Los Angeles OKs outlines of downtown football stadium deal

[M II A II R II K]

Los Angeles OKs outlines of downtown football stadium deal


August 10, 2011

Read More: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...561,full.story

In the most significant step toward bringing NFL football back to Los Angeles since the city lost out on an expansion team more than a decade ago, the City Council on Tuesday approved the outlines of a $1.5-billion deal to develop a new downtown stadium and major wing of the Convention Center. The unanimous vote gave city leaders a rare chance to seize on a major economic development after years of slashing payrolls, scaling back services and watching helplessly as the real estate market dried up. And it came at a time when business leaders and trade unions are desperately seeking ways to jump-start a local economy plagued by double-digit unemployment.

- "It is a very important project at a very tenuous economic time," said Carol Schatz, executive director of the Central City Assn., a downtown business group and a leading backer of the project. "We're bringing the NFL back.... We're going to get millions more in additional development, and that means millions more in tax revenue. On this one I have to ask: What's not to like?" The vote is a victory for politically influential developer Anschutz Entertainment Group, which overcame concerns from some council members and activists that the city was rushing into a risky deal that could compound its budget woes.

- Approval of the deal framework puts AEG in a better position to deliver on its plan to open the 72,000-seat stadium in five years and show the NFL that the company has overcome political obstacles, said AEG Chief Executive Tim Leiweke. "It sends a very strong message to the NFL owners. We did it. We were unanimous," he said. More detailed negotiations will continue for months, but AEG can now step up efforts to pursue a team from another city — a linchpin of the development agreement. "It's big for the leaders there to make the commitment they have," said Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who serves on the NFL's stadium review committee. City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana, a key city negotiator, said, "We're serious about this."

.....

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...,2690282.story






http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,2633008.story

[ardecila]

Really? "Farmers Field" in the middle of downtown LA?

[Quixote]

For short, "The Farm" would sound pretty cool.

[sopas ej]

Being that Farmers Insurance was founded in Los Angeles and is headquartered in Los Angeles, if an LA stadium has to have corporate sponsor naming rights, Farmers Field is perfect, unlike, say, Staples Center, where Staples is headquartered in Massachusetts.

[Crawford]

What's with California stadium names? Petco Park and maybe now Farmers Field?

At least Dodger Stadium won't be messed with.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Crawford

What's with California stadium names? Petco Park and maybe now Farmers Field?

At least Dodger Stadium won't be messed with.

Petco doesn't sound any sillier than Safeco; the former has a family-friendly connotation.

Farmers Field doesn't sound any sillier than Lincoln Financial Field or nearly as stupid as that dump up north that has changed names one too many times.

Eventually though, it rolls off the tongue rather easily.

[mhays]

Safeco has always been a big company (and now subsidiary) in Seattle. I'm on the fence about corporate naming for the obvious reasons, but as they go this one wasn't controversial here.

I like "the Farm." Not as good as Denver's "The Can" but it's still memorable, easy to say, and easy to turn into pithy headlines.

[Rail>Auto]

What are the chances both proposed NFL stadiums get built?

[DJM19]

Im ok with the "farm" name because farming actually is a big part of LA's history, as recently as 50 years ago. Now its mostly gone so it seems strange, but not a big deal. Farmer's Insurance was originally aimed at these farmers, and was started downtown.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Rail>Auto

What are the chances both proposed NFL stadiums get built?

Zero. There will eventually be two teams in LA (my guess is Chargers and Rams) and they will both play in one stadium. Both stadiums are being planned with two tenants in mind.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Really? "Farmers Field" in the middle of downtown LA?

Well we obviously can't call it "Northrop Field" since those assholes bolted for DC.

[Inkoumori]

One of the tallest towers in lower Manhattan began life as the "City Bank-Farmers Trust Building", 1931.

It's landmarked and now known as "20 Exchange Place", but most NY'ers know it as the "Farmer's Tower".


Brooklyn Historic Society

[ocman]

Anyone know how much they are paying for the naming rights ?

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Rail>Auto

What are the chances both proposed NFL stadiums get built?

Very good actually. While Farmers Field is clearly more popular, Grand Crossing is MUCH further along in the development process.

