Skip to content

Ed Roski isn’t giving up yet on his stadium proposal

LA-football-stadium-vision

With the folks from AEG building momentum toward the building of a new football stadium in downtown Los Angeles, the man who has a shovel-ready project in the nearby City of Industry has yet to throw in the trowel.

Ed Roski recently made his case for an open-air venue to Bill Dwyre of the Los Angeles Times.  And one point Roski makes should resonate with fans who prefer their football-watching experience to include hours of pregame and postgame tailgating.  Unlike Farmers Field, which would be shoehorned into the L.A. Live entertainment complex, Roski’s venue would allow for the kind of large parking lots that are conducive to SUVs full of coolers and grills and overfilled bags of grub.

“You want it outside, with big tents and room for parties, even room for things to do after the games,” Roski said.  “This is Southern California.  We have the weather.”

Roski, who owns a casino, says that he’d give it to his children if he were able to buy an NFL team and move it to Los Angeles.

Even though it currently looks like Roski’s bid will lose, he won’t be a sore loser.  “If the downtown site wins the first thing is that I will be happy the city got a team,” Roski said. “It’s one of those things where I don’t care if it is in my backyard or your backyard — let’s just get a team back.”

It’s looking like that will indeed happen.  But it’s still not clear whether the team(s) will be playing in downtown L.A. or in a remote location that would, on game days, operate more like the full football experience should.

Permalink 47 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Buffalo Bills, Jacksonville Jaguars, Minnesota Vikings, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, San Francisco 49ers, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, St. Louis Rams, Top Stories
47 Responses to “Ed Roski isn’t giving up yet on his stadium proposal”
  1. tatum064 says: Aug 16, 2011 12:30 AM

    curiously enough…it also opens up a possibility for a 2nd L.A. team…Chargers could move right into the venue or an alternate team (other than Vikes or Jags). It would be the reverse of 95 – with L.A. gaining two teams instead of losing two teams. Roski should set his sights on the Chargers.

  2. usdiveteam says: Aug 16, 2011 12:39 AM

    Being a season ticket holder for the Cowboys I can say that my family and friends love tailgating as much as going to the game.

  3. rayala3 says: Aug 16, 2011 12:48 AM

    If theres no tailgating don’t even bother. I’ll watch at home.

  4. fonetiklee says: Aug 16, 2011 12:49 AM

    As somebody with no dog in this fight (living on the opposite coast and all), I would like to see the City of Industry plan go through over the downtown deal. Tailgaiting is one of the most fundamental aspects of the gameday experience.

  5. whoknowsnothing says: Aug 16, 2011 12:54 AM

    Now that’s a true football fan!

    Why not two teams in L.A. in two different stadiums?

  6. theysone says: Aug 16, 2011 1:10 AM

    Chargers. Book it.

  7. blowpackblow says: Aug 16, 2011 1:17 AM

    If LA gets the Vikings they won’t need a home end zone, the Vikes can’t seem to find it.

  8. calvikefan1 says: Aug 16, 2011 1:53 AM

    Hey Bif wanna check out that football game this weekend, naw , I’m going shopping with Barbie, then were heading to the beach to catch some rays ….or yo dude lets check out that football game this weekend, naw man I’m short on funds I just unloaded some cash for quarter ounce, sides it aint the Raiders….L.A SUCKS

  9. deepseabreeze says: Aug 16, 2011 2:07 AM

    spending all this money only to have 20-30k people show up every week for the games. what a waste.

  10. redskinsrt says: Aug 16, 2011 2:13 AM

    Football isn’t superficial enough to sustain yet another team. Hell, St. Louis and Oakland, won their teams back. L.A. has too much else going on.

  11. iamgoodkid says: Aug 16, 2011 2:17 AM

    good luck

  12. dannymac17 says: Aug 16, 2011 2:38 AM

    I live near Roski’s proposed site, and work near the Downtown proposal.

    Traffic would be horrid for both, but at least with Roski’s plan id be able to enjoy a beer in a giant parking lot rather than in a parking structure where i could get a ticket for drinking in public.

    Roski is ready to go. AEG isnt anywhere as close besides securing a naming rights deal for a fictional stadium.

    Roski makes good points and seems to be in it for the inner fan rather than trying to make a quick buck like AEG plans to do.

