Swarzenegger wants a double dose of fütball in LA.
Some cajones on this Ostereicher. Governor Swarzenegger tells the NFL that he not only wants one new team in the LA area, but two.
"That's why I came. Why limit it?"
A few reasons. Los Angeles has been without a football team for twelve years since 1994 when both the Rams and Raiders left the dance with competing suitors. The city did attempt to bring an expansion team in, but was outbid by Houston. Since then, LA's pretty well adapted. And you know what? LA doesn't really seem to need or want a new team.
Couple of problems. First, the stadium. LA's current proposal is to renovate the Coliseum, which holds about 65,000 and has been sitting around since the 1930s. They'll spend $25 million to add 15,000 seats and expect that to be sufficient. I can't imagine that the end result of this will be any different. Every other city in the country that is serious about football has kept their teams through a willingness to seriously update old stadiums or build completely new ones. The deal being pursued by the Vikings involves a one billion dollar complex in Anoka, MN. Houston's Bob McNair and his crew shelled out $1.1 billion ($700 million for the franchise and $310 million for the stadium) for the Texans. Both the Rams and Raiders ultimately left Los Angeles for better stadium deals being offered by St. Louis and Oakland. And LA is talking about a $25 million renovation? It might be enough to bring an expansion team to LA since Tagliabue seems to want a team there, but I sincerely doubt it will be enough to keep a team around for long. Ten to fifteen years later, they'll scoot off to Charlotte or Orlando.
Now Anaheim is another story. They've also thrown their hat in the ring for a stadium in the Angels' parking lot. Granted, Anaheim has severe metropolitan short-man syndrome, but they at least understand that hooking a new professional sports franchise takes some cash and are willing to pony up. That deal may actually have some viability. But recall the whole Angels fiasco a few months ago: if Anaheim is to land a team, it will not be named for Los Angeles in any way, shape or form. Expect that to be expressly stated in the contract. Will Los Angeles football fans root for a team located in and named after Anaheim? Arte Moreno sure doesn't think so. That's why he screwed the City of Anaheim by billing his team "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" in the first place.
So that leaves the second problem. LA isn't a football city and never really has been. Football fans in the LA area have grown accustomed to not having a team, not paying $100 a ticket, and not having TV blackouts during games. If you actually like football, then having the Raiders and Rams leave might have been the best thing to happen to you. The only people who really would want a new team are the people who can afford it. Besides, I shudder when I consider what Los Angeles might name such a team...
Anyway, football in LA is a pipe dream. The prospects of bringing a new team or even an existing team to the area are dubious at best, let alone two teams. Everyone would be best served to sit back and watch Jack Nicholson watch Kobe. Leave the real sports to the real cities.
"That's why I came. Why limit it?"
A few reasons. Los Angeles has been without a football team for twelve years since 1994 when both the Rams and Raiders left the dance with competing suitors. The city did attempt to bring an expansion team in, but was outbid by Houston. Since then, LA's pretty well adapted. And you know what? LA doesn't really seem to need or want a new team.
Couple of problems. First, the stadium. LA's current proposal is to renovate the Coliseum, which holds about 65,000 and has been sitting around since the 1930s. They'll spend $25 million to add 15,000 seats and expect that to be sufficient. I can't imagine that the end result of this will be any different. Every other city in the country that is serious about football has kept their teams through a willingness to seriously update old stadiums or build completely new ones. The deal being pursued by the Vikings involves a one billion dollar complex in Anoka, MN. Houston's Bob McNair and his crew shelled out $1.1 billion ($700 million for the franchise and $310 million for the stadium) for the Texans. Both the Rams and Raiders ultimately left Los Angeles for better stadium deals being offered by St. Louis and Oakland. And LA is talking about a $25 million renovation? It might be enough to bring an expansion team to LA since Tagliabue seems to want a team there, but I sincerely doubt it will be enough to keep a team around for long. Ten to fifteen years later, they'll scoot off to Charlotte or Orlando.
Now Anaheim is another story. They've also thrown their hat in the ring for a stadium in the Angels' parking lot. Granted, Anaheim has severe metropolitan short-man syndrome, but they at least understand that hooking a new professional sports franchise takes some cash and are willing to pony up. That deal may actually have some viability. But recall the whole Angels fiasco a few months ago: if Anaheim is to land a team, it will not be named for Los Angeles in any way, shape or form. Expect that to be expressly stated in the contract. Will Los Angeles football fans root for a team located in and named after Anaheim? Arte Moreno sure doesn't think so. That's why he screwed the City of Anaheim by billing his team "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" in the first place.
So that leaves the second problem. LA isn't a football city and never really has been. Football fans in the LA area have grown accustomed to not having a team, not paying $100 a ticket, and not having TV blackouts during games. If you actually like football, then having the Raiders and Rams leave might have been the best thing to happen to you. The only people who really would want a new team are the people who can afford it. Besides, I shudder when I consider what Los Angeles might name such a team...
Anyway, football in LA is a pipe dream. The prospects of bringing a new team or even an existing team to the area are dubious at best, let alone two teams. Everyone would be best served to sit back and watch Jack Nicholson watch Kobe. Leave the real sports to the real cities.
posted by Your Friendly Neighborhood Clark Bar at 5/02/2006 12:19:00 PM
Subscribe to Tommy Lawyer
4 Comments:
In New York we have the opposite name problem - we have two teams who call themselves New York and play in New Jersey. At least all the traffic belongs to Jersey.
I think it's a little nutz that he wants to bring in TWO teams. I mean how well has that worked out for the Clippers? You'll end up with one team that turns out to be good who everyone will go to see and one crappy team that they just keep around so that they can say "Hey, we must be big time cause we have two teams."
And as for Anaheim, the Ducks? The Angels? If that town hadn't been the beneficiary of two crappy Disney movies then they wouldn't have a sports team to speak of.
Plus, until the Texans can win a frigging game, the NFL shouldn't be allowed to create anymore expansion teams. Clearly, we don't have enough resources to make them any good.
There's talk of the Saints moving to LA and taking up residence in the Coliseum. That would be an utter tragedy. "The L.A. Saints." Imagine that one. God forbid, if it were to happen, I'd insist on a name change.
At least that way SoCal residents wouldn't have to part with their beloved Reggie Bush.
And while a name change might be in order, it's only okay if we don't let Disney do the picking on this one. And speaking of names, what native wildlife could they possibly use as a mascot? The Los Angeles Paparrazi perhaps?
Post a Comment
<< Home