The NFL needed to get their ducks in order in L.A. so they can hold Minnesota ransom. Of course after this years Viking season the locals may just put the Vikings on a "love" cruise to L.A.
The team is already headed the right direction down Interstate 10. The Saints can play at the Sun Bowl in El Paso in 2006, at Arizona Stadium in Tucson in 2007 and finally at the refurbished Colisseum in Los Angeles in 2008 and beyond.
That's a really good question. Every other city has had to pony up the money for a stadium. Can they really be suggesting that the NFL will pay for one in LA? That's what they should have been doing all along, but it would be really messed up to only do it there.
as best i can tell they won't be paying for one...they'll be financing one...providing a loan to the city/county/team ownership, presumably.
The NFL league office would like to get into Los Angeles, like most of the guys on this board would like to get into Jessica Alba's pants.
I personally think they put this deal in place because Louisinana is going to lose the Saints. They'll need two franchises that year. One for LA and one for New Orleans.
The Chargers are a strong possibility. If the city doesn't pass a bill for a new stadium by 2008 the team is free to shop for new cities. Considering the city is more than likely going to have to declare bankruptcy and no one supports building a stadium ... my money is on them going to LaLa land.
I agree, outside of Anahiem, I don't think the city powers and corporate money in LA give a rats ass about the NFL . The city is too decentralized to even come up with a site that pleases a majority of interest and everyone from LA is from somewhere else anyway so there is no indigenous fan base, they all root for the old home town. I bet if the NFL checked they would find they actually make more form selling cabel access to all the NFL games nationwide in LA than they would from putting one team on free TV. My idea would be to improve the Colossium and make LA the permanent, nuetral site of the Super Bowl. The weather would always be perfect, it would always be a prime destination for the corporate interest of the participating teams, you would always have a ready source of glitz and glamour. I mean really, how much of a prize is it to win you big backers a trip to Detroit in late January? Or even Jacksonville when it turns out to be 40 degrees and raining with no hotel rooms? Brilliant, no?
Even if it is an interim loan to get the deal rolling, it is a sweeter deal than what McNair and the Houston area (governmental structures) had in 1999. From the lead article in this thread........ If the Houston deal in 1999 ran 1 billion total for a stadium and a Franchise fee to the NFL, then the proposed deal for LA should be close to that even if it is buying an existing team. Has the situation changed enough in the LA area that somebody will put a 1 billion package together when they couldn't do it in 1999?
i wasn't arguing with your point. i agree with it. it's a far sweeter deal than what Houston got. but remember..we agreed to finance a stadium when we voted for the ballpark. they piggy-backed the football stadium on that referendum. that was WELL before the NFL had gone down the road of entertaining the notion of a 32nd franchise.
I agree with that, but my angle is that Houston stepped up and got deals done when they needed to while LA still seems slow (unable?) on getting a financial package together. Even if the NFL is only doing an interm loan for LA to get something going...............it still sounds shaky that a potential owner and the respective governmental structures in LA need the NFL money to make the deal happen at all. The thought/idea of an interim loan would be understandable if the NFL was trying to put a team in a city like Waco, Texas..................but having to do it for LA sounds strange.
yeah, it's ridiculous. but i think it shows the NFL's commitment to go back there, come hell or high water.
