BREAKING NEWS: Chargers moving to LA
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 12:47 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
I'm amazed at how profitable these moves are. I was reading this article and the Chargers move makes so much sense.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/the-chargers-pending-move-to-la-exposes-the-nfls-truth-when-it-comes-to-fans/ar-AAlMDDo?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCDHP


Actually, that strikes me as a pretty stupid article.

The 49ers made their money on seat licenses, so it doesn't really matter if anyone showed up for the games. Um, what? Does the author know what a seat license is? You don't buy a seat license if you aren't planning to buy tickets.

The 49ers also made a ton of money on luxury boxes, so it doesn't really matter if anyone showed up for the games. Um, what? Does the author think that the luxury boxes are just advertising signs or that companies would buy them if no one wanted to go to the games?

The $77 million in ticket sales is "chump change." Um, what? That is $77 million per year, and the attendance generates all of the parking and concession revenue that the author mentioned.

"Build the stadium — it doesn't matter whether they actually come." Are you freaking kidding me? If that was true, the Rams would never have left LA in the first place. That article was a real face palmer.


You don't have to sit in the seats for the team to make money, you have already paid for the seat and the license to buy that seat. $5,000 per seat for the 49ers. That is the point, besides losing out on concession sales the revenue is there whether anyone goes to the game or not.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 12:49 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:


But won't all the PSL money just go to Stan Kroenke? I mean he's building the stadium with his money. Spanos is only paying $1 dollar rent at the City of Champions Stadium.


PSL money for Ram seats will go to Kroenke, PSL money for Charger seats will go to Spanos.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:17 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
You don't have to sit in the seats for the team to make money, you have already paid for the seat and the license to buy that seat. $5,000 per seat for the 49ers. That is the point, besides losing out on concession sales the revenue is there whether anyone goes to the game or not.


You're missing the point. Who buys a seat license if they don't plan to go to the games? I understand that some people might buy them as a speculative investment, but good luck generating half a billion dollars based on that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38749

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:40 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:


But won't all the PSL money just go to Stan Kroenke? I mean he's building the stadium with his money. Spanos is only paying $1 dollar rent at the City of Champions Stadium.


PSL money for Ram seats will go to Kroenke, PSL money for Charger seats will go to Spanos.


Yeah, guess they are following the model set at the New Meadowlands Stadium.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 2:00 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
I'm amazed at how profitable these moves are. I was reading this article and the Chargers move makes so much sense.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/the-chargers-pending-move-to-la-exposes-the-nfls-truth-when-it-comes-to-fans/ar-AAlMDDo?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCDHP


Actually, that strikes me as a pretty stupid article.

The 49ers made their money on seat licenses, so it doesn't really matter if anyone showed up for the games. Um, what? Does the author know what a seat license is? You don't buy a seat license if you aren't planning to buy tickets.

The 49ers also made a ton of money on luxury boxes, so it doesn't really matter if anyone showed up for the games. Um, what? Does the author think that the luxury boxes are just advertising signs or that companies would buy them if no one wanted to go to the games?

The $77 million in ticket sales is "chump change." Um, what? That is $77 million per year, and the attendance generates all of the parking and concession revenue that the author mentioned.

"Build the stadium — it doesn't matter whether they actually come." Are you freaking kidding me? If that was true, the Rams would never have left LA in the first place. That article was a real face palmer.


I was more interested in how profitable the moves/stadiums are for the teams. I didn't care as much for the exaggeration in the article. I've been reading/listening to people talk about the Chargers move and wonder why they made it, but I rarely see people mention some of the numbers I saw in the article.

The NFL is so popular that I'm sure the Chargers still made a very profitable move. I don't think anybody actually expects zero people in the stands.

I do think that comment about $77 million being chump change was silly.

