Field of Schemes
sports stadium news and analysis


This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.

October 11, 2011

NFL hates on AEG Los Angeles stadium, Roski retools Industry offer

The Los Angeles NFL stadium competition, thought by many (though not by me) to have been settled in favor of AEG's downtown stadium plan when that was approved by the L.A. city council back in August, just got turned topsy-turvy again:

  • On Friday, Yahoo News reported that the NFL isn't interested in the AEG plan as currently constituted: "During a Sept. 6 meeting at the NFL offices in New York, commissioner Roger Goodell told Los Angeles Councilwoman Jan Perry and political aide Bernard Parks, Jr. that neither the league nor any team interested in moving there would agree to the business proposal set forth by Anschutz Entertainment Group, according to three sources with knowledge of the conversation." Added one unnamed NFL exec: "The problem is that when you start to look at the expenses and how much has to be divided among all the competing interests, you have to wonder how much is going to be there for a team." Or, as the invaluable (and I say that not just because they linked to us) I Dislike Your Favorite Team puts it: "Wait, you want to charge HOW MUCH to have a NFL team in your stadium?"
  • With the AEG plan apparently dead in the water for now — at least until they can figure out how to pay for it without demanding that any team playing there give up a ton of stadium revenues and a chunk of equity in the team — developer Ed Roski has retooled his City of Industry stadium plan: Now, instead of seeking to trade development rights to land around the stadium for an ownership share in an NFL team, Roski would buy a chunk of the team at market rate, and offer to hand over the development rights to the land to any team that would move in and finance the stadium themselves.

On the face of it, Roski's new proposal doesn't sound all that much more tempting to an NFL owner: Either way, they're looking at giving up a chunk of their team and having to build a stadium on their own dime, with the uncertain prospect of getting to develop the surrounding land the only upside. That's not what team owners are looking for — as I've written before, if teams wanted to use their own revenues to pay for new stadiums, they could do that right now in their current cities.

L.A. is no doubt a tempting market — albeit less so in the NFL, where local TV revenue is inconsequential — but it remains exceedingly unlikely that either the league or any individual team owner is going to jump at a stadium offer that mostly requires them to pay their own way. (Yes, the New York Giants and Jets did it, but New York is an even bigger market than L.A., and there the teams didn't have to start fresh with a new fan base.) Unless somebody figures out how to either cut the cost of the stadiums or generate cash out of thin air — or from those increasingly standoffish California taxpayers — we could be a long way from seeing the NFL return to Los Angeles.


One other thing folks are forgetting - if there is an NFL team in Los Angeles, that means that one-half of the broadcast day is going to be dedicated to that (presumably crappy) Los Angeles team.

As it stands now, the LAX TV market gets its choice of the best four games on any given NFL weekend instead of being tracked into one possibly "good" morning game and then the game involving LA ChaRaiJagVikBills.

Has anyone done a study on the NFL TV ratings for the LAX market since the Rams and the Raiders moved?

Posted by SierraSpartan on October 11, 2011 06:17 PM

It's something that many of us have been saying for some time... LA is no slam dunk if the stadium owner is going to require that the team moving in give up equity, stadium revenues or both. And given that both present plans involve private stadium owners/builders, unless one of the parties is willing to build the stadium AND buy a team at market rate (Anschutz at least seems to be moving in this direction), it seems unlikely that a prospective tenant will be all that interested in moving.

Recent developments aside (Raiders perhaps being "available", and owing the NFL many millions that the present ownership has seemed unable to pay), I'd say we're no closer to an LA team now than we were 3 or 4 years ago.

SS: Great point. LA has the NFL right now, all of it. I wouldn't say they can't make more money out of the city if they do have a team there, but it isn't like they don't sell merch in LA right now, nor direct tv packages, nor advertising, nor...

Posted by John Bladen on October 11, 2011 09:35 PM

Maybe the AEG guys'll get the message this time: "NFL Revenues stay in OUR pockets - you subsidize US to play football in your city."

That's all that Stadium Poker is about - making sure that a city/county/authority gets stuck with the money-losing butt-end of running an NFL stadium.

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,


Posted by Bill Bailey on October 12, 2011 01:12 AM

Latest News Items