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Zero. There will eventually be two teams in LA (my guess is Chargers and Rams) and they will both play in one stadium. Both stadiums are being planned with two tenants in mind.

Really? As I recall, Roski and Lieweke have mentioned the POSSIBILITY of holding two teams in either stadium. And who says they HAVE to play in one stadium? Wouldn't it be better for the franchises (maybe not the stadiums tho) if they played in separate venues?

And I actually like Farmers Field better.

Don't make conclusions drawn by bias. Nothing is concrete about them HAVING to play in one stadium.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Very good actually. While Farmers Field is clearly more popular, Grand Crossing is MUCH further along in the development process.



Really? As I recall, Roski and Lieweke have mentioned the POSSIBILITY of holding two teams in either stadium. And who says they HAVE to play in one stadium? Wouldn't it be better for the franchises (maybe not the stadiums tho) if they played in separate venues?

And I actually like Farmers Field better.

Don't make conclusions drawn by bias. Nothing is concrete about them HAVING to play in one stadium.

both Roski and Liewieke have said that only one stadium will be built. it doesnt make sense to build two new 80,000 seat stadiums, especially since LA already has so many venues that can hold 50,000 +.

also, the Farmers naming rights deal was for 700 million! that jumps to 1 billion if two teams sign up to play. its by far the largest naming rights deal in history.

[Rail>Auto]

I can see the arguments on both sides (which is why I posed the question) but personally I do feel (or atleast hope) that 2 stadiums could possibly be pulled off.

Yes it is correct that both developers are saying they want 2 teams and there can only be one stadium, but let's be honest, both of these developers don't want to share teams, they want both each for themselves. That doesn't necessarily mean it will play out that way.

Personally, I think the Chargers and Raiders will be the two teams that will move. When the first team commits (which I think will be the Chargers), the other team will get a better offer to be the premier tenant at the other stadium versus being second fiddle to the first team.

It would have worked in NY if the Jets would have pulled off their stadium in Manhattan and this is really no different that LA getting a team and Anaheim getting a team, just a slightly different location.

There is also plenty of other events to go around as well. The fact that Memorial Coliseum and the Rose Bowl seat over 50,000 is irrelevant as they are not NFL quality stadiums. Isn't USC wanting to demolish the LA Sports Center (bad idea) and building a soccer stadium? Why not move into Farmers Field?

Both sides appear to have the private financing lined up and both appear to be on their way to getting all of the approvals, they just each need a team, which shouldn't be too hard in the near future.

[Rail>Auto]

Another thing, I question why these stadiums are only going to hold 70,000-80,000. Before they are built, they are already way behind the Cowboys. Doesn't make sense.

[plinko]

Originally Posted by Rail>Auto

Another thing, I question why these stadiums are only going to hold 70,000-80,000. Before they are built, they are already way behind the Cowboys. Doesn't make sense.

Because there isn't alot to do in Dallas. (I'm being sarcastic, but there's a whole lot more competition in LA for your entertainment dollar).

The last thing the NFL wants is to build a 100,000 seat stadium in LA (there are already 2) and run the risk of a TV blackout in the nation's #2 television market. This happened often when the Raiders were there before.

[Lipani]

Good for LA, as much as I fear the Chargers might bolt (no pun intended). So far the Spanos family has shown commitment to staying as long as a stadium deal progresses here. Mayor Sanders has generally been pro-development, but usually happier with keeping the status quo in regards to just about everything in the city. Either a terrible replacement for Sanders next election or the failure of the lawsuit against the state to reclaim redevelopment dollars wouldn't make the odds very good for San Diego.

As for the name, unless it has historical value (Lambeau Field, Fenway Park, etc.), then who cares what the name is? 90% of them sound cheesy. Farmers Field is catchy. Now EnergySolutions Arena -- that's bad.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Rail>Auto

Another thing, I question why these stadiums are only going to hold 70,000-80,000. Before they are built, they are already way behind the Cowboys. Doesn't make sense.

Not true. The Cowboys stadium seats just under 80,000. It's only the third largest stadium in the NFC East.

The claimed stadium attendance numbers are for folks basically standing in the parking lot.