http://www.startribune.com/stories/510/3164791.html Despite the market and Qwest news, sounds like Phil still has some cash to toss around.
Well, it's possible. But it does cause some questions...like why is he unwilling to plunk down 1 percent of that for a soccer stadium in either NY, Chicago, or San Jose. I don't trust McCombs either. I think it's very possible he's talking to AEG, and lying about it to the press.
I think 1% of his cash would probably buy stadiums in all three of those places. From what I understand of him he always has a master plan. The stadium one is probably connected with concerts and all. As soon as he can compete with Clear Channel (I think that's the biggest venue owner) all MLS teams will get set up quick. Just my guess.
Do we know for a fact that (a) just because a guy is worth $6 billion or whatever, that he has cash lying about, first off, that he's actually liquid to any huge extent; and (b) that there isn't more to building a stadium in New York, Chicago, and San Jose than just writing a check and having it be done? Or that the fact that it hasn't happened yet indicates a clear disinterest in doing so?
You don't get $6 billion with being stupid or a bad buisness-man, and you also have to be a little greedy too. You have to really love money. That said, put yourself in that profile and ask yourself if you had the choice for either you or the tax payers to pay for it, it's obviously the tax payers. Exhaust all other possibilities befor eyour throw down your own cash, that's what sports teams owners always do and I don't blame them. Good buisness-men don't thrown down money left and right that they don't have to, people who win $100 million in the lottery do. So there's your new mission soccer fans, go win the lottery to help our sport surive.
Many of us (admittedly totally idiotic, absurd, ignorant, desperate, ridiculous and shameful) soccer fans have been doing just that. Fortunately I'm only in for about 100 so far...
I've seen a few posts regarding Anschutz wealth and Qwest. Things at Qwest don't look all that good, but people should remember that Anschutz was a billionaire before Qwest, and is today, largely due to his investment in the sticky black stuff we use to run our cars. As billionaires go Anschutz is relatively unique in his ability to create success out of nothing in different fields. Oil, trains, telecommunications, and hopefully soccer.
The question is, if he succeeded in buying the Vikings, would he move them to LA or leave them in Minnesota? And if he left them in Minny, would he find a way to parlay that into an MLS franchise there? (Not in the HomerDome, mind you...)
Moving the Vikings out of Minnesota would probably kill the chance of AEG having an MLS team in Minnesota. Talk about boycott of boycotts. Kraft, Hunt, someone else could. But, I have ZERO question that if he buys, eventually they will move to LA. I don't read a lot of gridiron stuff, but expect that the downtown LA stadium deal went south when he had control over no team, or control over a bid for expansion. If he owns a team that has a no-win venue, he'll move them to LA when the lease is up and make another killing. No matter what the Vikings are worth today, they are worth double that with Randy Moss and Dante Culpepper in Elay. Even if he has to pay a tax to the other owners just to move them, he probably will. That franchise WOULD stand a chance of being worth more than Man U. Why AEG would want a gridiron team in Minnesota is beyond me. But yes, if he wanted a gridiron team there, an MLS addition is pocket change.
This was a rumor, not far fetched in reality but very much a rumor. ESPN.com had some on it. Basically no doubt Anschutz would move them to LA. McCombs has threatened to sell the Vikings for sometime if Minn doesn't get him a new stadium so this is probably part of putting the pressure on. It seems to me like it would be a sweet deal to sell any sports team for $1 billion. - Kevin
a) doesn't mean that at all (but you already knew that) b) part 1 - yes part 2 - I don't think it indicates a clear disinterest. I think it's more a function of part 1 (that it's simply not that simple) more than they don't want to do it. They've got ample evidence in Columbus that a right-sized venue can draw the kinds of crowds that they want, and they have at least the beginnings of evidence in LA that a multi-faceted venue on a larger scale can, at the very least, attract lucrative sponsorships (of course, we'll have to wait a few years to see how the crowds go there). If they can work out all the political B.S., and The Home Depot Training Ground at Victoria Park for the LA Galaxy (or whatever it's going to be called) is the success they think it will be, the stadiums will come more quickly than one every 3 1/2 years (our current pace)
I am not convinced in the least that an NFL team would be more valuable in LA than in MN. What evidence is there? NFL's economic structure doesn't give large cities an advantage. Moreover, the Vikings would have an easier time selling out games than an LA team. The NFL collectively could use an LA team, but there is no reason to think that franchise would be individually worth any more than many other teams.
I'm sure if you wanted to buy an expansion team (they're not going to expand) for LA, it would cost (and therefore be "worth") more than a team for Minnesota (because there's potentially more stadium revenue---suite revenue isn't shared---to be had in LA than in Minneapolis). Based on Houston going for, what $700 million? An LA expansion team would be "worth" a billion, probably. I think if you're Red McCombs, you're from San Antonio anyway, you're getting up in years, someone offers you a billion, you tell the fine folks of Minnesota, "Sorry about your luck. Unless one of you guys has a billion to match, I'm outta here, and so are the purple helmets." Considering LA can't get its act together and there's no clear evidence that the people there really miss having their own team (they get to see all the good games on TV now and don't have to worry about blackouts), it's pretty obvious some of the glamour of an LA team is lost. They'd do well, at first, obviously. If they had a new stadium, they'd have potentially more club and suite revenue than a Minnesota team could, so in that respect they'd have an "advantage" and they'd probably have no trouble selling out, at least at first. But LA's a strange town in more ways than one.
