NFL owners vote 30-2 to find another city for use in twisting local pols’ arms for public money

posted at 4:41 pm on January 13, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

In other words, the Los Angeles Cash Cow has been fully milked. Twenty-two years after the LA Rams became the St. Louis Rams and the NFL left the second-largest media market in the country without a team, the St. Louis Rams have become the Once And Future LA Rams. The effort by owner Stan Kroenke to acquire his own land and build a stadium in Inglewood topped efforts by the Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers to move into a different area of Los Angeles:

The NFL made its long-awaited return to Los Angeles Tuesday after an absence of more than two decades. Owners of the teams voted to allow the Rams to move from St. Louis to Inglewood, Calif., and gave the Chargers the option to join them there by relocating from San Diego.

“I said this morning that we’ve been at this for over 20 years,” NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said at an owners’ meeting at a Houston hotel that originally was scheduled to last into Wednesday. “We felt that we needed to have the kind of stadium, the kind of project, that had vision, that had the facilities that would really bring a new kind of fan experience to the NFL and to Los Angeles.”

The Rams are expected to play their home games next season at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum while the Inglewood stadium, estimated to cost around $2 billion and scheduled to open in 2019, is under construction.

Kroenke will pay a hefty fee for the relocation, which will get spread around to the other owners:

The fee to move a team is $550 million. Kroenke has the option to either pay that all at once or with 10 annual installments of $64 million, but a source told ESPN’s Jim Trotter that Kroenke will pay it in a lump sum.

The city of St. Louis offered to build a stadium for the Rams that would have cost Kroenke less than half of that amount, let alone saved him the massive construction costs that will come with the Inglewood project. The league rejected it because it demanded $200 million from the NFL, which has a self-imposed limit of $100 million in league contributions to the playgrounds where they make their money. Missouri Governor Jay Nixon blasted the decision and hinted at the possibility of legal action:

Uh, Nixon’s aware that St. Louis benefited from the Rams abandoning Los Angeles in the first place, right? And that they did so by offering a new stadium? I have some sympathy for the fans in St. Louis, but the decision by politicians there to play along with the extortion over public financing for single-use stadiums leaves them no moral position on which to complain about being out-bid when what went around came around.

The Chargers and the Raiders got parting gifts from their fellow owners in the form of cash and options. Both teams secured guarantees of the maximum $100 million in financing from the league if they can make a deal in their current locations for new facilities. San Diego will get the first option to join the Rams in their Inglewood facility, but that would mean that the 84-year-old LA Colisseum would then have to host two teams — unless the Chargers made arrangements to use Pasadena’s Rose Bowl, the home of the UCLA Bruins.

Actually, the Colisseum may not be the only option, although USC certainly hopes it is — so they can fund their large-scale remodel of the site:

USC is the only current tenant at the iconic stadium, but the Coliseum long played host to three teams — USC, UCLA and the NFL’s Rams, who were later replaced by the Raiders. From 1946 to 1949, it was home to USC, UCLA, the Rams and the Los Angeles Dons of the All-America Football Conference, and in 1960 it was home to USC, UCLA, the Rams and the Chargers before the AFL expansion team left for San Diego.

The return of two professional teams to the stadium would be a financial windfall for USC, which needs to fund a proposed $270-million upgrade to the stadium it presented in a preliminary plan to the Coliseum Commission last October. …

A potential pitfall: Exposition Park’s other tenants could raise issues because major events can cause disruptions to their operations.

If the Coliseum can’t take both teams, there are four other known options for professional football in Southern California: the Rose Bowl, Dodger Stadium, Angel Stadium and the StubHub Center in Carson. And though none have embraced the NFL’s previous overtures, they may be willing to reconsider once they know which prospective tenant they would be getting.

The 92,000-seat Rose Bowl in Pasadena, which has staged five Super Bowls, offers the best fit. Three years ago, the Pasadena City Council, anticipating an NFL move, approved a proposal that would have allowed a relocating team to use the stadium for as many as five seasons.

