Skip to content

Report: AEG L.A. stadium proposal “essentially dead” to NFL

Handout of architectural firm Gensler's artist rendering showing the proposed Farmers Field stadium and event center Reuters

The plan to bring the NFL back to Los Angeles could be hitting a substantial roadblock.

After the L.A. City Council approved eight measures in September related to AEG’s proposal to build a stadium in downtown Los Angeles, the plan has potentially several issues that could derail the process.

According to Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports, the proposal is “essentially dead” to the NFL due to numerous issues with the plan.

“The numbers just don’t work, no matter how you look at the deal,” a league source told Cole in February. “It’s either too hard for AEG to make money [and pay the debt on the stadium] or too hard for the team. I just can’t see a way for it to work.”

AEG spokesman Michael Roth declined comment for the story and NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a statement the league continues to monitor the AEG proposal and remains interested in the Los Angeles market. However, any scenario that would involve AEG renting out the proposed $1.8 billion stadium to an NFL team “seems unworkable” according to Cole.

The gloomy outlook in Cole’s story by the league on the proposal could be an attempt to ultimately squeeze a better deal out of AEG with no other stadium projects currently viable in the Los Angeles market. Ultimately the city showed support for building a new stadium by unanimously approving the deal in September and AEG president Tim Leiweke has said they are open to changing the proposal.

The league has also been able to use the idea of teams relocating to Los Angeles to help pressure cities into renovating or building new stadiums with public dollars as well. Minnesota most recently felt the weight of Los Angeles looming as they approved a new stadium to replace the Metrodome. With no team in a position to relocate to L.A. next year, the NFL could now be turning the tables against AEG to leverage a better deal for the league.

However, it’s also hard to fathom that the NFL would be so quick to dismiss a proposal to build a stadium in Los Angeles that has significant public support without serious questions about the financial viability of the deal.

Permalink 58 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories
58 Responses to “Report: AEG L.A. stadium proposal “essentially dead” to NFL”
  1. skoobyfl says: Mar 4, 2013 11:50 PM

    Ding dong the witch is dead….

  2. barroomhero80 says: Mar 5, 2013 12:14 AM

    It’s gonna happen….eventually

  3. lurkerkerker says: Mar 5, 2013 12:15 AM

    If a big new stadium costs $1 billion in Texas, you can bet it’s at least twice that in California.

  4. briscocountyjr says: Mar 5, 2013 12:20 AM

    Now where are they going to put the Jaguars…?

  5. alonestartexan says: Mar 5, 2013 12:20 AM

    This is the problem…

    Even if AEG DID build this stadium, they want part ownership of whatever team moves.

    What owner is willing to give up part ownership?

    Even if Farmers Field was built, and there was a team willing to relocate, who’s paying the near billion dollar relocation fee?

    In an era where NFL owners are making money hand over fist, there’s no reason to relocate to Los Angeles.

    LA Won’t get a team until the NFL expands again.

  6. kane337 says: Mar 5, 2013 12:23 AM

    If you build it…they will come.

  7. dannymac17 says: Mar 5, 2013 12:25 AM

    Well is the Industry dead?

  8. fredsingleton says: Mar 5, 2013 12:28 AM

    Good, LA doesn’t deserve an NFL team

  9. blackngold4life says: Mar 5, 2013 12:34 AM

    LA wont embrace No other cities Team anyway..Any franchise would have to be new..unless its the Raiders (which Oakland) can keep! Even then ticket sales wont be that good

  10. chawk12thman says: Mar 5, 2013 12:37 AM

    Business Negotiating and Leverage……They already have the public support via Legislative Approval……This won’t be dropped. It is like the NFLPA and NFL negotiation. Too much money involved to just let it die.

  11. rajbais says: Mar 5, 2013 12:38 AM

    I am not surprised by this.

    I knew this was going to go down hill when AEG ruined it with their idea of the franchise piece being bought at a discount.

    They want the team(s) to rent out a $1.8 billion stadium, but they want to own a piece of the franchise(s) at a smaller price?

    It makes no sense to have that idea when you can protect yourselves with exit fees!!!!!

