Sep 22, 2009
“People say, ‘Well, Los Angeles won’t support football.’ That is complete garbage. Fifty-two years ago, 102,000 people showed up for Rams-49ers.”
– NBC’s Al Michaels, in a voice much louder than this writing indicates, on Sunday Night Football
It has been 14 years since professional football was last played in Los Angeles. And now, there are rumors that we may see the NFL return to the City of Angels as soon as next year. When did all of this happen? From the ,
[quotes]John Semcken, project manager for the proposed $800 million NFL stadium in the City of Industry, looked around the ballroom at Big Canyon Country Club on Friday night and hesitated before dropping that provocative possibility into his presentation to the invitation-only audience of Orange County movers and shakers.
“We could have a team here as early as next year,” Semcken said.
OK, now the obligatory fine print.
First, the litigation against the stadium developer — Majestic Realty Co., owned by billionaire Edward Roski Jr., who was also on hand Friday night — has to be settled. (The City of Walnut, and a group of Walnut residents, have filed separate lawsuits against the project, seeking a new environmental-impact study. Negotiations are continuing, with former California attorney general John Van de Kamp mediating.)
“We’re going to be done by the end of September, one way or another, with approval for the stadium,” Semcken said, saying he was confident the state Senate would approve environmental waivers on the project if there isn’t a settlement with litigants by Sept. 29. “Then it’s a matter of which (existing NFL) team is going to come.
[/quotes]
Well, Mr. Semcken is certainly optimistic, isn’t he? Even if you consider the lawsuit a moot point, there seems to be an even bigger problem that a Los Angeles football team would encounter…Where do we play?
[quotes]“Once we have an approved stadium, we can offer it to the NFL,” Semcken said. “The team could move immediately, play temporarily in the Rose Bowl or play temporarily in the Coliseum … then move into the new building in 2013 when it’s completed.”[/quotes]
Okay…now lets pump the brakes a bit, and slow down.
Come on everyone…this is not going to happen by 2010. And there is multiple evidence to back up that preceding sentence. Firstly, what NFL team is going to announce a move to Los Angeles only to play at the Coliseum for three years? It is a risk. Sure, you could temporarily play at the Coliseum and start to establish your fan base so they’re ready for a move in 2013…or you could mire yourself in mediocrity for three years, have all the excitement of a new team in Los Angeles already wearing off and then be stuck with a big, shiny, empty stadium. Even though Los Angeles is the second largest market in the U.S., the murmuring about LA not supporting a team didn’t just appear out of thin air, regardless of what Al Michaels says. Fans want to watch their team win, even in large markets. Why open yourself up to that risk until absolutely necessary?
Secondly, there is a simple organizational term involved…Escalation of commitment. Out of the various NFL teams rumored to be a candidate for relocation (Minnesota, Jacksonville, San Diego, etc.), the Jaguars most recently came into existence, which occurred in 1995. 14 years. 14 years of the NFL committing money, time, and resources to Jacksonville…all to be thrown away in the next 11 months without significant efforts to change the situation first? Not likely. And the Jaguars are the newest team. How do you justify moving one of the older, more established teams to Los Angeles when they’ve had at least 15 years to build a fan base, and without the team being in completely dire straits? The NFL has gone all these years without a team in Los Angeles, and now they’re going to rush into it without a completely necessary reason? It doesn’t make sense. Don’t get me wrong, I certainly think there are teams that are in trouble *cough* Jaguars *cough*, but the 11 month time frame is way too short.
And sure, many can argue, as they undoubtedly are already doing, that Los Angeles has a huge market (which it does) and it will bring increased revenues, blah, blah, blah. These points have been true for the last 14 years. And sure, maybe you have a team more willing to pay relocation costs now that it appears that the (a point of contention with Los Angeles NFL teams before), but again…to move in 2010 is nonsensical. And I think that the logic applied by Semcken is correct; if a team is moving they have to move. You cannot announce a move today for two years from now…you will have no sponsorships.
