Stan Kroenke’s stadium plan has room for two teams

Getty Images

Rams owner Stan Kroenke has something bigger on his plate this week than goofy scoring adjustments or catch rules or jersey numbers.

According to Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times, Kroenke is bringing detailed plans for his proposed Los Angeles stadium to share with his fellow NFL owners this week.

Farmer got a glimpse at the plans drawn by Kroenke’s firm HKS for the $1.86 billion, privately financed stadium in Inglewood.

But while the numbers are big and the drawings were pretty, one of the more interesting elements is that Kroenke’s plan includes the ability for two teams to share it.

While the addition of two home locker rooms, two sets of offices and two owners suites might seem small, it’s a potentially significant move.

With the city of Carson working on a plan that would bring the Raiders and Chargers, the idea that Kroenke might also be willing to consider a co-tenant is interesting.

Of course, the fact he’s willing to put his own money into it and assume the risk, it seems natural that he’d prefer to not share the L.A. market. But the mere possibility adds another wrinkle to what has been a complicated process.

36 responses to “Stan Kroenke’s stadium plan has room for two teams

  1. $1.86 million and shared by two stadiums? That’s either the cheapest, most interesting sounding stadium in the world, or just another failure by this sites “proofreading” dept…

  2. Build it with a non-union company and get it done for half price and have it built twice as fast.

  3. So the second team would pay a relocation fee and increased rent to move into a stadium where that team will not have the chance to collect money from the stadium name deal? Where Kroenke would take a significant percentage, if not all, of the revenue from concessions, parking, and signage? And this second team would not have the opportunity to collect any money from non-football game events? Oh and they would still have to pay for new facilities? I could be wrong, but I don’t think that one team being a tenant to another team is a real good idea.

  4. The raiders are fools if they don’t jump on this.Davis is a pauper compared to these other NFL owners and his chances to survive in the toilet known as Oakland are slim and none.

  5. Any LA team is going to flop, much less two of them. I know LA is a huge market and you would think they could support one or two teams. But, if that is the case, why did every LA team leave? If two teams move in, it would turn out to be a monumental failure, other than maybe the first couple of seasons, when fans show up to see what’s new.

  6. easier (and perhaps cheaper) to build it for two home teams now than later …

    expansion/relocation? who knows what the future holds?

  7. twinfan24, I hate Los Angeles but the Chargers left because the AFL couldn’t compete with the NFL’s Rams (same reason the Texans (Chiefs) left Dallas for Kansas City.)

    The Rams left Los Angeles because they couldn’t get a new stadium. Their owner died, then Georgia Frontiere (after a decade in Anaheim) decided to tank the team (getting rid of players like Dickerson, Everett, Anderson, Greene, ect, ect) and was offered a new stadium in her hometown of St. Louis. NFL owners voted something like 26-1 against the Rams leaving Los Angeles but Georgia threatened to sue and eventually got her way.

    Al Davis was set to stay in Los Angeles at a brand new stadium ironically to be built at Hollywood Park in Inglewood until the NFL demanded that he be open to taking on a second team. Oakland offered to make improvements to the Coliseum and the Raiders were gone.

    The Rams/Raiders managed to average between 110k-120k combined for home games throughout the 1980’s and early 1990’s which is more than every other market outside of New York. The NFL wasn’t as popular then as it is now.

    Two teams in Los Angeles in a brand new stadium would work, both teams would be worth over $2 billion, and both teams would likely lead the league in merchandise sales, psl sales, and ticket revenues.

  8. Alonestartexan, you are correct that the Jets DID rent from the Giants. I am not sure how it worked out for them back then, but in their new stadium, it’s a partnership with the Giants, not a tenant relationship.

    With the Raiders, Mark Davis has been quoted as saying that he would be in a partnership, but not tenant type of relationship, specifically calling out the old Jets/Giants relationship as reference to why not-hence one of the main reason he is not at Levi’s. Not sure how the Chargers see it, but Mark Fabiani has been down on Kroenke moving to LA so I assume he has similar views.

    Also, you are not accounting for the relocation fee that would be applied to this second team and the fact that this second team couldn’t use PSLs or G4 money to help pay for it. Reason being PSL that don’t come from a governing body are taxed and the guidelines from the G4 loan say it can’t be used for relocation.

