NOTHING DOING

It’s opening day in the National Football League, ladies and gentleman, and for an update on the Los Angeles situation, read last year’s story.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED!

You will continue to rely on your remote control while 65,000 people in St. Louis today rush the turnstiles eager to watch the Rams play in a rocking downtown facility.

Remember when some people made a big deal about imploding that old hotel on Hollywood Park property as a prelude to luring an NFL team and building a new stadium? It’s now an empty lot.

The Seattle Seahawks aren’t going anywhere, the Colts appear close to striking a bargain with Indianapolis politicians, the San Francisco 49ers will have a new stadium, the Buccaneers have been locked up in Tampa--thank God--and who wants the Arizona Cardinals?

“Not a lot has happened in the last year,” said R.D. Hubbard, chairman and chief operating officer for Hollywood Park. “And I really think that if somebody doesn’t step forward and really take a leadership role here, it will be several more years before we see a football team in L.A.”

Remember the front-page story about a $300-million South Park stadium downtown, a TransAmerica land-development driven project, that would require almost no public funds?

“We have a plan almost modeled after the Green Bay Packers’ concept [where fans are shareholders],” said Sheldon Ausman, point man for South Park, east of the Convention Center. “But we never had a chance to present our plan because we have been asked to let the new Coliseum have its chance.”

Remember when Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan asked Dodger owner Peter O’Malley to look into building a football stadium in Chavez Ravine only to renege later in a political deal to win support for a new downtown sports arena from city councilmen favoring the Coliseum?

O’Malley is about to sell his baseball team to Fox media giant Rupert Murdoch, the arena deal remains mired in political gamesmanship, and Riordan is supporting the new Coliseum project, which has won no support from the NFL.

“It has been almost a year now since we were asked, and others were asked, to step aside, and I think the community deserves a status report--if not now, sometime in the near future--on the efforts to build a world-class football stadium on the Coliseum site,” O’Malley said. “The longer it takes to put the shovel in the ground for a great stadium, the bigger the challenge to reintroduce the NFL in Los Angeles.”

NOTHING HAS CHANGED!

The new Coliseum project, given almost a full year to exclusively deal with the NFL, has yet to deliver a workable finance plan, has yet to change established perceptions that will be needed to gain 23 owners voting to return to the Coliseum, and has yet to demonstrate why it should be the only site being scrutinized by the NFL.

Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, a passionate advocate of the new Coliseum, which rests in his district, went before the NFL owners in October, then again in March, once more in May and will offer yet another presentation in Washington in October.

And already Ridley-Thomas is predicting, “It is a very important date for the new Coliseum, but it is not an ultimate date.”

You cannot count now on having a football team in the Los Angeles area in 1997, 1998 and 1999--five years at least since the departure of the Rams and Raiders.

And how many thought: “We will have a team here in no time; the NFL cannot go on without Los Angeles.”

NFL officials visited Los Angeles last week--by coincidence on the same day that Councilman Joel Wachs unveiled his proposed initiative to curtail public funding of any new sports facility without first gaining referendum approval.

“If Joel goes through with this,” attorney Alan Rothenberg said, “I won’t see the NFL here in my lifetime.”

The NFL, already uneasy about the precedent set in building Carolina’s new stadium with private funds, has been demanding a combination of public and private funds in all future projects. Many established NFL owners are in the process of trying to gain public money for new stadiums, and they have leveraged efforts by threatening to move. Examples of new stadiums being built with only private funds elsewhere would undoubtedly damage campaigns for public money.

The NFL, forced by the mayor of Cleveland to deliver a football team in time for the 1999 football season, will announce sometime next year whether it will be providing an existing team or an expansion franchise.

Cleveland wants expansion, and so do Los Angeles officials. The general feeling is if the NFL expands to Cleveland, it will then announce that Los Angeles has a two- to three-year window to meet a list of demands, including a new stadium. And if successful, Los Angeles will then receive an expansion franchise.