    AEG doesnt care about football, they only care about the money it will bring.

    Hoping Roski the darkhorse can pull this one off, but highly unlikely.

  13. fmwarner says: Aug 16, 2011 3:04 AM

    I hope the AEG downtown stadium project prevails. I don’t want to drive all the way out to City of Industry and pay an exorbitant parking fee. That’s an all-day deal. Farmer’s Field would have lots of public transportation and it would be much easier to get to the game and get home.

  14. txhc says: Aug 16, 2011 3:04 AM

    Roski’s plan is so much cooler. Blows the downtown idea out of the water for numerous reasons.

    Check out http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/ for more pics and info on it.

    This coming from a Dallas Cowboys fan from the DFW Metroplex that really isn’t affected by this either way. I will tell you though, building Cowboys Stadium between Dallas and Ft. Worth like we did made it more centrally located for the entire metropolitan population, not to mention it’s not stuck in downtown Dallas with no room to tailgate, set up booths, park, etc…

    If I was a football fan in So Cal I’d be pushing for the City of Industry plan. Just my 2 cents.

  15. ceadderman says: Aug 16, 2011 3:28 AM

    Krypt Keeper should take that traveling sideshow back down south. More Raider fans in LA anyway.

  16. alonestartexan says: Aug 16, 2011 4:22 AM

    … To live and die in L.A. it’s the place to be….

  17. bobnelsonjr says: Aug 16, 2011 4:47 AM

    I hope LA gets two teams, one from the NFC and one from the AFC.

    Just good for the business of the NFL.

  18. wryly1 says: Aug 16, 2011 6:31 AM

    It’ll happen if and when it happens – but it will still be another five (5) years before there’s an NFL team in L.A. for the 2016 season.

  19. megabeast37215 says: Aug 16, 2011 6:35 AM

    Screw Roski, and screw L.A. They had their chance, twice. Enough is enough.

  20. realitypolice says: Aug 16, 2011 7:07 AM

    Believe me, the last thing in the world that the NFL cares about is the ability of the fans to tailgate.

  21. cliverush says: Aug 16, 2011 7:25 AM

    I was in LA for a Pats playoff game against the Raiders in the mid-80’s when the Rams were there. Both teams had playoff games that weekend and I expected the fans would be excited. Quite the contrary they did not really care. I was visiting friends who lived out there and we traveled all over from the coast to the Valley. The low level of interest was a stark contrast to what an NorthEast fan experiences when January comes around and your team is in. Good luck LA but you have to support the team and it is a lot of cash these days to attend a game in a wealthy city.

  22. kane337 says: Aug 16, 2011 7:44 AM

    L.A does not need 2 teams. One is enough.

  23. vikesfan4life says: Aug 16, 2011 8:09 AM

    I still don’t understand why L.A. should be rewarded with another shot at running an NFL franchise. They couldn’t keep the Raiders or the Rams going and now they want back in? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Yeah they are the 2nd biggest market in the country but if they can’t sustain a team then what is the point of moving another team there? If they really are hell bent on having another team or two then move the Raiders and the Chargers that way in 10 years when they realize that L.A. isn’t going to work… again… it won’t be that big of a deal to move those teams within Cali again.

  24. flyerscup2010 says: Aug 16, 2011 9:04 AM

    I don’t mean this as a cheap shot or dig at LA…but is it fair to judge by Dodgers games (the ‘arrive in the 3rd inning, leave in the 7th inning’ cliche is a cliche for a reason, and the attendance at games just isn’t so good these days now that McCourt has driven the team as fully into the ground as it could possibly go) and assume that tailgating won’t be as big a commodity in LA as it would be in Dallas or Green Bay or something? I’d think that the LA Live complex would make up for it. Tailgating is cool and all, but all the attractions in downtown LA would make for a unique experience that I think would be well-received.

  25. recon163 says: Aug 16, 2011 9:07 AM

    @ redskinsrt:

    “L.A. has too much else going on.”

    So are you saying that to be successful a team has to have no entertainment competition? In other words only places with nothing else to do can sustain an NFL team?

    The fact that there is plenty to do in LA is more of an insult to other towns.

