Could fall of Frank McCourt mean NFL's return to L.A.?
It’s a 2-for-1 special! The best of two sporting worlds!
Here’s a fascinating angle written by Yahoo Sports’ Jason Cole:
The demise of Frank McCourt’s ownership might not only provide a welcome new owner to the Dodgers, but hasten the return of the NFL to Los Angeles.
Cole writes that the NFL has always loved the idea of building a football stadium in Chavez Ravine in the Dodger Stadium parking lot. This was first pursued by Peter O’Malley, who was talked down by then-Mayor Richard Riordan, who wanted the NFL back in the Coliseum.
(Now that I think about it, this whole Dodgers mess is Riordan’s fault. If he had gotten behind a Dodger Stadium site for the NFL instead of the ill-fated Coliseum bid, O’Malley could have generated the funds to keep the Dodgers and probably would still own them today.)
McCourt was also interested in building an NFL stadium in his parking lot, but Yahoo Sports' Cole said the NFL took one look at his finances and passed.
Writes Cole:
"You must have been listening in on my conversations last week," said a source involved in the pursuit to bring the NFL back to L.A.
That source wasn’t alone.
"Let’s just say you’re not the only one speculating on it and, no offense, some of the other people speculating actually have the money to get it done," said a source familiar with the L.A. stadium landscape.
There are 81 home games a year for baseball, which could be more attractive for AEG’s whole L.A. Live development. That’s a lot more visitors during the course of the year than 10 football games.
There are problems and obstacles galore -- like financing two stadiums -- and, sure, traffic might not be pleasant around gametime, but as Cole notes, it’s not like there isn’t traffic getting to Dodger Stadium now.
The other way to go, of course, is to simply keep Dodger Stadium where it is and build an NFL stadium next to it, as O’Malley originally envisioned.
That would require someone with some serious cash to purchase the Dodgers, but it wouldn’t hurt their value, either. Which just might have occurred to Commissioner Bud Selig, too.
-- Steve Dilbeck
Photo: Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt listens at a news conference about increased security at Dodger Stadium on April 14, 2011. Credit: Lucy Nicholson / Reuters
This idea is a no-brainer! Look at PetCo Park in San Diego and other Downtown baseball stadiums and how successful they have been. A new Dodger Stadium next to Staples Center would attract more people to L.A. Live than a football stadium. Chavez Ravine is a perfect site for an NFL stadium with ample space for tailgating and hosting Super Bowls. Better for the residents up there also with fewer games.
Posted by: Rob | 05/05/2011 at 12:37 PM
The City of Industry "Grand Crossing" is still the best site for the future LA NFL football stadium because it's so easy to access for just about everyone in Southern California. I mean, it's right in the middle of the population center. Dodger stadium on the other hand would be a long brutal drive for people from Orange County and the Inland Empire. If the NFL and team owner is interested in attendance then they would build it in the City of Industry. A long time ago it used to make sense to build everything on the West side, but much has changed since then, and many millions of people live on the newer East side of town.
Posted by: Zizibug | 05/05/2011 at 12:49 PM
The NFL-LA rumor machine has gotten 50 stadiums already built 5 years ago, and they're all worth the same: Nothing. Peter O'Malley wouldn't have kept the Dodgers if he'd have gotten an NFL stadium to share the parking lot, he divested of the Dodgers because he couldn't pass on his wealth to his kids without breaking up the team to pay the inheritance taxes. Having an NFL team to boot would have caused him to sell it all that much sooner.
Besides, there is one site already past its red tape hurdles and is "shovel-ready", the 75,000 seat Grand Crossing site in Industry, which would rename itself NFL City, Calif, if the NFL put a team in it (hello LA Jaguars, who play to small crowds in Jacksonville Fla), and would boast an even larger tailgating site than the Dodgers or the tiny domed & astroturfed stadium AEG wants to squeeze in downtown.
The Dodger/NFL stadium would have to get in line behind the AEG thing in its red tape hurdles, and way behind Grand Crossing. It's not in the cards, Steve, certainly not this decade!
Posted by: Native Angeleno | 05/05/2011 at 01:05 PM
$hades of Charlie Finley & 'The Picture of Dorian Gray'...
As McFrank continues this massive PR blitz (farewell indigence tour) his, he is daily looking more and more weathered...I'm certain he'll end up as Kevin McCarthy in the old 'Twilight Zone' episode 'Long Live Walter Jameson' -
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk37/Bogman_photo/TV%20Sci-Fi%20Stills%20dos/TZLongLiveWalter3.jpg
________________
Speaking of having a pro football team back in LA, a cautionary tale courtesy Science Officer Mr. Spock, who warned long ago "you may find that 'wanting' is more than 'having' -
http://www.sportsgrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Al-Davis-200x150.jpg
Remember? Yeah, you 'member.
Posted by: 16blows | 05/05/2011 at 03:11 PM
While I love Dodger Stadium, a new baseball stadium by Staples would be great because it would be accessible from all the current rail lines already built. I would never have to drive to the stadium.
Posted by: Lou | 05/05/2011 at 03:18 PM
Very creative, requiring Vision + Money.
And please, don't forget the money; really serious, highly liquid, multi-billionaire money.
Until then, Boycott!
Posted by: Striker | 05/05/2011 at 03:25 PM
Who could possibly want the Dodgers to play anywhere else but Chavez Ravine?
That is the most magical ballpark in all of Major League Baseball. You can't capture that in a new stadium....and it being next to Staples means nothing.
Build something new for a football team, but for Heaven's sake....LEAVE DODGER STADIUM ALONE!
