He Has Vision, but NFL Still Lacks Site

It’s a rite of spring. The NFL flirts with Los Angeles. L.A. flirts back. The infatuation lasts a few months, then fades. Another football season passes, another year goes by without an NFL team in the nation’s second-largest market.

Casey Wasserman wants to break that trend. The 29-year-old owner of arena football’s L.A. Avengers aspires to owning an NFL franchise here. Two years ago, he helped put together plans for a football stadium next to Staples Center. Those plans fizzled -- partly because of stepped-up competition from the Coliseum -- and now Wasserman says he’s aiming to “change the dialogue” between the league and the city.

At the league meetings last month at Jacksonville, Fla., NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said owners planned to decide on one of the three competing Los Angeles sites -- the Rose Bowl, Coliseum and an as-yet unbuilt stadium in Carson -- by next spring.

Also last month, the league presented the Coliseum with a term sheet, the framework of what a stadium deal might look like, and it’s believed to be the only such document extended. The league hopes to have a team in L.A. for the 2008 season.

These kinds of time lines are nothing new, though, in the so-far futile attempt to bring NFL football back to Los Angeles for the first time since the Raiders and Rams left after the 1994 season.

Question: The NFL says it will decide on an L.A. stadium site by next spring in hopes of putting a team here by the 2008 season. We’ve heard this kind of stuff before. Is there any reason to think this time is different?

Answer: People in L.A. historically are, and probably should continue to be, cynical. Having said that, the fans of L.A. have also shown that when you prove to them that it’s real, and do it correctly, they’re as good as fans anywhere else in the country. I would expect nothing else, but, especially in this process, the fans continue to be cynical. But I don’t think an owner should be scared of not selling out a stadium.

Q: The NFL is looking at the Rose Bowl, Coliseum and Carson. You haven’t jumped behind any of those sites. Why?

A: The discussion has always been either city versus city, group versus group, location versus location. And it’s also been L.A. versus the NFL, the NFL versus L.A.

To me it’s clear, the NFL doesn’t need L.A., L.A. doesn’t need the NFL. It’s a mutually beneficial thing. So once you get over who needs who more, then it’s forget about locations. It’s all about, what is the way to make it happen? How do you get a team to L.A.?

The way that happens is putting together a stadium situation that allows that team to be the most competitive it can be in the given NFL economic system. That’s all it comes down to.

Q: What kind of hoops would you jump through to be the controlling owner of an NFL franchise in L.A.?

A: I’ve taken it seriously to the extent that I think I really understand the NFL. I’ve tried to create a good reputation for myself in the [Arena League] as an owner -- we’ve got, now, 10 NFL owners who own AFL teams. I think I understand what it takes to be successful in L.A. And, having gone through the process of trying to promote our own site, I understand the challenges. And in this situation, I believe that knowledge is as important as anything.

There’s a lot of people with money, a lot of people capable of coming together to buy a team. Clearly, if that were all that was necessary, we’d have a team here. It’s not that simple.

Q: Did you feel burned by the way things fell apart so quickly with the downtown stadium concept?

A: No. I mean, I still believe it was the right place. I still believe it was the right time, or we wouldn’t have done it. People get obsessed with locations, whose turf it’s on, who’s it helping and who’s it hurting. This is a much bigger concept, I believe, than whose council district it’s in, or what city it’s in, or who’s paying for it.

This is a 30-year economic engine, a big decision for the NFL because they’re going to be more supportive from an economic perspective than they ever have been. But, obviously, I was frustrated.

Q: Commissioner Tagliabue has said it’s very possible the league might add a 33rd team in the case of L.A. The last expansion team cost $700 million, not to mention the cost of the stadium. Doesn’t that make the total cost unrealistically high?

A: It can. But the expectations of a relocating owner can be unrealistic too. Any team that moves here will be entirely re-branded. And any team that moves here has to have strong local ownership with very deep local ties, so that there’s not even a hint of a threat to the people of L.A. We’ve had two teams leave. We cannot have another leave....

Now, if a team relocated, would fans immediately adopt it as L.A.’s team? Probably not right away. But I think people have adopted the Dodgers and the Lakers just fine.

Q: Why should L.A. fans want an NFL team here anyway, seeing as you get better games on TV without a team here?

A: That question to me is more appropriate when the city or the state or the county’s paying for the stadium. Because then, you’re asking the fans to make an economic decision that results or does not result in an NFL team.

Here, the situation is very different. An owner, and the NFL and whoever the stadium site is, are going to mutually decide that they can make a deal that works. Then those people will take the risk economically, not coming out of any person in the city’s pocket.

So, does a fan want a team because of the TV thing? I don’t know. But as an owner, the thing you should be concerned about is, will the team be run well? Can you sell out the stadium? Can you create demand for the product? And, can you create a really interesting product that is appealing?

Do you need 20 million people in L.A. to embrace the NFL? No way. Would you like 60,000 seats for every game sold? Absolutely.

Q: If L.A. is such a good potential market, why did the last two teams leave?

A: I believe football failed in L.A. because [Oakland Raider owner] Al Davis didn’t believe he’d ever be given the opportunity to build the kind of stadium he thought he needed ... to economically compete in the NFL.

The times today are very different. In 1995, we were in the middle of the greatest economic boom of all time. Cities, counties and states were doing crazy things for all kinds of teams and all kinds of businesses. So it was a very competitive landscape....

Today, I’m not sure any city would pay an owner to come there, which is essentially what happens when you give an owner a stadium. I think those days, for the most part, are over. So, if the Raiders were in L.A. today, I don’t think they would move.

Q: What’s your idea of the perfect L.A. football stadium?

A: L.A. probably has the most voracious appetites for premium seating, and one of the shallowest appetites, given its size, for generic ticketing. So the perfect stadium is seats between the 40s 100 stories high, so everyone’s on the 50-yard line. So everyone’s got the best seat in the house.

Q: We could be having this same conversation 10 years from now. Will you still be as gung ho?

A: I’ll be 39 then, so I’ll still be a young guy. This is something that’s going to take a long time and a lot of work. I’m prepared to do both.