  26. recon163 says: Aug 16, 2011 9:11 AM

    @ realitypolice:

    “Believe me, the last thing in the world that the NFL cares about is the ability of the fans to tailgate.”

    That is true. The real question is: Will an NFL owner be OK with giving up on millions of dollars of revenue? (Parking)

  27. recon163 says: Aug 16, 2011 9:13 AM

    @ dannymac17:

    “Roski makes good points and seems to be in it for the inner fan rather than trying to make a quick buck like AEG plans to do. AEG doesnt care about football, they only care about the money it will bring.”

    You are right. The LA Live complex will bring in millions more from the football revenue.

  28. recon163 says: Aug 16, 2011 9:29 AM

    @ flyerscup2010:

    “…but is it fair to judge by Dodgers games (the ‘arrive in the 3rd inning, leave in the 7th inning’ cliche is a cliche for a reason, and the attendance at games just isn’t so good these days now that McCourt has driven the team as fully into the ground as it could possibly go) . . .”

    Not at all. One cannot tailgate at Dodger Stadium, it is verboten. And arriving in the third inning is sometimes a function of traffic into the stadium.

    ” . . . and assume that tailgating won’t be as big a commodity in LA as it would be in Dallas or Green Bay or something?”

    Come to the Coliseum on Saturday for an SC game or go to the Rose Bowl for a UCLA game. Bad assumption on your part.

    “I’d think that the LA Live complex would make up for it. Tailgating is cool and all, but all the attractions in downtown LA would make for a unique experience that I think would be well-received.”

    Of course it is an experience that can be replicated in Industry as well. All ya gotta do is build it……

  29. bradentonbuc says: Aug 16, 2011 9:37 AM

    I think the Chargers fans should be glad they may move to LA. How ironic, the fans in LA will not be able to see their team play as every home game will be blacked out, (see Raiders & Rams), but the good people of San Diego will be now be to see their team play evey week, in a shiney new stadium, from the comfort of their homes and pools!

  30. recon163 says: Aug 16, 2011 9:37 AM

    @ vikesfan4life:

    “I still don’t understand why L.A. should be rewarded with another shot at running an NFL franchise.”

    LA doesn’t run the franchise the owners do. And the owners are in it to make money, which leads to the next point…..

    “They couldn’t keep the Raiders or the Rams going and now they want back in?”

    LA could have kept both teams. The city just needed to build both owners new stadiums with lots of luxury suites and club seats to maximize the owners revenue. We didn’t want to spend tax payer money to do so, so both teams left for cities that were willing to use public funds to do so.

    “It doesn’t make any sense to me.”
    You should read about it then.

    “Yeah they are the 2nd biggest market in the country but if they can’t sustain a team then what is the point of moving another team there?”

    Your vision of sustain is very different from an NFL owners POV now isn’t it. I bet you assume that if the general bowl is full that means success? It doesn’t.

    “If they really are hell bent on having another team or two then move the Raiders and the Chargers that way in 10 years when they realize that L.A. isn’t going to work… again…”

    Well considering the Rams were here for 48 years why should ten years be the magic number.

    But really your post points to your own ignorance. On one hand you claim you don’t understand, but are willing to judge a future franchise as a failure with the other. Not knowing means you are unaware, not knowing and judging means you are stupid.

  31. recon163 says: Aug 16, 2011 9:56 AM

    @ bradentonbuc:

    “How ironic, the fans in LA will not be able to see their team play as every home game will be blacked out, (see Raiders & Rams)”

    Out of curiosity, what was the average attendance of the Rams in their final four seasons in LA and how many games were blacked out?

    And if you can provide the same info for the Raiders that would be great too.

    After all your statements indicate that you seem to know. So what are those numbers?

  32. recon163 says: Aug 16, 2011 10:01 AM

    @ cliverush:

    “I was in LA for a Pats playoff game against the Raiders in the mid-80′s when the Rams were there. Both teams had playoff games that weekend and I expected the fans would be excited. Quite the contrary they did not really care. The low level of interest was a stark contrast to what an NorthEast fan experiences when January comes around and your team is in.”

    So you noted this phenomenon as indicative of all 14 million people in the area at the time? I am sure there were plenty of excited people, but in the small circle you ran in, you didn’t see it.

    Maybe they just weren’t excited to talk to you?

