Support NeoGAF

[RBH]

Virtual fly-through of the Rams' future stadium in Inglewood:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMZGkJxb0Ro

 

[Draxal]

The best thing about the proposal in Vegas is that it is a shared University/NFL stadium. There should be way more of those in cities where it makes sense.

It does and it doesn't.

Miami (Miami) Tampa (USF) and Pittsburgh (Pitt) are two of the cities that does this and the college games are really hurt by this.

 

[RBH]

The Raiders insist their out-of-market exploration is not a leverage play, and that they’re legitimately interested in other options after Oakland has declined to provide the accouterments owner Mark Davis requires. He wants control of the entire O.co Coliseum site, which puts baseball’s Oakland Athletics in a bind.

"I'm working very hard with the A's, who actually are very excited about staying in Oakland, building a new ballpark," Schaff said. "Now for me, I would love to get them closer to downtown. We have a great site on the water and that would obviously make my Raiders situation less complicated.

"It would make more land available, a lot more flexibility with regard to development, so yes that is part of the puzzle dealing with the A's, because I want to keep both my teams. I love them both. I'm trying to work hard to not do anything with one team that disadvantages the other team. I want to make sure they both feel honored and valued, but I think it would be great to get the A's down to the water in Oakland."

http://www.csnbayarea.com/raiders/schaaf-focused-short-term-raiders-lease-then-long-term-solution

 

[chuckddd]

It does and it doesn't.

Miami (Miami) Tampa (USF) and Pittsburgh (Pitt) are two of the cities that does this and the college games are really hurt by this.

UNLV football will not be hurt by this. It barely exists as it stands.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

It does and it doesn't.

Miami (Miami) Tampa (USF) and Pittsburgh (Pitt) are two of the cities that does this and the college games are really hurt by this.

Don't forget Temple! The NFL franchises regularly try to bend over the colleges too.

But yeah all of those teams need to be in places no larger than 40-45k.

 

[Cyan]

The Raiders insist their out-of-market exploration is not a leverage play, and that they’re legitimately interested in other options after Oakland has declined to provide the accouterments owner Mark Davis requires.

lols

 

[shortsFortallPeople]

It does and it doesn't.

Miami (Miami) Tampa (USF) and Pittsburgh (Pitt) are two of the cities that does this and the college games are really hurt by this.

Miami has been completed fucked by not having the Orange Bowl anymore. They now play so damn far away from the campus that it's a surprise anyone even bothers to go

 

[Blackhead]

With NFL Rams gone, St. Louis still stuck with stadium debt

The National Football League’s Rams left behind more than bitterness when the team ditched St. Louis for Los Angeles last month - it left a stadium saddled with about $144 million in debt and maintenance costs...

Even before the team decided to leave, the city's stadium revenues didn't cover its payments, leaving the city with annual shortfalls...

In St. Louis, the $280 million agreement to build the Edward Jones Dome for the Rams raised eyebrows since its opening in 1995. Unlike other stadium deals, the St. Louis contract included a clause requiring the 67,000-seat dome be maintained to a first-tier standard, meaning the facility must be considered among the top quarter of all NFL football facilities.

As the stadium aged - and new, state-of-the-art NFL stadiums were erected in New Jersey, Texas, and California – the bar became more onerous.

“This was a contract designed to be broken” by the team, said Matheson, who studies stadium finances. “They had a terrible, terrible contract with the Rams."

...

 

[RBH]

With the help of a couple recent articles, such as Scott Reid's piece in the Orange County Register, and Derek Togerson's piece for NBC San Diego, we can start laying out a timeline for how things will play out in San Diego for 2016:


Key Dates to Remember

-March 24th. This is when a Citizens' Initiative needs to be drafted and ready for filing. The team, as well as public officials, support this process because it entitles any site without requiring an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

-March 25th. A Notice of Intention needs to be made available for public review. This Notice must include the full proposal and an explanation.

-April 4th. The Chargers will file affidavits and statements with the San Diego City Clerk.

-April 15th. Petitions can be circulated for public signature. It is expected the Chargers will pay for this signature drive. The team's target is for 90,000-100,000 signatures, of which nearly 67,000 must be valid signatures of registered voters (equaling 10% - thereby guaranteeing the measure will either be approved outright by the San Diego City Council, or sent to voters for approval).

-July 1. Signatures must be submitted to the City Clerk for verification. The Clerk's office has 30 days to certify the signatures.