I don't care enough to check the 49ers attendance. The author was suggesting that people weren't coming to the Rams and 49ers games and the teams still made incredibly profitable moves. The Rams did have a lot of empty seats in their games but they also played in a stadium with a lot of seats. However, even if the attendance was worse, the move still makes them a lot of money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 12:25 pm    Post subject:

Steve007 wrote:
I was more interested in how profitable the moves/stadiums are for the teams. I didn't care as much for the exaggeration in the article. I've been reading/listening to people talk about the Chargers move and wonder why they made it, but I rarely see people mention some of the numbers I saw in the article.

The NFL is so popular that I'm sure the Chargers still made a very profitable move. I don't think anybody actually expects zero people in the stands.

I do think that comment about $77 million being chump change was silly.

I don't care enough to check the 49ers attendance. The author was suggesting that people weren't coming to the Rams and 49ers games and the teams still made incredibly profitable moves. The Rams did have a lot of empty seats in their games but they also played in a stadium with a lot of seats. However, even if the attendance was worse, the move still makes them a lot of money.


Sure. My scorn is directed toward the article, not toward your point.

Just the same, is it the move that makes the money, or is it the new stadium? If the Chargers had stayed in San Diego, and if they had gotten a new stadium, they could have sold seat licenses and luxury boxes. But they couldn't get a new stadium deal, so they moved up the freeway in the hope of leeching money out of a different group of suckers. That's the real lesson here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AY2043
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 10620

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:02 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
I was more interested in how profitable the moves/stadiums are for the teams. I didn't care as much for the exaggeration in the article. I've been reading/listening to people talk about the Chargers move and wonder why they made it, but I rarely see people mention some of the numbers I saw in the article.

The NFL is so popular that I'm sure the Chargers still made a very profitable move. I don't think anybody actually expects zero people in the stands.

I do think that comment about $77 million being chump change was silly.

I don't care enough to check the 49ers attendance. The author was suggesting that people weren't coming to the Rams and 49ers games and the teams still made incredibly profitable moves. The Rams did have a lot of empty seats in their games but they also played in a stadium with a lot of seats. However, even if the attendance was worse, the move still makes them a lot of money.


Sure. My scorn is directed toward the article, not toward your point.

Just the same, is it the move that makes the money, or is it the new stadium? If the Chargers had stayed in San Diego, and if they had gotten a new stadium, they could have sold seat licenses and luxury boxes. But they couldn't get a new stadium deal, so they moved up the freeway in the hope of leeching money out of a different group of suckers. That's the real lesson here.

Apparently the Chargers conducted their own research that concluded that PSL's wouldn't result in a significant amount of revenue, hence why it wasn't included as a source of funds for any stadium in San Diego. Yet it was a major source of funds for the Santa Clara stadium and the Inglewod stadium, as well as other stadiums.

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/159590/why-the-chargers-cant-fund-a-stadium-like-the-49ers-the-psl-issue

Quote:
Fabiani, special council to Chargers president Dean Spanos and the team’s point person on the stadium issue, wishes the answer was as easy as duplicating San Francisco’s financing plan for Levi’s Stadium. However, he said the Chargers do not have enough local corporate support for that type of financing plan to pencil out in San Diego, according to studies performed by consultants for the Chargers.

Fabiani also noted the San Diego Padres tried to sell PSLs when they opened Petco Park and did not do very well.

“Everyone in San Diego for as long as the Chargers have been here have been used to simply paying for a ticket,” he said. “And to then ask that same person to pay a fee up front in order to have a right to buy a ticket, our consultants who have studied this say there’s very little chance with that approach in San Diego.”


