Ed Roski makes bold move to build L.A. stadium

Well, the passing of Al Davis already has caused a seismic shift in the Southern California stadium shuffle.

Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times reports that Ed Roski, who hopes to build a new NFL venue in the City of Industry, has dropped his request for a no-cash minority stake in the team that would play there.

Instead, Roski is willing to “hand over the 600 acres” to the team that moves there.  The team that moves there would be responsible for financing the stadium, and the team that moves there would sell Roski a share of the franchise at market value.

“I am continuing to work to bring NFL football back to Los Angeles,” Roski told Farmer via email in response to a request for confirmation.  “The stadium at Grand Crossing creates a winning environment for fans, for the community and for the NFL now.

“My goal is to bring football back to Los Angeles, create jobs now, and to create an incredible NFL experience every game day for fans.”

Roski’s revised offer creates two dramatically different business models for the two proposed L.A. stadiums.  The downtown facility that AEG wants to build would be financed and owned by AEG; the football team would be a tenant.  The Grand Crossing project would give land to the NFL team at no cost, with the NFL team responsible for paying for the structure — but also pocketing all revenue flowing from its use.

Fundamental differences also exist in the non-game experiences that the stadiums would create.  The AEG project, already named Farmers Field, would be a swanky, multi-use building in the heart of the L.A. Live complex.  The stadium at Grand Crossing has enough adjacent parking areas to permit traditional day-long tailgating parties, which could be one of the extra perks needed to persuade fans (and families) to choose to watch games in person and not via their HDTVs.

The league apparently is playing this one down the middle for now, in the hopes of getting the best possible deal by leveraging the two proposals against each other.  If that’s the strategy (and indeed it is), it’s working — as evidenced by Roski’s recent revision to his offer.

61 responses to “Ed Roski makes bold move to build L.A. stadium

  1. Damn, Al’s body is not even cold yet and you ” Lets move the Raiders ” trolls crawl out from under your rocks.

  2. What do people not understand about L.A. not wanting or being able to support an NFL franchise? One look at today’s demographic there tells you they would much rather have a Futbal team!

  3. No shot.

    I am impressed with Roski’s efforts, but if you think the NFL is going to pass up “a swanky, multi-use building in the heart of LA Live” in favor of bigger parking lots for tailgating, you’re crazy.

    Is anyone ever going to figure that if you made a list of league priorities, the type of fan that buys regular tickets and tailgates at games is about as low on the list as you can get.

    The NFL wants a downtown stadium with tons of luxury boxes that bring in much more money per square foot than regular seats.

  4. Move the Rams back to LA.

    There are two NFL teams, Indianapolis and KC, withing four hours of St. Louis. There’s no way the mid-west needs that many teams when LA, one of the biggest cities in America, doesn’t have one.

  5. This Roski guy is a piece of work.

    Advice for Ed. Watch out for the karma bus. It doesn’t have any brakes.

  6. Three teams have already failed in LA…Chargers, Rams and Raiders…What makes anyone think a shiny new stadium is somehow magically going to draw a fan base that simply doesn’t exist?

  7. Cue the, “LA fans suck, durp de durp” comments…despite the fact that LA supports some of the most successful sports teams (at every level) in the world.

    I bet not more than 1 in 10 people outside LA could cite the actual reason the Raiders and Rams left, at least without going to Wikipedia first. Hint: it wasn’t an attendance issue

    And now, commence w/ the thumbs down.

  8. chizzle20 says:
    Oct 11, 2011 9:20 AM
    L.A. Jaguars…your red carpet has just been rolled out.

     ———————————————————————————

    Now isn’t that original. Bet that kept you up all night thinking of such innovative content. Keep those great ideas coming.

  9. paulbrownsrevenge says:
    Oct 11, 2011 9:49 AM

    People who live in or around L.A. have too much other crap going on to be loyal NFL fans. I’d bet Oklahoma City would have a better market for pro football than L.A.

    *~*~*~*~*~*

    So people supporting ‘successful’ teams have don’t have “other crap going on”?

    Left-handed insults…my favorite.

  10. mfrazie pay attention, most of the people in LA don’t care about football. TWO teams left there because they were not supported. The size and/or population does not matter if the majority are not NFL fans.

  11. This is not a good deal. What Roski is saying that he is not going to spend a billion dollars to build the stadium that many of the current owners cannot foot on their own. In other words, he is basically selling ice water in Hell or if you want the LA market, I have land for you build a stadium on.

  12. mightymightylafootball, the Rams left precisely because the fan base had disappeared. The team went bad and the fans took off. Also, it’s “queue”.

  13. Move a team that proves they don’t want the team and continue to throw up road blocks to viable plans. Sadly, that is my Vikings. Teach this state a lesson NFL. Please.

  14. As one who grew up in SoCal, the stadiums that local teams played in were awful. The Mausoleum had a running track all the way around it, and fans were set way, way back from the action. The “Big A” in Anaheim, where the Rams moved for a few years before going to St. Louis, was a converted baseball stadium with horrible viewing angles for football (it has since been returned to “baseball only”).