-August 2. This is the last regular City Council meeting available, where the City Council can either vote to approve, or send the Initiative to voters as part of the November 8th General Election. The last scheduled County Board Meeting is August 12th.

-November 8. Election Day. At this point, the Chargers will not have played more than 9 games. I'd really like to suggest the team gets out to a 6-3 (or better) start to the season.


Essentially, everything needs to be determined by March 24th. The one catch with a Citizens' Initiative is that the language of the Initiative cannot be changed once it is submitted. That means, essentially, we'll all know what the final deal will look like by March 24th.


That leaves (counting today) 52 days to determine the following:

Location of the stadium

Both Dean Spanos and elected officials have at least paid lip service to the idea of not getting their preferred site, and Spanos even suggested the possibility of an alternate site. Taking everyone at their word, this means Mission Valley, Downtown, and maybe some other unknown location are in play at the moment. And while most everyone has dismissed the idea, there are some who believe Qualcomm Stadium could be rehabilitated.

Financing

As we've discussed before, the City and County's Mission Valley proposal from last summer provided $350 million in public money. $200 million in the form of Lease-Revenue Bonds from the City, and $150 million in cash from the County. Interestingly enough, in an interview yesterday on the Dan Sileo show, County Supervisor Ron Roberts suggested a county-wide vote would not be necessary to get County funds (i.e. this can be approved directly by the Board of Supervisors). Also, as I wrote last week, the team is reportedly going to be asking for $500 million in public money. This suggests a $150 million gap between what Spanos is going to ask for and what the public has offered. How will that difference be made up?

Design Elements

After the Chargers broke off negotiations last summer, the City proceeded on its own with a Mission Valley stadium plan that the Chargers had no-to-limited input on. It stands to reason the Chargers will have substantial input in any project moving forward. In my opinion, a 67,500 seat stadium might actually be too big for San Diego. A smaller fixed capacity, with additional space for seating/standing areas for Super Bowls (and other major events) would be ideal. Further, this is where the public MUST be involved - since they are being asked to foot a significant portion of the bill, there should be input on what the public would like to see added to the project.

Other Stakeholders

Depending on the site, there will be other stakeholders to consider beside the Chargers and the public. A Mission Valley plan is likely to involve a development partner at some point down the road. A Downtown plan is likely to involve JMI Realty and the Hoteliers. San Diego State University, as well as San Diego Bowl Games, have interests regardless of where the stadium is located. These groups (depending on the location) need to be involved to some extent in the design and financing elements. Their involvement and support might be the difference in an election which expected to have a slim margin of success.

Future Considerations

While the team has expressed a desire for a roofless venue (based on the design of Carson project), there are advantages to having a facility with a roof - or at least the ability to install a temporary roof. First, it increases the number and type of events which can be hosted - for instance, a venue with a temporary roof option could be used to draw a Final Four to San Diego, or host a major political convention, while a facility without them probably wouldn't. Flexible seating plus temporary roofing sections could allow an NBA or NHL team to come to San Diego and play in the new facility while a replacement for the Sports Arena is built (like the Alamodome in San Antonio). Lastly, the new stadium should be built with the hope of drawing an MLS team to San Diego, as well as possible soccer tournament games.

In Closing

Whatever else you may think of the tactics used by the Chargers in 2015 to try and get the Carson project approved, it didn't work.

Dean Spanos did not get Carson. He got blindsided in Houston a few weeks ago and many people enjoyed a generous helping of schadenfreude, myself among them. However, what's done is done and it's time to move forward.

He got an option to move to Los Angeles and eventually play in the Rams new stadium in Inglewood. He could've exercised that option for 2016. He chose not to.

Whether it's out of love for San Diego, or hatred of Kroenke, or a tactic to try and keep the Raiders at bay for as long as possible, no one really knows. Time and actions will tell us all very quickly.

http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/2/2/10897958/resetting-the-stadium-question-in-san-diego

 

[RBH]

When it comes to the stadium scam, there are few things worse than the local media cheerleading the rich guys and urging local governments to spend hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to make sports teams happy. This would be worse: the Las Vegas Review-Journal, recently purchased by hands-on billionaire Sheldon Adelson, has been gingerly covering Adelson’s plan to get a Las Vegas stadium built for the Raiders, and the paper has reportedly made edits and even killed one story outright that would have portrayed the plan in anything less than glowing terms.

