Coliseum Panel Cool to Plan for Renewed NFL Bid

Wary of backing anything that resembles public financing for professional football, the Coliseum Commission on Monday declined to endorse a complex tax increment proposal presented by the private partners attempting to revive their bid to win a new National Football League franchise for a renovated Exposition Park stadium.

The refusal to endorse the plan came as the backers of a new football team for Los Angeles tried to rally local support in the wake of the NFL’s declaration last week that the effort is all but dead because of Los Angeles’ unwillingness to commit public money to the project.

The commissioners balked at endorsing the intricate proposal without further study, even though they have little time before the NFL’s Sept. 15 deadline for deciding whether to award the team to Los Angeles.

“I think it’s premature,” Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said after the meeting. The so-called “tax increment” proposals are “based on assumptions that need to be fleshed out.”

The tax increment plan presented to the commission was hammered out late last week by lawyers and financial experts working for the project’s main backers, billionaire financial services executive Eli Broad and developer Ed Roski Jr. Essentially, the plan foresees that the Coliseum project would produce $300 million in new tax revenues from a variety of sources. Broad and Roski propose that $150 million of that new income be used to underwrite bonds that would help finance the project.

The partners would secure guarantees satisfactory to the bonds’ underwriters so that, in the event their revenue projections are overly optimistic, taxpayers would not have to make good on the shortfall.

In return, according to sources familiar with the plan, Broad and Roski want the Coliseum Commission to give them the exclusive right to negotiate with the NFL with the tax increment plan in hand.

Commissioners, sources said, also were uncomfortable with the request for exclusivity, since the NFL already has declined to deal with a single prospective owner designated by the Coliseum panel.

In a statement attributed to Commission President Sheldon Sloan, the commission reiterated its support for the NFL’s award of its 32nd franchise to Los Angeles, but declined to specifically back the new proposal. The statement continued: “The commission recognizes that aspects of the Broad-Roski proposal have merit and deserve further discussion.”

‘Time to Look Forward’

At a press conference before the Coliseum Commission meeting, City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, the strongest governmental supporter of a team at the Coliseum, stressed that Los Angeles is still in the running for the NFL’s expansion franchise.

“Last week is beyond us--thank God--and it’s now time to look forward,” Ridley-Thomas said, calling for a 45-day “action plan” to present a new proposal before Sept. 15. “We’ve got to get down to business and return professional football--the nation’s No. 1 sport--back to Los Angeles--the nation’s No. 2 media market.”

Ridley-Thomas said he will introduce a motion at today’s council meeting reaffirming the council’s previously stated commitment to bringing football to the Coliseum. He also said he has spoken to a number of elected leaders, including Mayor Richard Riordan and Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, in an effort to shore up political support.

Both Ridley-Thomas and Roski, who joined him at the press conference, said they did not support the use of public money for the new franchise. But both suggested that public entities may still become involved in the financing under a plan formulated last week by Roski and Broad.

That plan, sent to NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue as negotiations between the NFL and the state were deteriorating, calls for “public responsibility for all work outside the Coliseum,” as well as “for all additional costs required to preserve and maintain the historic Coliseum.” The NFL received that proposal before declaring negotiations dead but Ridley-Thomas and Roski said they have not heard a specific response yet.

Roski said the Coliseum Commission may be asked to foot the bill for the “outside” work, which would include demolition of the old Sports Arena to create more parking. He said the government would have an interest in maintaining the Coliseum for other events, such as the 2012 Olympics.

“This is a public asset and it always will be,” Roski said. “This is a public venue. The city of Los Angeles, the state of California, the county of Los Angeles all have a stake in this park.”

The dogged determination of some civic leaders to keep the Coliseum bid alive--however faintly--was clearly demonstrated Monday, when various participants in the discussion began to hear reports that onetime entertainment executive Michael Ovitz quietly had approached the NFL with a proposal that he be awarded the franchise to play in a new stadium at a site other than Exposition Park or Carson, where Ovitz initially wanted to build such a facility.

No Other Venues

As talk of the alleged alternative spread, Ridley-Thomas phoned Ovitz associate Peter Levin and his business partner, supermarket executive Ron Burkle, to ask whether the reports were accurate.

Both men, Ridley-Thomas said late Monday, flatly denied that such an approach had been made to the NFL. “Ron Burkle, who spoke to me by phone from China, categorically said the Coliseum is the only place for this to happen in L.A., if it can be made to happen at all,” Ridley-Thomas said.