City Council approves plan for NFL stadium near Los Angeles

[alp227]

Source: AP

CARSON, Calif. (AP) —A local City Council on Tuesday night unanimously voted to clear the path for a proposed $1.7 billion stadium near Los Angeles that could become the shared home to the NFL's San Diego Chargers and the Oakland Raiders.

The 3-0 by the Carson City Council marks a significant step forward for plans to lure the NFL back to the Los Angeles area after two-decades without a team in the nation's second-largest media market.

The next moves now belong to the teams, and to the league.

Mayor Albert Robles likened the absence of the NFL in greater Los Angeles to the state's deep drought.

Read more: http://pro32.ap.org/article/city-council-approves-plan-nfl-stadium-near-los-angeles

[SoapBox]

1. A traffic nightmare hell!

If I could vote on this it would be no way.

The traffic now is hell on the 405...it will be a complete gridlock
stop if this goes in. There is no public transit either.

And...it's about as far from Carson City Hall as possible.

[itsrobert]

33. Most games are on Sundays.

Not peak freeway time. Also, 110 freeway can also provides access to the stadium with proper planning.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. The Oakland part makes absolutely no sense

That's like having the New England Patriots' establish their "home" @ FedExField in the D.C. metro area (Maryland).

I am thinking the strategy apparently is for L.A. to get a football team back and I do remember seeing something about the Raiders being up on the list to leave Oakland and move south (since the "local area" does have the '49ers across the bay).

[Travis_0004]

7. You are correct.

Oakland wants to possibly move, so they would be the LA Raiders, or something like that.

[davidpdx]

6. Exactly

It was stupid of the Raiders to move to LA the first time, but doing it a second time? It is a crock of shit.

Many large cities have two team and large states have as many as four.

I can see putting one team in LA, but two teams is too many. They already have two basketball teams, two baseball teams, one soccer team (soon to be two), and a hockey team.

As a life long Raider fan, I may say adios if they move. I've still got the Niners.

[Angleae]

10. It might be 3 teams in LA.

The Rams are thinking of moving to Inglewood.

[davidpdx]

15. It is three teams that are thinking about it

Three teams won't move there. LA can't support three NFL teams on top of the crap load of sports teams they already have. It will either be one or two. Personally I hope it will be one.

The Raiders made a HUGE mistake not agreeing to share Levi Stadium in Santa Clara. Given there are 17 weeks and 8 home games each it would have been possible. By turning it down they really can't complain much about being in the shithole Coliseum.

[Xithras]

23. The stadium sharing deal would have been a serious financial problem for the Raiders.

When a teams ownership has partial or full ownership of a stadium, they get a portion of all revenues that stadium generates. Every concert, every event, every game, every commercial that uses the stadium pays for it, and the team gets a cut. This is a large source of revenue for most sports teams.

Levi's Stadium is owned primarily by the York family, which includes the CEO of the 49ers. All ownership revenue from the stadium would flow to the 49ers and Yorks, and not a dime would have reached the Raiders. For all intents and purposes, they would have been little more than tenants in the stadium. Ironically, even Raiders games would have generated income for the Yorks (and, by proxy, the 49ers), because the Yorks gets a cut of ALL revenue generated by the stadium, from ANY source.

As a team, the Raiders have been financially struggling for years due to a combination of declining ticket sales, decreasing TV revenue, and increasing player contracts. To lose the income stream from their facility would have been a major blow.

Presumably, if they have an agreement in place for Carson, it includes a revenue sharing agreement with the Chargers. They are also probably assuming that the loss of a percentage of the facility revenue to the Chargers would be more than offset by projected increases in ticket sales and third party stadium rentals in comparison to their current facility (O.Co sucks, and it generates a fraction of the rental income that other sports facilities in California churn out).

Never forget that, above all else, football is a BUSINESS. What is "good for the fans" will ALWAYS be secondary to the financial well being of the team and its owners.

[oberliner]

12. Or they can watch them on tv

Like most people do.

[msongs]

3. they do not have any signed agreements bringing a team in - all wishful thinking. wonder who

will foot the bill for all this

[safeinOhio]

4. Who will foot the bill?

That is what it is all about. The teams gazillionaire owners are using this is hopes of getting those towns to pay for new stadiums with tax dollars. Screw em, let em move.

[davidpdx]

8. The taxpayers of course

It should be funded 100% by the team. Stadiums now cost over $1 billion to build and have a lifespan of about 20 years.

[Cryptoad]

9. What can be sweeter,,,,,,?

NFL pays no taxes on its income! Whats wrong in this picture?

[davidpdx]

16. The NFL pays no taxes, but the teams themselves do pay taxes

I as much as anyone would like to see that revoked.

[OldRedneck]

11. Here in the Washington DC area . . .

Back a few years ago when Daniel Snyder bought the Washington DC pro football team, he convinced Maryland and some Maryland communities near DC to pay for a new stadium. He sold the naming rights to FedEx and for the past few years the DC team has played in FedEx field in Maryland.

For decades, the DC pro football team played in old RFK Stadium in downtown DC -- RFK wasn't good enough for little Danny Snyder.

Now -- guess what??

You guessed it -- Snyder is sniffing around DC and VA locales to see if someone will pony up the $1 billion to build him a new stadium.

It's a racket and he'll get away with it. Just watch.