Politico has an insanely depressing story today on Adelson gradually exercising editorial control of the Review-Journal, which he purchased (in attempted secrecy) in December. Since then, there have been a growing number of edits favorable to Adelson’s interests, a proposed stadium deal featuring private investors led by Adelson’s Sands Corp., and a “significant” amount of public money.

The edits were overseen by Craig Moon, Adelson’s handpicked publisher.

The Review-Journal reported that Adelson had met with the ownership of Oakland Raiders football team, hoping to lure them to Las Vegas and into a new “public/private”-funded $1 billion domed stadium.

The new publisher has reviewed each stadium story since, and the stories have seen numerous Moon-directed edits, several sources confirm. Those edits include removing key points of fact on what may turn out to become a $600 million-plus public investment in a football stadium. At least one stadium story was killed, as well, my sources confirm.

http://deadspin.com/sheldon-adelson-is-killing-stories-about-how-much-his-r-1757124937

 

[RBH]

The Los Angeles Rams have chosen Oxnard as the training site for their upcoming Organized Team Activities and mini camp.

Oxnard Assistant City Manager Scott Whitney said Thursday the city is negotiating with the Rams and both sides hope to strike a deal soon for the team to train at the River Ridge fields starting this spring. The Rams would use the River Ridge fields and the locker room facilities located adjacent to the playing fields. Those are the same fields the Dallas Cowboys use when they train in Oxnard.

http://www.vcstar.com/sports/rams-p...e9-5f4e-78e3-e053-0100007f1769-367740761.html

 

[Tagyhag]

Man that stadium is going to be unbelievable when it's built.

 

[hokahey]

I really wish this thread would stay off the main page. Painful as fuck. Fuck you Stan. I have attended in excess of 100 Rams games in St. Louis with my son and family. Fucking. Hurts. There. Got it out. Now to never click this link again.

 

[RBH]

Lengthy article from ESPN The Magazine about the Rams' move to Los Angeles:



http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/sto...owners-battle-bring-football-back-los-angeles

 

[Juicy Bob]

Man, to have been a fly on the wall at that owners meeting...

 

[Vilam]

Lengthy article from ESPN The Magazine about the Rams' move to Los Angeles:



http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/sto...owners-battle-bring-football-back-los-angeles

Thanks, that's an incredibly interesting read.

 

[ReAxion]

Great read. Bob Iger going over like a lead balloon is hilarious.

 

[_woLf]

So is the Inglewood stadium effectively going to be a huge hole in the ground with only the nosebleeds and roof being above ground?

That's the impression I got from that flythrough. What a weird yet interesting idea.

 

[Frosty Droid]

From the ESPN article:

"When you guys moved the team from St. Louis to Phoenix -- it wasn’t about the money?” As Bidwill tried to answer, Jones moved in for the kill: “You did it for the money.”

Jerry Jones is ruthless.

 

[RBH]

The Oakland Raiders will announce Thursday they have reached a one-year agreement to continue playing at O.Co Coliseum, a source told NFL Media's Albert Breer.

The Raiders and representatives from the Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Joint Powers Authority will announce the new deal at a news conference scheduled for 6 p.m. ET Thursday.

Last month, NFL owners gave the Raiders the possible option of relocating to Los Angeles in 2017 if the San Diego Chargers chose not to share a stadium with the Los Angeles Rams in Inglewood to stay in San Diego. If the Chargers remain in San Diego, the Raiders would have the option next year of relocating to L.A.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...kland-raiders-to-stay-at-oco-coliseum-in-2016

 

[RBH]

#Raiders will have two one-year lease options for 2017 and 2018. Will also keep season tickets at the same price.

https://twitter.com/DeMarcusRFNET/status/697919689301712896

#Raiders are hiring Larry MacNeil to their stadium development team. He worked with the #49ers on building Levi's Stadium.

https://twitter.com/Jimmy_Durkin/status/697919579037675520

 

[smurfx]

So is the Inglewood stadium effectively going to be a huge hole in the ground with only the nosebleeds and roof being above ground?

That's the impression I got from that flythrough. What a weird yet interesting idea.

the stadium will be extremely close to the path airplanes take when landing on lax. like its only a few blocks away.

 

[Kintaco]

So is the Inglewood stadium effectively going to be a huge hole in the ground with only the nosebleeds and roof being above ground?

That's the impression I got from that flythrough. What a weird yet interesting idea.

Pretty much. I reminds me of the plan for the stadium Roski wanted to build in City of Industry.

 

[Marvie_3]

So is the Inglewood stadium effectively going to be a huge hole in the ground with only the nosebleeds and roof being above ground?

