Skip to content

Ed Roski considers other plans for his stadium site

LA-football-stadium-vision

In what could be further evidence that the new football stadium in Los Angeles will be built in L.A. proper and not in the City of Industry (not to be confused with the Town of Agriculture), the San Gabriel Valley Times recently reported that Ed Roski, who hopes to build the venue in the City of Industry, has discussed with Mayor David Perez the possibility of using the location instead as a site for retail stores.

Perez said Roski is uncertain about the prospect of getting the stadium built, and that he wants a contingency plan.  “[Roski] doesn’t know where this stadium will go at the end of the day,” Perez said. “I got a feeling if he can still get the football stadium, he would love to have it, but he’s covering all of his bases.”

The progress being made by AEG toward building Farmers Field in Downtown L.A. apparently has prompted Roski to think about Plan B.  “They’re moving fast down there in Los Angeles,” Perez said.

Roski’s right-hand man, John Semcken, disputed that characterization.  “[Roski] looked me in the eye, and he said, ‘John, we are 1,000 percent closer than we were a month ago,” Semcken told the Times.

Both projects still have a long way to go.  The Legislature won’t be giving to AEG the same exemption from environmental lawsuits that was handed to Roski.  And it’s unclear where the funds to build Roski’s stadium will come from.

Still, the longer that two viable projects are on the table, the chances that one of the stadiums will be built will increase.  And that will finally bring football back to L.A.

Indeed, it could still happen as soon as 2012, with a team playing in the Rose Bowl or the L.A. Coliseum until the new stadium is built.

Permalink 36 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Buffalo Bills, Jacksonville Jaguars, Minnesota Vikings, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, San Francisco 49ers, St. Louis Rams, Top Stories
36 Responses to “Ed Roski considers other plans for his stadium site”
  1. hobartbaker says: Aug 30, 2011 11:03 PM

    Everyone makes fun of Ed, but technically he is right. 1,000 percent of nothing is nothing.

  2. hobartbaker says: Aug 30, 2011 11:05 PM

    As upwardly mobile members of minority groups, Roski and Perez share a bond. Along with the fact that they are both slimeballs.

  3. FinFan68 says: Aug 30, 2011 11:12 PM

    The NFL should abandon the idea of moving a franchise to L.A. Instead, they could build a 150,000+ seat “super stadium” that incorporates many of the best aspects of the stadiums throughout the league. They could play the SuperBowl there every year rather than pitting teams and local communities against each other in some ridiculous competition to host the SB. The L.A. folks love to “be seen” and should be able to fill the rest of the seats left available by the affluent types whose only involvement in the NFL is attending the SB. Personally, I think Las Vegas is a better fit for this idea due to the international tourists that flock there anyway (along with no earthquake worries) but if it gets the incessant XXXX team may move to L.A. rumors, then so be it. L.A. gets the premiere sports event and the NFL gets a game in the 2nd biggest TV market.

  4. suckleague says: Aug 30, 2011 11:19 PM

    Typical conversation overheard in new LA stadium: “What a great day for football, babe. This suit cost $4000. My other car, a Bentley as well, is in the shop. I am wearing foundation, how can you tell, babe? Hit me with your digits, we’ll do lunch. I love the football, what’s our team’s name again?”

  5. intenseg says: Aug 30, 2011 11:22 PM

    You have Buffalo, Jacksonville, Minnesota (since their stadium sucks and there is still no deal), San Diego, Oakland, St.Louis and Tampa. At least one team has had to agree to play there or this stadium talk wouldn’t be going on. Who do you think is the culprit? I have my idea.

  6. . says: Aug 30, 2011 11:32 PM

    i seen the stadium on the computer the stadium is going to look nice

  7. One Up the Bum says: Aug 30, 2011 11:32 PM

    Always get a chuckle that they colored the seats Purple in their stadium drawings…

  8. keeponhating says: Aug 30, 2011 11:47 PM

    @FinFan68
    ok so then the superbowl only helps one city every year. millions of dollars of revenue are earned by the city that hosts the superbowl. i think we should keep it the way it is.

  9. bolts11 says: Aug 30, 2011 11:47 PM

    Hope they don’t steal back the Chargers… All these deals are about leverage. Spanos wants to use these LA stadium deals to get his own deal at home…

  10. scudbot says: Aug 30, 2011 11:51 PM

    LA has has lost 3 pro football teams. San Francisco games are dangerous for fans. An area as large as San Diego suffers blackouts. What the h*ll is wrong with the people at the NFL? California is not the answer. The NFL bubble has popped.

  11. goatcheez says: Aug 30, 2011 11:59 PM

    LA Chargers or LA Raiders here we come.

  12. recon163 says: Aug 31, 2011 12:14 AM

    hobartbaker says:

    “As upwardly mobile members of minority groups, Roski and Perez share a bond.”

