LA Takes a big step towards getting the NFL back

[Snopple]

I don’t think there will ever be an NFL stadium built in downtown LA . Billionaire developer Ed Roski and his Majestic Reality are ready to start building a state of the art open air football stadium in the City of Industry. Which is about 20 miles from Los Angeles.

 

All the legal and environmental hurdles have been cleared. Majestic owns the land. And no public money will be needed or used for construction. It’s a true shovel ready project. Construction will begin as soon as a team commits to LA.

[CosmicBills]

I was comparing LA to NYC, which I think is a fair comparison. It has tens of thousands of hotel rooms. It has a brand new stadium. With 2 NFL teams playing 20 games a year, they won't get near 50 events a year.

The difference is that Meadowlands are not downtown. The new proposed stadium is. It is a very different situation.

 

It's going to be the Chargers. I'm almost 100% sure. Here's how I know:

 

Our Bills are safe from any LA move. The focus is on the Chargers. I'll post more info if I get it (I may be seeing this friend's brother this weekend on a ski trip).

I agree that the Chargers are the most likely candidate. However, they're going to aim for two teams.

 

I don’t think there will ever be an NFL stadium built in downtown LA . Billionaire developer Ed Roski and his Majestic Reality are ready to start building a state of the art open air football stadium in the City of Industry. Which is about 20 miles from Los Angeles.

 

All the legal and environmental hurdles have been cleared. Majestic owns the land. And no public money will be needed or used for construction. It’s a true shovel ready project. Construction will begin as soon as a team commits to LA.

If the downtown stadium can clear the environmental impact report hurdle (which we'll know in the next 6 to 8 months while the CBA is dealt with), then there will be a downtown stadium 100%. It's preferable to having a team in the Inland Empire. It's more than 20 miles from the city and, in LA, 20 miles equates to at least 45 minutes to 1.5 hour drive time.

 

The IE stadium is not a good spot for an LA team in my opinion. Certainly not compared to a down town stadium.

[reddogblitz]

Wherever you put the stadium in LA it's going to be a long drive for a lot of people.

[CosmicBills]

Wherever you put the stadium in LA it's going to be a long drive for a lot of people.

Sure. But driving downtown is easier than driving to the IE. Thousands do it daily for Dogers, Lakers and (gasp!) even Clippers games. That's the big hurdle they have to pass in the IR; proving that increased traffic flow of 75,000 10 Sundays a year is feasible. But if you think about how often they have games at Dodger Stadium and the Staples on the same day ... I think they'll be able to convince the city that it's manageable.

 

But again, I really don't know specifics. I'm just going off of what the press and AEG are saying here and reporting back.

[Mr. WEO]

I don’t think there will ever be an NFL stadium built in downtown LA . Billionaire developer Ed Roski and his Majestic Reality are ready to start building a state of the art open air football stadium in the City of Industry. Which is about 20 miles from Los Angeles.

 

All the legal and environmental hurdles have been cleared. Majestic owns the land. And no public money will be needed or used for construction. It’s a true shovel ready project. Construction will begin as soon as a team commits to LA.

Holy cow! Really?

 

That plan has had rigor mortis for about a year.

 

The difference is that Meadowlands are not downtown. The new proposed stadium is. It is a very different situation.

 

 

I agree that the Chargers are the most likely candidate. However, they're going to aim for two teams.

 

 

If the downtown stadium can clear the environmental impact report hurdle (which we'll know in the next 6 to 8 months while the CBA is dealt with), then there will be a downtown stadium 100%. It's preferable to having a team in the Inland Empire. It's more than 20 miles from the city and, in LA, 20 miles equates to at least 45 minutes to 1.5 hour drive time.

 

The IE stadium is not a good spot for an LA team in my opinion. Certainly not compared to a down town stadium.

I don't get your point about being downtown. Downtown LA? Ah, ok.... so what? No one lives there. The Meadowlands is very close to Manhattan, the 4 outer borroughs and upper Jersey--you know, where people actually live. Public transportation from the Port Authority is convenient and pretty quick.

[Mr. WEO]

The point is that Farmers agreed to pay the 700 million based on 50 events a year in the stadium. AEG is guaranteeing them 50 events in return for the money. AEG must know they can get 50 events (unless this entire thing is a sham, and I doubt very much that it is).

 

The ink is put to paper as soon as one NFL team agrees to be a tenant, the ecological problem is resolved, and the city and AEG solve all other issues so there are no more hurdles to prevent the stadium from being constructed. As far as AEG and Farmers is concerned, they have both agreed there are going to be at least 50 events per year there.