That's the impression I got from that flythrough. What a weird yet interesting idea.

Quite a few stadiums/arenas do that actually. Cuts down on some of the building costs.

 

[Tagyhag]

Pretty much. I reminds me of the plan for the stadium Roski wanted to build in City of Industry.

That's really interesting. I wonder what effect The Big One would have on it though.

 

[RBH]

As part of the Raiders' announcement that they will be signing a one-year lease extension Thursday, it was also announced they will once again not raise ticket prices. This is the 11th straight season the Raiders have not raised their ticket prices.

Season ticket packages will start at $225 which equals out to $25 per game. The team will play two preseason home games and 7 regular season home games in Oakland with one of their regular season home games being played in Mexico City on November 21 against the Houston Texans.

"Despite the increase in costs due to the lease terms, we will not be raising the price of season tickets per game for our season ticket holders. They're loyal and passionate. In Oakland there will be a $25 season ticket for nine games in the third deck which is probably one of the greatest values in sports. And we're looking forward to this coming season and hopefully the only added cost will be two home [post]season games that we may earn this season."

Those tickets will not include Mt Davis as it will once again be tarped over this season.

http://www.silverandblackpride.com/...season-ticket-prices-for-11th-straight-season

 

[Megalosaro]

How much are season tickets? 25 a game sounds cheap.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Pretty much. I reminds me of the plan for the stadium Roski wanted to build in City of Industry.

stepping into the stadium and looking down onto the field will be awesome.

 

[Zee-Row]

When teams move how much does it hurt the cities stock to get another team since St Louis has already lost 2? Is Pro Football done there?

 

[Yaboosh]

stepping into the stadium and looking down onto the field will be awesome.

Stanford stadium is sort of like that.

 

[Zee-Row]

65,000 is pretty low for an L.A. Stadium , i figured it would be Dallas size with L.A.'s massive population?

 

[RBH]

Mark Davis implies that the Oakland A's are impeding progress towards building a new stadium:

The Raiders agreed to a one-year lease extension with O.co Coliseum, a pact that keeps them in Oakland for the 2016 season at least. A press conference was held to announce this long-expected agreement, and both Raiders owner Mark Davis and public officials made it perfectly clear that at times disgruntled factions share a common goal of keeping the Raiders in the East Bay.

It created a positive vibe, as principal players discussed optimism for the future and the dream of building a new football stadium on the O.co Coliseum site. Then, as proceedings wound down, Davis put the Oakland A’s in the crosshairs. He said, in no uncertain terms, that the Athletics are impeding real stadium progress in Oakland.

The A’s and Raiders currently share O.co Coliseum, and disparate interests have created roadblocks toward new stadiums for either team.

“There’s an elephant in the room, and that’s the Oakland A’s,” Davis said after Thursday’s press conference. “They have to make a commitment to what they want to do.”

The Athletics signed a 10-year lease extension with the existing O.co Coliseum in 2014, an agreement Davis says has hurt development prospects on the Coliseum site. Davis wants the A's to state their long-term plans for a new ballpark, and where that will be. Until they do, Davis says everyone is stuck in neutral.

“That’s the problem. They signed a 10-year lease while we were negotiating with Oakland officials), and it kind of put somebody right in the middle of things,” Davis said. “There isn’t much you can do. They’ve tied our hands behind our back.

“Now it’s up to the A’s to make a declaration of what they want to do. If they don’t do that, I don’t see how we can make a deal.”

Davis hopes the A’s and Raiders can work together under his vision for the Coliseum site. The Athletics prefer to play at O.co Coliseum and build a ballpark next to it. The Raiders want to tear down the aging sports venue, play off site and return to a newly minted site that features a football stadium and a new ballpark.

“We like the game day experience of tailgating on that parking lot. We don’t want to give that up,” Davis said. “People have not listened when I’ve said that I don’t mind building two stadiums on that site. The A’s stadium would take about 12 acres, and a Raiders stadium would take 15-17 acres. That’s fine with me, but I don’t want to give up the parking.”

Davis also doesn’t want to play under endless construction.

“What I do not want to do,” Davis said, “is build a football stadium in a corner of a parking lot while the Oakland Coliseum is still standing and, once we have a brand new venue, we begin to tear down the old stadium and build a new ballpark, disrupting the ingress, egress, parking and tailgating experience for Raiders fans on game day.”

The Athletics were called an impediment to progress on Thursday, but they aren’t the only issue facing Oakland and the Raiders and progress toward a new football stadium.