I’d guess that Kroenke would prefer the Rose Bowl, but the politics of the situation — and the need to build a fan base closer to Inglewood — will likely lead to the Colisseum instead.

Congratulations to Angelenos, who have been without a local team ever since Georgia Frontiere packed the Rams up and took them to St. Louis. As a native Angeleno myself who watched the Rams leave, I admit I have some sympathy for their drive to get the Rams back. However, they’d better understand that this is a 20-year lease and not a permanent residence. When Kroenke or his family decide to cash out, be prepared to hear how this state of the art facility is suddenly too problematic to use, and that LA can’t support an NFL team. And that’s pretty much true of almost every NFL franchise, with the exception of the community-owned Green Bay Packers.

In the meantime, though, the NFL will now have to find another city to exploit as an alternative for owners looking to shake down their cities and states for public financing. St. Louis might win that status, but it may also go to San Diego or Oakland, depending on who exercises the option. Hope they get used to being Charlie Brown when the NFL’s Lucy gets their hopes up to join — or rejoin — the club.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ed, they can finance it just like they did in Minnesota–Electronic Pull Tabs!!!!

LOL!!!!

BigWyo on January 13, 2016 at 4:49 PM

It was a no-brainer of a business decision. I mean, whenever you can leave the financially-ruined, socially-broken dystopia of St. Louis for a wonderful, magical place like Inglewood, you have to take that leap.

DaveatGarfieldRidge on January 13, 2016 at 4:49 PM

the Cleveland Rams became the Los Angeles Rams became the St Louis Rams became the LA Rams again.

Oakland Raiders, LA Raiders, Oakland Raiders again

Chicago Cardinals, St Louis Cardinals, Arizona Cardinals

etc etc etc

NFL= not for long

next financial location

Senator Philip Bluster on January 13, 2016 at 4:51 PM

Money moves like water – and it always finds its way downstream.

Los Angeles will hold two team for some number of years – and then they move yet again.

So it has always been – so it will always be.

jake-the-goose on January 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM

Shanghai Seahawks!

DarkCurrent on January 13, 2016 at 4:53 PM

A football team should be able to move to any city in which they can afford to build their own stadium. The teams can finance through a bank, crowd source, strong arm donors, have bake sales, but zero public funds. The cities never get their money back and the team owners and players just get richer and richer.

DAT60A3 on January 13, 2016 at 4:53 PM

The fee to move a team is $550 million. Kroenke has the option to either pay that all at once or with 10 annual installments of $64 million, but a source told ESPN’s Jim Trotter that Kroenke will pay it in a lump sum.

So Walmart shoppers start paying Neiman-Marcus prices so Kroenke can pony up his $550 million St. Louis exit fee.

jon1979 on January 13, 2016 at 4:53 PM

San Diego will get the first option to join the Rams in their Inglewood facility, but that would mean that the 84-year-old LA Colisseum would then have to host two teams — unless the Chargers made arrangements to use Pasadena’s Rose Bowl, the home of the UCLA Bruins.

The Chargers could just stay in San Diego until 2019 when the new LA stadium is complete. They have a lease with the city to use Qualcomm until 2020. They also have the option every year now to terminate the lease in order to relocate.

Bravesbill on January 13, 2016 at 4:56 PM

The city of San Diego is broke. It already coughed up too much money to build a new downtown stadium for the Padres, which is struggling. The existing football stadium is old but could be upgraded inexpensively, and it’s in a great location for traffic and parking. I cannot understand why Alex Spanos wants to move the team and compete with the infinitely deep pockets of Stan Kroenke for the same fans in LA. The Rams have history there and fans will welcome them back. Who is going to support the Chargers in LA? What happens when the Chargers move there and nobody buys tickets to see them? Do they really think people are going to drive 2 hours from San Diego to see a team that dumped them?

rockmom on January 13, 2016 at 4:58 PM

A football team should be able to move to any city in which they can afford to build their own stadium. The teams can finance through a bank, crowd source, strong arm donors, have bake sales, but zero public funds. The cities never get their money back and the team owners and players just get richer and richer.