Seems like a bit of a cop out if you ask me, especially considering there was only a 120 million dollar funding gap on the city's last ditch proposal to keep the Chargers. Here's another article on the potential of PSL's in San Diego that paints a much rosier picture of their potential in securing funds (despite the author's aversion to them).

http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2015/3/17/8228217/dealing-with-the-devil-psls-in-san-diego
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:10 pm    Post subject:

^^^^

Interesting. So I guess we'll see how the PSLs do in LA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38749

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:44 pm    Post subject:

The way I see it is that Spanos had assets but didn't have the cash to finance the building of a new stadium. This is why he ended up asking the taxpayers to pay for most of the new stadium. Don't forget the relocation fee is not a one time lump sum, so they can pay that over time. Unfortunately, this may be another case of a team owner who can't afford the expenses of owning a professional sports franchise. Kinda like another Frank McCourt. Only instead of selling he decided to take his ball home and move the team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17196
Location: In a no-ship

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:21 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
The way I see it is that Spanos had assets but didn't have the cash to finance the building of a new stadium. This is why he ended up asking the taxpayers to pay for most of the new stadium. Don't forget the relocation fee is not a one time lump sum, so they can pay that over time. Unfortunately, this may be another case of a team owner who can't afford the expenses of owning a professional sports franchise. Kinda like another Frank McCourt. Only instead of selling he decided to take his ball home and move the team.


This is exactly the case. They dicked around their first round pick for a few games because they were a few million apart in paying out his bonus. Bush league right there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67312
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:03 pm    Post subject:

I'm gittin sick and damn tired of these football people interrupting Y&R to introduce their head coaches. That's twice. I want to know what Victor and Jack are doing not who the Chargers and Rams are hiring.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38749

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:17 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
I'm gittin sick and damn tired of these football people interrupting Y&R to introduce their head coaches. That's twice. I want to know what Victor and Jack are doing not who the Chargers and Rams are hiring.


We got to see a preview of how the field would look in a football configuration since its holding the NFLPA Collegiate Bowl. That place looks pretty small, I guess they can jam more people in there by letting them sit in that grass field below the scoreboard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ExPatLkrFan
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 3982
Location: Mukdahan, Thailand

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:03 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
jodeke wrote:
I'm gittin sick and damn tired of these football people interrupting Y&R to introduce their head coaches. That's twice. I want to know what Victor and Jack are doing not who the Chargers and Rams are hiring.


We got to see a preview of how the field would look in a football configuration since its holding the NFLPA Collegiate Bowl. That place looks pretty small, I guess they can jam more people in there by letting them sit in that grass field below the scoreboard.


Yeah but how is it going to look if and when they can't fill that place up?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38749

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:08 pm    Post subject:

ExPatLkrFan wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
jodeke wrote:
I'm gittin sick and damn tired of these football people interrupting Y&R to introduce their head coaches. That's twice. I want to know what Victor and Jack are doing not who the Chargers and Rams are hiring.


We got to see a preview of how the field would look in a football configuration since its holding the NFLPA Collegiate Bowl. That place looks pretty small, I guess they can jam more people in there by letting them sit in that grass field below the scoreboard.


Yeah but how is it going to look if and when they can't fill that place up?


Depends on how they price the tickets. I'm sure if the tickets are high enough, filling 30k seats will be tough.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38749

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:00 pm    Post subject:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/the-los-angeles-chargers-temporary-stadium-is-small-and-season-tickets-wont-be-cheap-210618044.html

Ouch....$700 for the cheapest season tickets.
$1350 if you want an actual seat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
audioaxes
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 12573

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:26 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
I'm amazed at how profitable these moves are. I was reading this article and the Chargers move makes so much sense.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/the-chargers-pending-move-to-la-exposes-the-nfls-truth-when-it-comes-to-fans/ar-AAlMDDo?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCDHP


Actually, that strikes me as a pretty stupid article.

The 49ers made their money on seat licenses, so it doesn't really matter if anyone showed up for the games. Um, what? Does the author know what a seat license is? You don't buy a seat license if you aren't planning to buy tickets.

The 49ers also made a ton of money on luxury boxes, so it doesn't really matter if anyone showed up for the games. Um, what? Does the author think that the luxury boxes are just advertising signs or that companies would buy them if no one wanted to go to the games?

The $77 million in ticket sales is "chump change." Um, what? That is $77 million per year, and the attendance generates all of the parking and concession revenue that the author mentioned.

"Build the stadium — it doesn't matter whether they actually come." Are you freaking kidding me? If that was true, the Rams would never have left LA in the first place. That article was a real face palmer.