And what of the economy?
Strangely enough, it looks like the recession may actually be a hindrance to any NFL team relocation. Why? Simply put, the recession causes a decrease in revenue. Lower revenues mean less money to use to cover relocation costs, which leads to an increased desire to not relocate. The argument being “if it ain’t broke (too much), don’t try to fix it”. Furthermore, revenues have slowed or will slow down across the league (see: Jerry Jones, the Cowboys stadium, and the fact that the naming rights haven’t been sold). Team revenues are tied to the league-wide imposed salary cap. The smaller the increases in the salary cap, the better the chance that small market teams have to compete, competition leads to fan retention, revenue, etc. Sure, teams like the Jaguars might be struggling now, but what if the salary cap was $200 million as opposed to $127 million? The smaller market teams wouldn’t be able to afford good players (gee, this sounds like baseball.).
The point of this whole thing is that there needs to be a justifiable reason to move a team to LA in the next 11 months; and one doesn’t exist. Revenue sharing still exists to help keep small market teams competitive, the salary cap isn’t exponentially high, there’s no stadium, and the NFL just doesn’t relocate teams for the hell of it. We will see an NFL team in Los Angeles at some year in the near future…but 2010 is not that year.
Of course, we could be looking at a completely different situation if there’s no collective bargaining agreement. No salary cap? Possibly no revenue sharing?
If we get to that point, all bets are off.
36 comments
You must have been raised in one of those other cities in CA. Your type of negative talks, is what’s kept a team out our city for years. If you don’t want a team here, come and say I don’t want a team in LA. Don’t hide behind comments like,” You could mire yourself in mediocrity for three years, have all the excitement of a new team in Los Angeles already wearing off and then be stuck with a big, shiny, empty stadium.” People like you will insure that nothing ever happens.
@Sam
I’m actually in Pittsburgh. But your comment helps prove my point. I personally would be crushed if the Steelers weren’t here, so would everyone else. There would be such a huge uproar the NFL would know, KNOW that football needs to come back to Pittsburgh. That’s exactly what you don’t see in LA. not in any sort of large number anyway. I think you will get a team anyway, but I question if that “fire” is there. And I think its that “fire” that has kept the NFL out of the countries 2nd largest market for the last 14 years.
jones
How do you know what’s going on in L.A. It’s a lot of people hyped about getting a nfl team. I hate people from other states commenting on what is going on in la, especially a person who has only one team to get happy about all year.
I completely agree with you. I too reside in Los Angeles and I’ve NOT heard one person talk about how much they don’t want an NFL team here. Everyone has positive comments and we would love to have an NFL team.
If your not from here then keep your false statements to yourself. You obviously have no business talking about a place you’ve probably never visited and about the fans that want an NFL team here.
As I said, I live in Pittsburgh. We may have had two teams that just won championships in the past year. True, we don’t have basketball, but you don’t have football, technically. So I don’t see how that puts you in a different boat.
I never said people don’t want an NFL team in LA; go back and read the comment. My comment is more along the lines of indifference. That desire that I mentioned…that was indifference, not a situation where people in LA don’t like football. And true, I don’t live in LA, and I’m looking at it from a 3rd person perspective, etc. But there is a reason why you guys haven’t had professional football in 14 years…you can’t argue with that. You guys are the second largest market in the U.S., and the NFL hasn’t been there in 14 years. That obviously doesn’t add up. And sure, you can say that the reason is simply because of the fact that stadium costs weren’t going to be subsidized…but isn’t it still the people of LA that elect the officials that would approve a subsidy? Or the people that would vote on a referendum?
The point is this: there is some reason why the NFL has left and not come back. If fan interest wasn’t even a tiny bit a part of the reasoning to not come back, the question I pose is this: What is the reason?
Furthermore, just because I say some people in LA aren’t excited about football doesn’t make my statement false; there are some people that think that.