Posted by: Jay_Is_Dismayed | 05/05/2011 at 03:44 PM
Really?!?!? A new ballpark for the Dodgers? This is cr@p! Dodger Stadium is, as Vinny says, "the jewel of LA." I know this town doesn't like it's buildings and structures to be more than 20 years old, but we've lost so many great older structures....
Think about this: part of the LA Dodger experience is how it transports us to a place within, and yet high above, this rare open space with amazing city views... Physically, mentally, moves us from our daily grind and society's ills... to a unique etherial escape of a game, a team, a bridge, linking here now to generations (both previous and future) of Los Angelinos.
You wanna lose that with a downtown ball yard?
Posted by: One sacred cow please | 05/05/2011 at 03:44 PM
It sure would be nice that when people talked about the Dodgers it would have nothing to do with the front office. Lets not forget about Ethier. http://figurethingsout.com/blog/2011/05/05/ethier-keeps-some-pressure-off-the-dodgers/
Posted by: Brian Sousa | 05/05/2011 at 03:57 PM
Good article but old news. This has been the obvious move for years especiall with the addtion of staples and better transportation serving downtown.
Posted by: B. Positive | 05/05/2011 at 04:07 PM
Build the football stadium on the Chavez Ravine property, then use the downtown site to bring the Angels back to Los Angeles in 2017 (after their Anaheim lease expires). Best of all worlds.
Posted by: Vincent | 05/05/2011 at 04:09 PM
I love dodger stadium, but baseball belongs somewhere that is easily accessable. Dodger Stadium is a tough place to get to, but perfect for 8-10 football games a year and a tailgate. Makes a ton of sense to me...
Posted by: derek | 05/05/2011 at 04:18 PM
Anything that involves MORE at Chavez Ravine is a short-sighted and poorly conceived plan. Is anyone out there thrilled at the prospect of created even more traffic issues than already exists? Does anyone out there spend any time attending events at other new venues in other cities and see the intelligence that was applied to the planning for public transportation to serve these events? Come on, people. L.A. cannot possibly operate as the world-class city we believe it to be until we demand that every developer only submit plans that address the fact that more, not fewer, people will populate our metropolis.
Posted by: Elliot | 05/05/2011 at 05:27 PM
So let me get this straight-you would tear down Dodger Stadium for a soulless fake-retro park downtown like what the Padres and Giants have? You Californians are seriously messed up. You should protect your historic architecture by having it overseen by people from other states.
Posted by: J | 05/05/2011 at 05:41 PM
Add me to the list of those above who are dumbfounded that you consider bulldozing Dodger Stadium to be replaced by a football stadium and some shiny new park downtown as an "intriguing" idea.
If "intriguing" = "awful, awful, awful" then perhaps we agree.
But I'm afraid in your world, it does not.
I've stuck with the Dodgers since birth it seems. Through bad trades, horrible signings, ridiculous owners, and so much more, I've always been able to proudly stand as a Dodger fan. Even during this recent crisis, I've been able to shake my head while still cheering hard.
But if the day comes that a wrecking ball gets put to Blue Heaven On Earth, I just might be done.
Posted by: Chris | 05/05/2011 at 07:15 PM
I have been a fan of this team since 1977. My family and I have gone to many game and the Dodgers have been part of our lives. I am so sad to say, I will never ever go to another game at Dodger Stadium until Frank is gone!
His media crunch has done nothing but hurt him even more, he is full of lies and the majority of reporters have not let him ramble on too long with his lies!
If Bud allows him to keep this team it will kill this franchise!
Posted by: campc4 | 05/05/2011 at 08:40 PM
Absolute garbage. Try moving the Cubs out of Wrigley Field. It would be one thing if Dodger Stadium was an awful place for baseball. But it isn't.
People drive in LA. Building an NFL stadium downtown doesn't matter in LA, since most NFL games happen on Sundays, when downtown is an absolute ghost town. Build it in City of Industry.
Posted by: Gefitz | 05/05/2011 at 09:05 PM
If LA Dodgers will back to Citi Field in Queens, NY reason Mets owners Fred and Jeff Wilpon have no money affordable new Citi Field is newly constructed ballpark three years ago. if you can shock and hear if Mets owner Wilpon family will big loser lawsuits for Madoff Ponzi Scheme victims. if Mets official will have no money payment loans to Citi Field till require by 2049. If LA new team NFL will might replace to currently Dodger Stadium. if LA will be no room for new brand stadium. I hope Dodgers will become NY Dodgers. Bye Mets will move out to New Orleans or LA. near future. it will used stadium like no frill.
Posted by: Matt | 05/05/2011 at 11:32 PM
Dodger Stadium reminds me of the sad little Christmas tree of Charlie Brown. IT appears to have fallen on hard times, but it just needs a little TLC from a new owner who respects the Dodgers tradition and isn't thinking about turning the parking lot into condos or some tacky theme park.
Posted by: Barney | 05/06/2011 at 10:05 AM
@Zizibug- You can take a train to downtown LA. Gasp.
Posted by: Thomas | 05/06/2011 at 11:08 PM
The city would have to condemn any buildings surrounded by the 5 freeway, Elisian Park, the 110 freeway and the 101 freeway. Improvements on the 110 tunnels, all medians on all freeways is a must.
The entire area surrounding Dodger Stadium is complete trash and in need of a major overhaul before any stadium project is undertaken......
LA has turned into a toxic dump site...
Posted by: waldobinney | 05/07/2011 at 07:43 AM