    Roski isn’t upwardly mobile at all, he is already there…..#170 on the wealthiest Americans list

  13. fmwarner says: Aug 31, 2011 12:20 AM

    FinFan68 says: Aug 30, 2011 11:12 PM

    The NFL should abandon the idea of moving a franchise to L.A. Instead, they could build a 150,000+ seat “super stadium” that incorporates many of the best aspects of the stadiums throughout the league. They could play the SuperBowl there every year rather than pitting teams and local communities against each other in some ridiculous competition to host the SB. The L.A. folks love to “be seen” and should be able to fill the rest of the seats left available by the affluent types whose only involvement in the NFL is attending the SB. Personally, I think Las Vegas is a better fit for this idea due to the international tourists that flock there anyway (along with no earthquake worries) but if it gets the incessant XXXX team may move to L.A. rumors, then so be it. L.A. gets the premiere sports event and the NFL gets a game in the 2nd biggest TV market.

    ==================================

    1. So the NFL is going to build a billion-dollar (conservatively) 150,000 seat stadium to hold ONE event per year in? I don’t know of any other events that could use such a venue.

    2. The TV market of the Super Bowl host city is irrelevant. Is even one person going to watch the Super Bowl because of what city it’s played in?

  14. tastysecretion says: Aug 31, 2011 12:23 AM

    i say let them build both stadiums and let us have 2 new nfl teams

  15. lacharger2112 says: Aug 31, 2011 12:34 AM

    FinFan68:
    Stop with this idea already. It’s a horrible idea. I don’t have the time to give all the reasons because there are so many.
    I’m starting to believe that nobody outside LA wants LA to have a stadium. “they can’t support a football team” is wrong. There is so much money in this town and with all the people who “want to be seen” (I can tell you there are more of them than there are seats in Jerry’s palace of loss) will have seats. At least their agents will.
    The real problem is the average fan in LA won’t be able to buy good season tickets because we are competing with advertising agencies, movie studios, actors and their $$$ I can go on. It’s not much different from New York. They have two successful football teams and LA can support two also.
    Chargers and Rams please!
    You are going to be sorry when LA comes to Miami in a few years and beats you in your own home. Look I’m talking smack and we don’t even have a team! Well, Chargers and Dolphins are like watching a cat play with a mouse right now.
    Oh, miami stopped moving.

  16. dannymac17 says: Aug 31, 2011 12:37 AM

    FinFan just took the IQ’s of all readers and posters down a couple pegs with that terrible idea.

  17. rajbais says: Aug 31, 2011 12:49 AM

    STOP THIS L.A. CRAP UNTIL A TEAM FRIGGIN’ COMES!!!!

  18. tatum064 says: Aug 31, 2011 1:24 AM

    hobartbaker says:
    Aug 30, 2011 11:05 PM
    As upwardly mobile members of minority groups, Roski and Perez share a bond. Along with the fact that they are both slimeballs.
    ====================================
    The Chargers would move their the minute a stadium is complete. And what businessman doesnt have a little slimeball in em?

    You from L.A.? It’s what gets things done down here.

  19. skoobyfl says: Aug 31, 2011 3:06 AM

    Move the Chargers & make a mixed use area.

  20. kenny1960 says: Aug 31, 2011 6:11 AM

    I strongly feel that since this website got into bed with NBC they are towing the corporate line for pushing for a team in LA. They are not just reporting on these stories, This website is using the full power on NBC to advocate that some city actually loose it’s team . I do not know why, But as with everything NBC, MSNBC and CNBC do follow the money. They shill for the Obama administration for projects and positions in the white house, How the heck did Jeffery Immelt get the position of ” Jobs Czar ” and then announce he is moving the over 100 year old x ray division of GE to China and not a peep from other media outlets ? Now he is investing ” BILLIONS ” of dollars in china to help them compete with Boeing. I doubt this post will be up long, I am stepping on two many well heeled toes, But what I am saying is the truth, This website has become a shill for the powers at NBC, They have a vested interest in having a team in LA plain and simple. If they remove this post I will be vindicated 100 %

  21. mshu7 says: Aug 31, 2011 6:23 AM

    How about going old school and move the Rams back to LA? LA Rams anyone?

  22. mhalt99 says: Aug 31, 2011 8:07 AM

    Very hard to play in the Coliseum. When USC cut a deal with the Coliseum commission it stipulated that the university would have veto power on any NFL team playing there. They did it because of the wacky structure of the commission which is part city, county and state.

    Also the Rose bowl has some insane stipulation about the amount of events that can be had there. The locals don’t want the traffic and whatever which is why they don’t have many events there outside of UCLA & Rose Bowl – though it may be possible as when USC was at an impasse during negotiations with the Coliseum commission UCLA & the Rose Bowl Committee signed off on allowing USC to play home games there if needed.

