NFL blackout as blackmail? (NFL in Los Angeles suggestion)

[ixnay]

I'm posting this on the National rather than the California TV board because the latter might lure some biased responses.

This weekend ESPN is concluding the National Football League's 86th regular season by showcasing (loosely worded) its two former Los Angeles franchises, the Raiders (tonight) and the Rams (tomorrow night).

Since the movers and shakers in Los Angeles/Pasadena/Compton/Anaheim don't seem too eager to put aside their differences on building a new NFL stadium (or renovating the Coliseum or Rose Bowl) and putting the #2 TV market back on track toward getting the NFL back, I have this suggestion for Mr. Tagliabue (not that it'll hold much water)...

Black out ALL NFL telecasts into Los Angeles (what's done about San Diego, Bakersfield and Santa Barbara/Santa Maria/San Luis Obispo I'll leave up to the NFL) until a stadium is actually constructed or renovated to the league's satisfaction. Meaning the league would then give very serious consideration to expanding or relocating at team to L.A. The blackout edict would be rescinded as soon as the league or a team officially commits to L.A.

The message of this action would be, "Los Angeles, if you want to see the NFL, even in your living rooms, build us a stadium first."

The NFL is so ratings driven and the new TV deal is already in place so I doubt that this would be implemented next year, if ever.

What are your thoughts?

ixnay

 

[KeithE]

> I'm posting this on the National rather than the California
> TV board because the latter might lure some biased
> responses.
>
> This weekend ESPN is concluding the National Football
> League's 86th regular season by showcasing (loosely worded)
> its two former Los Angeles franchises, the Raiders (tonight)
> and the Rams (tomorrow night).

They both stink and LA should be glad to be rid of them, 2 Rams' Super Bowl appearances notwithstanding.

> Since the movers and shakers in Los
> Angeles/Pasadena/Compton/Anaheim don't seem too eager to put
> aside their differences on building a new NFL stadium (or
> renovating the Coliseum or Rose Bowl) and putting the #2 TV
> market back on track toward getting the NFL back, I have
> this suggestion for Mr. Tagliabue (not that it'll hold much
> water)...
>
> Black out ALL NFL telecasts into Los Angeles (what's done
> about San Diego, Bakersfield and Santa Barbara/Santa
> Maria/San Luis Obispo I'll leave up to the NFL) until a
> stadium is actually constructed or renovated to the league's
> satisfaction. Meaning the league would then give very
> serious consideration to expanding or relocating at team to
> L.A. The blackout edict would be rescinded as soon as the
> league or a team officially commits to L.A.
>
> The message of this action would be, "Los Angeles, if you
> want to see the NFL, even in your living rooms, build us a
> stadium first."
>
> The NFL is so ratings driven and the new TV deal is already
> in place so I doubt that this would be implemented next
> year, if ever.
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
> ixnay

File that under "Fat Chance."

Even if Tagliaboob was to propose such a thing, the networks would veto it immediately. LA is Market #2 and national advertisers target them more than anywhere else other than NYC. Nobody's gonna give up the ratings and ad revenue of Market #2, whether they have a team there or not.

There's absolutely no guarantee that LA will ever have a team again, stadium or not. They're not considering expansion again (32 teams is perfect) and the teams that were thought to want to move (Cards & Colts) have new stadiums, either opening next year or in the planning stages. The Vikings' new ownership is committed to the Twin Cities, and the Saints will be returning to the Superdome next season, at least part-time. That leaves the Raiders, Jaguars, and Chargers. Al Davis still claims territorial rights for LA (which will never hold up in court since he left the area), and the Jags & Chargers are still having stadium issues and could still leave.

 

[BRice16]

> There's absolutely no guarantee that LA will ever have a
> team again, stadium or not. They're not considering
> expansion again (32 teams is perfect) and the teams that
> were thought to want to move (Cards & Colts) have new
> stadiums, either opening next year or in the planning
> stages. The Vikings' new ownership is committed to the Twin
> Cities, and the Saints will be returning to the Superdome
> next season, at least part-time. That leaves the Raiders,
> Jaguars, and Chargers. Al Davis still claims territorial
> rights for LA (which will never hold up in court since he
> left the area), and the Jags & Chargers are still having
> stadium issues and could still leave.
>

Where did you hear the Jaguars were having stadium issues? Everything I've heard (and I spend 2-3 months a year in North Florida) indicates that the Jags are more than satisified with the current situation. Alltel Stadium has one of the NFL's largest capacities and was good enough to host last year's Super Bowl and be awarded the annual ACC Championship game.