DAT60A3 on January 13, 2016 at 4:53 PM

close the thread.

they lie on January 13, 2016 at 5:00 PM

Let them move where they want, but there shouldn’t be any public money involved.

Fred 2 on January 13, 2016 at 5:01 PM

About 15 years ago, the Denver Broncos twisted the arms of Denver citizens for a new stadium! And all the crazed Bronco fans happily voted to pledge their fellow citizens income to fund it ’cause the team threaten to leave if they didn’t. It still pisses me off when I think about it. Nice of us middle class folks to fund stadiums for rich businessmen who wouldn’t otherwise give us the time of day.

LilyBart on January 13, 2016 at 5:02 PM

Let them move where they want, but there shouldn’t be any public money involved.

Fred 2 on January 13, 2016 at 5:01 PM

I really don’t care if there is public money. If the voters want to spend it, then so be it.

Tater Salad on January 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM

It was a no-brainer of a business decision. I mean, whenever you can leave the financially-ruined, socially-broken dystopia of St. Louis for a wonderful, magical place like Inglewood, you have to take that leap.

DaveatGarfieldRidge on January 13, 2016 at 4:49 PM

I’m not sure if your serious or not.

I’m from St. Louis and this move is a low blow. Kroenke is a Missouri native who has named after two hall of fame Missouri athletes. Despite his local ties he lied to St. Louis repeatedly, stabbed them in the back, and then spat on them on the way out the door. Truly a class A turd of a man.

St. Louis is one of the best sports towns in the nation and more than capable of having 3 teams. Critics point out some of the problems the city of St. Louis has, but ignore the neighboring counties that are wealthy and well populated (St. Louis county and St. Charles County). They point to slipping attendance but fail to mention that the Rams haven’t had a winning season since 2003. Have fun with your crappy team and your a-hole owner LA. The Rams are your problem now.

Let’s go St. Louis Raiders! Or even better an expansion team!

MikeRuss on January 13, 2016 at 5:05 PM

OT:

Matthew Bracken, author and Former Navy Seal, on the Iran situation.
“I rarely pull out my dusty old trident, but in this case, here goes. I was a Navy SEAL officer in the 1980s, and this kind of operation (transiting small boats in foreign waters) was our bread and butter. Today, these boats both not only had radar, but multiple GPS devices, including chart plotters that place your boat’s icon right on the chart. The claim by Iran that the USN boats “strayed into Iranian waters” is complete bull$‪#‎it‬.
For an open-water transit between nations, the course is studied and planned in advance by the leaders of the Riverine Squadron, with specific attention given to staying wide and clear of any hostile nation’s claimed territorial waters. The boats are given a complete mechanical check before departure, and they have sufficient fuel to accomplish their mission plus extra. If, for some unexplainable and rare circumstance one boat broke down, the other would tow it, that’s why two boats go on these trips and not one! It’s called “self-rescue” and it’s SOP.
This entire situation is in my area of expertise. I can state with complete confidence that both Iran and our own State Department are lying. The boats did not enter Iranian waters. They were overtaken in international waters by Iranian patrol boats that were so superior in both speed and firepower that it became a “hands up!” situation, with automatic cannons in the 40mm to 76mm range pointed at them point-blank. Surrender, hands up, or be blown out of the water. I assume that the Iranians had an English speaker on a loudspeaker to make the demand. This takedown was no accident or coincidence, it was a planned slap across America’s face.
Just watch. The released sailors will be ordered not to say a word about the incident, and the Iranians will have taken every GPS device, chart-plotter etc off the boats, so that we will not be able to prove where our boats were taken.
The “strayed into Iranian waters” story being put out by Iran and our groveling and appeasing State Dept. is utter and complete BS from one end to the other.”

fossten on January 13, 2016 at 5:06 PM

Let them move where they want, but there shouldn’t be any public money involved.