[davidpdx]

17. What I really never understand is teams playing in a city or state for which they aren't named

Washington (DC) ******** are playing in Maryland
New York Giants and New York Jets play in New Jersey
LA Rams (when they were in California) played in Anaheim

I'm sure there are other examples I am forgetting about or are so old that they are outside my generation.

I think Synder has done a terrible job as the owner of the team.

The two owners the NFL really needs to get rid of is Synder and Al Davis' son.

[Blue_Tires]

20. My dad was a season ticket holder, and I've gone to many games

But I have to say FedEx Field was built by the previous owner, Jack Kent Cooke...In fact for the first year it was called "Jack Kent Cooke Stadium" until the corporate sponsorship came...

[Travis_0004]

28. There is some benefit to a stadium

People go to sports bars to watch the game, stay at hotels, and eat food and buy stuff while they are there. The only time I really spend money in an adjoining city is when I go to games. If the team moves, sales tax will go down.

One can argue the benefit is overstated, and cities pay too much, and I would agree, but it would be dumb to say there is no benefit, and as such the cities should help pay some of the cost.

[GreatGazoo]

13. $1.7 billion could build a SOTA factory and employ 100s of taxpayers

$1.7 billion could buy desalinization, an electric car factory, a solar farm (or 10 solar farms). It could be spent to fix housing and infrastructure issues.

But instead it will provide a place for a team of 40 millionaires to play football 8 Sundays a year.

[wilt the stilt]

14. the 40 or really the 106 millionaires

who actually play the game earn every dollar they make. They are a physical wreck as they age and sometimes have brain issues. Most come from poor backgrounds and most of the players come from only about 6 places in the country.

[Taitertots]

19. 106 millionaires or thousands of middle class Americans

Isn't it foolhardy to take money that could directly economically benefit almost everyone and spent it for the benefit of a handful of millionaires?

[wilt the stilt]

24. no it is not

if you are one of the players. One thing i am not is jealous of athletes especially football players. Almost us all participated in sports and we were eliminated through competition. These are the people who succeeded. yes they have god given talent to an extent but they worked extremely hard to get where they are. They deserve the rewards for what they do and they really risk their health more that anyone.

[Taitertots]

25. Infrastructure/jobs programs or handouts to the already wealthy. We know where you stand on this.

No one is saying that athletes shouldn't be wealthy. We are saying that they shouldn't get funds that could otherwise go to people who actually need it.

Why do you think we should take money that could help the needy and give it to people who are already millionaires (independent of the handouts given to the wealthy team owners).

[wilt the stilt]

29. the owners are a totally different story

no tax money should go to building stadiums.

[Taitertots]

30. Ok. Common ground.

Do you think professional althletes should be given subsidies?
If so, why?

I don't think professional athletes should be given subsidies because that money is fungible and it could be much better spent on infrastructure/jobs/public welfare.

[wilt the stilt]

34. i believe in the accounting world

they are calculated and depreciated like cattle They are just cattle to these people and yes whatever they can make they deserve.

[Taitertots]

35. It's really simple. there is no need to dodge or obfuscate

Do you support government subsidies for professional athletes?

[wilt the stilt]

36. and why don't you play a sport?

because you were eliminated early and your jealous.

[Taitertots]

37. Oh, you're just trolling. Because...

No progressive would support taking money that could help the needy and giving to people who are already millionaires.

To answer your questions: I'm not a professional athlete for all the same reasons that you arn't.

[Taitertots]

18. My thoughts exactly. Let's call this athletic Keynesianism

[Blue_Tires]

21. FWIW, the stadium project and a franchise moving in

will create jobs...I realize it won't be enough jobs to justify the outlay of $1.7 billion (let's be honest -- with the delays, markups and cost overruns, the real price of the stadium will probably be in the $2.5 billion range), but the city is hoping to make that money back and then some when the Super Bowl comes to town...

(Make no mistake, this whole song-and-dance is so the NFL can have the Super Bowl in Los Angeles once again)

[Xolodno]

22. D.O.A.

75% of the team owners have to okay the move. And given the Rams are currently the front runner to move....

This is just a negotiating tactic to get San Diego and Oakland to foot some of the bill. With AEG throwing in the towel, they needed another "L.A. site" to threaten with.

Even then, the Rams could still stay as well. St. Louis may have said no to financing a new stadium, but the State itself stepped in and said they would help.

Of course, if St. Louis itself isn't willing to fund the new stadium and has to rely on he state....what does that say about ticket sales?

But I wouldn't be surprised in the coming months if both San Diego and Oakland did sign on a deal to keep the teams...and then later the Rams stay put as well. And LA has no team.

If you include Orange County, there are two baseball teams, two hockey teams (which will compete for fans), a soccer team, two basket ball teams and two national college football teams (which will also compete for fans).

[HassleCat]

26. Good Analogy, Mr. Mayor!

Because depriving football fans of their fix is exactly like denying water to thirsty people. It will be interesting to see how much money they squeeze out of taxpayers. I'm way up north, but I'm still in Cali, so I expect they'll tag me for a few bucks.

[Politicalboi]

27. What an ass

"Mayor Albert Robles likened the absence of the NFL in greater Los Angeles to the state's deep drought."

We DON'T need football to survive. I'm sure Chargers and Raiders fans will love that to see their home town play a mere 4 to 8 hour drive down the street.

[Corey_Baker08]

31. Maybe Los Angeles Is Looking To Acquire A New Football Team?

I mean wasn't the Indianapolis Colts The Los Angeles Colts or something like that before they left LA for Indy?

[alp227]

32. Baltimore actually nt