    Also for the NFL, just let the Raiders move there!!! Regardless of reports from Mike Florio or Sam Farmer the Raiders are as worthy as any stadium free agent to go down to L.A. They have done nothing wrong and it is inconsiderate and stupid to deny a team that move when it’s the team with the most merchandise sales in the L.A. Market. The Dallas Cowboys are #2. Plus, the Chargers have publicly shown NO interest in going there. So forget about them. Unless the NFL wants to make it crazy and entertaining to have two AFC West teams sharing the same place and that brews even more sizzle to the rivalry!!!

    Finally, just give the Ed Roski the stadium!!! He has also done nothing wrong. You keep the New York Giants and Jets in East Rutherford, NJ, but Industry, CA is filth???

    It can and should get done because it’s more cost effective and team friendly in Industry, CA. Plus, there won’t be overseating there in this “stay-at-home, watch free TV, and eat cheaper food” era, but more importantly the NFL to L.A. talk can finally be put to rest!!!

  12. lanjoith says: Mar 5, 2013 12:40 AM

    This is why I politely laugh every time someone mentions the Chargers moving to L.A. There are too many obstacles. Why do you think such a huge market hasn’t had an NFL team for the better part of two decades?

  13. jeffrey723 says: Mar 5, 2013 12:43 AM

    The downtown LA stadium plan is a dreadful farce. It’s a terrible idea from top to bottom, and “public support” amounts to paid-off city council members and a lack of organized opposition.

    How can you tell? Start with their contention that “traffic on Sundays isn’t very bad” and “people will just use public transportation to get to the game”. The rival plan to build a stadium away from downtown was much more sound, but that group didn’t have AEG’s bribery money backing it.

  14. crazzyfordaraidazz says: Mar 5, 2013 12:46 AM

    We need the President of the United States to take affirmative action

  15. jimbo75025 says: Mar 5, 2013 12:47 AM

    Face it LA, the NFL wants you as a boogeyman/threat to current cities more than they care about a team there.

    I admit though, it is amusing after using LA to get a better deal from so many cities to see the NFL now hammer them for a better deal also. What did LA expect?

  16. freshlikenike says: Mar 5, 2013 12:50 AM

    In good time, in good time.

  17. timmydunbar says: Mar 5, 2013 12:51 AM

    i say we battle this one on the gridiron to see who has more fuzz on their peaches

  18. dtlb58 says: Mar 5, 2013 1:05 AM

    I don’t see how the NFL thinks this situation is any different in L.A. Now than before?
    The team is going to have to win for one to keep butts in the stands and that alone may not keep the fans coming to every game in sunny California.
    This is going to have to be an existing franchise (The Chargers would be the best bet) an expansion team wouldn’t stand a chance. Just ask Jax and Car. In the small markets they started in and are struggling still to this day. Look at the raiders, they are cutting back to 50,000 seat stadium this season just to avoid blackouts.
    I think the NFL would do best by avoiding this market. It’s not a football first world.

  19. rajbais says: Mar 5, 2013 1:07 AM

    After reading Jason Cole’s Yahoo! Sports story about how the AEG stadium proposal appeared “dead” to the NFL I found myself not feeling surprised.

    I knew this was going to go down hill when AEG clearly ruined it with their idea of it buying a piece of a future Los Angeles residing franchise piece at a discount.

    It wants the team to rent out a $1.8 billion stadium, but own a piece of it at a smaller price?

    I understand you want to protect yourselves in case a team wants to leave you, but you can do that with exit fees.

    Shouldn’t these fiascos just cause the NFL to give Ed Roski the stadium deal? He has done nothing wrong except not have the stadium in downtown L.A. Instead, he chose Industry, CA. The league keeps the New York Giants and Jets in East Rutherford, NJ, but Industry, CA is filth?

    It can and should get done because it’s more cost effective and team friendly in Industry, CA. Plus, there won’t be over-seating there in this “stay-at-home, watch free TV, and eat cheaper food” era.

    To conclude, pick your teams to share the stadium. It is more cost effective and utilized with two teams. The first should be the Oakland Raiders. Regardless of reports from Profootballtalk’s Mike Florio or the L.A. Times’ Sam Farmer the Raiders are as worthy as any stadium free agent to go down to L.A. They have done nothing wrong and it is inconsiderate and stupid to deny a team that move when it is the team with the most merchandise sales in the L.A. Market. Plus, the Chargers have publicly shown no interest in going there. So forget about them.

    Unless the NFL wants to make it crazy and entertaining to have two AFC West teams sharing the same place to brew even more sizzle to the rivalry. Then again, the Rams are always an option.

