Skip to content

L.A. gets stadium naming-rights deal, if it gets a stadium

101215_downtown_nfl_stadium_aeg

Multiple cities with NFL teams have yet to land acceptable naming-rights arrangements.  One city with no team and no stadium nevertheless has taken big steps toward lining up a naming-rights deal for a stadium that has yet to be built.

Peter King of Sports Illustrated reports via Twitter that the downtown L.A. stadium project, pushed by Tim Leiweke of AEG and Casey Wasserman, could have a naming-rights deal with Farmers Insurance.  Per King, the deal could be worth $400 million over 20 years.

Though it doesn’t mean that the NFL will be returning to Los Angeles, it means that there’s a definite buzz for and interest in football returning to Los Angeles.

So, basically, it means that, at some point, Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times will be reporting from Farmers Insurance stadium.

Permalink 45 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
45 Responses to “L.A. gets stadium naming-rights deal, if it gets a stadium”
  1. dempsey63 says: Jan 8, 2011 3:15 PM

    Twenty million dollars a year for the rights to a stadium name? Farmers Insurance should talk to the CEO of Gateway computers. (He obtained the naming rights to a St. Louis arch for free.)

  2. Deb says: Jan 8, 2011 3:26 PM

    Of course L.A. will get a stadium, and of course, the NFL will be returning to Los Angeles. It’s becoming a plastic league. And the plastic league must play in America’s most plastic city … no matter how many teams the city has gained and lost. And the NFL won’t mind ripping a team from a devoted, brokenhearted fanbase to satisfy the millionaires in this large, plastic, egocentric television market who just want a place to take their clients and show off. Don’t get me wrong–I know normal people live in L.A., too. But normal people don’t interest the NFL.

  3. terpface says: Jan 8, 2011 3:33 PM

    give the Chargers 2 more years in SD…

  4. georgeanderson2 says: Jan 8, 2011 3:38 PM

    another thing Dolphins could learn about the NFL…

  5. wte1 says: Jan 8, 2011 3:51 PM

    A company that only sells insurance to farmers?

    Weird.

  6. harrisonhits2 says: Jan 8, 2011 3:54 PM

    I understand why the teams have to do it, but there is nothing so soulless as naming a building after a stinking corporation.

    And doing so certainly in no way impresses me or makes me want to purchase a particular product. If anything it makes me loathe the companies that do so all the more.

  7. hobartbaker says: Jan 8, 2011 4:02 PM

    To get to Farmer’s Insurance Stadium, take I-10 to the Los Angeles Street exit, turn left, follow that to the last stoplight, and wait for a few years.

  8. alpod says: Jan 8, 2011 4:03 PM

    Deb: L.A. has culture. sorry you live in a city that doesn’t have anything going on.

  9. dawgpoundx19 says: Jan 8, 2011 4:05 PM

    This is stupid. The state of California didn’t even have enough money to cover it’s tax returns last year… why on earth should they be absorbing the potential cost of a new stadium? The city is a huge market, but they had not one, but two teams leave town. Maybe it’s appealing to a team that isn’t getting ticket sales (that’s a whole other issue… try making it more affordable???). The tax payers shouldn’t get saddled with this bill. The state can’t afford the bill. Bad idea plain and simple.

  10. jimmy1smith says: Jan 8, 2011 4:10 PM

    How about, home of the Los Angeles Vikings?

  11. thetooloftools says: Jan 8, 2011 4:17 PM

    This will NEVER happen.
    N E V E R.
    Talk is cheap and $400mill. over 20 yrs. is just stupid for something only used 8 times a year nationally.
    This is just window dressing for teams wanting a better stadium deal.
    Yea.. Farmers Insurance in L.A.
    I know, but I don’t get it.

    “dum da dum dum dum da da”.

    Use that and spend it on spot advertising and not
    on stupid stadium naming rights !

  12. uclabruininstlouis says: Jan 8, 2011 4:26 PM

    Deb, I couldn’t agree with you more. I grew up in L. A. (I’m pretty old now) and remember going to the Coliseum with my father to see the Rams. Usually the stadium was more than half-filled with people rooting for the other team. These, of course, were people who moved out west after WW II and still continued to root for the Bears, Li0ns, Eagles, etc. Los Angeles has certainly changed but (IMHO) NOT for the better. I live in St. Louis and still root for the
    Rams, good or bad. Keep up your interesting posts.

