http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-rams-raiders-chargers-la-20140720-story.html#page=1
NFL and L.A. doing their same old dance, but is this tune different?
Los Angeles
It's been nearly 20 years since an NFL team has played in Los Angeles. Will the city have to wait another two decades for an NFL franchise? (Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times)
By SAM FARMER contact the reporter NFLSportsOakland RaidersSan Diego ChargersSt. Louis RamsStan KroenkeOakland Athletics
2014 marks 20th anniversary of NFL's last season in L.A., which hasn't had a team since Rams, Raiders left
There've been dozens of plans and false starts in last two decades, but L.A.remains without an NFL team
It is a bizarre anniversary, one that would have been crazy to predict.
Los Angeles has gone nearly two decades without an NFL franchise. The Rams and Raiders began their final season in Southern California 20 years ago. Since, the nation's No. 2 market has watched its No. 1 sport from afar.
In a nod to Roman numerals, we're fast approaching LAXX.
Dozens of ambitious plans — from billionaires to business leaders to blowhards — have been tossed on the scrap pile. In the meantime, the NFL has flourished without Los Angeles, and L.A. fans have grown comfortably accustomed to watching the NFL from their homes. Even with stadium proposals that gained momentum, there has been no cohesive, community-wide push for any particular concept. And there likely never will be. There's one general consensus that even the league has learned to live with: No public money for a stadium.
Related story: L.A., Chicago finalists to host 2015 NFL draft; New York is out
Related story: L.A., Chicago finalists to host 2015 NFL draft; New York is out
Sam Farmer
That said, this season is different. The St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders — all of whom previously played in L.A. — are eyeing the market. That's not new. What's different, though, is for the first time since this saga began, each team has what amounts to a year-to-year lease in its current venue.
It used to be that only the Chargers had an option to leave after each season, a considerable advantage over other NFL clubs weighing relocation. But now the Rams and Raiders have caught up, and all three teams are searching for stadium solutions.
With long-term TV and labor deals in place, and a proven willingness to experiment with a new way of doing things — witness changes to the Pro Bowl, draft and scouting combine — there are indications the NFL is ready to make another run at L.A.
lRelated NFL wants back in L.A, but questions must be answered first
NFL
NFL wants back in L.A, but questions must be answered first
SEE ALL RELATED
8
"We're excited about that," NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said this week. "We're investing billions of dollars in new stadiums. We'd like to do that here. We think there's a great opportunity here. We think opportunities are starting to develop, maybe in part because we have that long-term planning in front of us."
In one sense, the league has already taken a step toward Southern California. L.A. and Chicago are the two finalists to play host to the 2015 NFL Draft. That event has been held in New York since 1965, but the league couldn't work out a deal with Radio City Music Hall to keep it there.
All this L.A. talk will set eyes rolling, of course, because of the rich history of all talk and no action. The threat of L.A. unquestionably has been used as leverage over the years to get deals done in other cities. Without that hammer, for instance, would there be new venues in Seattle or Indianapolis? Would Minnesota have a new stadium in the works? Absolutely not.
The fact that the iron is glowing hot doesn't guarantee a return to L.A. any time soon.
Related story: KISS puts on a great show, if you don't count the football
Related story: KISS puts on a great show, if you don't count the football
Everett Cook
But league executives and owners insist the city is once again a bright blip on the radar screen.
"I think ownership is collectively very concerned that we don't have at least one team in downtown L.A.," New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft said. "We'd like to do everything [we] can to help facilitate that happening."
There is another difference about this year, too. Last December, Rams owner Stan Kroenke quietly bought the 60-acre Inglewood parcel that sits between the Forum and Hollywood Park, land that's sufficient to accommodate a stadium but not all the parking that the league would want.
Kroenke has looked into buying the whole Hollywood Park property, which would give him all the land he'd need for a stadium, parking and ancillary development. And seeing as the Rams and St. Louis are about $600 million apart on how much the city, county and state should chip in for a new stadium, Kroenke's interest in L.A. should not be underestimated.
cComments
@nacinla actually it's incumbent on the illegal immigrant advocates to prove they add more to the economy than they drain. Plain as day, they don't add more to our economy, especially with much of their remunerations in cash and using fake SSNs, it makes so much turmoil.
SOCALTRANSIENT
AT 10:28 AM JULY 23, 2014
ADD A COMMENTSEE ALL COMMENTS
105
Buying that land was a shrewd move by Kroenke because he can keep it and potentially move forward with a stadium project, develop it in some other lucrative way, sell it (the owners of the Forum wanted it in the first place), and all the while hold smelling salts under the noses of negotiators in St. Louis.
As for the L.A.-area sites that are currently in play — and keep in mind these fall in and out of favor with the league and team owners — most of the inside chatter these days involves Hollywood Park, downtown, Carson and Dodger Stadium. At this point, there is little talk about City of Industry.
The most viable of these is Hollywood Park, mainly because Kroenke owns those adjacent 60 acres and might not be able to find a solution in St. Louis.
AND BTW "gimme a break?" HROD.