There is mounting speculation, however, that the NFL will not pinpoint Los Angeles for a second expansion team after dealing with Cleveland, but instead throw the expansion process open for Houston, Toronto and anyone else interested. It makes more sense than looking only at Los Angeles, because once again it develops other markets and allows current NFL ownership to use them as blackmail in trying to win more favor at home.

If Cleveland is given an existing team, the prospects for expansion could stretch beyond 2000, 2001 and 2002--eight years after the departure of the Rams and the Raiders.

According to figures provided by the new Coliseum interests, the number of households in the Los Angeles market watching the NFL each Sunday has declined 25.4% since 1994 when the Rams and Raiders were still here.

“I’ve lived in Southern California almost my whole life,” TNT broadcaster Pat Haden said. “My father used to take me to Ram games, and I took my kids. With no pro football here, kids don’t have a team to root for, and the NFL is losing a large segment of fans. I would think that is the biggest concern.

“But the talk around Los Angeles seems to be losing pro football is no tremendous loss. A lot of people seem to be happy we now get more games on television.”

L.A. officials are hopeful that declining TV ratings will ignite talk in the upcoming negotiations between the NFL and TV networks that ultimately will lead to more pressure in bringing the NFL back here.

“Long range is the issue,” said Ed Goren, executive producer of Fox Sports. “Ratings for pro football are holding up, but down the road not having a team in the nation’s No. 2 market, which is on its way to No. 1, will have an effect.”

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue repeatedly has said the NFL is interested in Los Angeles, but he says it with such disinterest. There is no plan now--not even the suggestion of a plan--for the return of football to Los Angeles.

The league understands it must give the new Coliseum every chance to sell its project, although privately it still dismisses the Coliseum as a site it will ever seriously consider. There are rumblings that Hollywood Park might become more aggressive, and South Park will use a Sept. 18 hearing by State Sen. Richard Polanco, who represents the South Park district, to circumvent the agreement not to compete with the new Coliseum by presenting its project for discussion.

“We met with Ridley-Thomas and all he’s done is knock our project,” Ausman said. “But no one else has seen what we’re doing, and Senator Polanco is now giving the sites that were asked to step aside a chance to present their projects.”

Hollywood Park remains in position to facilitate the construction of a new stadium faster than any other site, and Hubbard is toying with the idea of becoming more involved if the new Coliseum runs its course.

“If something doesn’t happen by this fall, then we’re going to relook at all of our options and what we might be able to do to help bring a team back to L.A.,” Hubbard said. “We’re in Year 3 without football, and seem no closer and maybe further away than three years ago.”

O’Malley already has turned his stadium feasibility study over to Fox, and the NFL met with Fox’s representatives in Los Angeles last week. The NFL still considers the Dodger Stadium site the most attractive, and has talked to Fox about the potential of a dual-purpose stadium for baseball and football.

Ridley-Thomas, however, won’t surrender the stage easily. A new logo has been designed for the Coliseum push, supporters will be highly visible at the USC opener, and 150,000 postcards have been ordered for distribution to fans soliciting their support. NFL alumni players in the area have been recruited to talk up the new Coliseum, and letters have been sent to all NFL owners inviting them to attend USC football games.

“I don’t think Hollywood Park would be a superior option,” Ridley-Thomas said. “They still have a financing obstacle and the city of Inglewood is already strapped, and plainly stated, it would be much tougher to get it done there than in L.A.

“South Park is less viable than Hollywood Park. And Dodger Stadium has substantial zoning problems to overcome and would require public [financial] participation.”

Let the bickering between sites begin. The NFL does not like its exclusive arrangement with the new Coliseum and is eager to open the bidding. The more competition, the better opportunity the league has to win financial concessions later in the process.

EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED--and in the last 24 hours.

Ridley-Thomas is upset now after hearing about the potential emergence once again of other sites, and is very upset by the impact of Wachs’ proposed initiative and its impact on the return of football.