  13. wallyhorse says: Jan 8, 2011 4:41 PM

    One thing you forget:

    The TV partners all want an LA team in the NFL, mainly so that the stars of their respective network shows (or in ESPN’s case, ABC’s shows) can “be seen at the game,” as they likely think more casual fans will be more likely to tune in to a game in LA because stars of their favorite shows might be shown as being there.

    The real problem with LA is the same as before: LA is a Laker town first, then the Dodgers, then USC and UCLA football, then the Angels, Clippers, Kings and Ducks, with the NFL somewhere behind that.

  14. edgy says: Jan 8, 2011 4:56 PM

    Ok, here’s my idea: the NFL scuttles its plans for an 18 game schedule, putting a team in LA AND playing overseas. Instead, they go to a 17 game schedule and have a “home team” of the week that would play in LA. None of the teams would have to give up a home game, the NFL could “audition” potential LA franchises and let the LA fans decide which one that they want. :)

  15. southpaw2k says: Jan 8, 2011 5:26 PM

    I guess it was only a matter of time before a stadium had a worse name than M & T Bank Stadium.

  16. 8man says: Jan 8, 2011 5:29 PM

    How in the hell are you going to justify a new stadium for a POS state that has a debt weight that is only less than that of Connecticut, New York and Illinois and the lowest bond rating of any state in the country?

    You’d be better off waiting for it to fall into the Pacific. This is silly talk.

  17. harrisonhits2 says: Jan 8, 2011 5:30 PM

    “L.A. has culture.”

    @alpod,

    Oh yeah, LA has culture. It also has the worst fans in the country.

    Their only concern is to be seen posing at an event and they rarely actually give a actual damn about whatever it is they’ve decided to attend except for how cool it can make them look to their friends by posing there.

  18. southridge23 says: Jan 8, 2011 5:33 PM

    wow because traffic in LA isn’t bad enough…let’s build a 60,000+ seat stadium RIGHT next to Staples Ctr

  19. Robert says: Jan 8, 2011 5:46 PM

    Los Angeles Vikings 2010.

    Maybe the Vikings will be playing in Southern California sooner.

    There will be no no venue in Minneapolis and quite frankly nobody cares.

    Minnesota was Packer Country before the Vikes were born, and it will revert back to the Green and Gold once this franchise leaves.

    Zygi’s meeting with L.A. Officials weeks before the Dome collapse- speaks volumes.

    Maybe the Rose Bowl or Angel or Dodger Stadium will let the Vikings play there this next season—while the L.A. venue is being built.

    Good Riddence to the Vikings and their embarassing memories.

  20. Robert says: Jan 8, 2011 5:47 PM

    Check that *****Los Angeles Vikings 2011******

  21. bigbluefan1 says: Jan 8, 2011 6:53 PM

    LA has culture ?

    where on the 10?
    What culture does LA have its drive every were its a dump

    Rodao Drive
    Watts
    Gangs
    Earth Quakes
    I thought only Randy Newman loves LA

  22. fmwarner says: Jan 8, 2011 7:13 PM

    First of all, every proposal for an NFL stadium in Los Angeles has included NOT ONE CENT of public money. So the debt thing is a nonissue.

    Second, LA is not the best sports city, but there ARE real fans here. Dodger fans are loyal, and Laker fans are too…you just don’t see the real Laker fans in the arena because they’re priced out.

    I’m no fan of LA teams, but after moving here I learned that there are plenty of real people here. Sure, lots of them (like me) moved from somewhere else and brought their loyalties with them, but an NFL franchise would work here.

  23. recon163 says: Jan 8, 2011 7:53 PM

    Hilarious. J’ville fans celebrate a $15.5 million for 5 years deal as a franchise saver. While AEG pulls off a $20 mil a year for 20 years deal with no team.

    @deb: Envy is such an ugly thing.

  24. alpod says: Jan 8, 2011 8:12 PM

    bigbluefan1 says:
    Jan 8, 2011 6:53 PM
    LA has culture ?

    where on the 10?
    What culture does LA have its drive every were its a dump

    Rodao Drive
    Watts
    Gangs
    Earth Quakes
    I thought only Randy Newman loves LA
    ————————————————-
    learn how to speak….
    @ FMWarner
    you are correct, sir.

  25. thehark says: Jan 8, 2011 9:18 PM

    All this hate on LA and California. from people that wished they lived here but, don`t have the $$$ to. when you live in sunny California then talk. we already have a NFL team the Chargers. if they put a team in LA…. great! if not. no big deal. when it`s snowing were you are, I will be at the Beach, enjoying the day!

