This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article.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 21, 2009
49ers: We like Oakland better than SF
The San Francisco 49ers situation keeps getting weirder and weirder. In the latest twist, 49ers president Jed York said in an interview Friday (but published yesterday in the San Francisco Chronicle) that if Santa Clara doesn't work out, Oakland would make a better home for the team than San Francisco. The Oakland Coliseum "has the location and the infrastructure. It's right on a freeway, and it has BART access," said York. "At this point, Oakland just makes more sense."
The NFL has already declared its preference for the 49ers and Raiders sharing a stadium, so it would certainly work out from that perspective. As for how fans of the two rival teams would feel about it, the comments on this site probably say it best.
The Yorks continue to play Santa Clara against Oakland and SF. The Yorks already get a sweetheart deal on their training facility rent in Santa Clara-$25,000/year, less than what many people pay for a mortgage or rent on a 2 or 3 bedroom place in Santa Clara. The Yorks are all about money. They don't give a hoot about Santa Clara or San Francisco or Oakland. They just want to increase the value of their franchise.
SCT---now that is a joke of a post---the Yorks have made it very clear that they are focused solely on SC--you used to lament the fact that SF wasn't willing to do what SC was doing only to find out that in fact SF is trying to do the same thing...and the Yorks said no thank you....relative to Oakland...the York's said it made more sense than a stadium at Hunter Point in SF...but we are focused only on SC....your twisting of the facts continues to show that you are getting desperate in this whole deal---state the facts and let logical minds make decisions...that is the democratic process---
SanJoseA's: I take Jed York's comment as another veiled threat so his organization, the 49ers, gets what it wants from Santa Clara's taxpayers. This isn't the first time he's utilized such tactics. In fact, not so long ago he stated if Santa Clarans don't approve the stadium project, the 49ers would consider moving their franchise headquarters out of Santa Clara. Boy, talk about gratitude. The Yorks receive an extremely generous amount of discounted rent, on the land where their training facility currently sits, yet have threatened to leave if they don't get what they want.
So Juan--let me get this straight--the guy says he wants to move to one place named SC---you have the city of SF dangling the same type of deal out there as SC and he says no--he prefers SC---and he backs it up by saying if SC didn't work out than he would keep the '9er's in the Bay Area and try and make Oakland work v. running off to LA where low and behold...another sweet heart stadium deal exists...and you are calling the guy a carpet bagger---
Then you go on to say how horrible it is for SC to have the '9ers training facility in SC but you label him a carpet bagger again for suggesting he might move it if SC isn't home....sounds like he doesn't give a hoot about the sweetheart deal that you villify him for---pick one side of the arguement and still too it Juan...you strike me as someone who would have a tough time fighting their way out of a paper bag---
Do I have to warn about personal attacks again? SanJoseA's, everything was fine in your last comment up to the last clause - attack the argument, but don't get personal, for that way lies the kind of comments sections that no one wants to read, let alone post in.
If this keeps up, I'm going to start closing comments, and if necessary, taking away comment privileges from individual posters until they can play nice.
SanJoseA's: I would address your personal attacks. However, Neil has already done so.
As for the issue itself, I've never stated the 49ers moving to Santa Clara is a bad idea. I do believe the stadium financing plan is bad for Santa Clara's taxpayers. Also, the fact is the Yorks/49ers are paying rent that is far below the fair market value, located on taxpayer owned land, where their headquarters currently resides. If the Santa Clara stadium isn't approved, its certainly their preogative to play games in Oakland. I don't believe many 49ers will enjoy the experience. In addition, its highly unlikely the Yorks would move into Ed Roski's LA stadium. After all, he wants a 40% equity stake from any NFL team that decides to call his facility home. Do you believe the Yorks would ever give up 40% control of the 49ers?
The sound bite that the local media caught was just York the Younger trying to pressure our leaders in Santa Clara into doing battle for them over the Apollo/Cedar Fair thing. That's all it was.
No way that the Yorks are serious about Oakland.
Santa Clara Plays Fair
Bill: I understand that. Jed York's latest comment is right up there with his previous threat the 49ers would vacate their current HQ & training facility if the stadium isn't built.
You can imagine my reaction to the 49ers' threat to vacate the Santa Clara training facility - somewhere between a 'boo hoo' and a 'BFD'.
The 49ers have been taking up 11 acres of prime Silicon Valley real estate for a yearly lease payment of $25,000 per year - TOTAL - and they've been doing that since 1989.
As a resident, I wouldn't be the least bit put out if they broke that lease - because then our RDA would be able to renegotiate that lease with a new lessee paying us a lot more than the 49ers ever will.
Bigger joke than Mr. York's threats: If you can believe this, the Term Sheet of June 2nd actually specifies extending that same "sweetheart lease" for an additional 40 years!
It's long past time for Santa Clara to stop subsidizing the San Francisco 49ers - we should be kicking them out, not helping to pay for their stadium.
The training center lease is yet another reason why the Oakland bleat is complete nonsense.
Santa Clara Plays Fair
You may be interested in this 2007 article,
"49ers Bluff Doesn't Add Up" by John Ryan.
Here's the text of the article:
"We congratulate the 49ers on their fishing prowess. That's a mighty large red-and-gold herring.
Monday morning, the Mercury News examined the 49ers' threat to move headquarters from Santa Clara if the stadium doesn't end up there. The article mentioned that the 49ers pay $24,000 a year in rent for their current facility, which is well-suited for the future.
What the 49ers aren't saying (maybe they don't know?) is that building new headquarters will cost $50 million to $75 million, projecting from current NFL rates. We aren't talking about a trailer and a converted high-school field, folks. We're talking multiple fields, flat-screen TVs and an executive washroom. And land. Much land. These facilities are every bit the ego trip a new stadium is.
Consider: The New York Jets are building new headquarters for between $30 million and $50 million. Right now. By the time the 49ers get around to it, how much will those prices rise?
(We've left aside the question of where else headquarters would be, mostly out of deference to the Yorks, who think so much of the San Francisco site that they didn't bother to show up for the big tour last week.)
If we're reading this correctly, a business that's begging for $160 million of public money would throw away almost half that amount on an unnecessary new project instead of sticking with the current plan that's basically free. All so employees can be closer to work
10 days a year.
Oh yeah. There's a plan that makes sense."
I loved Ryan's stuff in the Mercury News! I wouldn't always agree with his stance on subsidized stadiums for an overpriced product and overpaid players - but John Ryan always saw those silly little York/S.F. "kiddie games" precisely for what they were. For that I always respected the guy...
Santa Clara Plays Fair