“We must kill that initiative before it takes off,” Ridley-Thomas said. “It is a substantial setback for Los Angeles and we cannot tolerate it. It not only is anti-sports, but anti-development and anti-revitalization.”

Ridley-Thomas rescued the Coliseum from the political scrap heap, and he is now making the case that it is the only logical site for the return of the NFL because of its political support, the costly infrastructure improvements that already have been made and the importance it holds to the city of Los Angeles.

He has caught the fancy of many business leaders, won the support and a $500-million pledge from King owners Ed Roski and Philip Anschutz to build a new Coliseum and operate an expansion team, and on Thursday will announce a publicity campaign designed to win fan support.

“We should be prepared for that October meeting to make our presentation for the new Coliseum,” Roski said. “Our focus has been definitely on the arena and it’s taken its toll on everybody, but we remain committed to football.

“I really think it’s time for the fans of L.A. to stand up and make their presence known. They can send letters to the NFL, make their opinions known to the media and get behind our effort to bring the NFL back here. It’s going to happen, there is definitely going to be an NFL team in L.A. and it’s going to be soon.”

The NFL has not been definitive, however, in its future plans, and Ridley-Thomas said Los Angeles deserves better.

“The National Football League needs to be more assertive, it needs to step up and demonstrate in more tangible ways that it is willing to be a partner with us,” Ridley-Thomas said. “The NFL has to get off the fence--we need a decision and it’s a matter of urgency. The NFL is losing ground in this market, and we have a viable solution and they need to hone in on it, and let’s make a deal.

“We will go to the meeting in October with the NFL owners, and say, ‘You have a partner that can deliver. We have put that initiative to rest, and had we not, you--the NFL--could not have even looked to L.A. anymore. So now you need to do business with us.’ That is going to be our message from this day forward.

“All this other talk about sites in Los Angeles is just that. If the fans want the NFL back here by the year 2000 they have to realize the only chance is at the new Coliseum.”

Staff writer Larry Stewart contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

LOOKING BACK

Chronology of events as Los Angeles tries to bring the NFL back:

* January ‘96: Informal Times survey shows direct annual impact of an NFL team in L.A. to be about $62 million a year.

* October ‘96: L.A. contingent makes presentation for “new” Coliseum. Owners clearly unimpressed.

* January ‘97: Commissioner Tagliabue indicates L.A. is being considered for expansion. Coliseum Commission takes that as positive sign.

* March ‘97: L.A. contingent makes another presentation to owners, but again, response is less than enthusiastic. Even though Peter O’Malley has withdrawn from the process, the owners seemed more interested in him.

* May ‘97: King owners, trying to build a downtown sports arena, come to owners’ meetings to discuss plans to renovate Coliseum and seek a pro football team. Owners still not impressed.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

NFL TV RATINGS

*--*

Overall ’94 ’95 ‘96* Fox 12.1 12.5 11.3 NBC 12.5 11.0 10.9 L.A. ’94 ’95 ’96 Fox 13.4 10.6 11.3 NBC 14.2 10.1 10.9 New York ’94 ’95 ’96 Fox 14.7 13.6 15.0 NBC 15.4 10.9 12.0

*--*

*--Figures represent average ratings for the season in the nation’s 35 largest markets.

NOTES

* The overall average and the L.A. averages in 1996, coincidentally, were the same, meaning L.A. ranks in the middle of the pack among the nation’s 35 largest markets.

* L.A., on Fox, was tied for 17th in 1994, was tied for 23rd in ’95 and 20th in ’96.

* L.A., on NBC, ranked 15th in ‘94, 27th in ‘95, and tied for 24th in ’96.

* In 1996, Fox got the highest average ratings in Dallas (28.3) and Milwaukee (28.0). NBC got the highest averages in Denver (27.4) and Pittsburgh (25.2).

* Fox’s lowest average was a 7.5 for Seattle. NBC’s lowest average was a 7.5 for Atlanta.