In any case, like I said previously, I still think you guys will get an NFL team, one way or the other.
how many millions of people live in the LA metro area? While people that live in LA certainly have a better sample size than I do, unless you’re friends with millions of people, it certainly doesn’t guarantee the accuracy of your sample size.
@ Emmett
You sound like someone who thinks he has all the answers when you don’t. You make a comment about the NFL in LA and point to one fact then pass it off as it must be true. I don’t think you truly understand the real situation here and what has been going on for a long time in LA. It’s nonsense that precedes the Rams move from LA to Anaheim.
@LA Rams
Um…I may need some more details. I’m not sure what you’re talking about. What is the one point I made about the NFL in LA? the fact that it hasn’t been there in 14 years, or something else?
And I never said anything about the Rams moving from LA to Anaheim…I’m not sure what you are referring to
@ Emmett
You don’t know what I am talking about? You place blame of losing the NFL on LA because they don’t support their teams. That’s where you are wrong. And, I brought up the Rams leaving for Anaheim because the NFL issues in LA precede that move in 1979.
Besides, you are in Pitt so why do you care?
I didn’t just make up the “lack of support” idea out of thin air…its been mentioned before:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCL/is_4_33/ai_110312192/pg_2/
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/09/sports/pro-football-raiders-divorce-made-in-heaven.html?pagewanted=all
And this segment from an LA Times article in ’89
“Since the Raiders can’t or don’t sell out the Coliseum, ticket revenue and television advertising each is affected. Prices are affected because tickets are not hard to find. Blackouts in America’s second-largest market are commonplace because TV is loath to interfere with games that aren’t SRO. The Raiders might be loved in Los Angeles, but they are not as hungrily desired as they would be elsewhere.”
Were other issues involved? Sure. I’m just saying this is a contributing factor.
You mention that the NFL had issues in LA all the way back in ’79, what were the issues back then? And are they fixed now so that a team could come back to LA?
Yes, I’m in pittsburgh. I care because all of this stuff is interesting to me.
Owners want nice, new stadiums with sky boxes and other revenue-generating features. Neither the LA Coliseum nor the Big A offer that. Both owners left for that reason. They sought better opportunities that their existing stadiums didn’t offer. By the way, the Rams left there when they were drawing very well and after they just went to the damn Super Bowl.
I will give you another example. Take Cleveland. We all know they sold out their place. Art Modell moved because of how much more revenue he could get from a new stadium in Baltimore. It’s the same thing in LA.
The biggest problem without a doubt is the LA Coliseum Commission. They are the reson why the Rams left in 1979, the Raiders left in 1994, and why Peter O’Malley couldn’t build a stadium at Chavez Ravine, why a downtown stadium was stopped, why Frank McCourt didn’t build his proposed stadium at Chavez Ravine, Hollywood Park…It keeps going and going.
For what it’s worth, Ken Behring tried to move the Seahawks to LA immediately after the Rams and Raiders left. Although it was stopped, he tried. So if LA is such a poor market, why would this wealthy business man attempt to move to this lousy NFL market?
Do we even need to discuss the owners? They aren’t too popular.
So, stop with the LA didn’t support their teams and that’s why they left nonsense. It’s old, weak, and boring.
“Were other issues involved? Sure. I’m just saying this is a contributing factor.”
That is what I wrote. That is one factor. Was the unwillingness, for whatever reason, to build a new stadium or upgrade the existing stadiums another reason? yes. I don’t understand why everyone from the area can’t believe that everyone else isn’t as big a football fan as they are. Unfortunately, everyone doesn’t love football; that is in every city. Again, I am not saying that all of LA hates football. But I am saying that there are people in the area that are indifferent. And unfortunately that number has probably increased since you haven’t had football there in 14 years.
