NFL Favors Coliseum

By T.J. SIMERS

Feb. 17, 1999 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

ATLANTA —

After a meeting of its expansion committee here Tuesday, the NFL appears to be moving toward a March announcement that football will be returning to Los Angeles in 2002, in a rebuilt Coliseum to be constructed in part with league money.

The committee, while publicly making a point of propping up Houston as a contender for the 32nd franchise, spent the better part of its private meeting trying to formalize a recommendation favoring Los Angeles, which would then be presented to all the owners at meetings to begin March 15 in Phoenix.

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue insisted the league is not “leaning toward either city” in his post-session remarks, but the NFL has made it obvious that it is leaning toward Los Angeles, having passed, so far, on an acceptable deal with Houston.

The expansion committee, comparing the prospect of no football in Los Angeles in the new millennium to the sizable risk of returning without financing for a new stadium in place, seems willing now to give L.A. an expansion franchise contingent on a stadium deal, with NFL financial assistance, being completed in a timely manner.

A deadline, which has yet to be determined but which could coincide with one of Jan. 31, 2000, that impacts Houston’s bid, would allow the NFL to keep Houston as a safety net in case a stadium deal cannot be reached in Los Angeles.

Several owners, unimpressed with proposals by representatives for the New Coliseum Partners and the city of Carson, remain skeptical about committing to Los Angeles and walking away from the solid offer assembled by Houston, which includes respected Bob McNair as the team’s projected owner.

An independent appraisal, commissioned by the NFL to study the Los Angeles market, suggested the league could do better than the proposals made by the New Coliseum Partners and the city of Carson presented by Hollywood agent Michael Ovitz.

If the NFL selects Los Angeles over Houston at its March meeting, it will not award an expansion franchise then either to Eli Broad and Ed Roski, prospective owners of the new Coliseum project, or Ovitz.

Instead, the league will try to form a partnership with a committee of prominent Los Angeles-area businessmen and politicians and put together a financial plan for a new stadium. The league hopes to still find public money to mix with money from the sale of luxury suites and club seats, along with its own contribution.

The NFL, however, will be interested in having Broad and Roski, or Ovitz, serve on the L.A. committee, which will be assembled to forge a stadium deal and potentially produce the team’s owner.

The NFL apparently is no longer considering the Carson site, in light of its interest in financing a stadium, which will require political and private-sector support, although the league remains interested in the marketing talents and franchise ownership potential of Ovitz.

“The league has been very encouraging,” said Ovitz, maintaining that league officials continue to tell him they are interested in Carson. “I’m interested in football in Los Angeles, and my goal is to be helpful in bringing it back. I think it’s fantastic, what I’m hearing, because it’s moving a team closer to Los Angeles.”

Broad, who met with league officials a week ago, said, “I’m very encouraged. It looks like we’re on the road to having Los Angeles selected and it looks like we’re on the road to the Coliseum being viewed as the favored choice. The next step will be having the Broad-Roski partnership with its political and corporate support viewed as the right ownership.”

Tagliabue said for the first time that if the league returns to the Los Angeles area, it will do so at only one of two sites--the Coliseum or Carson, which would seem to stop talk of a stadium in Chavez Ravine or Hollywood Park. It’s known that the league, however, now favors the Coliseum, because of its political support and proximity to downtown Los Angeles.

The league, however, has serious concerns about the lack of parking near the Coliseum, although New Coliseum officials recently tried to reassure the NFL with overhead photos showing that as many as 27,000 spaces can be made available on game days.

The best thing going for the Coliseum and Los Angeles is that the NFL needs Los Angeles, a point driven home at this meeting with discussion about Fox’s interest in the NFC package, which would include Los Angeles, and continuing discussion of realignment.

Tagliabue canceled a full meeting of owners here to get the undivided attention of the expansion committee and work on building a consensus for an expansion vote in March, and appears to have been steering the league to Los Angeles in recent months.

“More and more people are leaning toward making the decision [for a 32nd team],” Tagliabue said, while denying he is showing Los Angeles favoritism. “We made the decision last March to expand to Cleveland and if we could make this decision this March, we would be moving on in a constructive way.”

NFL history, however, suggests there are no sure things. When the league expanded to Charlotte, N.C., in 1993, it appeared St. Louis was also a lock for an expansion team, but confusion and conflict in that city’s effort prompted the league to delay its decision and eventually shift to Jacksonville.

“That would appear to be Houston’s only hope at this time,” said one NFL owner on the expansion committee. “It’s Los Angeles’ team to lose now.”

McNair, who expressed displeasure to Tagliabue at the recent Super Bowl with Houston’s portrayal as a woeful outpost compared to Los Angeles’ ranking as the No. 2 media market, has an exclusive negotiating right on behalf of Houston until Jan. 31, 2000. But then, the public money set aside for the construction of a new football stadium could be diverted, in part to build a new basketball arena, scuttling the football deal.

“It’s a concern,” said an NFL official. “But that gives us plenty of time to see if we can get something done in Los Angeles.”

The NFL is not willing to give Los Angeles $350 million for the construction of a new stadium, but would be willing to cobble an arrangement that would include a significant contribution to make the deal work.

The NFL has financially assisted in the construction of more than a dozen stadiums. The most important financial piece to any stadium deal, however, is public money.

The league must demonstrate some kind of public contribution in order to support the efforts of other owners, such as Arizona owner Bill Bidwill, who is trying to win stadium funds in a public referendum this May.

The NFL contributed close to $75 million to the construction of a stadium in Cleveland after the city put up almost $200 million in public funds.

The league will sidestep Broad, Roski and Ovitz in order to gain a higher expansion fee with the anticipation of more competition once a stadium is being built, but would like to set a price and turn over its stadium operation to a new owner early in the process, rather than conduct a high-level auction after construction.

That would appear to favor Broad, as influential as any businessman in the greater Los Angeles area and supported by Roski, who has made strides in gaining acceptance with NFL owners.

The league hopes that whoever is selected as owner will become the driving force in completing the stadium deal, eventually repaying the league’s contribution.

Roski has a two-year exclusivity agreement with the Coliseum Commission expiring on Oct. 21, 2000, but there is a provision allowing the Commission to buy out Roski for specified expenses incurred in trying to get a football team for Los Angeles since June, 1997--not to exceed $5 million.

“The most important thing is to get the NFL back in the Coliseum,” Roski said.

A $5-million payoff for a deal with the NFL, which will include the promise of Super Bowls, is considered a small price to pay by those close to the situation. The state of California, which has ultimate control of the Coliseum land, stands to reap the benefit in sales tax revenues.

The Raiders were not represented here but they remain alive in discussion. Their future in Oakland appears unstable. The Raiders and Oakland have sued each other but there have been discussions about an out-of-court settlement that would free the Raiders from their lease.

The Raiders and the NFL also remain at odds in a lawsuit in Los Angeles Federal Court, Raider owner Al Davis maintaining he still owns the Los Angeles market.

“I don’t see the Raiders’ situation as a factor in Los Angeles,” Tagliabue said. “The Raiders have a long-term arrangement in Oakland and I think our priority would be to make that work up there.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Winners, Losers

NFL expansion teams (since 1976):

Seattle Seahawks: 1976

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: 1976

Carolina Panthers: 1995

Jacksonville Jaguars: 1995

Cleveland Browns: 1999

****

Cities that have lost NFL teams since 1976

Oakland: Raiders moved to Los Angeles in 1982

Baltimore: Colts moved to Indianapolis in 1984