  26. raiders4life says: Jan 8, 2011 9:18 PM

    Of all the years football has been away from LA and with all the speculation in between that the NFL would return, I’d have to say this has to be the most serious and believable evidence that NFL’s return is imminent. With the Ed Roski group and most recently AEG’s involvement in getting a new stadium built in the LA area to draw a team and now with a major corporate sponsor already committing to naming rights, i’m convinced this is real this time. I’m filling pumped already. The only thing could ruin all of this excitement would be the announcement that the Chargers would be the team coming to LA :( Please God Noooooo!!

  27. Deb says: Jan 8, 2011 9:20 PM

    @uclabruininstlouis …

    Thank you for your intelligent response.

    @alpod and recon163 …

    Wasn’t addressing L.A.’s culture nor insulting the everyday people living there (as clearly noted in the comment). As fmwarner says, a lot of Big Money is behind your stadium project and the Big Money People in your community are generally associated with the entertainment industry–thus my “plastic” analogy, which is hardly original.

    I’m a native of Fla., a state offering any desired cultural experience … plus three NFL teams, two NBA teams, 2 NHL teams, and 2 MLB teams all of which originated here rather than being ripped from the arms of other fans as the Lakers and Dodgers were.

    My team of 33 years is the Steelers, so I have no stake in your venture. But I have a problem with cities pilfering teams from loyal fanbases rather than doing the work to launch their own franchises. It’s wrong. And if you’re mature enough to grasp it, you can get a good feel for the heartbreak it causes from the ESPN 30 for 30 documentary “The Band That Wouldn’t Die” about the Colts leaving Baltimore.

  28. ravenmaniac1969 says: Jan 8, 2011 9:20 PM

    For once I agree with Deb. It is a shame to deprive a city of its team. I understand that it is a private business, and the owners have every right to move their teams. LA is a despicable town, a plastic, fake city.

  29. huejackson says: Jan 8, 2011 9:24 PM

    umm so just to tell u guys the chargers are not moving to L.A
    very good chance though Mr Davis could move the Raiders back there in 2 years………

  30. ravenmaniac1969 says: Jan 8, 2011 9:24 PM

    @alpod.

    LA has the Bloods and Crips, plastic Hollywood and a sizable percentage of population that barely speaks English. In spite of the fact the Ravens and Steelers are rivals, I will defend Pittsburgh over LA any time.

  31. ravenmaniac1969 says: Jan 8, 2011 9:30 PM

    @fmwarner

    Sure they will build the stadium with private money, but that does not include all of the infrastructure costs.

  32. 8man says: Jan 9, 2011 12:16 AM

    thehark says:
    Jan 8, 2011 9:18 PM
    All this hate on LA and California. from people that wished they lived here but, don`t have the $$$ to. when you live in sunny California then talk. we already have a NFL team the Chargers. if they put a team in LA…. great! if not. no big deal. when it`s snowing were you are, I will be at the Beach, enjoying the day!
    ———————————————–
    Be careful, my friend. That huge plate shift is coming and when it does, millions will die and there will be billions in property damage, at least for the property that is left. It will be devastation unlike this country has ever seen.

    It’s nothing to scoff at and certainly no reason to be prideful. Move now.

  33. recon163 says: Jan 9, 2011 1:27 AM

    @ 8man:

    “Be careful, my friend. That huge plate shift is coming and when it does, millions will die and there will be billions in property damage, at least for the property that is left. It will be devastation unlike this country has ever seen. It’s nothing to scoff at and certainly no reason to be prideful. Move now.”

    I agree. When New Madrid goes it is going to flatten Memphis. In Memphis the damages estimated by FEMA are 265,000 people displaced, over 63,000 people injured or killed.

    But you knew that……….NOT!

  34. recon163 says: Jan 9, 2011 1:34 AM

    @ ravenmaniac1969:

    “Sure they will build the stadium with private money, but that does not include all of the infrastructure costs.”

    Depends how the bonds are paid off. The Industry site is paying off its infrastructure bonds through parking revenues.

    And good for you defending Pittsburgh. A much better place than Harm City.

  35. recon163 says: Jan 9, 2011 1:38 AM

    @ harrisonhits2:

    “Oh yeah, LA has culture. It also has the worst fans in the country.”

    So what makes a good fan versus a bad fan?

    And when did you elected as the fan base judge?

  36. recon163 says: Jan 9, 2011 1:45 AM

    @ wallyhorse:

    “The real problem with LA is the same as before: LA is a Laker town first, then the Dodgers, then USC and UCLA football, then the Angels, Clippers, Kings and Ducks, with the NFL somewhere behind that.”