Fred 2 on January 13, 2016 at 5:01 PM

Correct Answer!

When I was in grad school, a group of Econ Grad students did a study of publicly-funded projects like sports stadiums, comparing actual economic gains in the subject cities to the economic benefits promised at the beginning of the project. Not only did the projects not produce the gains promised, but they were overall bad investments (meaning the cities would have fared bettered investing the same money in other generic projects and investments).

LilyBart on January 13, 2016 at 5:06 PM

I really don’t care if there is public money. If the voters want to spend it, then so be it.

Tater Salad on January 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM

Wrong. This isn’t really a public good. Its madness that 51% of the voters can vote to spend everyone’s money on these boondoggle. (see my 5:06 pm post)

This is why limited government is the best government. I don’t want to pay for your @R$@#$!@#$@#$ sports stadium. And I HATE HATE HATE pro football. Its just awful. (The actual game of football is not so bad, but pro football is awful)

LilyBart on January 13, 2016 at 5:10 PM

How is Inglewood (46% African American and 46% Latino) going to fund a stadium? Get Mexico to pay for it?

And which gang will win the war to claim the team?

kcewa on January 13, 2016 at 5:11 PM

, a group of Econ Grad students did a study

LilyBart on January 13, 2016 at 5:06 PM

Well then. That settles that.

kcewa on January 13, 2016 at 5:13 PM

StanK is a scumbag and the NFL cartel showed its true colors. They yanked us around with no intention of every dealing with St. Louis. StanK hadn’t even made a public appearance in 4 years. I was shocked to see how grey he was, it has been that long.

St. Louis is done with the NFL. The Mayor said that today. We move on, life moves on. We will not be the next leverage town. But, I think a precedent is set that towns will not be ponying up public dollars now that the owners can afford their own stadiums. Why make them richer?

Mo_mac on January 13, 2016 at 5:13 PM

Where are all those displaced hookers going to go?

And, what is this?

fossten on January 13, 2016 at 5:06 PM

Might try another thread…I don’t think the Rams or the NFL need a Navy Seal to help them out…

right2bright on January 13, 2016 at 5:13 PM

If you support football, and you support freedom, you should happily pay for your team’s stadium with your game ticket purchases. People who use the stadium (and that includes concerts and other special events at the stadium too) should pay for it and leave the rest of us alone.

I don’t think I should have to subsidize YOUR fun!

LilyBart on January 13, 2016 at 5:13 PM

A football [sports] team should be able to move to any city in which they can afford to build their own stadium [or arena]. The teams can finance through a bank, crowd source, strong arm donors, have bake sales, but zero public funds. The cities never get their money back and the team owners and players just get richer and richer.

DAT60A3 on January 13, 2016 at 4:53 PM

This; with two (minor!) corrections.

Even though Scott Walker’s “bailout” of the Milwaukee Bucks was technically the fault of Democrat Herb Kohl and the NBA (the former who sold the team, the latter which threatened to relocate the Bucks), it left a bad taste in my mouth. Obviously he wasn’t going to disappoint Milwaukee citizens (who supported public funding of a new arena), but it’s still wrong on the merits, even if sports teams do bring economic benefits to host cities/states (which has been disputed, anyway).

Aizen on January 13, 2016 at 5:14 PM

Well then. That settles that.

kcewa on January 13, 2016 at 5:13 PM

They looked at it more closely than you did. What’s YOUR credentials?

LilyBart on January 13, 2016 at 5:14 PM

As long as cities keep whoring themselves out to the sports conglomerates, they’ll keep bending them over. I don’t feel I owe loyalty to a team that doesn’t feel any loyalty to me. Luckily, I’ve been a NY Giants fan my whole life and I don’t see the Mara and Tisch families going anywhere anytime soon.

jnelchef on January 13, 2016 at 5:18 PM

StanK is a scumbag and the NFL cartel showed its true colors. They yanked us around with no intention of every dealing with St. Louis. StanK hadn’t even made a public appearance in 4 years. I was shocked to see how grey he was, it has been that long.

