| So the NFL and the city of Los Angeles want
football again. Good for them, I suppose. Of course, they want professional football other
than the Arena League’s Avengers in L.A. To think the second-most populated city in
the U.S. has been without an NFL team since the summer of 1995, when the Raiders and Rams
both took off for greener pastures and greener wallets, is an embarrassment. It’s an
embarrassment I’m capable of living with, but the league apparently is not. Los
Angeles had its shot at playing home to football, and it didn’t pull its own weight.
But the story will be revisited, and L.A. surely will get its football team. Many believed
it was a foregone conclusion when the City of Angels was left in the rearview mirror years
ago. And now, to many, it appears a virtual certainty. The reason? Too many people with
too much power and money want it there.
Earlier this month, the L.A. City Council approved a $2.4 billion downtown
redevelopment plan that covers almost 900 acres. Big deal, right? A lot of cities try to
pump their downtown areas full of life and are willing to spend money to do so. But this
area includes the stadium site being proposed by billionaire Philip Anschutz and his group
of wealthy partners, who happen to own the Staples Center, where the Lakers and Clippers
of the NBA and Kings of the NHL play. The council also introduced a measure that could
provide public funding for a stadium with the stipulation that the city eventually gets
its money back.
Commissioner Paul Tagliabue is so serious about bringing the pigskin back to L.A. he
recently formed a five-member committee to look into the situation. Several owners have
said that putting the NFL back in L.A. is one of the most important things the league
could do right now.
Tagliabue & Co. also have hinted at the possibility of L.A. getting an expansion
franchise down the road, but that’s believed to be more talk than anything else. But
the likelihood of a team moving into new digs there, and soon, is very real, possibly
using the Rose Bowl as an alternative for a year or two until the new stadium is done.
L.A. is often used for leverage purposes. It’s no secret. The league and its team
owners can and have used L.A. to get new stadiums built in other NFL cities. Houston beat
out L.A. for the right to be the 32nd NFL team in 1999 by offering an
outrageous $700 million expansion fee. It would be naïve to think the NFL could have
gotten that much out of the Texans without L.A. in the picture as a so-called competitor.
A spokesman for the Anschutz Entertainment Group said they have begun preliminary
discussions with two NFL teams, the Chargers being one of them.
It’s clear the Chargers’ horse pulled out to an early lead in this one.
First, the team announced plans to build a new training facility in Carson, just outside
of L.A., to be built by the Anschutz group. Could that be a down payment of bigger things
to come?
The Chargers aren’t the only team to have their hats thrown into the ring,
willingly or otherwise. The Colts, eager to restructure a lease they redid just four years
ago, are definitely believed to be in the running. So are the Cardinals, who are stuck in
a stalemate with politicians as to where to build a new stadium that was surprisingly
approved by county voters last fall. There are tax problems to deal with there too,
however. The Vikings’ H.H.H. Metrodome is old, but there are seven years remaining on
the team’s lease, and politicians in that state have dragged their feet lately over a
decision to build anew or renovate. The Falcons, Bills, Raiders and Saints have also been
mentioned because of their less-than-ideal stadium situations, but on a lesser scale.
The Chargers, 26th in the league in attendance in 2001, can get out of their
lease, a sweet one in which the city buys all unsold tickets for games (costing the city
about $6 million last year alone), after the 2003 season. That is significantly earlier
than every other potential suitor, and the Chargers would like to get moving on something
soon. The city of San Diego has made accommodations for the team in the past. It has built
practice and office facilities and added seating when the league said the stadium was too
small to host another Super Bowl. And as it stands now, it likely would have to go to bat
for the Chargers once again if a new stadium is to be built in the area.
Colts owner Jim Irsay and Chargers owner Alex Spanos have said they want to try to stay
put. But what else are they going to say? Without a signed deal, why run the risk of
having a lame-duck team that fans surely would turn their backs on sooner rather than
later?
It wouldn’t hurt me if the NFL doesn’t return to L.A. I’ve never viewed
L.A. as anything close to a city that absolutely must be home to an NFL team. But I
don’t see the advertising revenue, potential TV market, a new stadium with loads of
luxury boxes and a profitable lease coming my way either. Others do, and in the end, they
will have their way. The league once again will call Los Angeles home, and probably soon.
Count on it. |