You don't have to sit in the seats for the team to make money, you have already paid for the seat and the license to buy that seat. $5,000 per seat for the 49ers. That is the point, besides losing out on concession sales the revenue is there whether anyone goes to the game or not.

my issue with this is, if LA was such a cash cow for teams why did teams leave in the first place and take so long for any to move back here?
_________________
(bleep) Kawhi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:26 pm    Post subject:

audioaxes wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
I'm amazed at how profitable these moves are. I was reading this article and the Chargers move makes so much sense.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/the-chargers-pending-move-to-la-exposes-the-nfls-truth-when-it-comes-to-fans/ar-AAlMDDo?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCDHP


Actually, that strikes me as a pretty stupid article.

The 49ers made their money on seat licenses, so it doesn't really matter if anyone showed up for the games. Um, what? Does the author know what a seat license is? You don't buy a seat license if you aren't planning to buy tickets.

The 49ers also made a ton of money on luxury boxes, so it doesn't really matter if anyone showed up for the games. Um, what? Does the author think that the luxury boxes are just advertising signs or that companies would buy them if no one wanted to go to the games?

The $77 million in ticket sales is "chump change." Um, what? That is $77 million per year, and the attendance generates all of the parking and concession revenue that the author mentioned.

"Build the stadium — it doesn't matter whether they actually come." Are you freaking kidding me? If that was true, the Rams would never have left LA in the first place. That article was a real face palmer.


You don't have to sit in the seats for the team to make money, you have already paid for the seat and the license to buy that seat. $5,000 per seat for the 49ers. That is the point, besides losing out on concession sales the revenue is there whether anyone goes to the game or not.

my issue with this is, if LA was such a cash cow for teams why did teams leave in the first place and take so long for any to move back here?

I don't know the ins and outs of the NFL, but I did notice that a lot of stadiums were financed and built after leveraging the threat to move to LA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38749

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:47 pm    Post subject:

JerryMagicKobe wrote:
audioaxes wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
I'm amazed at how profitable these moves are. I was reading this article and the Chargers move makes so much sense.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/the-chargers-pending-move-to-la-exposes-the-nfls-truth-when-it-comes-to-fans/ar-AAlMDDo?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCDHP


Actually, that strikes me as a pretty stupid article.

The 49ers made their money on seat licenses, so it doesn't really matter if anyone showed up for the games. Um, what? Does the author know what a seat license is? You don't buy a seat license if you aren't planning to buy tickets.

The 49ers also made a ton of money on luxury boxes, so it doesn't really matter if anyone showed up for the games. Um, what? Does the author think that the luxury boxes are just advertising signs or that companies would buy them if no one wanted to go to the games?

The $77 million in ticket sales is "chump change." Um, what? That is $77 million per year, and the attendance generates all of the parking and concession revenue that the author mentioned.

"Build the stadium — it doesn't matter whether they actually come." Are you freaking kidding me? If that was true, the Rams would never have left LA in the first place. That article was a real face palmer.


You don't have to sit in the seats for the team to make money, you have already paid for the seat and the license to buy that seat. $5,000 per seat for the 49ers. That is the point, besides losing out on concession sales the revenue is there whether anyone goes to the game or not.

my issue with this is, if LA was such a cash cow for teams why did teams leave in the first place and take so long for any to move back here?

I don't know the ins and outs of the NFL, but I did notice that a lot of stadiums were financed and built after leveraging the threat to move to LA.


Seattle
Indianapolis
Minneapolis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67312
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:46 pm    Post subject:

JerryMagicKobe wrote:
audioaxes wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
I'm amazed at how profitable these moves are. I was reading this article and the Chargers move makes so much sense.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/the-chargers-pending-move-to-la-exposes-the-nfls-truth-when-it-comes-to-fans/ar-AAlMDDo?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCDHP


Actually, that strikes me as a pretty stupid article.