St. Louis is done with the NFL. The Mayor said that today. We move on, life moves on. We will not be the next leverage town. But, I think a precedent is set that towns will not be ponying up public dollars now that the owners can afford their own stadiums. Why make them richer?

Mo_mac on January 13, 2016 at 5:13 PM

They had no problem taking the Rams in, leaving Anaheim…so you are angry the hooker is sleeping with someone else for more money?

And in this case the “hooker” was Georgia, after Carroll died.

right2bright on January 13, 2016 at 5:18 PM

I hate that billionaires who employ millionaires are rewarded handsomely with tax-payer monies. But, that’s just the way big business is done today across many industries, not just sports.

Look at the giveaways that Tesla is getting from NV to build their plant their. Every state does it. Just across town from Inglewood, virtually every single Hollywood movie made receives some obscene tax credit from somewhere; Canada, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana and yes – California – all offer fully refundable tax credits (which means upfront money) of some type, with many being very, very lucrative.

Atlantian on January 13, 2016 at 5:19 PM

NFL ownership, like the rest of American society, is no longer the beacon it used to be.

Cities & metro areas were willing to pay premiums to have an NFL team because it was seen as a builder of community, not just a money making instrument for the owner.

Now many of the owners, with a few exceptions, want to just make money, often taking excessive public funds, with no respect for the teams’ respective fan bases.

22044 on January 13, 2016 at 5:19 PM

The Spanos family has raped San Diego for years.

Goodbye to rubbish and hope the door hits them in the ass as they leave.

GarandFan on January 13, 2016 at 5:21 PM

BTW, Metlife stadium was built by the Giants and the Jets with private funds, so it can be done.

jnelchef on January 13, 2016 at 5:22 PM

Anyone know which 2 teams voted no?

Let them move where they want, but there shouldn’t be any public money involved.

Fred 2 on January 13, 2016 at 5:01 PM

Correct Answer!

When I was in grad school, a group of Econ Grad students did a study of publicly-funded projects like sports stadiums, comparing actual economic gains in the subject cities to the economic benefits promised at the beginning of the project. Not only did the projects not produce the gains promised, but they were overall bad investments (meaning the cities would have fared bettered investing the same money in other generic projects and investments).

LilyBart on January 13, 2016 at 5:06 PM

Robert Kraft built the Patriots Place/Gillette Stadium complex with private funds, except for a relatively small amount of public money spent on access road improvement. And it’s been a gold mine ever since.

Del Dolemonte on January 13, 2016 at 5:24 PM

Fossten, do you have a link for that essay? I don’t think I’m looking in the right places for it.

Thank you!

herm2416 on January 13, 2016 at 5:26 PM

What’s YOUR credentials?

LilyBart on January 13, 2016 at 5:14 PM

Grad student is not a credential.

kcewa on January 13, 2016 at 5:28 PM

Ironically, Solid-Blue Boston is the only American city where the major sports venues are privately owned; Fenway Park of course by the Red Sox, Gillette Stadium by the Patriots, and the Boston Garden by the Bruins, who also lease it to the Celtics…

oddball on January 13, 2016 at 5:30 PM

From hands up don’t shoot by punk Rams players as they went on the field to hands up let’s scoot to LA by schmuck owner.

bbinfl on January 13, 2016 at 5:32 PM

There’s nothing wrong with the LA Coliseum that a gigundous earthquake couldn’t fix…

drfredc on January 13, 2016 at 5:36 PM

Fossten, do you have a link for that essay? I don’t think I’m looking in the right places for it.

