the NFL directing Casserly to not pick Bush?

Not to be completely but if the Saints end up moving in a couple years that possibility needs to be looked into. What would the ramifications be if the NFL directed a GM to purposely hurt his own franchise at the expense of the good of the league as a whole?

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Can't find an article anywhere about this deal.

Anaheim seems pretty developed already... where is this mysterious 50 acre plot???

Where are all those old decommissioned Nuclear Reactor Sites in California?

Camp Pendleton area.

I didn't know the Santa Susana Sodium Reactor & Vallecitos Nuclear Power Plant were both in the Camp Pendleton area.

To be more specific, the nuclear reactor site nearest to San Diegois San Onofre, just outside of San Clemente.

 

[redman]

So what do people think about the possibility of the NFL directing Casserly to not pick Bush?

Not to be completely but if the Saints end up moving in a couple years that possibility needs to be looked into.  What would the ramifications be if the NFL directed a GM to purposely hurt his own franchise at the expense of the good of the league as a whole?

Occam's Razor- Of multiple explanations for the same set of events, the simplest ones tend to be the most accurate. The simple (non-conspiracy) explanation: The two events are unrelated. Charley Casserly was overruled by the new Reeves-Kubiak regime and by the owner, who refused to pay Bush more than $5M more than the market value for the draft pick, and instead addressed another area of need. Casserly, seeing the long term writing on the wall as to his level of influence and also not wanting to be associated with the pick, quits and gets another job.

It's no surprise that Reggie Bush happened to go to the team that chose second, and that same team also happens to be a more likely candidate for relocation. Good teams neither draft high nor tend to relocate.

 

[redman]

Can't find an article anywhere about this deal.

Anaheim seems pretty developed already...  where is this mysterious 50 acre plot???

Where are all those old decommissioned Nuclear Reactor Sites in California?

Camp Pendleton area.

I didn't know the Santa Susana Sodium Reactor & Vallecitos Nuclear Power Plant were both in the Camp Pendleton area.

To be more specific, the nuclear reactor site nearest to San Diegois San Onofre, just outside of San Clemente.

Ah yes, the b bs.

 

[psychobillies]

Could all of what you say be true? Sure, but to me it just sounds like another conspiracy theory. Granted, I've heard some people from down here express the same sentiment. Do you think Kubiak and Mcnair would sabotage the Texans for all of that? Don't you think the fans would be a little upset about that?

I don't buy it. Especially considering there are much better and more realistic options to relocate there.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Said it in another thread... will repeat it here.

LA will NOT get the Saints.

The bad PR ALONE would be enough of a reason for neither the city of LA, the Saints and the NFL to want no part of it.

The last thing they would do is burn the goodwill they have in the country by kicking the city that's not only down, but still bleeding from when other big kids (FEMA, the fed gov't) kicked it already.

I'm not saying it NEVER will happen. But not anytime soon.

The Chargers are a much more likely possibity.

PS -- I think the conspiracy theory re: Bush, Casserly and the NFL manipulation is nutso - sounds like a plot for the XFiles or something fom Art Bell.

But shine on you crazy diamonds. Something has to while away the long football-less hours in May.

edited to add: By the way - that LA Times article? No where does it say the NFL HAS BOUGHT 50 acres.

It DOES say the following:

The Anaheim plan involves a 50-acre plot in the Angel Stadium parking lot. The city has offered to sell the land to the NFL under market value but has given the league until May 31 to make a deal before it explores other options for the parcel. Other details of the Anaheim deal have not been made public.

So the city has offered the land but the NFL has NOT decided to buy it yet.

 

[Red Apples]

Said it in another thread... will repeat it here.

LA will NOT get the Saints. 

The bad PR ALONE would be enough of a reason for neither the city of LA, the Saints and the NFL to want no part of it.

The last thing they would do is burn the goodwill they have in the country by kicking the city that's not only down, but still bleeding from when other big kids (FEMA, the fed gov't) kicked it already.

I'm not saying it NEVER will happen.  But not anytime soon.

The Chargers are a much more likely possibity.

PS -- I think the conspiracy theory re: Bush, Casserly and the NFL manipulation is nutso - sounds like a plot for the XFiles or something fom Art Bell.

But shine on you crazy diamonds.  Something has to while away the long football-less hours in May.

i dont think anyone believes the saints are coming anytime soon, but by 2010 goal that the nfl implemented to get back to LA?yeah, that might happen.

 

[John Mamula]

Said it in another thread... will repeat it here.

LA will NOT get the Saints. 

The bad PR ALONE would be enough of a reason for neither the city of LA, the Saints and the NFL to want no part of it.

The last thing they would do is burn the goodwill they have in the country by kicking the city that's not only down, but still bleeding from when other big kids (FEMA, the fed gov't) kicked it already.

I'm not saying it NEVER will happen.  But not anytime soon.

The Chargers are a much more likely possibity.

PS -- I think the conspiracy theory re: Bush, Casserly and the NFL manipulation is nutso - sounds like a plot for the XFiles or something fom Art Bell.

But shine on you crazy diamonds.  Something has to while away the long football-less hours in May.

i dont think anyone believes the saints are coming anytime soon, but by 2010 goal that the nfl implemented to get back to LA?yeah, that might happen.

That would be Bush's 4th year.Hmmmm....