    How is this different from any other city?

    Miami? Cleveland? Baltimore? Washington? You could make up a similar list for every other city in the nation. Who is number one in NY? Yankees or Giants?

    And you can’t really place the NFL on that list because LA has no team.

    So you pretty much put up a stupid post.

  37. wallyhorse says: Jan 9, 2011 9:05 AM

    @recon163:

    How is this different from any other city?

    “Miami? Cleveland? Baltimore? Washington? You could make up a similar list for every other city in the nation. Who is number one in NY? Yankees or Giants?”

    Yankees are #1 in New York, then the Giants, Jets and Mets. New York, Chicago and LA are probably the only three cities where the baseball teams come before football.

    That said, since at least the “showtime” days of Magic Johnson in the 1980′s, LA has been a Lakers town first and foremost, followed by the Dodgers and then USC and UCLA Football. Even when the Rams and Raiders were both in LA, they often were fifth and sixth behind the aforementioned (college football almost always was ahead of the NFL in LA, especially before the Rams and Raiders both moved out of LA after the 1994 season), and when the Lakers were at the top, the Rams and Raiders were both afterthoughts there. People in LA live and die with the Lakers before any other sports team in LA, including the Dodgers, who actually have been there longer (having moved from Brooklyn for the 1958 season as opposed to the Lakers moving from Minneapolis for the 1960-’61 season).

    The only people who really want the NFL in LA are the TV partners, as noted so they can each televise games from LA and have stars of the various network TV shows “be seen at the game,” mainly under the misconception that the possible visibility of for instance just seeing a Justin Bieber at an LA game would cause many of his teenage fans to tune into the game just to see if he is in the stands (and if not him, there are many others like him). That’s why the NFL wants a team in LA.

  38. edgy says: Jan 9, 2011 11:27 AM

    recon163 says:

    **********************

    You might have helped yourself by picking 4 cities that actually met your criteria.

    To the anti-LA people:

    A case could be made to put a team into LA and one for keeping one out but the one thing that should be kept out of this argument is the city itself. Let’s be honest, the Rams left for Anaheim because they couldn’t fill the Coliseum and its the reason why the Raiders went back to Oakland. It’s a huge place, especially for a professional football team and it’s not exactly in the best neighborhood and I guarantee you that if you were put any team back THERE, you still couldn’t draw flies and its NOT about the city. Frankly, a 55,000 to 62,000 seat stadium with 150 luxury boxes would be perfect and I doubt that you’d have to tarp it over to make it easier to sell out.

  39. wallyhorse says: Jan 9, 2011 11:51 AM

    Forgot one in my earlier post:

    Add St. Louis to the only cities where baseball comes before football (the Cardinals and their rabid fan base that spans huge chunks of the midwest). Aside from St. Louis, Chicago, LA and New York, the NFL comes first.

  40. recon163 says: Jan 9, 2011 3:19 PM

    @wallyhorse

    “That said, since at least the “showtime” days of Magic Johnson in the 1980′s, LA has been a Lakers town first and foremost, followed by the Dodgers and then USC and UCLA Football.”

    “Even when the Rams and Raiders were both in LA, they often were fifth and sixth behind the aforementioned . . .”

    And how did you come up with that? Is that an assumption on your part? Can you prove it?

    “(college football almost always was ahead of the NFL in LA, especially before the Rams and Raiders both moved out of LA after the 1994 season)”

    Sure it was. Here is your chance to prove it. Post up some facts to back up your assertion. Otherwise you are making it up.

    “People in LA live and die with the Lakers before any other sports team in LA . . .”

    No we don’t live and die with the Lakers. How long have you lived here? Plenty of folks follow them, but there are also plenty of folks who don’t. You ahve a pretty narrow view of LA, where do you live in the southland that you don’t get out that much?

    “The only people who really want the NFL in LA are the TV partners, as noted so they can each televise games from LA and have stars of the various network TV shows “be seen at the game,”

    So what you are saying is that the guys who put the games on TV and who control the content for TV at all times are unable to get their stars on an NFL broadcast they are producing? So they need a team in LA to do so?

    Yeah. 17 million people and the 2nd largest media market in the nation have no bearing on the decision whatsoever. The ability to sell out 150 luxury suites means nothing. The fact LA can command a $400 million dollar stadium naming deal without having a team is all overshadowed by the ability to appear on TV for 10 minutes.