    For such an unfinished story journalists are willing to do anything in order to write the ending of something that may never happen. The way you end it is by following lease deals and deadlines for new stadium votes because if you project with nothing eventful in a potential L.A. prospect’s current home you disrespect that team’s fans, eventually crush L.A. football fans’ already heightened hopes, and act more counterproductive than you actually do.

    There’s likely more proof that no team will be in L.A., but this topic has shown us that writers feel that they can prove it despite no substance.

  20. grandsonofcoach says: Mar 5, 2013 1:15 AM

    Never really understood the NFLs obsession with LA. Some reports had even said LA could end up with 2 teams. But LA couldn’t even hold one team there because the population was so apathetic. Just another San Diego in my view. Even when the team is competative they have trouble filling a stadium.

  21. woodstakes says: Mar 5, 2013 1:18 AM

    Jeez you’d think if the NFL wanted a team in L.A. bad enough, they could just take $1 Billion of the $10 Billion they make every year and build a stadium there (or take $500 Million over a couple years what ever), I mean how long would it take to recover $1 Billion from a market that size and with the relative wealth located there. Imagine what they could charge for executive suites and prime seating… pretty easy to find that out, check out what Dallas charges or the Dodgers… etc etc etc.

    Just a thought!

  22. iamjimmyjack says: Mar 5, 2013 1:20 AM

    Roger is a money hungry fool.

  23. jessethegreat says: Mar 5, 2013 1:21 AM

    Why doesn’t AEG just foot the bill for their own expansion franchise? I’m sure the NFL owners would approve with each pocketing millions of dollars on the fee.

  24. tyler4richardson says: Mar 5, 2013 1:59 AM

    Your dead to us L.A. We’ve seen better.

  25. hauts81 says: Mar 5, 2013 2:28 AM

    I’m glad the Vikings aren’t a pawn in this stupid game anymore.

  26. bigsexy2288 says: Mar 5, 2013 2:34 AM

    Keep the nfl out of L.A. I’d we can’t get an expansion team. We seen what happened when other teams from other cities came, they eventually left. We haven’t had nfl here in a long time they can kick rocks. We still have the Dodgers and Lakers that’s all we need.

  27. phinfan says: Mar 5, 2013 2:35 AM

    I guess it was a unsuccessful investment by Stephen Ross then…

  28. boogerhut says: Mar 5, 2013 2:42 AM

    1.8 Billion is ridiculous. These Billionaire Buffoons playing one- upmanship with taxpayer money has to stop. Saddle the public with debt and price the tickets out of reach of the people footing the bill. Total BS. Only in sports is it acceptable to not spend or risk your own personal money to reap untold personal riches.

  29. jbpanthers says: Mar 5, 2013 2:46 AM

    This was obvious, Goodell would rather an NFL team in London than in LA anyhow….

  30. nzaz says: Mar 5, 2013 3:33 AM

    The NFL is still in love with the Chavez Ravine site because its cost effective, the land is already open (parking lot) and the view is the perfect backdrop for all the Super Bowls that would be set there. AEG is too much glitz and crap people don’t care about. It’s all glass and cement down there by LA Live, nothing emotional to grab in to. Then you drive 5 minutes up the 110 and see the 50 year old Dodger Stadium and you remember your youth and why you live sports in the first place.

  31. buffalomafia says: Mar 5, 2013 4:21 AM

    Now where are the Bills moving to Toronto?

  32. brainslicer says: Mar 5, 2013 5:01 AM

    In a related story, the NFL is asking if fans would be willing to pay $25 to watch construction of the new stadium.

  33. tincansailor981 says: Mar 5, 2013 5:03 AM

    They’ve had two teams and couldn’t keep either one. What makes anyone believe they deserve a third chance? I know the NFL is sick thinking about all the potential dollars they are missing out on.

  34. benroethlisberger7 says: Mar 5, 2013 5:50 AM

    L.A. is a joke. That city does not deserve a team.

  35. zclorz says: Mar 5, 2013 6:37 AM

    LA is all about the Lake Show. If they relocate, say the Jags, to LA they will not compare to the Lakers.

  36. samtheram says: Mar 5, 2013 7:02 AM

    You forgot to say the Ram’s are moving to LA

  37. eatitfanboy says: Mar 5, 2013 7:06 AM

    Or maybe it’s just not true, seeing as no one as no one is actually identified as having said it.