  9. It might end up being like it was before– The LA Rams and the LA Chargers.

    I’d hate to see the Bolts move, but the city is so dysfunctional there probably won’t be a stadium deal.

  10. alonestartexan-

    Thanks for doing some of the work in educating some of these “fans” about the history of the league. It’s amazing what little they know about something they follow closely.

    L.A.-area fans were way ahead of the curve when it came to using public money to finance private enterprise. They were unwilling to foot the bill to build any new facility and were unwilling to alter the historic Coliseum for either Davis or Frontiere.

    There are literally hundreds of thousands of NFL fans in the L.A. area that could easily support multiple teams. A smart owner could make a very nice profit building his own stadium there. And I’m pretty sure any relocation fee (code in the NFL for extortion) would simply be included in the cost of doing business.

    Rest assured that Kroenke, or any other owner contemplating moving to L.A., has done plenty of research regarding cost/benefit analyses. If the profit potential is there, and it certainly appears to be, then it is only a matter of time before one or more teams in the NFL are sporting the Los Angeles tag.

  11. Kroenke hasn’t committed to using union workers to build and operate so there will be a serious challenge. The Carson project is already committed to union workers from top to bottom. Southern California construction already has too many poverty jobs. There will be voting pushback against Kroenke. Inglewood is far from a done deal.

  12. I’d actually estimate that the number is close to 500,000 fans in the the LA metro area which would support up to 3 teams, maybe even 4. The problem is that many are transplants and fans of other teams. Will they change allegiance? Can they be convinced to change? Raider fans are lifers. Bolt fans are into the Lo Cal lifestyle and less of a LA So Cal style. Ram fans? Most ditched their allegiance when Georgia took the reigns. LA Steeler fans arent switching. The same for Cowboy fans, Packer fans, Bears fans, Giants fans, Browns fans, Vikings fans, Niner fans, Bronco fans, Chiefs fans, even Patriot fans. So then that 500k shrinks to 300k. The upside is these transplant fans can see their team at least once every 4 or so years.

    Professor Fate says:
    Mar 22, 2015 12:40 PM
    alonestartexan-

    Thanks for doing some of the work in educating some of these “fans” about the history of the league. It’s amazing what little they know about something they follow closely.

    L.A.-area fans were way ahead of the curve when it came to using public money to finance private enterprise. They were unwilling to foot the bill to build any new facility and were unwilling to alter the historic Coliseum for either Davis or Frontiere.

    There are literally hundreds of thousands of NFL fans in the L.A. area that could easily support multiple teams. A smart owner could make a very nice profit building his own stadium there. And I’m pretty sure any relocation fee (code in the NFL for extortion) would simply be included in the cost of doing business.

    Rest assured that Kroenke, or any other owner contemplating moving to L.A., has done plenty of research regarding cost/benefit analyses. If the profit potential is there, and it certainly appears to be, then it is only a matter of time before one or more teams in the NFL are sporting the Los Angeles tag.

  13. I love how posters are all about “10” games a year when the stadium will host multiple events, Final a Four, Super Bowl, College Championship, concerts and who knows what else. The money’s there and that’s Kroenke’s end game.

  14. Wait until whatever team ends up there starts going 3-13 or 2-14. 80,000 seat stadium is only going to have 15,000 just like before when the rams were losers there. L.A will not support a losing team.

  15. L A had the Rams, made very little effort to keep them, had the Raiders, made very little effort to keep them. This city really needs to show that they want an NFL franchise. I work with the public on a daily basis and I do not hear a huge amount of support for the NFL. I do hear a lot of support for USC and UCLA. I think the college teams would outdraw the NFL teams.

  16. For all of the people that had trouble reading in school, the article plainly says billion and not millions.
    Not too late for Sylvan Learning Center.

  17. BRING BACK THE LOS ANGELES RAIDERS
    SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS OF 1983 – something the Rams could NOT do in L.A. {{-_-}}
    COME TO OUR #LARaiderNationBLACKOUT AT DODGER STADIUM SATURDAY APRIL 4TH @ 1PM

  18. Am I alone in thinking Kroenke looks like a retired porn star? That ‘stache is awful.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.