In some markets, fans will still sell out the stadium even if the stadium is run down. 3 Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh was an example of this. The Coliseum was not selling out back in those days. regardless of the team playing there. Sometimes, it was no where near a sell out. (I’d actually argue that part of the reason the Rams moved to Anaheim was because it was so hard to sell out the 100,000 seat Coliseum, which ran the risk of having the game blacked out locally). If the only concern was “a new stadium” then aren’t you taking the focus off of the actual product, football?
Behring tried to move the Seahawks to LA because its the second largest television market in the U.S. If its such a great market why were teams leaving? just because of stadiums? The Steelers were selling out 3 rivers, the packers were selling out Lambeau when those stadiums were in dire need of renovation…other NFL areas are and were willing to take on additional taxes to help finance their stadiums…what was happening in LA? (i honestly don’t know the answer to this question).
Relocation is usually not cheap. it seems like we should have had a lot more moves over the last 20 years if teams were just bailing on cities when they didn’t get the stadium they wanted. It seems like there has to be more than one factor…and like I have repeatedly said, I think that the indifference of SOME of the citizens of L.A. contributed.
My whole point is this. It is not unfeasible to say that everyone in LA doesn’t love football. That’s all I’ve been saying all along. Why everyone from the area assumes I’m saying that LA hates football…well, I don’t know why that is the train of thought.
“In 1998, the Los Angeles Times commissioned a poll gauging local attitudes toward pro football. It found that 59% of Southern Californians did not consider having a pro football team in Los Angeles important. Only 9% of the respondents called themselves a “strong fan” of the Raiders. Some 69% said they were “not a fan.” The Rams’ numbers were worse. Only 6% called themselves a “strong fan” and 77% said they were “not a fan.”"
Again…this isn’t me just making stuff up. Regardless of how “old, weak, and boring” it may sound.
There is some (but very little) merit to what you’re saying I will address that later. What is apparent is your LA hate is the common theme here. You conveniently leave out the biggest issue: the LA Coliseum Commission. They have single handedly squashed many a stadium effort. I don’t recall seeing one mention of it. Simply stating there are “other factors” doesn’t hide your hatred and it hardly addresses the other side of the story.
To answer your question as to why they left, I already did. I will do it once again. Yes, it’s the venue. It’s been a problem for at least 30 plus years. Have you ever been to the Coliseum? Do you know when it was built? It was built in 1921. It’s old enough to be the grandparent of Three Rivers Stadium and the parent of Lambeau Field, before the refurbishing. It’s a cest pool. That’s why two NFL teams left. The previous owners couldn’t get what they wanted: a new stadium with sky boxes and everything else. That’s where the revenue is.
It’s a business, dude. If Rooney was so content with the attendance he’d still be at Three Rivers and every other owner with traditionally strong attendance (which LA had up until the early 1990s) would still be at their previous stadium. When it comes to LA, in your opinion, it’s the fan base, right? You can’t have it both ways.
As for the LA Times’ poll that supports what you said, are you really pawning that off as a statistically sound study? Let’s say this poll is right, can you blame them for the way they’ve been treated since Rosenbloom mysteriously died with that witch Georgia at the helm? Do I need to mention Al?
Again…these are facts and it isn’t me making this stuff up. And, yes, your comments are and remain “old, weak, and boring.” They are.
I’m sorry, but this is pointless. I hate LA because I never mentioned the coliseum commission?
Come on.
I’m finding it hard to dignify that argument with a response. Especially when I’ve only ever said that fan interest is a CONTRIBUTING factor.
Contributing. not the main factor…a factor that contributes to the whole.
“When it comes to LA, in your opinion, it’s the fan base, right? You can’t have it both ways.”
Again…contributing factor. Part of the problem. The sole problem? No. The root of the problem? no. Contributes to the problem? yes.
Yes, the coliseum is old. Yes people are in the business of making money. Yes owners like sky boxes. Sure, maybe its a cest pool…but USC has no problem putting 85,000 people in it for every home game. Lambeau field was built in the mid 50′s, and was renovated in the mid 2000′s. It was 50 years old. The Steelers have sold out every home game since the early 70′s. Good or bad stadium.