  38. jikkle49 says: Mar 5, 2013 7:06 AM

    Complete leverage move on the NFL’s part.

    AEG is still the most viable plan for them and actually has the cities support behind it which they can barely get from a lot of these new stadium deals but since they don’t need a team to threaten to move there this year it’s a good time to take a few swipes at the proposal in the hopes of sweetening the pot.

    AEG should call the NFL’s bluff on this one. It’s true the NFL doesn’t need LA but LA isn’t hurting without the NFL.

    And for a league now more than ever obsessed with making every penny it can ($25 Combine tickets, stretching out the offseason, adding two games to the regular season) they won’t continue to ignore the 2nd largest market in the US for much longer.

  39. saxmachine69 says: Mar 5, 2013 7:36 AM

    A year after the Viking’s stadium bill passed, and yet I’m still surprised to read an LA article on this thread that isn’t spun to suggest the Vikings are moving

  40. bunjy96 says: Mar 5, 2013 7:44 AM

    A downtown stadium in LA was never really viable.

  41. Beezo-Doo-doo-Zippity-Bop-bop-bop says: Mar 5, 2013 7:48 AM

    I’ve been telling writers and commenters on this site for a long time that no team is going to move to LA. First and foremost, LA would have to build a stadium and give it and all concessions to the team. Someone would also have to pay the half billion dollar relocation fee the NFL would charge and again, it won’t be the team. The NFL does not want any current teams moving to LA, the market is too valuable to them as it is. They love having the threat of a move there to hold over current cities heads. For all the talk of the second largest TV market, well they already have that and would lose it once the team inevitably stopped selling out the stadium. At this point I don’t even see expansion as an option, when LA lost all its teams it virtually ensured it would never have another.

  42. logast says: Mar 5, 2013 8:17 AM

    I realize the only reason that the NFL wants a franchise in LA is the tv dollars. Why do they still think that will work?

    The NFL has tried LA before, and there has been mediocre community support at best.

    Give up already, before you really price your product out of reach for most.

  43. ballboy48 says: Mar 5, 2013 8:22 AM

    Football in LA never did well, and never will. How many teams played there, and then bailed? LA is a basketball and baseball town. Not a football town. The NFL is making tons of money without a team there now, and I’m sure a Franchise would be more successful in another city, without as much debt.

  44. wagons716 says: Mar 5, 2013 8:36 AM

    They don’t deserve a team anyways!!! They had their chances… key word chances! If there was any team that should be moved anyways it should be Jax we all know that but I still believe if they moved they shouldnt go to L.A.

  45. balzer41 says: Mar 5, 2013 8:40 AM

    L.A. has already had their opportunity to support 2 different teams and failed miserably both times. They don’t deserve another chance. Forget about L.A. and let the real football cities keep their teams. Well, on second thought they can have the Jags. Nobody will support that team, no matter where they play.

  46. boltdaddy says: Mar 5, 2013 8:48 AM

    This just it L.A. to get NFL Stadium….

    This just in… story about L.A. to get NFL Stadium falls short like Hollywood Race Track, Irwindale, re-build on the current Colosseum site, City of Industry and now D.T. L.A. Not only not building but also running our of places to not build.

  47. dirtydrew says: Mar 5, 2013 8:49 AM

    L.A. Jaguars?

  48. gojags436 says: Mar 5, 2013 9:06 AM

    You last posters talking about Jags to L.A. don’t know what you’re talking about. We averaged over 65,000 tickets sold per game last season. And that’s for a team that went 1-7 at home. Jag fans were awesome last year & we haven’t had a blackout since ’09. Meanwhile, the Raiders & their “passionate” fanbase are set to have 15,000 fewer seats than the Jags this coming season. Tampa Bay’s home games were almost all blacked out & Miami’s stadium is a ghost town on game day. Get a clue, tools.

  49. lonelylibertarian says: Mar 5, 2013 9:13 AM

    If the great GOD-L had any imagination he would already be pushing.

    A four team expansion…
    1. Two teams sharing a league owned and built Sourthern Cal Stadium – one new and the other the chargers.