Thank you!

herm2416 on January 13, 2016 at 5:26 PM

https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/bracken-on-iran/

fossten on January 13, 2016 at 5:37 PM

According to the Light of Asia, thirty and two are the sacred primal signs.

quraina on January 13, 2016 at 5:39 PM

Ironically, Solid-Blue Boston is the only American city where the major sports venues are privately owned; Fenway Park of course by the Red Sox, Gillette Stadium by the Patriots, and the Boston Garden by the Bruins, who also lease it to the Celtics…

oddball on January 13, 2016 at 5:30 PM

They may all be privately owned, but I know not all of them were financed exclusively with private money. At least 15% of the cost for Gillette stadium was covered by local and/or state government.

The only NFL stadium in operation today constructed purely with private money is Metlife Stadium. I’m not sure about the ongoing maintenance and operational costs for the stadium (like security and transportation). Some of those costs may be shouldered by taxpayers.

Atlantian on January 13, 2016 at 5:41 PM

If the Chargers moved 30 miles up the road to Temecula, they’d be moving from the 17th largest metropolitan area to the 13th largest. There are already a lot of Chargers fans in the IE and San Diego fans would be more likely to follow the team than if they moved to LA.

MichaelGabriel on January 13, 2016 at 5:42 PM

Thank you, fossten, I appreciate it!

herm2416 on January 13, 2016 at 5:45 PM

For unknown reason the Raiders are even more fun to hate when they have “Oakland” in front of their name.

Meremortal on January 13, 2016 at 6:00 PM

There’s nothing wrong with the LA Coliseum that a gigundous earthquake couldn’t fix…

drfredc on January 13, 2016 at 5:36 PM

For all of your southern cal sport fans…

What football team has the played most games in the Rose Bowl…

Hint: It’s a trick question…

Someone will know.

right2bright on January 13, 2016 at 6:00 PM

Ironically, Solid-Blue Boston is the only American city where the major sports venues are privately owned; Fenway Park of course by the Red Sox, Gillette Stadium by the Patriots, and the Boston Garden by the Bruins, who also lease it to the Celtics…

oddball on January 13, 2016 at 5:30 PM

They may all be privately owned, but I know not all of them were financed exclusively with private money. At least 15% of the cost for Gillette stadium was covered by local and/or state government.

The only NFL stadium in operation today constructed purely with private money is Metlife Stadium. I’m not sure about the ongoing maintenance and operational costs for the stadium (like security and transportation). Some of those costs may be shouldered by taxpayers.

Atlantian on January 13, 2016 at 5:41 PM

The new 49ers stadium is almost totally privately financed. 12% of the total cost was public.

Gillette Stadium’s public funding was 17%.

All of the other “recent” stadiums got at least 25% of their costs paid by taxpayers, with most getting much more…

Del Dolemonte on January 13, 2016 at 6:01 PM

For unknown reason the Raiders are even more fun to hate when they have “Oakland” in front of their name.

Meremortal on January 13, 2016 at 6:00 PM

Why is that…the Sand Diego Raiders? The Temecula Raiders? The Orange County Raiders? Just doesn’t work.

Maybe the East LA Raiders…

right2bright on January 13, 2016 at 6:02 PM

In the meantime, though, the NFL will now have to find another city to exploit as an alternative for owners looking to shake down their cities and states for public financing.

The biggest lies told by NFL owners:
1. “The city needs to share in the risk by helping to finance a new stadium.” Why? Will the city get revenue for its contribution?
2. “This new stadium will also be used for other events and will create jobs within the community.” Not true. Football stadiums are pretty much one-dimensional and will only create jobs for the construction of the stadium.

RMCS_USN on January 13, 2016 at 6:05 PM

The Temecula Raiders?

right2bright on January 13, 2016 at 6:02 PM

The Empire Raiders

MichaelGabriel on January 13, 2016 at 6:08 PM

Grad student is not a credential.

kcewa on January 13, 2016 at 5:28 PM

They were PhD students and this paper was the their thesis work.

Not sure what your education and work background is that you can just dismiss this out of hand.

