 |
 |
|||||
 |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
||||||
| Let Them Eat Cake
by John M. Curtis Copyright August 8, 1999
With Hollywood super-agent Michael Ovitz’s ambitious Carson landfill project falling on its face, the Roski-Broad plan to refurbish the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum was the only viable option to return pro football to Los Angeles. Even billionaire Marvin Davis’ brainstorm to build the next NFL Mecca in Inglewood’s Hollywood Park is drawing only lukewarm interest. Yes, Michael Ovitz recently abandoned his Carson boondoggle once the NFL unambiguously telegraphed that they weren’t going put the next expansion team on a landfill in a low profile Los Angeles suburb. With all the competing proposals and divisiveness, is it any wonder that the NFL’s a little gun shy? But let there be no mistake: The NFL wants the big enchilada — Los Angeles. While the NFL recognizes the supremacy of the L.A. media market, they’re still trying to get the best end of the deal. Even former Dodger owner Peter O’Malley’s plan to rebuild Dodger Stadium must look awfully tasty about now. Why all the talk about alternative locations? Everyone knows that L.A.’s prestige is second to none — maybe only to New York. It’s power elite can’t be expected to drive too far beyond the Westside to see pro football or anything else. Though mayor Riordan reluctantly signed on the same page with councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas’ effort to refurbish the Coliseum, he was never enthusiastic about using local tax dollars. Unlike his exuberant pursuit of the next Democratic national convention, his anemic interest in returning NFL football to Los Angeles is known to almost everyone. Only Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas embraced the cause with fire and determination. With the most ethnically diverse population in the country, Los Angeles needs a common bond with its citizens. What better way is there to join hands with the community than to identify with a prestigious sports franchise? Just look at how the glory days of the Dodgers and Lakers unified Los Angeles with enthusiasm and pride. When are City or State officals finally going to get it: Returning NFL football to Los Angeles should be part of a coherent master plan designed to improve the quality of life in L.A.. Refurbishing the inner city encourages all residents — North, South, East and West — to spend quality time in the downtown corridor. While holding an annual food festival and marathon helps, it’s not enough to promote a cohesive community. Echoing the City Council’s gloomy sentiment, L.A. city councilman Joel Wachs summed up the unapologetic and unrepentant tone: "We will never give in to the NFL’s request to spend tax payers’ money on football." Closer to the source, county supervisor and Coliseum Commission member Zev Yaroslovsky remarked, "Whether the NFL comes to the Coliseum or to another Southern California site, they must recognize that an investment of public funds in stadium construction or in the franchise fee is unobtainable." True or not, these statements aren’t smoke signals. They’re intended to send a loud and clear message to the NFL: L.A.’s calling the shots. Drawing their lines in the sand, both the NFL and Los Angeles officials seem to be at loggerheads over the issue of public financing. But why? What’s the difference who finances the parking lot or anything else? Something doesn’t add up. Is the NFL really so strapped for cash that they must impose a 'public financing' requirement? I don’t think so. Are the ownership team of Eli Broad and Ed Roski Jr. really so objectionable? Blaming the impasse on poor negotiating, controversial rental agreements or other smokescreens doesn’t tell the whole story. What’s really happening is a battle of Titanic-sized egos, each side digging in their heels and believing that they hold the biggest cards. L.A’s got the location, the NFL’s got the franchise rights. OK, they’re both big and important. Now that we settled that, it’s time for both sides to stop posturing, get off their high horses and make a deal. Spreading around television and cable moola leaves plenty of room for compromise. It’s time for the NFL to accommodate L.A.’s unique situation, which doesn’t include public funding. What works in Houston, doesn’t necessarily work in Los Angeles. Despite the denials, the truth is that the NFL needs Los Angeles for prestige and completeness. Beyond that, they need a public relations victory by securing a permanent foothold in the nation’s entertainment capital. While they’ve lived without each other for some time, both are strengthened by a relationship which meets the fiscal needs of the NFL, City and local ownership. What’s the bottom line? Both the NFL and L.A. stand to win from cutting a deal. Without it, both wind up on the short end of the stick. About the Author John M. Curtis is director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma. |
||||||
ouring ice water on L.A’s request for California tax dollars, Gov. Gray Davis made it plain that the State won’t indulge L.A.’s extravagance by financing a pro football team: Let them eat cake. Without meeting the NFL’s demand of obtaining credible public funding for an elaborate parking structure, the Roski-Broad-Ridley-Thomas Coliseum Partners’ proposal seems dead in the water — or does it? All the infighting, back-room deals and jumping through hoops, for what? With Houston’s plan still looming, the NFL’s playing hardball with L.A. — at least for now. "I spoke with an NFL official [August 5, 1999] and he showed no indication that the NFL was interested in backing away from the Coliseum . . . ," said a nonplused mayor Riordan. Is the NFL talking tough, bluffing or making an end run? What’s the real story?|
Home || Articles || Books || The Teflon Report || Reactions || About Discobolos This site designed, developed and hosted by the experts at ©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc. |