These whopping naming contracts can go up in smoke well before the end of the contract. See LP (Adelphi) Field, Bank of America (Ericsson) Field, Sun Life (Land Shark) Field, TD (Fleet) Garden, Wells Fargo (Core States), etc. Considering the ridiculous amount of money Farmers is committing, I doubt this one goes the length of the contract.

[Kelly the Dog]

These whopping naming contracts can go up in smoke well before the end of the contract. See LP (Adelphi) Field, Bank of America (Ericsson) Field, Sun Life (Land Shark) Field, TD (Fleet) Garden, Wells Fargo (Core States), etc. Considering the ridiculous amount of money Farmers is committing, I doubt this one goes the length of the contract.

I agree with that. I bet there are all kinds of stipulations in the agreement fine print, and most of it was for posturing and show, to try to push the stadium deal through.

 

I, for one, still find it impossible to imagine how AEG makes enough money if they don't own a team, and the team makes enough money if they don't own the stadium and get the luxury boxes, concessions, parking, etc. It's like two behemoths that both need to be fed a lot, but they're splitting the food in half.

 

Maybe there is something I'm not considering. I guess I can see it if there are two teams there and both owners are not interested in owning a stadium or making a big yearly profit (but they must be paying AEG huge rent for it), and AEG makes up what they need to in other events, naming rights, convention fees and the hotels and stuff they will build around the complex. But I haven't seen it written in the press.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog

[Mr. WEO]

I agree with that. I bet there are all kinds of stipulations in the agreement fine print, and most of it was for posturing and show, to try to push the stadium deal through.

 

I, for one, still find it impossible to imagine how AEG makes enough money if they don't own a team, and the team makes enough money if they don't own the stadium and get the luxury boxes, concessions, parking, etc. It's like two behemoths that both need to be fed a lot, but they're splitting the food in half.

 

Maybe there is something I'm not considering. I guess I can see it if there are two teams there and both owners are not interested in owning a stadium or making a big yearly profit (but they must be paying AEG huge rent for it), and AEG makes up what they need to in other events, naming rights, convention fees and the hotels and stuff they will build around the complex. But I haven't seen it written in the press.

I agree with you on the bolded part--I've been saying this all along. This model doesn't exist in the NFL.

[JohnC]

None of what you mention explains how these guys cover the monthly nut on a billion plus loan.

 

A multi-purpose facility and a hotel and ticket tax will defray the stadium costs. Those involved in the stadium project are also involved in the development of other surrounding projects, increasing their value and tax base of the area. The project will pay for itself if managed right. The project is more advanced than you think. The area where the proposed stadium will be located is a very hot real estate market. Getting a proposed deal on the naming rights is an indication that the financing and project is falling into place. The people involved in the project are nothing like the backward owner of the Bills who is not even willing to sell the naming rights because he stubbornly doesn't want to. The NFL has passed him by a long time ago. While others are looking to the future, the old man is clutching to the good old baron days.

[Bills(70)]

Just curious where you got this number from. Lucas Oil Stadium was built for 750mil and is good enough to host a Superbowl.

 

You speak of the weather of the Great Lakes like it sits on a fault line in California with a volcano a mile a way. Chicago and Cleveland both appear to get by with open-aired stadiums.

Chicago and Cleveland have stable population bases above 2 million.that can support a team that does not need there facilities to operate on a near 365 day a year basis. The locations of Buffalo and Cleveland have very similiar situations weather wise, but Chicago doesn't compare considering the lack of condensation collection coming across the plains as opposed to bodies of water such as the great lakes.

 

The number I arrived at stems from NY regulations, infrastructure upgrades, prevailing wages and material costs for the engineering of a structure that can withstand the weight of accumalted snow or a heating element system to keep the snow weight down combined with a drainage system. The prime location for such a facility, to minimize such costs is in southeast Buffalo, within a 3 mile distance of downtown given the existing infrastructure there in an effort to minimize costs. The reasoning is fairly simple.

In order to drive business to the Stadium for non-football related events, a close to proximity of downtown location allows for further enhancement of revenue generation.

 

As for the LOS, it seats 60+ thousand I believe, a stadium here in Buffalo will most likely seat in excess of 80 thousand. Plus there is the mandated programs that are sure to come with a project such as this for the immediate surrounding area around the stadium. Parking and Business are in the immediate area are going to need growth capital as well.

 

But the larger costs will be the infrastructure upgrades needed as well as the structual integrity of the facility itself in such a high volume snow accumulation area as Buffalo.