LilyBart on January 13, 2016 at 6:13 PM

Grad student is not a credential.

kcewa on January 13, 2016 at 5:28 PM

They were PhD students and this paper was the their thesis work.

Not sure what your education and work background is that you can just dismiss this out of hand.

LilyBart on January 13, 2016 at 6:13 PM

LilyBart on January 13, 2016 at 6:16 PM

Please pay for your own football fun out of your own pockets and get your hands out of mine!

LilyBart on January 13, 2016 at 6:17 PM

The Empire Raiders

MichaelGabriel on January 13, 2016 at 6:08 PM

The Desert Raiders…

Imagine Victorville and Hemet…how proud they would be.

But the stadium, nestled around the sage brush and tumbleweeds…among the vines that produce some of the cheapest wines in America…

Jurupa Raiders

Guasti Raiders

Lake Elsinore Raiders

So many names…

right2bright on January 13, 2016 at 6:20 PM

Alternate headline:

“St. Louis facing massive budget shortfalls; seeks scapegoat for lost tax revenue; calls Rams move to LA racist”

BobMbx on January 13, 2016 at 6:35 PM

2. “This new stadium will also be used for other events and will create jobs within the community.” Not true. Football stadiums are pretty much one-dimensional and will only create jobs for the construction of the stadium.

RMCS_USN on January 13, 2016 at 6:05 PM

Not true. But what is true is those jobs only exist for 8 days a year, not counting a random post-season game.

BobMbx on January 13, 2016 at 6:37 PM

Ultimately, teams have the right to go where they choose. If you’re unhappy, make your town a better place to do business. What’s Nixon gonna do, arrest them?

As for the Chargers…glad that they’re staying put (for now.)

WestVirginiaRebel on January 13, 2016 at 6:38 PM

This is how I see the NFL and the owners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jpwqWPKAUc

docflash on January 13, 2016 at 6:50 PM

2. “This new stadium will also be used for other events and will create jobs within the community.” Not true. Football stadiums are pretty much one-dimensional and will only create jobs for the construction of the stadium.

RMCS_USN on January 13, 2016 at 6:05 PM

Not true. But what is true is those jobs only exist for 8 days a year, not counting a random post-season game.

BobMbx on January 13, 2016 at 6:37 PM

Gillette Stadium hosts plenty of non-football events. Just a couple of weeks ago, the NHL Winter Classic was played there, and besides the Bruins-Canadiens main event, there were also several other hockey games played that weekend, including the Bruins-Canadiens Alumni Game.

Gillette is also the home field for the New England Revolution (soccer) and their season begins March 12. Gillette will also host the Copa America (America Cup) soccer tournament in June.

And Gillette also hosts various concerts; so far the ones announced for 2016 are country acts.

Del Dolemonte on January 13, 2016 at 6:50 PM

Lol!! Illegals love football. Thats whats changed after 22 years, their filthy fan base. Using welfare money to buy game tickets. Great gig if you can get it. It does leave less laborers for R2Stupid to hire though……

Indiana Jim on January 13, 2016 at 7:28 PM

this is a 20-year lease and not a permanent residence.

pffftt. The NFL is not going to last more than another 20 years. It’s almost pure theater at this point. It’s metamorphosis into a propaganda organ of cultural marxism is almost complete. That’s not simply commentary on pink cleats or anti-gun halftime rants, either. It’s everything from rulebook worship to the microcosmic socialist economy to slave trading to soap opera to public fleecing to… well, whatever. The list goes on and on.

John Gillis on January 13, 2016 at 7:49 PM

GO CHIEFS!

Vince on January 13, 2016 at 8:00 PM

If they’d let Rush buy the team a few years back, he’d have kept it in Saint Louie. Oh well.

Buckshot Bill on January 13, 2016 at 8:03 PM

St. Louis is one of the best sports towns in the nation and more than capable of having 3 teams. Critics point out some of the problems the city of St. Louis has, but ignore the neighboring counties that are wealthy and well populated (St. Louis county and St. Charles County). They point to slipping attendance but fail to mention that the Rams haven’t had a winning season since 2003. Have fun with your crappy team and your a-hole owner LA. The Rams are your problem now.

