Skip to content

Goodell: Financing L.A. stadium still very difficult proposition

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell admitted at his annual press conference Friday that getting a naming rights deal is a positive development for getting football back in Los Angeles.

Still, he cautions that it’s hardly the most important step in getting football back to L.A.

“The financing of a stadium is a very difficult proposition,” Goodell said.  “It needs to be smart investment.”

The issues surrounding a L.A. stadium symbolize the current disagreements between the owners and players.  Goodell mentioned the need to recognize the costs associated with building a stadium and the need to incentivize owners.   The NFL has mentioned repeatedly that no new stadium projects have started since the last CBA started.

Ultimately, Goodell said that a collective bargaining agreement is the first step necessary towards any new stadium.  And the league is going to push for the CBA to include significant changes that they believe will help owners and the league invest more money in growing the game, including new stadiums.

The feeling from some here in Dallas believe it’s almost inevitable the Chargers will be the team to move to L.A.  Goodell insisted he wanted to keep teams where they are when asked about a possible Chargers move.

Permalink 14 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors
14 Responses to “Goodell: Financing L.A. stadium still very difficult proposition”
  1. jc1958coo says: Feb 4, 2011 1:51 PM

    who believes you goodell (a.k.a.) pinnochio! nothing but bull sh*t when you talk, who is going to watch 16 let alone 18 in LA!!!

  2. maximus929 says: Feb 4, 2011 1:52 PM

    Can’t imagine a worse time to attempt to get a stadium done in CA since it’s, you know, bankrupt. Can’t imagine taxpayers agreeing to bonds to finance it.

  3. davekiid says: Feb 4, 2011 1:56 PM

    Chargers are better than nothing haha

  4. anarchopurplism says: Feb 4, 2011 2:14 PM

    No, no, no…..send the Vikings, I hate Favre the traitor….blah, blah, blah.

    At least if the Chargers move, there will be minimal disruption geographically & from a divisional perspective.

    Although I will miss the kinky, disco-esque: “San-Die-ego…Superchargers, SAN-DI-EGO…..CHARGERS!!! San-Die-ego…Superchargers, SAN-DI-EGO…..CHARGERS!!!”

    That is totally awesome. I’ve got that ringtone on my cell phone.

  5. dannymac17 says: Feb 4, 2011 2:30 PM

    yea, i got the same feeling and im not anywhere near dallas.

  6. deathmonkey41 says: Feb 4, 2011 2:48 PM

    Isn’t Goodall too busy destroying the tapes of the Patriots tripping people on the sidelines to worry about stuff like this?

  7. dan7800 says: Feb 4, 2011 3:07 PM

    It will either be St Louis, Jacksonville, Minn, or SD

  8. jimmylions says: Feb 4, 2011 4:09 PM

    maximus929 says:
    Can’t imagine a worse time to attempt to get a stadium done in CA since it’s, you know, bankrupt. Can’t imagine taxpayers agreeing to bonds to finance it.

    CA taxpayers won’t buy a billionaire a stadium regardless of the state’s economic status. The NFL needs LA more than LA needs the NFL. Over the past decade, attempts to get taxpayers to fund a stadium have gone down in flames.

    LA isn’t like Cleveland or Detroit, where an NFL team is needed to draw people into downtown. There’s plenty to do and see without sports.

    No one here is willing buy a billionaire a football stadium, and agree to give him tax breaks, just so he can over charge us for tickets! Not gonna happen.

    The naming rights deal is $700M. That covers most of the costs of building the stadium. AEG, who will own and operate the stadium, can figure out the rest without taxpayer money.

  9. mvp43 says: Feb 4, 2011 4:37 PM

    I don’t think the NFL wants a stadium in LA at all. They’re using it as leverage to force those teams on the bubble to build new places themselves.

  10. dannymac17 says: Feb 4, 2011 5:08 PM


    you couldn’t be more wrong, living in LA, bars are packed every sunday to watch other teams play, most of those fans would instead goto the game in a brand new stadium.

  11. bmitarotondo says: Feb 4, 2011 5:14 PM

    how could a proposed stadium, that doesnt have a team to play in it, located in the second biggest tv market in the country, have a name, when a brand new stadium, with 2 professional football teams for tennants, located in the biggest tv market in the country, doesnt? can they please make up a better name than”The New Meadowlands Stadium” while they wait for some sucker company from the financial sector to pony up $1B to put the name of their investment firm on the top of the stadium.

  12. granadafan says: Feb 4, 2011 5:58 PM

    Unbelievable. The NFL and the AEG group had a glitzy press conference yesterday announcing a 700 million deal with an insurance company. Use that money to pay for the stadium you greedy bastards.

  13. cthunder67 says: Feb 5, 2011 11:58 AM

    you couldn’t be more wrong, living in LA, bars are packed every sunday to watch other teams play, most of those fans would instead go to the game in a brand new stadium.
    No Danny,
    You couldn’t be more wrong. While you may live in LA and noticed the bars I packed. I work in a bar and let me tell you no one cares if a team comes here or not. The biggest complaint is no one wants someone else’s handme downs. The 2nd complaint is with a new team it would screw up the TV scheduling. As it is now people watching the games at home are guaranteed 3 games on Sunday. That would change to 2 games on Sunday.

    Building the a football stadium next to the staples center is a dumb idea. Why? Parking is already a bitch and people want to tailgate at games and there would be no way to do that.

  14. dannymac17 says: Feb 5, 2011 2:27 PM

    do you live in LA?


    alright then

Leave a Reply

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