 

Guess you know more than anyone else...

 

Just wanted to touch on that first point, from a Buffalo Rumblings article:

 

if the sale of the Sabres came through at $175 million, it'd represent just 5.8 percent of Pegula's total net worth, which exceeds $3 billion. Gleason reports that Pegula's true passion is Sabres hockey, but that Pegula is a Bills fan "with a fondness for the Detroit Lions". Gleason writes: "Without getting too far ahead, sources said, he would be very interested in buying the Bills after the passing of owner Ralph C. Wilson Jr., now 92, if enough variables fall into place."

 

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2010/12/2/1850502/report-terry-pegula-may-have-interest-in-buying-buffalo-bills

 

 

I think time will tell on this one...

I happen to know Mr. Pegula.

I work in the energy industry.

So yea, I guess I do know a little more than you.

[Chef Jim]

Ok 50 posts in and no one said anything about this. Well at least I don't think anyone did, I just skimmed through. But you're kidding me right? Farmer's Field!?!?!? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. But then again we're talking LA here.

[Arkady Renko]

Chicago and Cleveland have stable population bases above 2 million.that can support a team that does not need there facilities to operate on a near 365 day a year basis. The locations of Buffalo and Cleveland have very similiar situations weather wise, but Chicago doesn't compare considering the lack of condensation collection coming across the plains as opposed to bodies of water such as the great lakes.

 

The number I arrived at stems from NY regulations, infrastructure upgrades, prevailing wages and material costs for the engineering of a structure that can withstand the weight of accumalted snow or a heating element system to keep the snow weight down combined with a drainage system. The prime location for such a facility, to minimize such costs is in southeast Buffalo, within a 3 mile distance of downtown given the existing infrastructure there in an effort to minimize costs. The reasoning is fairly simple.

In order to drive business to the Stadium for non-football related events, a close to proximity of downtown location allows for further enhancement of revenue generation.

 

As for the LOS, it seats 60+ thousand I believe, a stadium here in Buffalo will most likely seat in excess of 80 thousand. Plus there is the mandated programs that are sure to come with a project such as this for the immediate surrounding area around the stadium. Parking and Business are in the immediate area are going to need growth capital as well.

 

But the larger costs will be the infrastructure upgrades needed as well as the structual integrity of the facility itself in such a high volume snow accumulation area as Buffalo.

 

 

I happen to know Mr. Pegula.

I work in the energy industry.

So yea, I guess I do know a little more than you.

 

Why would the Bills stadium need to seat in excess of 80,000?

[CosmicBills]

Ok 50 posts in and no one said anything about this. Well at least I don't think anyone did, I just skimmed through. But you're kidding me right? Farmer's Field!?!?!? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. But then again we're talking LA here.

:lol: Well played, Chef. Well played.

[Bills(70)]

Why would the Bills stadium need to seat in excess of 80,000?

Gate receipts would make it financially viable given the lack of fan base remaining in the region for merchandising locally.

[CosmicBills]

Gate receipts would make it financially viable given the lack of fan base remaining in the region for merchandising locally.

Where your thinking is flawed (in my opinion) is in thinking that whoever steps in to buy the team is going to expect to generate the same kind of income that the Krafts, Jones and Johnsons of the league. That just isn't true. With TV money and shared revenue a team in Buffalo can and will make money for whoever buys it. Will it make as much money or be as valuable as it would if it relocated? No. Buffalo just cannot compete with financially with the likes of the Pats, Cowboys, Jets and Giants. It never has and never will. But that doesn't mean an owner will lose money in Buffalo.

 

But that's the point you're missing. You're not accounting for the fact that someone will buy the club because it matters to the region and to the history of the league more so than their personal bottom line. I'm not saying that WILL happen, but it is just as likely to happen as someone who's only buying the team to increase the franchise's value.

Edited February 3, 2011 by tgreg99

[Chef Jim]

Holy cow! Really?

 

That plan has had rigor mortis for about a year.

 

 

I don't get your point about being downtown. Downtown LA? Ah, ok.... so what? No one lives there. The Meadowlands is very close to Manhattan, the 4 outer borroughs and upper Jersey--you know, where people actually live. Public transportation from the Port Authority is convenient and pretty quick.

 

Yup and the West Side, Beverly Hills, Hollywood, West Hollywood, the South Bay, Long Beach are all only a short drive away. What are we talking here a couple of million people. The reason no one supported a team in LA was because most of us were from someplace else and they did a ****ty job promoting it. The Rams did well because the were Orange County's team.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Ok 50 posts in and no one said anything about this. Well at least I don't think anyone did, I just skimmed through. But you're kidding me right? Farmer's Field!?!?!? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. But then again we're talking LA here.