Regardless. None of that even goes to my point.
Again…All I have been saying is that everyone in LA isn’t in love with football. I don’t “hate LA”, I’m not saying that fan interest alone predicated the move(s).
As for the LA Times study…statistically significant? No, I didn’t go and check their sample size and figure out a t statistic and the 95% confidence intervals. I don’t need to. My whole point is that there are some people that don’t care about football in LA. That’s all I’ve been saying. Even if that study is statistically insignificant, it doesn’t mean the answers are false.
Finally, while I appreciate your comments, if you find my comments to be “old, weak, and boring”, you do know that you aren’t obligated to return. Don’t let me and my “LA Hate” keep you from your daily activities.
Did I say you hate LA because you didn’t point out the LA Coliseum Commission? I didn’t. I said you didn’t bring it up at all. You cannot ignore that. It is the primary reason why there hasn’t been NFL football here.
I am not sure your point about Three Rivers and Lambeau. I know they draw well. The point I am making is the previous owners left for better stadium deals that the Coliseum couldn’t offer. As for USC (and UCLA), I think that’s different.
Okay, so you don’t “hate” LA but you clearly are not a fan and you don’t find it deserving of a team because of perceived poor support for the NFL.
And, I know I am not obligated to respond. Thanks for the advice.
Contributing Factor.
I didn’t write a post, or a comment entitled: all the reasons why there’s no football in LA and then leave the Coliseum stuff out of it. I looked at one part of the situation, one piece of the pie, and commented on that. I have repeatedly said that other things are involved and that I think fan interest was a contributing factor. Again…I never said that fan interest predicated the move out of LA.
As for the stadium situation and leaving…that’s fine. I am not disagreeing with you. Again, all I am saying is that everyone in LA was not overly excited about LA football. Sure, the owners could leave for better stadium deals. But I think that decision is that much harder to make if you aren’t getting a new stadium but you are selling out every single home game. That was not happening. My point is that fan interest helped make that decision.
To be honest, I am a completely disinterested party. I think that makes it so easy to talk about it; i have no emotion involved. I am a fan of the NFL. If everything will work out with a team in LA? great. More revenue for NFL gets more money for teams, which means lesser chance of contraction, nfl stays in business etc…I’m all for that.
You are a completely disinterested party? Really?
TO: LA RAMS
Don’t even argue with this clown. He doesn’t know anything about L.A. He’s just somebody that’s talking out the side of his neck.
Thanks, Tyrone. He thinks he knows. It’s always a bad owner and/or bad stadium situation when other teams move but it’s the LA fans because the Rams left.
RAIDERS SUCKED THEN AND NOW, WHO WANTS TO PARK THEIR CAR IN SOME GANGSTERS FRONT YARD FOR $20.00 AND GET IN 3 FIGHTS WITH SOME A-HOLE CAUSE YOU HAVE RED HAT ON. THATS WHY TOU CANT SELL OUT FOR A RAIDER GAME IN LA. OH YEAH AND YOU 4 YEAR OLD GIRL JUST GOT SHOT IN A DRIVE BY.
I live in jacksonville and i do NOT want the jaguars to go to LA! pick another team! damn!
There has also been talk that the Bills could be purchased. Why not move to Los Angeles instead of Toronto?
All I know is that this guy is blind. He keeps talking about how is been 14 years without a team. Im sorry but 14 years really doesnt seem that long considering the fact that a new stadium cant be built overnight. What team would be rushing to come LA only to play in the collosium. This stadium has been in the works for years. YEARS. And please dont tell me LA lacks a football fan base. LA still is all about raider nation and this is what…14 years later?lol. Not that im a fan of the raiders, but the point is still there. Not only are there raider fans, but I cant drive down the 10 fwy without seeing steeler or redskins stickers covering the back windows of cars, or seeing raiders or chargers flags hanging out the windows. Everybody I have talked to is extreamly excited about a new team in LA. Los Angeles is a huge sports city. Sell out dodger and angel games. Lakers and Clippers are bigger than ever. And when people are even willing to fill the seats to see the ducks or kings…….I think we will be more than willing to support a NLF team here in LA. Or maybe you know something billionaire Roski doesnt?