In addition, the Jags' lease runs until 2015.

 

[KeithE]

> Where did you hear the Jaguars were having stadium issues?
> Everything I've heard (and I spend 2-3 months a year in
> North Florida) indicates that the Jags are more than
> satisified with the current situation. Alltel Stadium has
> one of the NFL's largest capacities and was good enough to
> host last year's Super Bowl and be awarded the annual ACC
> Championship game.
>
> In addition, the Jags' lease runs until 2015.

There were rumors going around that the Jaguars had been talking to LA, but it now looks like the team and the city worked out a deal back in November. There were revenue issues, not anything directly related to Alltel Stadium, so I stand corrected there.

But it does look like the Jaguars aren't going anywhere. The same can't be said for the Chargers.

<a target="_blank" href=http://www.nysun.com/article/22852?page_no=1>Link: New York Sun</a>

 

[studiotwenty]

> But it does look like the Jaguars aren't going anywhere.
> The same can't be said for the Chargers.
>

Who, ironically, began their life in the old American Football League....in Los Angeles....

 

[dhett]

> There's absolutely no guarantee that LA will ever have a
> team again, stadium or not. They're not considering
> expansion again (32 teams is perfect) and the teams that
> were thought to want to move (Cards & Colts) have new
> stadiums, either opening next year or in the planning
> stages. The Vikings' new ownership is committed to the Twin
> Cities, and the Saints will be returning to the Superdome
> next season, at least part-time. That leaves the Raiders,
> Jaguars, and Chargers. Al Davis still claims territorial
> rights for LA (which will never hold up in court since he
> left the area), and the Jags & Chargers are still having
> stadium issues and could still leave.
>

Buffalo Bills owner Ralph Wilson is 87 years old and while both his daughters work in the front office, last I knew, they had no interest in owning the team after he dies. The Bills would be allowed to buy out their stadium deal for a relatively small amount which decreases annually until the end of the deal in 2013.

Sad to say as a Bills fan, they are the team I think most likely to end up in LA. Although profitable, their market is just too small.<P ID="signature">______________
Dave</P>

 

[dhett]

> The message of this action would be, "Los Angeles, if you
> want to see the NFL, even in your living rooms, build us a
> stadium first."
>
> The NFL is so ratings driven and the new TV deal is already
> in place so I doubt that this would be implemented next
> year, if ever.

It'll never happen. Most Los Angelinos just won't care. Those who do would most likely be politicians looking to make a name for themselves and would probably seek congressional action. The NFL doesn't need the bad publicity.<P ID="signature">______________
Dave</P>

 

[jojo_collins]

> > But it does look like the Jaguars aren't going anywhere.
> > The same can't be said for the Chargers.
> >
>
> Who, ironically, began their life in the old American
> Football League....in Los Angeles....
>


I was thinking that.....they were known as the Los Angeles Chargers....now did they play at Dodger Stadium, the Coliseum or the old Wrigley Field (Yes, there was a west coast Wrigley Field, where the Los Angeles/California/Anaheim/Los Angeles of Anaheim Angels played)?

 

[ixnay]

Wow, I never thought I'd get this many responses!

> I was thinking that.....they were known as the Los Angeles
> Chargers....now did they play at Dodger Stadium, the
> Coliseum or the old Wrigley Field (Yes, there was a west
> coast Wrigley Field, where the Los
> Angeles/California/Anaheim/Los Angeles of Anaheim Angels
> played)?
>

Jojo, I reckon the Bolts shared the Coliseum with the Rams (and Dodgers, as Dodger Stadium was under construction in 1960, the Chargers' and AFL's first year).

I know about L.A.'s Wrigley Field. It was built by the Wrigleys (who had a plantation on Santa Catalina Island) when they owned the Pacific Coast League's Los Angeles Angels along with the Cubs. In fact it was christened Wrigley Field before its Chicago counterpart was.

"Wrigley West" was going to be the Dodgers' temporary home until O'Malley finished building his own stadium. Ticket demand, I guess, forced them to move to the Coliseum before that first west coast season, 1958.