Eh, Giants Field was built on a toxic waste dump. Of course that would be anywhere in NJ, but still.

[Bills(70)]

Where your thinking is flawed (in my opinion) is in thinking that whoever steps in to buy the team is going to expect to generate the same kind of income that the Krafts, Jones and Johnsons of the league. That just isn't true. With TV money and shared revenue a team in Buffalo can and will make money for whoever buys it. Will it make as much money or be as valuable as it would if it relocated? No. Buffalo just cannot compete with financially with the likes of the Pats, Cowboys, Jets and Giants. It never has and never will. But that doesn't mean an owner will lose money in Buffalo.

 

But that's the point you're missing. You're not accounting for the fact that someone will buy the club because it matters to the region and to the history of the league more so than their personal bottom line. I'm not saying that WILL happen, but it is just as likely to happen as someone who's only buying the team to increase the franchise's value.

Buffalo's population will continue to decline. Along with the surrounding regions (i.e. Rochester, N.F., as well as the rural areas).

I respect that opinion because quite frankly, to date, the Buffalo-Niagara region was fortunate to have owners step in and save the Sabres.

 

But this isn't a 190 million dollar hockey team in the 4th rated sport in North America were speaking on here.

The NFL is a very serious business, and it's bottom line shows it.

The Buffalo Bills won't be here long after Mr. Wilson passes, that much I am sure of. Unless an investment can be made long term not only to the enhancement of team facilities, but to the fan base itself.

 

I am sorry, but the numbers don't lie here. The exodus continues out of this region, and shows no signs of stabilizing. Some in the business community have privately stated that the region could drop below 1 million in population by 2025. That's a mere 14 years away. That would make Buffalo the lowest local fan base in the league by far.

Not a good indicator for the future of a professional football team to remain viable market wise in the NFL while there are a multitude of other locations with larger markets.

A domed stadium would not only stave this off for a bit, but would also generate interest in development and hopefully some growth in the region.

 

You really have to look at the strategic plan, not just the tactical one when approaching a situation such as this.

[Mr. WEO]

Chicago and Cleveland have stable population bases above 2 million.that can support a team that does not need there facilities to operate on a near 365 day a year basis. The locations of Buffalo and Cleveland have very similiar situations weather wise, but Chicago doesn't compare considering the lack of condensation collection coming across the plains as opposed to bodies of water such as the great lakes.

 

The number I arrived at stems from NY regulations, infrastructure upgrades, prevailing wages and material costs for the engineering of a structure that can withstand the weight of accumalted snow or a heating element system to keep the snow weight down combined with a drainage system. The prime location for such a facility, to minimize such costs is in southeast Buffalo, within a 3 mile distance of downtown given the existing infrastructure there in an effort to minimize costs. The reasoning is fairly simple.

In order to drive business to the Stadium for non-football related events, a close to proximity of downtown location allows for further enhancement of revenue generation.

 

As for the LOS, it seats 60+ thousand I believe, a stadium here in Buffalo will most likely seat in excess of 80 thousand. Plus there is the mandated programs that are sure to come with a project such as this for the immediate surrounding area around the stadium. Parking and Business are in the immediate area are going to need growth capital as well.

 

But the larger costs will be the infrastructure upgrades needed as well as the structual integrity of the facility itself in such a high volume snow accumulation area as Buffalo.

 

 

I happen to know Mr. Pegula.

I work in the energy industry.

So yea, I guess I do know a little more than you.

 

Has Chicago been moved to the plains, away from the shores of a Great Lake?

[Bills(70)]

Has Chicago been moved to the plains, away from the shores of a Great Lake?

Prevailing North American weather patterns have always been driven by the Jet Stream as well as the Arctic Trade Winds. Both of which flow in a west to east pattern.

Remind me again which side of Lake Michigan Chicago sits on?

A majority of Chicago's winter weather comes across Nebraska/N. and S. Dakota/Iowa/Minny and the Kansas Corridor.

I don't know about you, but I don't see a whole lot of great bodies of water in those areas.

This is not to say Chicago doesn't get it's fair share of snow. It does.

But it doesn't compare to Buffalo, and once again, this leads us into a "Strategic" view of the Bills survival in the region, not just a "Tactical" one.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/2003-10-01-snowiest-cities_x.htm

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake-effect_snow