When did the Rams move to Los Angeles?

[SSSnail]

Man, they're going to have to build an enclosed stadium if they want to build one in Vegas. There's just no wa

So you're telling me the most popular American sport can't out-draw less popular sports, hosting just 8 games (per team) a year? I'm a bit surprised that L.A. is getting a second MLS team, but demographically it makes perfect sense.


It depends on location. Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara was privately financed. I'm not saying they didn't get all kinds of ancillary help from the city, but the construction project itself was not backed by direct public funding AFAIK. Likewise with the Rams stadium project in Inglewood, but I could be wrong.

It's the same reason why Mark Davis can't build a new stadium in Oakland, even though there's land on the existing site to do so. Oakland sure as hell isn't ponying up any resources, even if the Raiders inevitable response is to move.

According to the following article (and other sources), Vikings ownership is contributing about half the cost of the new stadium:
http://www.startribune.com/vikings-tap-many-sources-for-stadium-funds/311897781/

You're mistaken. It was built by tax payers' money FUNDED PRIVATELY. Basically, tax payers got fleeced twice.

In June 2010, Santa Clara voters approved a measure authorizing the creation of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, a tax-exempt public authority, to build and own the new football stadium and for the city government to lease land to the Santa Clara Stadium Authority. A construction loan, raised from private investors, was secured in December 2011, allowing construction to start in April 2012. Levi's Stadium opened on July 17, 2014.

You're thinking of AT&T Park, which was built entirely from private funding.

 

[zinfamous]

to this point, I forgot we're also building a 350m soccer stadium: http://abc7.com/sports/construction-officially-underway-for-las-$350m-soccer-stadium/1481658/

c'moooooooooooon Olympics, LA 2022. We got the infrastructure (or will have it soon)!

man your taxes (or education, sanitation, and water) must suck!

 

[jman19]

to this point, I forgot we're also building a 350m soccer stadium: http://abc7.com/sports/construction-officially-underway-for-las-$350m-soccer-stadium/1481658/

c'moooooooooooon Olympics, LA 2022. We got the infrastructure (or will have it soon)!

2022 huh? Good luck with that.

 

[zinfamous]

So you're telling me the most popular American sport can't out-draw less popular sports, hosting just 8 games (per team) a year?

Yes, because they've had two chances with that and failed twice--with only 1 team each time!

 

[Ns1]

2022 huh? Good luck with that.

If Sochi can do it, so can we.

 

[jman19]

If Sochi can do it, so can we.

LA didn't even bid for 2022?

 

[Ns1]

LA didn't even bid for 2022?

Write in candidate

 

[SSSnail]

Write in candidate

Fuc|< it, just truck in the ice and snow...

 

[manly]

I just can't see it happening unless both are winning teams. Otherwise one is going to be the football equivalent of the Lakers and the other is going to be the Clippers pre-Balmer.

It's hard to make a direct comparison, but the Clippers were very profitable under the racist previous owner, even while they sucked until recently. They're worth more now because Ballmer overpaid and TV revenues are much higher, but if anything that's exactly how NFL teams in all markets fare with the lucrative national broadcast deals.

I would agree with you that team selection and first mover advantage are important. If both the Rams and Raiders came back this year, the Raiders would have a marketing advantage. But the Rams do have some historical following, and will be able to cultivate a fan base for at least two seasons before the Chargers show up as tenants. So yes, the 2nd team could be the Clippers to the Lakers, or Angels to the Dodgers.

Man, they're going to have to build an enclosed stadium if they want to build one in Vegas. There's just no wa

You're mistaken. It was built by tax payers' money FUNDED PRIVATELY. Basically, tax payers got fleeced twice.


You're thinking of AT&T Park, which was built entirely from private funding.

AT&T Park is an even better example, but you're misunderstanding how Levi's Stadium was financed.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/...-Stadium-is-a-model-for-privately-6808683.php

I'm not sure who's on the hook for the loans if revenues fall short (it might be the city of Santa Clara), but public money was not a significant factor in the construction financing. If it was mainly taxpayer funding and public bonds, they wouldn't have needed Goldman Sachs to underwrite nearly a billion dollars in bonds.

And yes, a LV stadium would have to be enclosed.

Yes, because they've had two chances with that and failed twice--with only 1 team each time!

The Rams and Raiders left because they wanted new stadiums, not because they were losing money. Al Davis was an idiot to move from one old coliseum to a possibly worse one when the Raiders could have simply owned L.A. All for a $60M "loan" from Alameda County that never had to be repaid. The franchise value would be hundreds of millions of dollars higher if he hadn't ran off in 1995. Sure hindsight is 20/20, but moving from L.A. to Oakland never sounds like a solid plan.

 

[SSSnail]

I can't get to the article due to the paywall, but I remember the exact reasons why it was built in Santa Clara was because SF citizens wasn't about to pay the billionaire to build their stadium. I never voted for it. Of course Goldman Sachs would provide part of the loan, hence the citizens getting fleeced twice comment from me.

Here's a better article instead of the first link on google - http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/Levi-s-Stadium-The-1-3-billion-bet-5687409.php

 

[manly]

I can't get to the article due to the paywall, but I remember the exact reasons why it was built in Santa Clara was because SF citizens wasn't about to pay the billionaire to build their stadium. I never voted for it. Of course Goldman Sachs would provide part of the loan, hence the citizens getting fleeced twice comment from me.

Here's a better article instead of the first link on google - http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/Levi-s-Stadium-The-1-3-billion-bet-5687409.php

That's a really good article, and it clearly shows that the direct taxpayer subsidy for the stadium project was about 10%. The bank loans are not general obligation bonds, so taxpayers are not financing the bulk of the stadium cost. The loans are basically backed by future stadium and team-related revenues.

As the article points out, taxpayers will be liable if stadium-related revenues fall short; that won't be known for 2 more years. My point wasn't that Levi's Stadium is a good deal for the city of Santa Clara; just that it's a better deal for taxpayers than most NFL stadium projects. The way the deal shifted from 2010 (closer to an AT&T Park financing model) to 2014 is somewhat shady though.