A funding gap remains. The Raiders can bring $600 million to the table, with $200 million from an NFL G4 loan and another $100 million given by the league after the Silver and Black withdrew from L.A. relocation in 2016. A new football stadium could cost $1 billion.

Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf won’t use tax dollars for stadium construction. The city and team have been at odds over control of the 120-acre Coliseum site. Davis wants final say in land use, in order to preserve the Raiders game-day experience he considers vital to his franchise and future home. That hasn’t been given by the city, and has been a sticking point in recent talks.

“As far as control of that land, whether it’s a long-term lease or a purchase, I don’t know how that would work,” Davis said. “Whatever costs are attached must be taken care of somehow. If there’s a price to that land, that goes toward an increased cost of a stadium.”

The Raiders and the JPA are committed toward keeping the Raiders in town, and this lease extension affords a little more time to work on a permanent solution.

“I don’t think this gives us a sense of relaxation,” Alameda County supervisor Scott Haggerty said. “There is a sense or urgency to continue to move forward and try to get this done. Mark won’t accept anything less that moving full speed ahead to get a stadium deal done.”

http://www.csnbayarea.com/raiders/davis-tied-our-hands-behind-our-back-regarding-stadium

 

[jakncoke]

65,000 is pretty low for an L.A. Stadium , i figured it would be Dallas size with L.A.'s massive population?

Probably playing air to the caution as the crowds in the early 90s werent all that hot most times. Say they get similar crowds. 12k empty doesnt look as bad as 30k

 

[Babalu.]

Virtual fly-through of the Rams' future stadium in Inglewood:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMZGkJxb0Ro

WOW! that looks amazing.

and thank god raiders and chargers are staying put.

LA RAMS ONLY BABY!

now the last nightmare left is who will sponsor the name.

I really don't want a shitty name like sleeptrain arena or BS like that.

 

[Saerk]

That stadium looks nice. I'll have to go to a game when it's built.

 

[ReAxion]

Stanford stadium is sort of like that.

So is Dodger Stadium

It's like a hole in a hill.

 

[Mindlog]

A paved hole in a hill. Good grief that looks like LA in a nutshell from above.

 

[RBH]

Rendering of proposed Chargers stadium in Mission Valley — Courtesy of Meis Architects

A citizen’s initiative led by the Chargers could help solve stadium financing problems by reviving opportunities for collateral development of the Mission Valley stadium site, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith said last week.

If team officials decide to pursue a stadium in Mission Valley instead of downtown, Goldsmith said an initiative similar to those pursued last year for proposed stadiums in Carson and Inglewood could simplify the environmental challenges posed by adjacent development.

Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s stadium task force last year estimated selling 75 acres of the 166-acre Qualcomm site for collateral development could generate $225 million for a $1.1 billion stadium.

That could help close funding gaps in any proposed stadium financing plan, which would also be expected to include $300 million from the NFL, $350 million from city and county taxpayers and millions more from personal seat licenses and other revenue streams.

City and county officials abandoned the task force’s adjacent development proposal last summer because of environmental concerns and a lack of time for a citizen’s initiative to alleviate those concerns.

Now that the Chargers have revived stadium efforts in San Diego after the NFL’s rejection in January of their proposed Carson stadium in favor of the Rams proposed Inglewood stadium, Goldsmith said the potential for a citizen’s initiative and collateral development could be revisited.

"There is a way to do it — they did it in Carson and another group of lawyers did it in Inglewood, so it certainly could be done in San Diego in pretty much the same way," he said. "It would involve re-zoning, it would involve voter approval of not only a stadium but ancillary development, and it would include bypassing the California Environmental Quality Act if it’s done right."

It’s not clear whether the Chargers would pursue this route, how much revenue could be generated or what shape the collateral development would take.

Previous proposals during the team’s long pursuit of a new stadium have included residential developments, retail projects, entertainment districts, a new home for the sports arena or combinations of those ideas.

The team’s new stadium point man, Fred Maas, and the team’s special counsel, Mark Fabiani, both declined interview requests last week.

A spokesman for Mayor Faulconer said on Friday that he’s willing to consider a stadium proposal including collateral development on the city-owned Qualcomm site.

"The mayor is open to having ancillary development as part of an initiative the Chargers propose as long as the overall plan is viable and a fair and responsible deal for taxpayers," said the spokesman, Craig Gustafson. “The reason it wasn’t included in the city-county proposal released last year is that both the NFL and the Chargers wanted a stadium-only project to meet their requirement to have a ready-to-go plan by the end of 2015 that didn’t rely on funding from future development."