Yeah, an NFL team would come in as LA's 8th most popular sports team and would have to do a lot to move up the ladder. (Top 7, in no particular order: Dodgers, Lakers, UCLA football, USC football, UCLA basketball, El Tri, Chivas)
If you add a super expensive stadium to the mix, which SOMEONE is going to have to pay for, then it'll get up there, but I still don't see how, ceteris paribus, there is much more value in LA given the overwhelming demand for NFL in many cities and given the financial structure of the league. In other words, if you put identical stadia in both cities, I think the revenues would be similar. Now, if I'm the other 29 owners, I'm going to want to see a team in LA. Not having a team in such a major TV market doesn't make any sense.
There's more corporate revenue to be had, and you could charge more for things in Los Angeles than you can in Minneapolis. There are fewer mega-companies in Minneapolis than in LA, and what goes for x in Minneapolis could be priced at 2x or 3x in LA. Costs go up as well, so on balance, it might not be hugely more lucrative. But, as you mentioned, with a team in Los Angeles, the NFL could, potentially, demand more from the networks, but they're locked into their TV deals (and I don't know how "locked" locked is) for a few more years yet. The question is moot, though, since LA can't get a group with its act together to put together a serious proposal and go land an existing team (since there will be no expansion anytime soon).
One minor correction. Last time I looked, LA was NOT the home of a single Fortune 500 company. At least 3M is based in Minneapolis, and there may be others. For all its economic strength, LA is much more the home of mid-sized and smaller companies, NOT the mega-companies you reference.
Just as an example: because AOL Time Warner is headquartered in Georgia or Virginia or New York or whereverthehell it is doesn't mean that there's not a lot of high-paid Warner Brothers studio execs floating around. For many of the largest corporations, declaring any one place to be "home" is anachronistic. There's a ton of mega-corporate money floating around LA, and they're only too glad to spend it on the many, many skyboxes a new LA stadium would have.
I'll give you the real order: 1) Lakers 2) Dodgers 3) UCLA Basketball 4) USC/UCLA football (depends who's doing better, but if SC became a power again, they'd move above the Dodgers) 5) Clippers 6) Angels 7) Kings 8) Mighty Ducks. I wouldn't mind having an NFL team here, but it's not killing me, I'm a bigger college football fan anyways. The only reason the city wants a team is Super Bowls. Also, the reason the new downtown stadium has fizzled is because AEG, Michael Ovitz, Eli Broad, and Ron Burkle don't want to deal with lawsuits from the Coliseum. And the Coliseum people can't get it through their heads that the NFL does not want to be at the Coliseum.
One thing that's been a given about MLS stadium building since day one: every proposal has either involved someone else building the whole thing, or someone else donating the land the stadium sits on. Columbus is on the State Fairgrounds, LA is on the CSU-Dominguez Hills campus, the proposed McKinney stadium for Dallas was to be built by the city, the Fire were looking to build a stadium at Arlington Racetrack, the Harrison proposal (as I understand it) involves the state either donating land or kicking in a large chunk of change towards the cost of the staduim or both, and DCU's reported plans with the District stadium authorities involve land currently used as an RFK Stadium parking lot. There's never been a serious stadium proposal which calls for the MLS owners to both buy land and build the stadium out-of-pocket. This leads me to believe that a) real-estate costs are a much bigger chunk of the economic equation than most people realize and b) soccer-specific stadiums are money sinks unless someone (some sort of government entity) helps with the costs. This, I believe, is why Anschutz et. al. haven't just whipped out the old checkbook and bought themselves a couple of stadiums.
If the detail is incorrect, I apologize. I don't think it renders the point terribly inaccurate, though. There's certainly a lot more "corporate money" out there to be had in LA than in Minnesota (though LA has more teams/entities trying to get it, as well). And if there was to be an NFL team in Los Angeles, in a new stadium, with tons of boxes and club seats (as you know it would have), it would generate tons of revenue. Just tons.
The favored baseball stadium proposal in Portland involves a piece of land owned by the Portland School District that would require a land trade. Joe Robbie / Pro Player in Miami is on essentially donated land ($1 paid). Furthermore, of course, you're obviously aware of the track record for public funding of stadia for the "big" sports. I can't think of one organization that sees a stadium as a cash cow. I DO think that, with work and good sense of the Anschutz empire, that they can get a good grip on the concert market with the size of stadia being proposed for MLS teams. How many music acts, alone, fill Giants Stadium these days? Heck, how many could fill Fenway? There is, at least, an opportunity with what MLS has... provided we can get the help we need.