Let’s go St. Louis Raiders! Or even better an expansion team!

MikeRuss on January 13, 2016 at 5:05 PM

St Louis has 6 well populated counties around it if you count Illinois across the river. Screw the Rams and Kronke, who made his money in real estate by the way not the wife’s money.

GO CHIEFS!

Vince on January 13, 2016 at 8:14 PM

Anyone know which 2 teams voted no?

Uh, the Raiders and the Chargers?

Vince on January 13, 2016 at 8:24 PM

Ferguson had nothing at all to do with this…or all the black male male 13-55 violence in St. Louis. Well I boycott the NFL and NBA so IDGAS.

jukin3 on January 13, 2016 at 8:43 PM

@right2bright above: UCLA.

The War Planner on January 13, 2016 at 9:40 PM

If I lived in LA, I would only go to see a game if I wanted to see the visiting team in person.

Seriously, how can there be any fan loyalty the way teams have moved in and out over the decades?

I know there’s always the alpha male sport fans who will buy season tickets, but unless they have sterling seasons, I can envision a heck of a lot of empty seats.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 14, 2016 at 1:26 AM

Man, this is a story that unfailingly pushes ALL my buttons!

What do we have here anyway? A hugely profitable entertainment enterprise, employing some of the most reprehensible and antisocial people in the country, cultivates itself in the minds of the public as some sort of patriotic institution commanding unwavering loyalty from its customers and in the name of that patriotic fervor demands that hundreds of millions of tax dollars be spent to provide it with the infrastructure it requires in order to do business. And our gutless and craven politicians bend over and grab the ankles for them, every time.
And what do we get for the money spent? A huge amphitheater where circuses and bread are distributed to morons with painted beerguts, surrounded by vast expanses of concrete pavement where drunken orgies requiring police intervention are transacted.

LOLJK! Go Seahawks!!!

jbspry on January 14, 2016 at 5:36 AM

@right2bright above: UCLA.

The War Planner on January 13, 2016 at 9:40 PM

Good guess…but not right.

Actually nobody would get it, even if you Google, the focus is on the Rose Bowl, or on some big name.

The actual answer is…Cal Tech…around 1980 they dropped out of collegiant football, they only had a winning team a few years from something like 1909 when Call Tech was called Throop College.

But their home turf was the Rose Bowl for decades…then they became a club team in around 1980, and janitors, staff, could play, not just students.

But for nearly 40 years, every season they played their games in the Rose Bowl, with sometimes as many as 100 spectators…imagine that sight, 100 spectators in one of the largest arena’s in the Country, that houses 100,000 plus.

Hard to field a team when you are limited to the top 1% of a high school graduating class, and have 21 Nobel laureates from you school.

right2bright on January 14, 2016 at 8:39 AM

If I lived in LA, I would only go to see a game if I wanted to see the visiting team in person.

Seriously, how can there be any fan loyalty the way teams have moved in and out over the decades?

I know there’s always the alpha male sport fans who will buy season tickets, but unless they have sterling seasons, I can envision a heck of a lot of empty seats.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 14, 2016 at 1:26 AM

They don’t need seats filled with the TV contracts…

right2bright on January 14, 2016 at 8:40 AM

Atlantans you are wrong…Kraft paid 100% of Gillette Stadium.

NHElle on January 14, 2016 at 11:57 AM

They don’t need seats filled with the TV contracts…

right2bright on January 14, 2016 at 8:40 AM

Well….not too sure about that. For one thing, home games with lots of empty seats is downright embarrassing to the owners (and the NFL at large). From what I’ve gathered over the years, attendance is indeed important.

If not, just let them play on a “closed set”…boy, wouldn’t that be weird?

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 14, 2016 at 5:44 PM