    There were efforts being made to build new stadiums. In the case of the Rams, they bolted for St. Louis. In the case of the Raiders, there was a stadium deal all set to go near the Hollywood Park racetrack in 1995, but Davis decided he could make more money fleecing the city of Oakland, so he moved the team back north.

    Put a modern facility in, with a capacity of 70,000 or so, and they should be able to sell it out with a decent product.

  15. Roski will save LA from creating a disaster traffic mess downtown. Imagine if the downtown stadium were built… the traffic and parking nightmare would be horrendous. Roski’s stadium, on the other hand, would be so much FUN to meet up with friends and tailgate.

  16. Dean Spanos just said. MMM MMMM

    him and Roski are GOOD friends.

    Wait, whats that Dean? You dont have to just GIVE me any of the team? You just want maybe, a 30% share at market value and i can have the land to develop and help you build this thing??

    “Sign me up”- Dean.

  17. “… they should be able to sell it out with a decent product.”

    That’s exactly the point. No NFL team consistently has a “decent product” because they all go bad from time to time. When LA’s new team goes bad, local fans will quit on them.

  18. LA is getting a team, no matter what the haters say. Heck they might even get 2 teams. The only teams that geographicaly make sense are the Raiders and the chargers.

  19. trollhammer20 says:
    Oct 11, 2011 10:35 AM
    As one who grew up in SoCal, the stadiums that local teams played in were awful. The Mausoleum had a running track all the way around it, and fans were set way, way back from the action. The “Big A” in Anaheim, where the Rams moved for a few years before going to St. Louis, was a converted baseball stadium with horrible viewing angles for football (it has since been returned to “baseball only”).

    There were efforts being made to build new stadiums. In the case of the Rams, they bolted for St. Louis. In the case of the Raiders, there was a stadium deal all set to go near the Hollywood Park racetrack in 1995, but Davis decided he could make more money fleecing the city of Oakland, so he moved the team back north.

    Put a modern facility in, with a capacity of 70,000 or so, and they should be able to sell it out with a decent product.

    *~*~*~*~*

    This.

    trollhammer20 wins the ‘Not Talking Out Of His Ass’ award for the day!

  20. @mightymightylafootball

    I don’t believe/care what wikipedia says; no one went to the Raiders games when they were in LA. And I recall when they were leaving there was a “rally” and 18 fans showed up to show their “support”!

  21. So how much money is a team going to make in the AEG stadium? AEG is going to need a lot of revenue to pay off the cost of building it, so it doesn’t seem like the team that moves there is going to make a killing. Not really the no-brainer people make it out to be. The other option is to sell a portion of your team to Roski and pay for building his stadium. That doesn’t sound like it’s necessarily a great deal either.

  22. buzzbissinger says:
    Oct 11, 2011 11:33 AM
    @mightymightylafootball

    I don’t believe/care what wikipedia says; no one went to the Raiders games when they were in LA. And I recall when they were leaving there was a “rally” and 18 fans showed up to show their “support”!

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

    You do realize that in 2010, Raiders attendance was 32nd out 32 teams, right? Dead last…..below Tampa.

    The Rams were 30th…just above Tampa.

  23. Only 5 games remain on the vikings lease in Minnesota.
    The vikings are free agents at the end of the season without any lease breaking costs and very little crying about losing a trophyless team.

    As soon as the vikings sign a letter of intent construction can begin in Los Angeles. It is cheaper for the vikings to share a large open air stadium in LA than to build a single purpose domed stadium in MN.

    The value of the vikings doubles, revenue goes way up, cost go way down especially if they share the stadium with an AFC franchise.

    Divisional opponents gain revenue and play in warm weather on grass instead of injury producing turf.

    League revenue goes up, high revenue owners don’t have to give anymore welfare to the low revenue Minnesota franchise, Minnesota goes not lose revenue because a new stadium would cost far more money than the vikings bring in in all form of taxes.

    In short everybody and every team wins if the vikings move. Nobody loses. Moving the vikings makes the most sense.

  24. I like Roski and Leiweke, but they need to take it easy on NFL teams. The worst that they should ask for is a 5-10% share of the team(s). These teams are too precious for the two stadium czars to even have a moderate stake in!!!

  25. “savannahrose44 says:
    Oct 11, 2011 9:38 AM
    Three teams have already failed in LA…Chargers, Rams and Raiders…What makes anyone think a shiny new stadium is somehow magically going to draw a fan base that simply doesn’t exist?”

    Not really true in the Raiders case. Their stadium was damaged by the earthquake. They were working to get a new one built. Tagliaboob killed that effort. They had no choice but to go back to Oakland.

    L.A. Jags does kind of roll off the tongue though.