The team and its lawyers would need to decide the details of such an initiative by late March in order to begin gathering signatures for an initiative that would appear on the November ballot.

Previous proposals for adding collateral development to a new Mission Valley stadium faced complex environmental approvals because they came prior to a watershed 2014 state Supreme Court ruling.

That ruling said projects approved by citizen’s initiative can bypass the rigorous environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act.

The stadium proposals in Carson and Inglewood were among the first to utilize that opportunity for accelerated approval, and Goldsmith said San Diego and the Chargers now have time to follow suit.

“Given the limited time last year for environmental review, keeping it only to the stadium made a lot of sense because there was already a stadium there and a lot of the environmental work had already been done," he said. "It would have been impossible for the scientists to do all the environmental work for peripheral development."

The environmental impact report for a Mission Valley stadium that the city completed last fall would have to be abandoned if collateral development is added to the proposal. But that won’t matter if the Chargers bypass CEQA by pursuing a citizen’s initiative.

Goldsmith said the Supreme Court ruling is so new that it’s not clear how specific the initiative would have to be about the proposed collateral development, but he said a general outline would almost certainly be necessary.

"We're still in relatively new territory, but I would assume you're going to want to have some parameters of what would be there: no greater than X number of housing units and the square footage that would be set aside for retail and commercial," he said. "I would assume they would have some understanding of what they would want there and I would assume the voters would want to know before they vote yes or no."

Having voters approve rezoning the land and the entitlements needed to build something would ease the approval process for potential developers, making the opportunity more appealing. Those benefits would be in addition to voter approval simplifying environmental approvals.

Tony Manolatos, who was spokesman for the mayor’s stadium task force until it completed its work last spring, said last week that the group’s analysis showed strong demand from developers.

“If the Chargers move forward with a Mission Valley proposal, you’re going to have people clamoring to buy the extra property,” he said.

Goldsmith noted that bypassing CEQA wouldn’t eliminate all potential environmental hurdles.

The proposal might still need approval from agencies that enforce the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act or Toxic Substances Control Act.

For example, Goldsmith said the proposed Carson stadium project needed approval from state officials for remediation work related to it being a former dump.

In addition, there could be strong public opposition to adding collateral development to a new stadium project in already-congested Mission Valley.

That could require any proposal to include money for infrastructure projects, such as widening of nearby roads or building parking garages.

Manolatos said the task force concluded that parking lost to collateral development of the Qualcomm site could be replaced.

“There’s a lot of surface parking in Mission Valley close to that site — a lot of office towers,” he said.

Goldsmith said it was unlikely that all of the revenue generated by collateral development could help finance stadium construction because roughly half the Qualcomm site is owned by the city’s Water Department and its ratepayers, not the city.

"There is a fiduciary duty not to treat the water fund unjustly," Goldsmith said.

He stressed that city officials couldn’t be involved in drafting the initiative because state law requires it to originate with citizens.

"I can't give them a road map of how to do it because that would be inappropriate," said Goldsmith, adding that he doubted his help would be necessary. "If this is the same team that did the work on the Chargers citizen’s initiative in Carson, they know what they're doing. I'm sure they'll cover those bases.”

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...stadium-development-money-goldsmith/?chargers

 

[RBH]

The NFL has a 2020 vision regarding Los Angeles.

The yet-to-be-built football stadium in Inglewood is in the running to host the Super Bowl in 2020 or 2021 — and the decision will be made in May.

With Houston and Minneapolis hosting the next two Super Bowls, the NFL's Super Bowl Advisory Committee has decided to have the following three games voted on in succession, but in one day during the spring meetings in May. The league's 32 owners vote on awarding the game.

In doing so, the committee will make a departure from its "guiding principle" that a new stadium must have two full seasons under its belt before becoming eligible to host a Super Bowl. The Rams' stadium in Inglewood is slated to open in 2019, and it will be eligible for a Super Bowl at the end of that season.

"We began discussions with local leaders almost immediately after the vote on how to bring the Super Bowl to Los Angeles," said Kevin Demoff, Rams executive vice president of football operations. "We've continued those discussions with the NFL, and we're excited by the opportunity to bid for either 2020 or 2021.