He has a Point. Im a Raider Fan and have been since theyve been in LA…(Im 19). People here in LA are very excited for a Team to come. I would like the Raiders or Jags to come to LA. Jacksonville cant support a team plus economicly down right now. Oakland struggles to sell out and have you see Oakland Alamida stadium looks sooooo down man. I was there last sunday for the Eagles game. They can use a new stadium. Who ever comes here Will sell out a lot of games. Look at Oklahoma City Basketball.
I dont know what this dude from Pittsbugh is talking about but just look how LA dwellers support the Dodgers, LA Galaxy and LAKERS!!!…we may not have our own team but we extend our support to the Raiders and the Chargers. I honestly would prefer that a West Coast team (*cough cough* Chargers) relocates just because it would’nt be as hard a blow for the fanbase if their team stays close.
alright.. so to the dude from pittsburgh.. just shut up.. LA has wanted a team since they lost the rams. The reason the stats say that there are only a minimal % of raiders and chargers fans(which i strongly disagree) is because the support is elsewhere. I personally as an OC resident I know that the raiders, despite their shitty season turnouts, have just about the biggest fan base in football. as for all of you in LA, i am a Dallas fan. have been forever. but when we get a local team, it would be hella lot easier to get romo off my mind. i will definately be one of plenty residents who swap from being out-of-town fans to becoming a hometown fan.
does anyone know what teams are still in the bidding?
I think the jaguars should move to L.A. It is clear that the state of florida doesn’t care about them, besides florida already has tampa and miami and not to forget that atlanta isn’t to far north from Jacksonville. I dont mind a team in L.A. as long as they stay away from the vikings. The vikings belong in Minnesota and thought of the name the Los Angelas Vikings just makes me sick.
Vikings fan is totaly right! The jags should go to L.A. and i totaly agree, the vikings should stay in Minnesota. i have been to a vikings game before and the fans there really love the team and it would kill them to see them go
Los Angelas does not need a football team! California already has three! just because there is not a team in your city doesn’t mean you cant root for the chargers who are only What!!! two hours away from l.a . Some people drive five or seven hours to see there team play
i live in los angelas. if we get a football team i hope we get the detroit tigers. if they come to l.a. than they should change there name to the chaRgerz
i think strange dave? has a problem i’m pretty sure the tigers are a baseball team
i heard a rumor that the bengals were coming to l.a. and the seaHawks are going to oakland and the raidurs are going to sacremanto
i seriosly doubt that the raiders are going to sacramento. who is this dave guy?
I hope a team comes back to L.A soon. Just keep the raider gang bangers out and the people of Los Angeles will show up and support thier team.Any team but the raiders. And screw the chargers. What a waste of time going to see them.
Emmett actually makes some good points. California has 3 NFL teams and 2 of those teams are in the bottom 5 in terms of total revenue and operating income in 2009. If I were an NFL owner, I wouldn’t bring my team there either. LA just will not support the NFL. Not to mention the whole state is almost bankrupt. How many teams have to move out of LA before the NFL learns its lesson and stays away??
I want my Rams back in Los Angeles where they belong. If Rosenbloom hadn’t drowned the Rams would still be here. His Widow ruined them. The trade of Eric Dickerson did not help. Georgia the Witch Fratiane is the biggest reason why the Rams moved! Period!
Kenny is right send the Rams back to L.A. I live outside of st.Louis and dont really care about the Rams. I dont mind the Rams but most of us were already chiefs fans before the Rams got here, besides the Rams are currently a terrible team, maybe if they go back to L.A. they will start winning again.
Trackbacks