    Don’t know if you noticed, but the networks can put their stars on TV pretty much anytime and anywhere they want to. They can be seen at any game, any place in the country, at any time. And they probably don’t even to have to fly there.

  41. recon163 says: Jan 9, 2011 3:26 PM

    @ wallyhorse:

    “Aside from St. Louis, Chicago, LA and New York, the NFL comes first.”

    Is this true in Cincy? And the Pats are bigger than the Red Sox?

    But what is your point here wally? That some sports are bigger than others in certain cities? That is true.

    But is it a problem as you stated earlier? No it isn’t. Large cities can support a number of teams. Small cities cannot. There is only so much disposable income to go around.

  42. wallyhorse says: Jan 9, 2011 8:08 PM

    Recon:

    The point was, there are very few cities where baseball tops the NFL. The fact is, the NFL in most cities is king.

    The national perception has been for a long time that LA doesn’t care about the NFL, or at least enough to support a team. Yes, I know the LA Coliseum is not in the greatest neighborhood in LA, but then how come it’s still full for most USC games for instance? It was hardly ever full for the Raiders, even after the stadium was remodeled to reduce capacity, and certainly wasn’t for the Rams when they played there as I recall. Nationally, the perception is most people in LA care first and foremost about the Lakers, and have since the “showtime” days if not before then. The NFL as I understand it has never been “fashionable” in LA, and for some reason seems to be the only major city where people don’t seem to care like they do in many other areas. If people really cared about an LA team, they would have gone to the Coliseum, bad neighborhood or not like they do to other stadiums that might not always be in the best neighborhoods of a city (and it certainly didn’t stop Laker fans from going to the Forum in Inglewood before they moved to the Staples Center, and Inglewood is not the best neighborhood either).

    It there is such an outcry for a team in LA, how come the only people I ever hear about really wanting a team in LA are the broadcast partners? I just don’t see the demand for a team in LA outside of the broadcasters, who still think the casual viewers is more likely to view a game just because it’s in LA.

  43. recon163 says: Jan 9, 2011 10:18 PM

    @ wallyhorse:

    “The point was, there are very few cities where baseball tops the NFL. The fact is, the NFL in most cities is king.”

    You stated that it was a problem if one team was more beloved then another. Clearly it isn’t.

    “It was hardly ever full for the Raiders, even after the stadium was remodeled to reduce capacity, and certainly wasn’t for the Rams when they played there as I recall.”

    Your recollection is off the mark. The attendance figures note so.

    “Nationally, the perception is most people in LA care first and foremost about the Lakers . . .”

    Not true. LA fans care about winning teams. The Lakers are winning right now so we flock to those games. But this is standard in sports isn’t it? Winning teams have better attendance.

    “The NFL as I understand it has never been “fashionable” in LA . . .”

    You understand wrong. The Rams during the late 70′s were very fashionable. The Raiders were also very fashionable, when they were winning and not trying to move out of LA. If you were here you would have known that.

    ” . . .and for some reason seems to be the only major city where people don’t seem to care like they do in many other areas. If people really cared about an LA team, they would have gone to the Coliseum, bad neighborhood or not like they do to other stadiums . . .”

    Define ‘caring’? If you mean LA fans should attend a game no matter what, I suggest you look at the attendance figures for many lousy teams. You will find that not many lousy teams have stellar attendance. And you will also find that decrepit stadiums also mean lower attendance.

    “that might not always be in the best neighborhoods of a city (and it certainly didn’t stop Laker fans from going to the Forum in Inglewood before they moved to the Staples Center, and Inglewood is not the best neighborhood either).”

    Of course you are talking about a 17,000 seat arena compared to a 100,000 seat stadium. And one with ample on site parking and many more amenities than the Coliseum. How long have you lived in LA?

    “It there is such an outcry for a team in LA, how come the only people I ever hear about really wanting a team in LA are the broadcast partners?”

    Because broadcast partners are trying to reach the maximum number of viewers they can. It means increased advertising revenue.

    “I just don’t see the demand for a team in LA outside of the broadcasters, who still think the casual viewers is more likely to view a game just because it’s in LA.”

    Huh? So a casual viewer is tuning into a game because it is being broadcast from LA? That makes no sense. Are you making an extra effort to tune in to see LA?

    Here is the reason TV wants a a team in LA (From 2000): “NFL ratings in Los Angeles were down 7 percent at both Fox and CBS, despite the fact that both networks posted 2 percent ratings gains nationally.