A city may host only one of those three Super Bowls. Atlanta, South Florida and Tampa are also finalists to host one, while New Orleans will be under consideration only for Super Bowl LIII, at the end of the 2018 season, because of other commitments at the Superdome.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-los-angeles-super-bowl-20160303-story.html

 

[Grexeno]

Have to imagine Atlanta with their brand new stadium gets one of those.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-los-angeles-super-bowl-20160303-story.html

It's going to be good to see Tom Brady win his last Super Bowl in Los Angeles.

 

[FyreWulff]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-los-angeles-super-bowl-20160303-story.html

Makes sense - the owners would rather a stadium get launched big with a Super Bowl and then use that in it's advertising afterwards than wait for the team to get going in it.

That's really interesting. I wonder what effect The Big One would have on it though.

I'm going to guess that setup lets them allow the upper bowl to sway separately from the bottom bowl to dissipate earthquake waves.

 

[Chris R]

I'm going to guess that setup lets them allow the upper bowl to sway separately from the bottom bowl to dissipate earthquake waves.

Not only the upper bowl, but each section individually if I had to guess. When I toured Century Link they pointed out the segmented nature of the stadium to help prevent any major damage/injury in the case of an earthquake. Big rubber gaskets like 4" between each segment.

 

[Vilam]

It's going to be good to see Tom Brady win his last Super Bowl in Los Angeles.

You'd think he's running out of ways to cheat to manage to pull that off.

 

[RBH]

Players were informed that they would have off-season workouts in Oxnard, and that they probably would have training camp at UC Irvine and in-season workouts in the Thousand Oaks area.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/rams/la-sp-la-rams-20160305-story.html

 

[RBH]

The Rams will be featured on HBO's Hard Knocks TV show this season:

The Los Angeles Rams are ready for their close-up.

They are this summer's "Hard Knocks" team, the centerpiece of the critically acclaimed HBO series that provides an all-access look at training camp through the legendary lens of NFL Films.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is expected to announce the decision Wednesday at his news conference that closes the annual owners meetings.

"It’s clear both in Southern California and nationwide there’s significant interest in the return of the Rams to Los Angeles, and it seemed like a very good year to give people a look at our franchise and our players,” said Kevin Demoff, Rams chief operating officer.

"We have one of the youngest teams, a lot of talented players -- back-to-back rookies of the year -- that we want people to start to get exposure to. What better way to do that than 'Hard Knocks'?"

The hourlong "Hard Knocks" kicks off its 11th season on Tuesday, Aug. 9 at 10 p.m. The show airs each subsequent Tuesday, culminating with the Sept. 6 finale.

The drama and characters of training camp will be a major focus of this summer’s show, as always, but so will the team’s relocation. In fact, some of that footage is already being shot.

"This was the perfect team at the perfect time," said Ken Rodgers, an NFL Films coordinating producer and also the show’s supervising producer. "It’s such a historic moment in NFL history, and one that NFL Films hasn’t really documented in the past.

"Previous teams that have moved, it wasn’t something that we had covered fully like we’re going to cover the Rams. What we try to do on the show is find a team that’s going on a mission, that’s going somewhere. Having a team that’s not only trying to get somewhere but is also physically moving just adds to the drama of training camp."

At Rams training camp will be a 30-person NFL Films crew that will shoot more than 1,500 hours of footage that ultimately will be pared down to five hours of programming. "Hard Knocks" has won 12 Sports Emmys.

As for whether it will be a distraction, the Rams can point to this: The last six "Hard Knocks" teams have equaled or improved their win-loss record from the previous season, and the Cincinnati Bengals (2009, 2013), the New York Jets (2010) and Houston Texans (2015) all made the playoffs in the season they were featured.

"Everybody we’ve talked to that’s gone through the process has found it to be enjoyable," Demoff said. "That’s one of the reasons we volunteered to be part of 'Hard Knocks.' We really thought this could help our franchise get off to a successful start."

http://www.latimes.com/sports/rams/la-sp-rams-hbo-hard-knocks-20160323-story.html

 

[ReAxion]

oh yeah, this thread. The Chargers are expected to announce their financing plan for the downtown stadium some time this week. Some info leaked:

http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/201...ls-emerge-about-the-chargers-downtown-stadium

 

[RBH]

It'll be crazy if the Chargers do end up staying in San Diego.

Man, Mark Davis must be salivating at the thought of moving the Raiders up to LA.

 

[RBH]

The San Diego Chargers are hoping hotel guests will help foot the bill for a new downtown stadium, according to a financing plan the team is seriously considering.

