This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
December 08, 2009
NFL stadium-grubbing notes from all over
I don't know if it's something in the water or the holiday spirit or what, but the last couple of days has seen a rash of attempts to drum up support for NFL stadium deals on pretty flimsy pretexts:
- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell reiterated his henchman's statement from a couple of months ago, insisting that Dolphin Stadium need upgrades if it's going to host more Super Bowls after this year. No word on who would pay for any renovations — which could reportedly include a partial roof to protect fans from rain and/or moving seats closer to the field — but the South Florida Sun-Sentinel did report ominously that South Florida Super Bowl Host Committee Chairman Rodney "said it will be up to the community, which is bidding for the 2014 Super Bowl, to determine the importance of hosting the NFL's championship game."
- The Los Angeles Times reports that the NFL's decision over the weekend to try to eliminate some revenue-sharing payments to low-revenue teams could be "the jab that knocks them to the canvas in the next two or three seasons" and prompts them to relocate to, say, Los Angeles. Given that this will at most amount to a few million dollars a year per team and will likely be overturned in the next collective bargaining agreement, if not sooner than that by a union challenge, this seems a bit of an overstatement.
- A survey of 550 Minnesota residents found that they were more likely to say it was important to keep the Vikings in town when the team was winning, as it is now. Though the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported this as "When Vikings win, drumbeat for new stadium beats faster," it doesn't look like the poll actually asked whether respondents wanted a new stadium; and, in fact, a higher percentage of residents said this year that the Metrodome is an acceptable home for the Vikings than in past seasons when the team was losing.
In other NFL stadium news, the Santa Clara city council is expected to vote tonight to set a 49ers stadium vote for next June. Starting tomorrow: Six months of new pretexts!
UPDATE: But first, the owners of Great America, whose parking lot the 49ers stadium would be built in, are suing the city to void the deal! The fun never stops!
Neil;
I wonder if the "improved view" Minnesota residents have of the HHH Metrodome is at least in part due to the fact that it will no longer be a 'shared' facility with the baseball team next season?
Of course, watching the bills coming in for the baseball stadium could be the garnish that makes the 'dome seem suddenly beautiful by comparison, too...
Posted by John Bladen on December 8, 2009 08:22 PM
Guess the Niners stadium just hit one of those big speedbumps that might have flattened their tires.
Posted by Dan on December 9, 2009 01:34 AM
The only way I can see to bring the Miami seats closer to the field would be to reconstruct the entire first deck (at least on the sidelines) and add more rows, which would reduce the rake of the seats and could create a problem seeing over the person in front of you. Looking at pictures on seatdata, the lower sections don't seem very steep as it is. Moreover, the club seats are going to be just as far back.
Posted by Brian on December 9, 2009 01:44 AM
LA Dolphins sounds great.
They will sell out every game......
Posted by LA Dolphins on December 9, 2009 01:41 PM
Last night at the city council meeting, after midnight, 49ers spokesperson Lisa Lang cut in front of Santa Clara residents who had been patiently waiting for more than 5 hours to speak to the council (residents' names were called to line up to speak, and Lisa Lang jumped in front of everyone). She and a spokesperson for Santa Clarans for Economic Progress (SCEP), the 49ers citizen front group that sent a misleading, untruthful mailer into Santa Clara homes recently, said that the 49ers are putting their own initiative on our June ballot, because they don't want to have to have a certified EIR to get on the ballot. Ironically, at this same city council meeting, the EIR was certified and the council voted to put a stadium ballot measure on the June primary election.
A city council ballot measure will have input from Santa Clara citizens in terms of the ballot language. Our city attorney explained last night that the language of the 49ers ballot initiative could not be in any way changed by the council or other citizens. So the 49ers can write a ballot measure to be just as misleading as the mailer they sent into our homes recently.
They went behind our backs with SB43 to take away our right to vote on our city charter modification. Now they are trying to take away our right to have a ballot measure carefully written by our city council with input from Santa Clara citizens. The 49ers have shown their true colors-it is the color of money/greed.
Posted by SantaClaraTaxpayer on December 9, 2009 03:04 PM
...and SCT that is why we live in America and people get to vote--either they will side with your view or the city of Santa Clara view--so not sure what you are arguing against...letting the voters decide and than accepting that choice is what our country was founded upon. According to you and your cohorts you have nothing to worry about...you claim that the voters will outright reject this...unless of course you are only polling your own group.
Posted by SanJoseA's on December 9, 2009 03:09 PM
It's not about yea or nay in Santa Clara. Dueling stadium ballot initiatives will only serve to confuse voters and increase the chances that neither will pass. Mayor Mahan expressed this concern last night. If the 49ers really trust the process, they'd let the City do its job - after all, the Council's voted 5-2 just about every time.
Posted by marine layer on December 9, 2009 03:39 PM
They took away our right to vote on a city charter change specifically because the 49ers said (this was in the SJ Mercury News) that 2 measures on the ballot would be 'confusing'. So here we are, and the 49ers going forward with a competing initiative on the ballot makes for - wait for it - 2 measures on the ballot!
SanJoseA's -yes I want this to go to a vote, but with a measure developed by our city council, not a measure that the 49ers write for their sole benefit, which will be just as misleading and leave out important facts about Santa Clara's contribution to stadium financing from its Stadium Authority as the mailer the 49ers sent into our homes did.
Posted by SantaClaraTaxpayer on December 9, 2009 04:22 PM
Looks like after 7 years of claiming they'd build their stadium with private money the Chargers are telling San Diego that they need public money to build it.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/10/chargers-say-they-need-public-money-stadium/
Posted by Dan on December 11, 2009 12:12 AM