The money tied to a LA move

For those of us that like sports and money this is an excellent article about a team moving to LA.

A few very interesting points

1) Relocation fee of $250 million shared among the other owners NOT shared by players
2) All but 6 teams have new or major renovated bldgs since a team left LA so it has served its purpose of the "give us public money or we move to LA"
3) LA is the second biggest market in the U.S. and has the third most big corporate headquarters


http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenha ... n=20141215

Everyone wants a team in LA...........fans, players, owners and the league.

The problem it's taken so long is no one's stepped up to secure financing for a new stadium, which the league has said needs to happen before they put a team back in LA.

Personally I think LA is a bad sports town in general, but it's too big to ignore not having a team for our nation's most popular sport.

#2 is a great point.

The major issue IMO is that LA doesn't need an NFL team nearly as much as the NFL needs LA. A stadium there is going to cost over a billion, and the NFL isn't going to go for it without any public financing, lest other municipalities catch on that NFL teams can pay for their own damn investments. LA simply doesn't need the NFL enough to get hoodwinked.

Popeyejones":4f35ryxq said:

#2 is a great point.

The major issue IMO is that LA doesn't need an NFL team nearly as much as the NFL needs LA. A stadium there is going to cost over a billion, and the NFL isn't going to go for it without any public financing, lest other municipalities catch on that NFL teams can pay for their own damn investments. LA simply doesn't need the NFL enough to get hoodwinked.

Click to expand...

Agree. People only support winners in that area. Not a good sports town cuz there's too much to do in that weather if teams aren't winners.

One thing I've always wondered.

Will the people of LA just turn out to back whatever team moves there?

Is it that easy?

10 million people in Los Angeles County and 3 million in Orange County. Good bet that >1% would be interested in seeing NFL games, even if the fan base for the particular team itself took a while to build up.

theENGLISHseahawk":qt51z6zx said:

One thing I've always wondered.

Will the people of LA just turn out to back whatever team moves there?

Is it that easy?

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

If we get some other city's basketball team, you telling me no one will support it? I think all the basketball fans in Seattle would go nuts for an NBA team no matter where it came from.

Times that by 10 for how popular the NFL is right now.

It would be cooler if L.A. had their own named team. I mean, unless the Rams come back, if say, Tampa Bay as just an example, moved there they should change the name from L.A. Bucanneers to something better. Like the Butthole Surfers, or something like that

Popeyejones":1c7hx23c said:

#2 is a great point.

Click to expand...

The LA boogeyman in the NFL is like the Seattle boogeyman in the NBA

theENGLISHseahawk":2j2bnusl said:

One thing I've always wondered.

Will the people of LA just turn out to back whatever team moves there?

Is it that easy?

Click to expand...

The answer IMO is probably no. I have lived here now for nearly 30 years and watched what happened to the Raiders and Rams. There was no real love lost when either franchise left, and little true interest in getting the NFL back in this city.
Yes you will have a certain amount of interest for the first year or two, but then the same thing will happen to those new teams.

It's just not a town that truly supports the NFL as you might think. Also, there is no way the city, county or state is going to pick up the tab. That ship sailed a long time ago and isn't coming back again. What I do see is a very large number of transplants that support their original home teams from wherever they grew up. I just don't see them switching allegiance to a new LA team.

Just like there is no way I'm going to stop being a major Seahawk fan!

While it's true that LA's population has a big number of transplants from other areas of the country (and Mexico), there's still over 16 million people in the greater LA area.........more than enough to fill a 65,000 seat stadium 8 times a year.

LA is like SD, not a great sports town because just too laid back and too many other awesome things to do. So when a team returns to LA, it won't be an insane fanbase, but it certainly would work no matter what team goes there.

hawksfansinceday1":2v54tcbh said:

Popeyejones":2v54tcbh said:

#2 is a great point.

The major issue IMO is that LA doesn't need an NFL team nearly as much as the NFL needs LA. A stadium there is going to cost over a billion, and the NFL isn't going to go for it without any public financing, lest other municipalities catch on that NFL teams can pay for their own damn investments. LA simply doesn't need the NFL enough to get hoodwinked.

Click to expand...

Agree. People only support winners in that area. Not a good sports town cuz there's too much to do in that weather if teams aren't winners.

Click to expand...

This.

We see in Seattle how even with a baseball team not winning in the summer, fans enjoy being outdoors on a sunny summer afternoon. The old days of hoping to lure summer fans into a cement cave didn't work very well.

I live in Culver City, there are tons of people wearing and displaying Raiders stuff everywhere here, more than any other team. But there ARE a lot of people that have moved here and support their allegiance to their team.

I grew up in L.A county and was a Rams fan growing up because they were the local team. When I moved to Seattle in 1976 I adopted the Hawks. For the first couple years I was still a Rams/Hawks fan, but over time the Hawks became my team and I have never looked back.

If a team moves here or a new one created, I think people will support that team, especially in a new stadium. If you have ever been to the cavernous collesium you would know why people didn't give a rats ass about going there, plus the surrounding area is slum like. Unfortunately the downtown area proposed isn't that much better but it could change and has some since Staples was built. The Inglewood site (Hollywood Park) is also not the best area, but it has a LOT of room around there and would not have as much congestion.

The Coliseum is not a good place for the NFL at this point. It's too big and doesn't provide the suites an NFL team would insist on. Also, although the Metro now stops on Expo right outside the Rose Garden, Sunday games would still create a lot of additional traffic/parking issues that the surrounding neighbors (including the museums in Exposition Park) most likely would not be thrilled to deal with. It might work for a year or so while a new stadium is built, but any such discussion would have to involve USC. The University has total control of the Coli as part of their (very) long-term lease.

As far as the surrounding area, no, it's not the greatest. However, the area immediately surrounding USC and the Coli is gradually improving. USC is putting a ton of money into constructing the updated University Village. My sister and her friends (USC alums) say it's improved a fair amount in the last 30 years. When they were there, you only could go a couple blocks outside of campus. That's no longer true.