 

[Bri]

Said it in another thread... will repeat it here.

LA will NOT get the Saints. 

I agree that seems over and done with. The latest was the vikings in a town meeting a little while ago. 4 teams don't have "new" stadiums or a plan in place. The NFL seems to use LA as leverage before a vote. IE a hint of "the team may go to LA" and the community votes to spend some $ and build a new stadium. Next they throw out the possibility of a Supe and well it seems to work.

Q: Will there ever be a time where the league will say for the greater good you need to move to Los Angeles or somewhere or is it always up to the individual owner to decide to move?

A: It’s a joint decision under our policy. A team has to meet certain criteria before it can move, so it’s not the individual owner’s decision. But I don’t think that’s the challenge here; the challenge here is to get something done in Minnesota and not have to worry about other alternatives.

Q: Has Mr. Wilf asked you to step up and approve a loan before the legislature acts here?

A: Generally we don’t do that; generally under the guidelines we have for our loan program to support stadium construction, the economic work that has to go into that depends on an understanding of the total project costs and the total project economics, not just for the first year or the first five years but for a 15 or 20-year period. So it’s difficult, if not impossible, to do anything in the abstract. You have to do it on the basis of a concrete project.

**snip**

Q: Is it just here and San Diego that are the holdout markets for stadiums? A: No, we don’t have (new) stadiums in San Diego, Oakland, San Francisco, Minnesota and some other places.

to clarify, just leverage to sway a vote, do NOT think the Vikes are going to LA

 

[NoFBinLA]

to Bagger and Red Apples -- Bri you snuck in that post too quickly....

Except that Tags wants to decide it - if possible - before he leaves. It's part of his envisioned legacy.

And by the time Reggie is in his 4th year? How excited do you think LA will be by him?

If they don't do it now, I don't think it matters if he's there. It won't be as fresh a news story.

But that's just MO. Others mileage may vary.

 

[gump]

The problem is, as it's always been, that the NFL needs Los Angeles more than Los Angeles needs the NFL. 

The NFL has no bargaining power.  Zero.  What they want to have here, they'll have to pay for.  Nothing else will fly.

Seems like the NFL is doing fine without LA to me. I think LA is missing out more than the NFL since a decade's worth of taxes from a team and a Super Bowl or two is a lot of money.

But they could be doing better with LA.

Why is that?Does the NFL believe that so few people watch the NFL in LA now that putting a team there will raise TV viewing numbers significantly?

Do they believe a Super Bowl in LA will bring more money to the NFL than one in Miami, Arizona, or Tampa?

Do they believe there will be so much merchandise sold for the LA team that it will move the needle of the most insignificant revenue stream for them to make anyone notice?

I don't get it. What does being the 2nd largest market really bring to the NFL that the NFL doesn't already have.

 

[gzilla]

So what do people think about the possibility of the NFL directing Casserly to not pick Bush?

Not to be completely but if the Saints end up moving in a couple years that possibility needs to be looked into. What would the ramifications be if the NFL directed a GM to purposely hurt his own franchise at the expense of the good of the league as a whole?

I think it's ridiculous.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Said it in another thread... will repeat it here.

LA will NOT get the Saints.

The bad PR ALONE would be enough of a reason for neither the city of LA, the Saints and the NFL to want no part of it.

The last thing they would do is burn the goodwill they have in the country by kicking the city that's not only down, but still bleeding from when other big kids (FEMA, the fed gov't) kicked it already.

I'm not saying it NEVER will happen. But not anytime soon.

The Chargers are a much more likely possibity.

PS -- I think the conspiracy theory re: Bush, Casserly and the NFL manipulation is nutso - sounds like a plot for the XFiles or something fom Art Bell.

But shine on you crazy diamonds. Something has to while away the long football-less hours in May.

edited to add: By the way - that LA Times article? No where does it say the NFL HAS BOUGHT 50 acres.

It DOES say the following:

The Anaheim plan involves a 50-acre plot in the Angel Stadium parking lot. The city has offered to sell the land to the NFL under market value but has given the league until May 31 to make a deal before it explores other options for the parcel. Other details of the Anaheim deal have not been made public.

So the city has offered the land but the NFL has NOT decided to buy it yet.

But shine on you crazy diamonds...... (Is that you SYD BARRETT ?) I've been missing you.

 

[John Mamula]

Why is that?

Does the NFL believe that so few people watch the NFL in LA now that putting a team there will raise TV viewing numbers significantly?

Do they believe a Super Bowl in LA will bring more money to the NFL than one in Miami, Arizona, or Tampa?

Do they believe there will be so much merchandise sold for the LA team that it will move the needle of the most insignificant revenue stream for them to make anyone notice?

I don't get it. What does being the 2nd largest market really bring to the NFL that the NFL doesn't already have.

Advertising dollars and tv revenue. You have a city that has a larger population than most states. Do you think the NFL has a stronger or weaker position bargaining TV contracts with a team in LA?

 

[John Mamula]

So what do people think about the possibility of the NFL directing Casserly to not pick Bush?

Not to be completely but if the Saints end up moving in a couple years that possibility needs to be looked into.  What would the ramifications be if the NFL directed a GM to purposely hurt his own franchise at the expense of the good of the league as a whole?

I think it's ridiculous.

Why?