    “It’s pretty amazing we could be up nationally, but down in L.A. by 7 percent,” said Ed Goren, executive producer of Fox Sports. Fox “absolutely” would like to see the NFL return to Los Angeles, he said.”

    Having a home team means more people are watching. More people watching means more money. That is the reason broadcasters want a team in LA.

    As for us not wanting a team, that is not true either. We want one, it is just that our ego and self worth are not so low as to think that getting a team means we should force the entire community to subsidize a billionaire. We are beyond that.

    And again I ask: How long have you lived in LA?

  44. wallyhorse says: Jan 10, 2011 12:24 AM

    The last time I lived in LA was as a baby in the late 1960′s. At that time, the Rams were one of the “prestige” teams in the NFL, and it was a big deal for many when teams went to LA to play the Rams. Same held true when teams went to LA to play the Dodgers or Lakers, and later on the Kings.

    And yes, fan support when a team is bad is a true benchmark of a team’s fans. The last time either the Jets or Giants had a game blacked out in New York was 1978, when a Colts-Jets game at Shea Stadium was (the Cowboys-Jets game at Shea to close out that season doesn’t count because the Giants were playing the Bills in Buffalo at the same time, and per NFL rules, CBS had to televise Giants-Bills). The last time a Giants home game failed to be televised was 1975, when they played the Chargers at Shea Stadium in what is believed to be the last NFL game that was not televised at all (as it was played on a Saturday and the Chargers opted not to show the game themselves). Every non-strike Jets and Giants game since then has sold out and been televised in the New York area, except for ONE instance in 1980 when WCBS-TV chose not to televise a Saints-Jets game, opting for Cardinals-Eagles that day. I don’t remember fans of LA teams supporting their teams like that. Same with the Eagles, who have sold out every home game in Lincoln Financial Field since it opened in 2003, including a recent relatively lean stretch where they had a 6-10 season in 2005 and an 8-8 season in 2008.

    While yes, people in LA may not kowtow to those who want a stadium built no matter what the cost (which was also true with the Jets and Giants, who built their new stadium themselves in The Meadowlands), it doesn’t change that it’s mainly the broadcast partners who want a team in LA for their own interests.

  45. recon163 says: Jan 10, 2011 2:33 AM

    @ wallyhorse:

    “The last time I lived in LA was as a baby in the late 1960′s. At that time, the Rams were one of the “prestige” teams in the NFL, and it was a big deal for many when teams went to LA to play the Rams.”

    Huh? Are you contradicting yourself? It is a big deal, but not fashionable? Ok…….if you say so.

    “And yes, fan support when a team is bad is a true benchmark of a team’s fans. The last time either the Jets or Giants had a game blacked out in New York was 1978 . . .”

    You do realize that a ‘blackout sell out” and a true sell out are two different things right? Teams can buy back their tickets for cents on the dollar in order to avoid a blackout. It is also well known that local stations will buy tickets to avoid a blackout if it is economically feasible. And of course sponsors will also buy tickets to avoid a black out. In NY it makes sense to buy 15k tickets if you can broadcast a game to the NY MSA.

    In 2009 the Jets averaged 96% of the stadium filled. That 4% represents 3208 empty seats. Also let’s consider that the NY MSA has about 19 million people in it. Which means that 0.4% of the population is needed to buy the tickets to fill the stadium. God help NY if they can’t pull that off. (JVille MSA needs 4% of its pop to sell out the stadium. LA MSA would need .5% to fill a 70K stadium.)

    “Every non-strike Jets and Giants game since then has sold out and been televised in the New York area . . .” See above. I do notice you didn’t mention the Jets were almost blacked out in their first game this year.

    “While yes, people in LA may not kowtow to those who want a stadium built no matter what the cost (which was also true with the Jets and Giants, who built their new stadium themselves in The Meadowlands)”

    That’s nice. Did they also pick up the debt from the old Meadowlands? Isn’t NJ still paying for it?

    ” . . .it doesn’t change that it’s mainly the broadcast partners who want a team in LA for their own interests.”

    I know you really want to hold onto this but it is not the main reason at all. It is a part of the mix.

    Another big reason is the amount of money a new owner and the league can make in LA. Take a franchise like JVille. There revenues are at the bottom of the league at $220 mil and it is valued at $725 mill. By moving to LA it has been estimated that the team can pull in $350 mil a year in revenues and the team will be valued at over $1 billion. That is an increase of over $500 million for the move.

    But nobody will move without a new stadium and it looks like that is moving along nicely.

    Thanks for admitting you don’t live here. Which means you really don’t know LA well enough, do you?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!