  23. stanmackley says: Aug 31, 2011 8:44 AM

    there is NO reason to include buffalo in these articles. it’s common knowledge that it wont happen.
    NOW FEAST TROLLS!!!!

  24. recon163 says: Aug 31, 2011 9:39 AM

    @ scudbot:

    Hilarious post. It truly demonstrates the absolute ignorance about the business of the sport of most NFL fans.

    “The NFL bubble has popped.”
    Hardly.

    The NFL commands the highest revenues, TV contracts, and ticket prices. And there we all are happily shedding dollars at the mere suggestion provided by a TV ad.

    At any time any team can go to a second tier city and ask for a new stadium to be built by at the expense of the taxpayers and that city would do it. And the city will do the teams bidding, with nary a peep.

    “California is not the answer.”

    Is there a problem the NFL is trying to solve? Please enlighten us since you seem to know.

    “What the h*ll is wrong with the people at the NFL?”

    They want to make money. The owners want to make money. It is pretty simple. Hard for you to grasp I know, but actually pretty easy.

    And where is there a market for their product that can easily afford suites and club seats? Where can they go where they have enough folks with disposable income to fill the general bowl? Where is there a market where they going to make money? In California.

    The 49’ers will soon get a new stadium in Santa Clara and will bound into the top ten in revenue. The Chargers will get a new stadium in San Diego and quickly be penciled into the Super Bowl rota. And in LA a new stadium will see a team in a small market with attendance and revenue problems become the number two or three revenue producer in the NFL.

    Sorry, but a small backwater like your home town can’t match that.

  25. recon163 says: Aug 31, 2011 9:42 AM

    @ suckleague:

    “Typical conversation overheard in new LA stadium: “What a great day for football, babe. This suit cost $4000. My other car, a Bentley as well, is in the shop. I am wearing foundation, how can you tell, babe? Hit me with your digits, we’ll do lunch. I love the football, what’s our team’s name again?”

    Sounds like a conversation in the luxury suites. You know the place the rich people hang out? And LA does have lots of those.

    So you don’t want those kind of people in your stadium?

  26. vikefan says: Aug 31, 2011 10:10 AM

    …….so in other words as much as Roski would like everyone to believe it is almost a done deal getting a team, the reality is that they are not any more closer than they were a year ago. NFL & teams can play hardball all they want but so far without a stadium deal and Roski actually considering a plan B is big red flag that shows stadium issue is far from a done deal. This could be a bad sign for owners wanting new stadium deals that if LA has no leverage for a new stadium deal current team owners may actually have to anit up more out of their own pockets do get deals done in their current locations. I am really suprised though that with dollars that NFL makes, markets like NY, Dallas, Indy, etc that have no problems with revenue streams & newer stadiums try & help out other locals by backing loans to make overall NFL entity more lucrative unless the Jerry Jones etc, of the world only care bout themselves. Why dont Wilfs (Vikings), Wilsons (buffalo) just ask other owners to back loans? It would make all owners & NFL more lucrative in the long run, no?

  27. jimmylions says: Aug 31, 2011 3:45 PM

    Assuming the Vikings get to keep their team name and colors, what will they be called in LA? I’m thinking the LA Terminators.

    If they go with that name, children would have to be seated in an area that is kept secret from wives.

    There is the distant possibility that both stadiums could get built and LA could end up with 2 teams. San Diego and Minnesota seem ready for new homes … unfortunately for those fans. Makes you love Green Bay’s business model, where there’s no greedy owner to hold the city (village?) hostage.

  28. blancodiablo says: Aug 31, 2011 4:44 PM

    Give LA a new team and work the schedule. Spare me the rhetorical nonsense of the division alignment or some other equally useless hand-wringing.

    Let LA have a new team, one that is their own, and leave the other teams alone. This whole LA topic is draining on the fans.

  29. nflpasux says: Sep 1, 2011 12:25 AM

    recon163 says: Aug 31, 2011 9:39 AM

    The 49′ers will soon get a new stadium in Santa Clara and will bound into the top ten in revenue. The Chargers will get a new stadium in San Diego and quickly be penciled into the Super Bowl rota. And in LA a new stadium will see a team in a small market with attendance and revenue problems become the number two or three revenue producer in the NFL.

    Sorry, but a small backwater like your home town can’t match that.

    ———————————————————————————–

    Hysterical! California has not built a new football stadium in 80 years. So now, in the middle of two major recessions, three California stadiums will magically appear? What are you Californians smoking?

    An established NFL team moving to LA a fantasy. There will be no new stadiums. And no relocated football teams. The only way that the NFL will come back to LA would be via expansion, and into the ancient Rose Bowl.