  33. tiffybean says: Aug 16, 2011 10:27 AM

    The AEG downtown stadium would have a closed dome roof to accomodate the convention center, and games would be played on plastic astroturf grass. That doesn’t make any sense given our beautiful weather. I’d much rather see Roski land an NFL team with the games played in an open-air stadium with real grass and with the scenic rolling hills (Roski’s location reminds me of the Rose Bowl scenery).

  34. selgaeinla says: Aug 16, 2011 10:55 AM

    The reason LA “lost” two teams? It was the first city smart enough to tell the NFL to pay for their own stadiums. Ask Bengal fan what that stadium deal did to that city. What a loss leader. And for those who say LA can’t support teams, count the blackouts in San Diego, Tampa, Oakland, etc. and tell me those cities are supporting their teams. The AEG stadium will be easy to sell out, just look at the makeup of the Staples Center, the amount of private boxes vs public seats, the football stadium will break records for corporate boxes. AEG already has the parking lots downtown, who cares about a bunch of alcoholics who can’t enjoy anything without get sloshed. SHould just make the stadium that much MORE family friendly.

  35. thingamajig says: Aug 16, 2011 11:22 AM

    “If the downtown site wins the first thing is that I will be happy the city got a team,” Roski said. “It’s one of those things where I don’t care if it is in my backyard or your backyard — let’s just get a team back.”

    With this kind of thinking we need Roski in D.C. not L.A.

  36. nflinla says: Aug 16, 2011 6:38 PM

    @recon163 says

    Rams attendance avg last four seasons: 47,777 could’t find the Raiders attendance or blackouts for both..

  37. dogsweat1 says: Aug 17, 2011 12:21 AM

    The Los Angeles Charger returning home obsession is quite puzzling.

    The Chargers spent 1 season in Los Angeles.

    They have spent 50 years in San Diego.

    50.

    They are San Diegans.

    When the Raiders moved to Los Angeles, Al Davis put his team in the Colisuem with intentions of getting a new venue-somewhere in L.A.

    The L.A. Colisuem is not a safe venue for Pro Football.

    It lacks parking for a 100k venue.

    So patrons are left parking in the “Hood”!

    They call it the “Jungle” in L.A.

    The Raiders had strong crowds in the beginning, but in time they dwindled.

    The place was too dangerous to watch a game.

    Al tried to make a deal with Hollywood Park, when they bowed out.

    Al had no choice- but to move back to Oakland.

    Had Davis got a Stadium in Los Angeles, the Raiders would of never moved.

    NO NFL team will ever draw crowds at the L.A. Colisuem because it is a crime haven.

    The Raiders left a strong fan base in Los Angeles.

    A new Stadium in Los Angeles via Downtown will be sold out.

    It will be new and safe.

    The Raiders belong in Los Angeles not the Chargers.

  38. recon163 says: Aug 17, 2011 9:23 AM

    @ dogsweat1:

    Your post is case of made up logic that leads to a conclusion you want.

    “The Los Angeles Charger returning home obsession is quite puzzling.”

    Uh….no one is obsessing about it. Speculating? Yes. Obsessing? no.

    “When the Raiders moved to Los Angeles, Al Davis put his team in the Colisuem with intentions of getting a new venue-somewhere in L.A. Al tried to make a deal with Hollywood Park, when they bowed out. Al had no choice- but to move back to Oakland.”

    So you believe an owner who has attempted to get a new stadium and doesn’t, has no choice but to leave when he doesn’t get it? Well you just validated a move for the Spanos……

    “Had Davis got a Stadium in Los Angeles, the Raiders would of never moved.”

    Partially true. Al wanted the stadium at Hollywood Park as his own with no other team sharing it. He also wanted guarantees from the NFL that he would host a certain number of Super Bowls. In short Al wanted it his way or no way. All this is fully chronicled in the Raiders v. NFL case. So in reality Al got a stadium but he didn’t want to follow through on it. (Also see Irwindale.)

    “NO NFL team will ever draw crowds at the L.A. Colisuem because it is a crime haven.”

    Yet USC has no such problems in drawing crowds. Weird……

    “It will be new and safe.”

    So new equals safe in your mind?

    “It (The Coliseum) lacks parking for a 100k venue.”