  26. Personally, I believe Roski will get it done before AEG.

    I think the Chargers and/or the Rams are most likely. Fanbases are already established and there is a historical relationship. Edward Jones in St Louis is outdated, the lease expires soon and they are a bottom feeder attendance-wise in the NFL.

    The Rams owned LA (even while in Anaheim) and continued to outsell the Raiders weekly when both shared the market. Kroenike isn’t a billionaire without realizing that. The Rams were one of the top NFL attendance teams for decades, even while sharing a stadium with USC and UCLA (for the young’uns, UCLA used to play at the Coliseum too).

    Both Chargers and Rams need upgrading…….There would be no realignment……Built in fanbases……Yep.

  27. I long for the day when “Bob Nelson” contributes something intelligent to the comments section of a Pro Football Talk story.

    Sadly, I fear that by the time that actually happens, Los Angeles might actually have a football team.

    You know what would make more sense than moving the Vikings to Los Angeles? Rescinding Green Bay’s ridiculous exception to the community ownership rules and moving them to Los Angeles instead. Trading the NFL’s smallest market for one of America’s largest? It’s a no-brainer!

    I bet Green Bay fans would be significantly less cavalier about teams moving and fans losing their favorite team if their team could potentially be targeted. Sadly, a team, a city, and a fan base like Green Bay’s that truly deserves to have that kind of thing happen doesn’t have to worry about it because of one stupid, ridiculous NFL rule.

  28. @nashvilletrojan

    Point taken. L.A. fan’s aren’t fickle, it just a coincidence that the NFL want’s to put a turn-key franchise there?

    Now go back to the University of Spoiled Children.

  29. When I lived in SoCal I went to many Laker games. From a fan standpoint, downtown lucks as a location. Having a large parking lot, easily accessible, is a huge attraction.

    Oh wait… ticket prices for the new NFL team will be so high, only corporate types in chauffeur driven limos will be able to afford to go the actual games, so ordinary fans are exactly where they are now: eating homemade popcorn in front of their HD sets.

    Matter of fact, with no local team, local fans get a much better line-up of games on TV…

  30. @buzzbissinger

    Fickle? A team that played in a city for 50 years, set NFL attendance records and has a host of Hall of Famers on the record………Fickle?

    On the other hand……A maverick owner decided to split the market, a greedy widow/showgirl decided to undo the greatness her late husband and his son accomplished…..both Ms. Greedy and Mr. Maverick wanted to pad their pockets through taxpayer money and schemes ……Hmmmmmmm

    When both teams played at home the same weekend, they still drew more than 100,000 combined with lousy teams. No fans? You obviously aren’t from SoCal or have done your homework. Frontierre and Davis can rot for what they did to the fans.

  31. Like it or not, Zygi will be very interested in this because of the land that can be developed. Commercial land in LA is going to be worth $500k to $1,000,000 per acre or more, and the stadium itself will take less than a quarter of the 600 acres. Zygi knows how to develop it, and Roski probably needs help developing it. I’m guessing Roski came up with the idea with Zygi in mind.

    I’d rather the Vikes stay in MN, but I’m not sure they will ever come up with anything workable given the state budget.

  32. The Chargers started out in LA, and left. The Rams started out in LA, and left. The Raiders moved to LA, and left. Now, the want to build a billion dollar stadium in a cash strapped state and lure TWO teams to play there? Now I know why California is broke. Absolute genius.

  33. Mr. University of Snorting Cocaine:

    Actually I’m born and raised on So. Cal, moved to the Bay Area in 1992, and was quite pleased that “Mr. Maverick” moved my beloved Raiders back up here in ’95. As for the Rams, I was never fond of them, and with both teams having a combined capacity of well over 150,000 I would certainly hope they could get at least 100,000 butts in the seats on any given Sunday.

    Yes, So. Cal Fans are Fickle, suck it.

  34. The Bills aren’t going anywhere. Do you really think Goodell would let the Bills move when he grew up in WNY? He was even quoted this weekend saying he’ll do “everything in his power to keep the Bills in Buffalo”…Stop tagging the Bills in these LA stadium updates, it’s never going to happen.

  35. NFL Sunday Ticket and 52″ of HD goodness…dont care which team goes to LA as long as they shoot the games with decent equipment….Fox I am looking in your direction…

  36. 13curtjp says:
    Oct 11, 2011 10:07 PM
    looks like the packers will get a brand new bandwagon of fans once the vikes head west
    ——-
    If they do they will fit in juuuuuust fine with the entire bandwagon fanbase. 80’s anyone? Barely a blip on the map let alone the radar.

  37. 2nd attempt to post this (case in point)
    @jaxjhawk I have noticed a couple things on the PFT comment stream. The evening mods are generally more lenient than the am mods. I have seen some horrible comments make it through in the evening- the same stuff that gets removed in the am if you use it in quotation marks.
    Then if you make a great point against the author of the original story by using facts and links they remove it. We’ll see if the commies even let this one through.

Leave a Reply