You can read about the "other" Wrigley Field at http://ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm .

When you get there, click "American", then click "Past" to get the list of American League ex-stadiums (they're listed alphabetically), then click "Wrigley Field (LA)".

Getting back to the Jaguars, I watched them play BAL earlier this season on the tube and I saw a couple of sections of ALLTEL blocked off with canvasses with the Jaugar logo, the way the Raiders used to block off large parts of the Coliseum their last years in L.A.

And as for my original post, I forgot to mention that perhaps if L.A. is blacked out, an exception could be made for the Super Bowl and perhaps other playoff games.

Happy New Year!

ixnay

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

If the NFL wanted to bar it's games from being televised in Los Angeles until the city got a franchise, you can bet that CBS, Fox, ESPN and NBC will go to court to try to block such a move.

 

[EnbyCee]

> If the NFL wanted to bar it's games from being televised in
> Los Angeles until the city got a franchise, you can bet that
> CBS, Fox, ESPN and NBC will go to court to try to block such
> a move.

Exactly. LA may be a traditionally dispassionate sports market, with the Dodgers and the current "hot team" (usually the Lakers) being the only teams with fervent fan support, but it's still the #2 market.

Plus, if LA gets a team, owners dissatisfied with their current stadium situation won't be able to use the threat of a move to LA as blackmail anymore.

 

[ShawnHill]

> > If the NFL wanted to bar it's games from being televised
> in
> > Los Angeles until the city got a franchise, you can bet
> that
> > CBS, Fox, ESPN and NBC will go to court to try to block
> such
> > a move.
>
> Exactly. LA may be a traditionally dispassionate sports
> market, with the Dodgers and the current "hot team" (usually
> the Lakers) being the only teams with fervent fan support,
> but it's still the #2 market.
>
The current hot teams are USC football, the Kings hockey team (who have always had a die-hard fanbase) and my beloved Clippers (although lately, they're been playing like crap as of late).

> Plus, if LA gets a team, owners dissatisfied with their
> current stadium situation won't be able to use the threat of
> a move to LA as blackmail anymore.
>
Almost by accident, I tuned to one of the local sports stations here, and caught the tail-end of a conversation between the hosts and L.A. City Councilman Bernie Parks (who was previously the LAPD Chief), whose district covers the USC-Expostition Park area (where the Coliseum is located). The part I caught was that (I'm paraphasing here) the city of Los Angeles is indeed working with the NFL to build a new Coliseum, which by the plans seen on the Coliseum's web site, is to tear down 90% of the existing structure and keep the peristyle open area (the east end of the stadium), and just build a completely new structure. It's not quite similar to the job done with the new Soldier Field spaceship in Chicago, but the Coliseum would have more space on the west end, as compared to the east end.

I don't if this was talked about, but the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has plans to build a light rail line along Exposition Boulevard (which IMO is much needed), and Expo is the major throughfare that seperates the USC and Exposition Park-Coliseum campuses. According to MTA's web site, they're still working on enviromental impact studies, and once all that is done, the groundbreaking should begin sometime later this year, and with the first phase of the rail line being completed by 2009 (going from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City, heading east to west, covering about 10-12 miles), and a second phase of the rail line is suppose to go all the way to the Santa Monica Pier, which about a 5-6 mile extension of the Culver City end of line. That phase should be fully completed by 2012. Now, anybody how knows about traffic in Southern California knows it can be quite messy, especially on the west side of town. This proposed rail line could alievate a lot of traffic to a new Coliseum, although a lot more people drive in L.A. than even think about using public transportation, which for the most part (in comparsion to other major cities) is behind the times and quite an embarassment.

Back the Coliseum...Mr. Parks stated that no tax money would be used (which is the biggest reason why Los Angeles still doesn't have a team), and that the NFL and some other corporate partners, including the eventual tenant of the new Coliseum, and maybe even USC (since the Coliseum is their home) would foot the bill for the stadium reconstruction. If the $600 million price tag on the rebuilding of Soldier Field is any indication, then the cost of the new Coliseum would cost at least that much, if not in the $700-800 million range. It should be noted of course that the areas surrounding Solider Field the L.A. Coliseum are quite similar, with lots of recreation areas and plenty of museums.