    So does the AEG site which will have folks parking all over the South Park area of LA.

    “So patrons are left parking in the “Hood”! They call it the “Jungle” in L.A.”

    Having lived in LA for nearly 50 years I have never heard that term applied to the area around the Coliseum. Considering the racial makeup of the area in the 1980’s I will assume this term is based with racist connotations. Nice way to cap your argument.

  39. recon163 says: Aug 17, 2011 9:37 AM

    @ nflinla:

    “Rams attendance avg last four seasons: 47,777 could’t find the Raiders attendance or blackouts for both.”

    That is correct. With the last two years seeing the lowest attendance as it was becoming evident that Georgia wanted to move the team.
    1991: 412,685
    1992: 414,502
    1993: 363,211
    1994: 338,497

    As an aside 1990 saw 480k fans attend Rams games for an average attendance of 60k.

  40. dogsweat1 says: Aug 17, 2011 2:00 PM

    Having lived in LA for nearly 50 years I have never heard that term applied to the area around the Coliseum. Considering the racial makeup of the area in the 1980′s I will assume this term is based with racist connotations. Nice way to cap your argument.

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

    lol

    Wow!

    Playing the race card in 2011. Maybe you just a little hyper sensitive?

    Or has arrogance over taken your thought pattern?

    “Jungle” term -since you already judged this as a racial one-is a term dealing with the over flowing of gang activity in and around the L.A. Colisuem.

    Persons of another culture were the ones that invented this term “Jungle” for this section of Los Angeles.

    In the 50’s the Los Angeles Colisuem and the surrounding sections were safe and great for pro football.

    However, it’s 2011.

  41. recon163 says: Aug 17, 2011 11:32 PM

    @dogsweat1:

    “lol Wow!”

    Nothing to laugh about. Unless of course you are unconcerned about using offensive terms. Then laugh away.

    “Playing the race card in 2011. Maybe you just a little hyper sensitive?”

    It is 2011, perhaps you should have considered what you were writing and wondered whether or not it was offensive. Obviously this is not a concern of yours.

    And really what did that term contribute to your argument? Nothing, except to demonstrate your ignorance. And since it is 2011 and not 1950, that also means you should be expect to be challenged when being stupid.

    “Jungle” term -since you already judged this as a racial one-is a term dealing with the over flowing of gang activity in and around the L.A. Colisuem.”

    You do realize the area was primarily African American during the period the Raiders were in town, don’t you? Are you implying something there? And if so what is that?

    It is now a mix of Hispanic and African Americans. What term are you going to use to describe it now? Why don’t you come down to the corner of MLK and Vermont and ask folks if they are OK with that term?

    “Persons of another culture were the ones that invented this term “Jungle” for this section of Los Angeles.”

    So that makes it OK? So if a Mexican American uses a derogatory comment to describe Asians, that makes it ok? What is the matter? Don’t want to accept responsibility for a term you are using? You had an opportunity to not spread the stupidity, but you chose to.

    And who was this person that made up the term? I have lived in LA all my life including my first 20 years in South Central LA and I never heard that term applied to the area. How about you? How long have you lived in LA?

    “In the 50′s the Los Angeles Colisuem and the surrounding sections were safe and great for pro football.”

    Yes, but you weren’t talking about the 50’s you were talking about the 80’s. But since you are talking about the 50’s what was the predominant culture then? Do you know? And in stating it are you implying that it became unsafe when other cultures moved in? Is this a backhanded way to say “there went the neighborhood”?

    “However, it’s 2011.”

    So is it still dangerous? As I pointed out USC has games there on Saturdays in 2011 with little to no problems. So your points are worthless.

    I think you are holding on to your old stereotypes and ideas a bit too hard and trying to defend an indefensible viewpoint.

    It is legitimate to say the area was dangerous when the Raiders were here, that is pretty much accepted, but maybe you should join us in 2011 and let go of your ill conceived labels like, “The Jungle”.

  42. recon163 says: Aug 18, 2011 12:18 AM

    @ selgaeinla:

    “The reason LA “lost” two teams? It was the first city smart enough to tell the NFL to pay for their own stadiums. Ask Bengal fan what that stadium deal did to that city.”

    Or ask folks in New Jersey about continuing to pay for a stadium that is now debris.

