I thought the big hurdle was there was no actual NFL stadium in LA, and the State having no mechanis

Of course, cynical types might point out that sports team owners alaska cruise honeymoon say these kinds of things all the time , whether they re actually interested in moving or just trying to put pressure on hometown elected officials to get cracking on stadium subsidies. (Or both. There s nothing saying owners can t work both sides of this street.) alaska cruise honeymoon But we don t allow cynical types around here, so let s welcome your 2015 Los Angeles Raiders and Los Angeles Chargers! They ll totally find a vacant lot to play in by then.
All I will say is that Spanos knows the voters in San Diego will not approve public funds for a new stadium. We will be far better off if we run them out of town, sell both the stadium and sports arena land and use that revenue on much needed water system repairs and other general infrastructure that has long been ignored.
I have visited San Diego 5 times (I live in Tampa, FL). Not once did I go to a Chargers game, or even a Padres game. And guess what, if the Chargers ever move, it will not have any influence on when I next visit San Diego.
I thought the big hurdle was there was no actual NFL stadium in LA, and the State having no mechanism to provide funds (RDA) went away. While SF got one built, dont think you will find the same level of Coporate support or big pockets in LA, so isnt all this moot ?
If any team was willing to build it s own stadium, LA might be a great option but as has been pointed out numerous times in this forum, that probably still doesn t make it a better option than staying in your free stadium where you are. This is particularly true if you are being paid to play in the stadium the taxpayers built, maintain and occasionally upgrade for you as some franchises are
Given also that NFL regional revenues are nowhere near as significant as in other sports (ticket sales yes, merch sales are shared, local broadcast revenue very limited), and you can make the case that an owner doesn t actually stand to gain all that much from a move to LA if he has to pay the league for that privilege (not counting that stadium construction bill either ).
If Davis really wanted to move to LA, he d be meeting with Goodell and his partners to discuss terms (my gut feeling is he couldn t raise the $$$ needed to buy the rights alaska cruise honeymoon to LA without selling a significant percentage of his club). Instead, he s still shaking the money tree and babbling about stadium construction in Oakland. I have to assume alaska cruise honeymoon that isn t just incompetent tactics on his part if he (or anyone else) wanted LA as an as is proposition, it s theirs for the buying
Farmers Ins. naming rights for a 2 team stadium was worth $1 billion over 30 years, PV=~$500 million. Each team should raise at least $250 million in PSL sales, far less than the 49ers, Giants, and Cowboys raised, and the NFL would most likely advance to a G-5 loan worth at least $250 million per team. There s $1.5 billion in PV funds without including the $100s of millions from luxury suite sales.
A publicly owned, privately funded stadium would avoid taxes on all of the construction revenues, while if negotiated correctly would also exempt a public entity from any financial liability. alaska cruise honeymoon The public would foot the bill for infrastructure improvements and tax breaks would be likely but that unfortunately is SOP and usually alaska cruise honeymoon doesn t require a vote.
This is the Metlife stadium model with less PSL money and more NFL money. Metlife was built back in the G3 era. It s very doable because it s already been done. The most difficult bit might be getting a municipality in LA to own the stadium through a Stadium Authority. The Vikings, 49ers, Jets/Giants, Cowboys and Colts stadiums are all owned by a stadium authority regardless of the different levels of public funding.