Will L.A. wake up to Roskis NFL dream?
April 17, 2008
Ed Roski has been to the bottom of the Atlantic in a Russian submarine to view the wreckage of the Titanic. Hes ridden his mountain bike the entire length of the Burma Road. Hes climbed to base camp at Mt. Everest and has paid his deposit to travel commercially into space.
But his latest undertaking is his wildest, most improbable yet.
He wants to bring the NFL back to Los Angeles.
At a news conference Thursday, Roski will unveil the latest concept for an L.A. stadium. Its a dazzling, asymmetrical venue built into a hillside in the City of Industry, near the southern intersection of the 57 and 60 freeways. His stadium would be surrounded by a high-end shopping mall, already in the works.
Good luck, Ed, because the L.A. wreckage puts that Titanic mess to shame.
From Irwindale to Irvine, the Cornfield to Carson, Dodger Stadium to Hollywood Park, the Rose Bowl to the Coliseum, proposals ranging from ingenious to outlandish have fallen by the wayside.
Moving back to L.A. isnt among the NFLs top three priorities, and Id be surprised if it were in the top five. Team owners dont want Commissioner Roger Goodell spending his time working on that conundrum when theyre readying for a pitched battle with the players union, cant figure out how best to share their billions in revenue, and have most of America channel surfing in vain for the NFL Network.
L.A. wont reappear on the NFLs radar screen until an owner stands up and says he can no longer get it done in his current city, and the prospects of staying are so bleak that his team can be more successful in Southern California even when saddled with the cost of a new stadium, an astronomical relocation fee, and heaven knows what else.
Yes, there are teams that are unhappy in their current situations, teams with less-favorable stadium deals than others, or whose hometown relationships have worn thin. Jacksonville, New Orleans, Minnesota and Oakland come to mind. Then, theres San Diego, where the Chargers are free to leave any time after this season without the threat of a lawsuit as long as they pay their $56-million tab for city bonds. That number drops into the $20-million range after two years.
The Chargers say theyre focused on two stadium possibilities in Chula Vista, and it remains to be seen if either of those will pan out. Is it likely they will take a hard look at Roskis proposal? Yes.
But theres a big difference in taking a hard look and actually making a commitment to move. This process has had so many fits and starts, so many set-ups and letdowns, every new proposal starts sounding like a punch line.
Roski calls it deal fatigue, and he concedes theres a lot of it among the NFL owners, executives, media and fans. Not another NFL proposal.
And remember, this is a terrible time to finance this type of deal. Two years ago, the league thought an L.A. stadium would be too expensive, and that was when the interest rates and banking relationships were far more favorable.
Now, the New York Giants and Jets, and Dallas Cowboys have to shell out substantially more money than they planned for their new stadiums, in part because of the implosion of the short-term debt market. Even the New England Patriots, one of the richest franchises in sports, have run into problems on the financial aspects of their stadium debt.
Thats not to question Roskis platinum can-do credentials. He inherited a fortune in real estate and continued to build on it, now ranking 195th on Forbes magazines list of 400 richest Americans, with an estimated worth of $2.3 billion. Without Roski and Philip Anschutz, there would be no Staples Center.
Roski says he can get started almost immediately on his NFL stadium, something that separates his concept from the dozens of failed ones that came before it. His environmental impact report is done. He doesnt have to worry about battling historic preservationists; hes dealing with a mound of dirt. He doesnt need the blessing of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa or to lobby members of the City Council. (He did encounter some political turbulence today when state lawmakers blocked an effort by Industry to grab millions of dollars in tax subsidies that could help lure an NFL team back to the area.)
The way Roski sees it, he could have shovels in the ground this fall and have a stadium ready to go for the 2011 season. By his thinking, a team could be in L.A. by the 2009 season and could play for two years in the Rose Bowl or Coliseum until its new digs are ready. He would want to own at least part of the team, but says he would be comfortable being a behind-the-scenes shareholder as he is with the Lakers and L.A. Kings.
Roski says he can build a football version of Staples Center for about $800 million, roughly half the price of the one being constructed for the Giants and Jets. He says hell save a huge amount on steel, because half of his stadium rests on a hillside.
But its not as if hes going to dip into his personal fortune to pay for this whole project. He wants help from the NFL in the form of a $150-million loan and the promise of at least one Super Bowl. The league has doled out that money for other stadiums, although it no longer has a G-3 loan program and would have to create a new one for L.A.
The NFL isnt in the business of giving without taking. Never has been. So whats unknown is what the other owners would want in exchange for that huge loan, the promise of one or more Super Bowls, and the rights to the nations No. 2 market. This deal would come with ultra-strong cables not just strings attached.
In recent years, the NFL seems to have lost interest in coming back. Likewise, theres little groundswell from untold millions of football fans in Southern California, the ones who appreciate less traffic on Sundays and more NFL choices on TV.
If you build it, Ed, they will come.
But if you dont build it, will they care?