    ” . . .who cares about a bunch of alcoholics who can’t enjoy anything without get sloshed. SHould just make the stadium that much MORE family friendly.”

    Hadn’t considered that point, but it is a good one. Though I still support the Roski effort more than I do the DTLA one.

  43. iefalcon says: Aug 18, 2011 12:22 PM

    I love to see downtown will, when you have LA Kings Game in the morning and then a Lakers game in the evening, a Major Convention going on all weekend and plus LA live concert or a american idol show with special events planned on the out side of LA Live, and lets add a Football game. Parking the different fans, people dress up for a show people dressed up for different games, People that just want to go to the movies. Just close off downtown and walk 4 miles. It all about money, how much fun is too much. Why not build a new Dodger Stadium in downtown we can’t tail gate anyway. Its all about the game day experience, its just more then get us a team, its get us the NFL Experiences! NOT a LA Experience we live here been there done that!

  44. skullraider says: Aug 18, 2011 5:49 PM

    Raiders!!!!!!!!!!!

  45. dogsweat1 says: Aug 19, 2011 12:14 AM

    “However, it’s 2011.”

    So is it still dangerous? As I pointed out USC has games there on Saturdays in 2011 with little to no problems. So your points are worthless.

    I think you are holding on to your old stereotypes and ideas a bit too hard and trying to defend an indefensible viewpoint.

    It is legitimate to say the area was dangerous when the Raiders were here, that is pretty much accepted, but maybe you should join us in 2011 and let go of your ill conceived labels like, “The Jungle”.

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

    Unreal.

    You can’t find something else to be petty about?

    You would make your Father Hitler proud with hyper sensitive anal -retentive ness.

    I better make sure I spell correctly and dot all I’s properly.

    Because persons like you have extreme fits.

    Labels and names are part of life. It’s called identity.

    You can live in “Ginger bread” land all you want, and pretend that all is well, but in reality things are not.

    Please keep pretending that the United States of America consists of only one race.

    Keep up that delusion.

    Violent places exist, violent people exist.

    Crime exists.

    What should we call these people and places?

    Mr. Rogers?

    Mr. Rogers Neigborhood?

    Mr. Rogers Neighborhood of South Central Los Angeles?

    Mr. Rogers Neighborhood via L.A. Colisuem?

    This would even insult those who reside in this location.

    Once again, the term “Jungle’ was given not out pointing a certain race, but out of a description when one walks through a ‘predatory” type of environment.

    Like the jungles of South America, where predatory things dwell.

    South Central and other parts of Los Angeles can be extremly dangerous and unsafe.

    I guess where you live it’s “Milk and Cookies” land?

    BTW

    USC Trojan Football team wants to move it’s home games to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena- next season.

    Now go find the PC, Message Board Police and report this post– because it offends you!

  46. recon163 says: Aug 19, 2011 10:44 PM

    @ dogsweat1:

    “You would make your Father Hitler proud with hyper sensitive anal -retentive ness.”

    Well that is completely nonsensical, but it is coming from you so I am sure you and only you understand its meaning.

    “Labels and names are part of life. It’s called identity.”

    Yes when people label themselves. Most folks are none to pleased to be labeled by others, something you think is OK. As I asked before, come down to MLK and Vermont and ask if it is Ok to call the area “the jungle”.

    “Please keep pretending that the United States of America consists of only one race.”

    Never said that now did I? You really need to stop trying to think like me, you can barely handle your own feeble minds creations.

    “What should we call these people and places?”

    Oh I don’t know….how about their given name?

    “Once again, the term “Jungle’ was given not out pointing a certain race . . .”

    I have been asking you about this all along and now you finally get around to admitting you were wrong to use that term?

    “USC Trojan Football team wants to move it’s home games to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena- next season.”

    Really? I am reading an LA Times article dated August 12 that discusses how USC wants to take control of the Coliseum. Oh wait I see where you get your WRONG analysis. There is a sentence in here that states that an NFL team would go to Pasadena because USC could block their use of the Coliseum. Inability to comprehend, yet another one of your talents?

    And back to you dummy…..

  47. stanmackley says: Sep 28, 2011 8:30 AM

    @dogsweat1, i think you give a fair assessment of recon163. bless his heart.

Leave a Reply

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