Yelling and screaming won't get L.A. a stadium - Ingles

For a town the NFL has twice abandoned, Los Angeles makes more noise than an infant on an airplane.

It is the bastion of big ideas and uneven execution, the epicenter of pitch meetings and make-believe. It is a torrent of press releases and a trickle of progress. Like so many of its movie monsters, it is frightening, but flawed.

Monday’s announcement that the Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) had reached a memorandum of understanding to expand its Godzilla-sized L.A. footprint with a football stadium came as a major buzzkill to Chargers fans ready to rejoice over the end of the NFL lockout.

But it was, on further review, only a minor development.

The threat that L.A. will eventually filch the Chargers franchise is logical, real and ever-present, but it is no more ominous today than it was last month. AEG has done a tremendous job of creating the appearance of momentum — selling naming rights, hiring architects, holding press conferences — but its financial hurdles are still formidable, significant regulatory obstacles remain, and no one has yet sunk a shovel in soil.

If I’m Chargers President Dean Spanos, I’m still watching this game unfold as a spectator. L.A. has its lure, but so does the hook at the end of a fishing line. Before you bite, know your bait.

Convention Sports and Leisure International, a consultant retained by L.A. negotiators, estimates the annual operating income of an NFL team playing at the still-theoretical Farmers Field at $53 million. Since that figure more than doubles Forbes’ August 2010 estimate of Chargers’ annual profits ($24.7 million), it qualifies as an A-list head-turner.

All other things being equal, the reflexive response of any committed capitalist would be, “Where do I sign?” But all other things are not equal, and some could prove significant during Spanos’ open-ended deliberations.

Besides the basic and unanswered question of viability — can AEG get the stadium built on terms remotely resembling its memorandum of understanding? — there are matters of mobility, associated costs and competition. The Chargers are not the only NFL team seeking a new stadium in a second-tier market, and some other franchises may be able to demonstrate greater need. Though the Chargers’ lease affords the team an escape clause that can be exercised annually, relocation requires league approval and could involve a hefty relocation fee.

Though NFL spokesman Greg Aiello says the league has not addressed relocation fees “in any way, so it would be pure speculation at this point,” L.A.’s consultants have estimated the cost could top $500 million. That projection seems high — relocation is not expansion; it does not create an additional slice in the league pie — but league owners are unlikely to approve a move to the nation’s No. 2 market unless they’re compensated for their consent.

Another complication could arise from the landlord. Because AEG is a private business rather than a governmental body, it would surely expect a substantial stake in any team taking occupancy of a built-from-scratch stadium (as does Majestic Realty’s Ed Roski, author of a competing stadium proposal in the City of Industry).

Question: Is 60 or 70 percent of the Chargers worth more in Los Angeles than almost 100 percent of the Chargers are worth in San Diego?

Answer: Depends on which variables you plug into the equation.

There’s probably a point where all of this pencils out; where a franchise owner could recoup a relocation fee and make up in new revenue what he might lose in reduced equity. But if I’m Dean Spanos, if my family controls 96 percent of an NFL franchise that was valued at $907 million BEFORE the players agreed to a new 10-year collective bargaining agreement, I’m not looking to liquidate. I’m looking for a deal with a local government and for loopholes in the estate tax.

If I’m Dean Spanos, I’m still looking for a deal in San Diego, at least until the L.A. option is more than an outline. (I’m reduced to reading Spanos’ mind here because he did not oblige an interview request. Mark Fabiani, the Chargers’ stadium point man, helped fill in some of my telepathic blanks.)

“I had dinner with Dean last night,” Fabiani said Tuesday afternoon. “He wants us to keep at it, (sees) no reason to be discouraged.”

If the Chargers’ stadium campaign has been incremental to the point of invisibility, Fabiani claims to see progress in the funding mechanism contained in the new collective bargaining agreement. In negotiating a 1.5 percent revenue credit for future stadium projects, the NFL and its players have recognized mutual benefit in swankier digs. These credits will not cover the cost of construction projects that have lately run into the billion-dollar range, but they should help with the down payments.

“If this credit had not been included in the CBA, there would absolutely be no way to move ahead,” Fabiani said. “It was a necessary thing to happen, (a) victory for us.”

Remaining battles are many. The Chargers will attempt to convince league owners that California stadium projects deserve special consideration and additional funding. They will try to sell a vision of a stadium that can be considered a component of convention center expansion, of an entertainment complex attractive to private investors, and of a football team worthy of public dollars.

This is a tough sell in any town. If I’m Dean Spanos, I wait to see who can get a stadium off the drawing board. This article was written by Tim Sullivan and appeared in The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Posted by Necesitamos Mas Football on 10:49 a. m.. Filed under . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0