The financing plan also involves the construction of a hybrid stadium and convention center.

Currently, hotel visitors have a ten-and-a-half-percent tax on their room. The Chargers want that raised another six-percent, with five-percent of that going towards the new stadium.

The remaining one-percent would go into a tourism marketing fund to promote San Diego. The goal would be to fill up the hotels with guests.

Attorney and San Diego State lecturer Seth Kaplowitz said the Chargers' plan has a lot of moving parts. He said it is too early to know if those parts will ever fit together, like getting hoteliers to support the higher tax.

"I see this as an uphill battle. That additional room cost is going to make tourists shy away from coming to San Diego," said Kaplowitz.

A Chargers source confirmed that they are "in the process of speaking with the entire range of parties" that would be involved with this project; however, "at this moment, that option does not have the support of key players."

As for the November ballot, because it is a citizen's initiative and not by the government, the Chargers may only need a simple majority to pass, but an official ruling on that still has to be determined.

The Chargers estimate the hotel tax would bring in $350 million. The team itself would contribute $350 million, and the NFL has promised $300 million, giving the project one billion dollars in funding.

The mayor's office said it would not comment until the Chargers proposal is officially released.

Councilman David Alvarez released a statement saying he had not seen the proposal, but called what he has heard so far "disturbing" and urges voters to approach it with great caution.

http://www.cbs8.com/story/31552060/how-the-chargers-plan-to-pay-for-a-new-stadium

 

[RBH]

The Rams have left St. Louis but there may be a $19 million parting gift for the team still on the table.

The same lease that allowed the National Football League team to leave for Los Angeles may also allow it to buy its practice facility in Earth City for just $1.

The public board that governs the Edward Jones Dome, where the Rams played, sued on Thursday to block the team from buying Rams Park.

The Jones Dome authority owns the park’s 27 acres. It leased the facility to the Rams for $25,000 a year.

Now the board wants to sell the land, once appraised by the county for nearly $19 million. The proceeds could be used to refill dome authority bank accounts, after efforts to plan a new riverfront stadium and keep the Rams in St. Louis totaled more than $16 million. The authority has previously acknowledged it does not have enough money for future facility upkeep.

But a clause in the Rams lease gives the team the option to buy the park — for $1 — after the dome’s 29th anniversary in 2024.

And the dome authority says it can’t sell the land if the Rams have such an option.

The suit, filed by authority attorneys Blitz, Bardgett & Deutsch, wants an answer now.

“The (dome authority) owns the training facility, which is a valuable asset,” said Blitz attorney Chris Bauman. “We have a responsibility to maximize the value of that. And to do that, we need certainty concerning this invalid option.”

Rams owner Stan Kroenke applied to National Football League owners in January to move the team to Los Angeles. In his application, he blasted the region, arguing St. Louis’ population and economic growth is so sluggish it can’t support three professional sports teams.

Later that month, the NFL owners approved Kroenke’s move, leaving local officials embittered and fans distraught.

Now leaders here wonder if the Rams really do want to buy the land; they have intimated they do, the suit says.

“I think it would be bad form and in bad character,” said Dave Peacock, co-chairman of the effort to build the riverfront football stadium, along with attorney Bob Blitz. “Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t make it right.”

It is unclear if anyone has asked Kroenke to give up the option. Kevin Demoff, the Rams’ chief operating officer, declined to comment.

The Rams lease on the Jones Dome expires Thursday. The lease on Rams Park was extended to April 30, according to the lawsuit.

On its face, the lease says the Rams have the right to buy Rams Park for $1. Moreover, it says, that option “shall survive any termination of the Lease regardless of the reason for such termination, and Lessee shall after any termination continue to have the right to exercise the Option as herein provided.”

But the lawsuit argues that the Rams’ departure doesn’t terminate the lease; the Rams went year-to-year, as allowed in the lease, and the year simply expires. The lease, the suit continues, says the $1 option survives a termination, not an expiration.

Moreover, the suit argues that the lease gives the Rams the option forever, without an end date — and the law does not allow someone to tie up a property in perpetuity.

Jim Shrewsbury, president of the Dome Authority board, said he wasn’t emotional over the issue.

“It’s a dispute over the terms of the lease,” he said. “They believe they have an option. We do not believe that option is enforceable.”

“It’s a business dispute,” he said. “My goal is to do what’s best for the regional sports authority and for the region.”

And the dome authority, he said, needs the money.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_d48166aa-75ee-532a-85e3-8a944a339f3f.html