  30. recon163 says: Sep 1, 2011 9:15 AM

    @ nflpasux:

    “Hysterical! California has not built a new football stadium in 80 years.”

    Candlestick Park- Built in 1958.
    Oakland Coliseum- Built in 1962.
    Qualcomm Stadium- Built in 1967.

    80 years would be anything built in 1931. Based on the dates above one can surmise that math is not a strength for you.

    “So now, in the middle of two major recessions, three California stadiums will magically appear? What are you Californians smoking?”

    Nothing really.

    Considering that the LA stadium will be built with private funds the recession part doesn’t really impact the whole of California now does it?

    As for the 49ers, Santa Clara has already voted to allocate the money to finance the stadium and to keep the redevelopment agency intact. More to follow, but on course. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2012.

    San Diego is stuck because of changes in the redevelopment agency law. Once resolved, you and all of us should expect the stadium initiative to move forward. I doubt that San Diego is willing to let the Chargers walk away.

    “An established NFL team moving to LA a fantasy.”

    We shall see. But the NFL has clearly stated they will not expand, so your assertion that they will is based on what? I think we should call it ‘fantasy’, as you seem to suspend the reality of what the NFL has stated.

    “There will be no new stadiums.”
    And we are supposed to believe the guy who has demonstrated little to no knowledge of what is going on in California? Uh…..ok if you say so.

    “The only way that the NFL will come back to LA would be via expansion, and into the ancient Rose Bowl.”

    This is interesting. Considering that the NFL has twice spurned LA because it did not have a viable stadium option, they will suddenly reverse course and put an expansion team in LA in a stadium they could have used years ago?

    What are you smoking? It is certainly more stupefying than what we have here in California.

  31. nyyankeedave says: Sep 1, 2011 8:09 PM

    NFL would NEVER allow the Niners to leave SF. No matter how cruddy they get. It’s the Raiders. They left before, they’ll leave again. And it’s a perfect fit. Bigger question is: WHY DOES LA NEED AN NFL TEAM? NOBODY CARES! NOT EVEN IN LA!

  32. stanmarkey says: Sep 25, 2011 9:19 AM

    @recon who said- “The 49′ers will soon get a new stadium in Santa Clara and will bound into the top ten in revenue. The Chargers will get a new stadium in San Diego and quickly be penciled into the Super Bowl rota. And in LA a new stadium will see a team in a small market with attendance and revenue problems become the number two or three revenue producer in the NFL. ”

    whats the reasoning for this again? so the chargers should be removed from discussion on the move to LA?

  33. recon163 says: Sep 25, 2011 11:12 AM

    Stan,

    You changed your name again?

    “whats the reasoning for this again?”

    I said a lot in that post so for what particular point are you looking for clarification?

    “so the chargers should be removed from discussion on the move to LA?”

    Not at all. Not removed from the discussion until until they either get a new stadium or LA gets two other teams.

    Just like the Bills. In the discussion until a new owner proves allegiance to WNY or two other teams move to LA.

  34. stanmackley says: Sep 26, 2011 8:40 AM

    yeah, apparently pft froze me up for a bit so i had to improvise. im glad you could see through changing two letters.
    hows that new 49ers stadium coming?
    hows that new chargers stadium going?

  35. recon163 says: Sep 26, 2011 10:30 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    “hows that new 49ers stadium coming?”

    Not bad. The latest?

    from the Sept 19 Mercury News:
    “The San Francisco 49ers are going into the theme park business, investing in a $70 million deal to buy the Great America theme park — and bumping out of the way one of its biggest opponents to building its new stadium in Santa Clara: the park’s current owner. While the team already provides its share of ups and downs on the field, taking control of the roller coasters next door to the planned $1 billion stadium gives the Niners a chance to blend football and thrill rides into one of the Bay Area’s biggest attractions.”

    And some folks find bars and restaurants outside the stadium distracting.

    Still:

    “The 49ers still need to secure three-fourths of the funding needed to build the $987 million project, and York said the team will now venture on a 1½-year journey to convince the league, banks and sponsors the project is worth funding. The team says it has already sold $138 million in luxury boxes and expects $113 million in public funding.”

    So the 49ers need to come up with $736 mill, and I have read the league will loan anywhere from $100 mill to $250 mill……

    Looking good though. $138 mill in luxury boxes is nothing to sneeze at.

  36. stanmackley says: Sep 27, 2011 7:16 AM

    nice,
    links here:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_18928012

    and here:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_18552209

    so its still “going”, thats a fact. and the raiders have also thrown in for a new deal as well? why are these two stadiums open to housing 2 teams, and not LA? What are the possibilities of 2-3 new stadiums being built in CA?

Leave a Reply

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