    2. Second expansion team in the Chicago area – again playing in a league owned stadium in the northern suburbs.

    3 Two teams in Europe – One in London, the other in either Amsterdam or Germany.

    This coupled with a 18 game schedule and adding another week to the season adding a full slate of Thursday games and resuming Saturday games after the first of December could lead to a significant expansion of TV revenues – and total revenues. Adding 5 more roster slots and 4 new teams would increase the number of jobs for players.

    But this will never happen because RG is not a leader.

  50. buddysguys says: Mar 5, 2013 9:37 AM

    Another California team just means more stabbings and beatings for Fans….we are all safe now.

  51. bribos says: Mar 5, 2013 9:38 AM

    There is every reason to believe that Los Angeles and their fans are not the problem, per se. The problem may be bigger, yet simpler: Trying to support 4 teams in California may be the real problem; there just aren’t enough TRUE fans to go around.
    ‘Frisco fans…front runners. They stayed away in droves when the team was losing.
    Raider fans…can’t wait to dress up, get liquored up and fight.
    Charger fans…is there really such a thing? Or are the fans in stands on a road trip from OC?
    The late Ram fans…all we did was show up to games, leave a little early, and head to Tommy’s.
    Between the 4 groups there may be 70 to 80 thousand real football fans. Give them a real team, with solid management, and watch em go.
    ps Industry is not far enough out of town. The Inland Empire is the fastest growing area of the state. Build a stadium complex (restaurants, a mall, a casino and a racetrack) somewhere between Rancho Cucamonga and Victorville and Barstow. Fans could fly into Vegas from all over, then drive down for the game. Tour/party busses from all over the state (ergo the casino!).
    The population center has been moving that direction for years. It’s not going to stop. Somebody with some money and a vision may as well get on board and help it develop in the best way possible. As was stated earlier…build it and they will come!

  52. bbb82 says: Mar 5, 2013 9:58 AM

    How many times does LA have to fail at having an NFL team before we stop talking about moving another team there?

  53. fortphiladamsterdam says: Mar 5, 2013 9:59 AM

    When the league expands next, Disney will build a new stadium in Anaheim and become owner of the team that plays in it. They will call them the Air Buds, and everyone will hate it.

  54. thermalito says: Mar 5, 2013 10:13 AM

    wow I’ve never seen so many clueless posts in one thread. Fan support has absolutely NOTHING to do with why the NFL is not in LA. The City’s refusal to use public dollars to build a stadium is the one and only issue. If lack of fan support was an issue then teams in Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Arizona, Cincinnati and Oakland would all be elsewhere tomorrow. The Rams and Raiders both actually drew quite well while they were in LA. The Rams broke attendance records when they played at the Coliseum and the Raiders drew 90,000 plus multiple times there.

  55. quicktaker says: Mar 5, 2013 10:30 AM

    New football stadiums make no sense economically and only get built with heavy government funding. Of course the concept of AEG building a 1.8 billion dollar stadium without owning a team is absurd. NFL teams are use to getting sweetheart deals where they pay minimal rent.
    I wish citizens would realize that the NFL needs us more than we need them. Stop funding horrible investments like stadiums. If we expect owners to provide all of the funding, the stadiums may be less grand but I promise you the seats will still be plastic.

  56. mogogo1 says: Mar 5, 2013 10:53 AM

    Big picture: There’s virtually no groundswell of support in the LA area about getting a team. Nobody whooped for joy when they first heard about this stadium deal, just as nobody cried in his beer after hearing the deal may be dead.

    And the league that somehow thinks they could put a team in London and succeed STILL can’t get a team in the second largest U.S. city.

  57. nzaz says: Mar 5, 2013 2:14 PM

    S

    LA doesn’t deserve a team because of something that happend almost 20 years ago when many football fans were either kids or not born yet? Not to mention the fact that both owners were extremely greedy and didnt even try to find a new stadium in LA, instead they took the quick buck. Also by your reasoning Cleveland, Baltimore and Houston shouldn’t have gotten new teams. I know it’s popular to hate LA back east and in the flyover states but if that’s the case stop moving here, you’re clogging our streets with traffic.

  58. raidermike34 says: Mar 6, 2013 2:07 PM

    Raiders will not be coming as AEG will not only want to own a portion but the would want to strip the identity of the whole raider Image with a new team name and logo..However do not Rule out Magic Johnson and the boys preparing a new proposal to do one next to Dodger Stadium.. Thanks Villaraigosa.. you are on the way out and the new guy will be making some nice dough as well.

Leave a Reply

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