The 49ers made their money on seat licenses, so it doesn't really matter if anyone showed up for the games. Um, what? Does the author know what a seat license is? You don't buy a seat license if you aren't planning to buy tickets.

The 49ers also made a ton of money on luxury boxes, so it doesn't really matter if anyone showed up for the games. Um, what? Does the author think that the luxury boxes are just advertising signs or that companies would buy them if no one wanted to go to the games?

The $77 million in ticket sales is "chump change." Um, what? That is $77 million per year, and the attendance generates all of the parking and concession revenue that the author mentioned.

"Build the stadium — it doesn't matter whether they actually come." Are you freaking kidding me? If that was true, the Rams would never have left LA in the first place. That article was a real face palmer.


You don't have to sit in the seats for the team to make money, you have already paid for the seat and the license to buy that seat. $5,000 per seat for the 49ers. That is the point, besides losing out on concession sales the revenue is there whether anyone goes to the game or not.

my issue with this is, if LA was such a cash cow for teams why did teams leave in the first place and take so long for any to move back here?

I don't know the ins and outs of the NFL, but I did notice that a lot of stadiums were financed and built after leveraging the threat to move to LA.

Maybe that's why it took so long for the NFL to allow a team to come back to Los Angeles.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38749

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:16 pm    Post subject:

No team owners took a serious look at LA until pure unadulterated greed took over when they realized they were losing out on billions of dollars by not having a team or two here.
I bet if Al Davis realized the billions he left on the table in team value he would've never went back to Oakland just for a couple of luxury boxes at a renovated stadium.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 1:01 am    Post subject:

audioaxes wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
I'm amazed at how profitable these moves are. I was reading this article and the Chargers move makes so much sense.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/the-chargers-pending-move-to-la-exposes-the-nfls-truth-when-it-comes-to-fans/ar-AAlMDDo?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCDHP


Actually, that strikes me as a pretty stupid article.

The 49ers made their money on seat licenses, so it doesn't really matter if anyone showed up for the games. Um, what? Does the author know what a seat license is? You don't buy a seat license if you aren't planning to buy tickets.

The 49ers also made a ton of money on luxury boxes, so it doesn't really matter if anyone showed up for the games. Um, what? Does the author think that the luxury boxes are just advertising signs or that companies would buy them if no one wanted to go to the games?

The $77 million in ticket sales is "chump change." Um, what? That is $77 million per year, and the attendance generates all of the parking and concession revenue that the author mentioned.

"Build the stadium — it doesn't matter whether they actually come." Are you freaking kidding me? If that was true, the Rams would never have left LA in the first place. That article was a real face palmer.


You don't have to sit in the seats for the team to make money, you have already paid for the seat and the license to buy that seat. $5,000 per seat for the 49ers. That is the point, besides losing out on concession sales the revenue is there whether anyone goes to the game or not.

my issue with this is, if LA was such a cash cow for teams why did teams leave in the first place and take so long for any to move back here?


When was the last time LA threw a bunch of money into a new stadium for an NFL team? When has it ever happened? They aren't even doing it for the Rams/Chargers right now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38749

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:37 am    Post subject:

Its pretty hard to get public money for a stadium in California....I think the last one was the Honda Center and that was nearly 25 years ago. That arena costs like 1/13 of what it would cost to build the Inglewood Stadium. Even the Levi's stadium, while the stadium authority is a public agency, it was setup so public tax dollars aren't responsible for the bills. Most of the bills to pay out that massive loan is paid thru sponsorships and PSL's....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 4:17 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
Its pretty hard to get public money for a stadium in California....I think the last one was the Honda Center and that was nearly 25 years ago. That arena costs like 1/13 of what it would cost to build the Inglewood Stadium. Even the Levi's stadium, while the stadium authority is a public agency, it was setup so public tax dollars aren't responsible for the bills. Most of the bills to pay out that massive loan is paid thru sponsorships and PSL's....


That's my point. If it was easy to get public money for a stadium in LA, LA would have been a more attractive choice for NFL teams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB