November 01, 2010
Goodell: Niners stadium funds must come from players' hides
Echoing what San Francisco 49ers officials said two weeks ago, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell this weekend all but said that there will be no new stadium in Santa Clara until a new labor agreement is reached:
"It's the CBA. That's what (investors) are concerned about," Goodell said on the eve of the 49ers' game against the Broncos at Wembley Stadium. "They want to make sure that the CBA is something that will allow them to finance a stadium. And that's challenging in this environment." ...
"And then you add the economy on top of that, it's a difficult environment to get a stadium built," Goodell said. ...
"I think (new stadiums) are great for the fans, but the financing no longer comes from the public sector," he said. "A lot of these stadiums are being moved to privately run facilities. And that's fine. It's a transition. But that transition is changing the economics for the owners."
And why exactly would the NFL commissioner be publicly pooh-poohing a stadium plan that the 49ers have been working feverishly on for years? Because the intended audience isn't the city of Santa Clara, which already signed off on $444 million in stadium subsidies back in June, so doesn't need any more convincing. Rather, it's the players union, which is being served notice that owners are planning to cry poverty, despite record profits, by claiming that if owners are going to be asked to build privately financed stadiums, players will have to kick back some of their salaries to make it happen. (And no, I'm not sure how Goodell got away with calling a stadium getting $444 million in taxpayer money "privately financed" — but at the risk of blaming the messenger, that's modern journalism for you.)
In other words, Goodell's statement is a bargaining tactic, so there's no reason to believe the 49ers stadium plan is any more (or less) endangered than it was a few months ago, although that was pretty endangered to begin with. The real upshot seems to be that there will be no action on a new 49ers stadium — and possibly other stadiums, including one for the Minnesota Vikings and whatever may or may not get built in L.A., until the league has finished using the stadium issue as a bludgeon with which to smack around the union at the negotiating table. So depending on how long the anticipated 2011 lockout goes on, we could be in for a long hiatus.
Neil-Santa Clara didn't sign off on $444 million in stadium subsidies.
1) The June Measure J stadium ballot initiative only disclosed $40 million in Redevelopment Funds - that's it. The remainder of the $444 million was not disclosed. There is no legal requirement in California for city ballot measures to disclose costs, so they didn't have to disclose the full $444 million. The media here didn't disclose the costs either - the day after the election, the SJ Merc published a correct pie chart of the costs, showing the $444 million. No one would publish such a chart in the year leading up to the election.
2) The only part of the ballot that was binding was the front end- written by the 49ers and their campaign - which read like an advertisement for the stadium. The Term Sheet text was appended for 'informational purposes' only. The Term Sheet is not binding; the voters did not get to vote on the Term Sheet. The binding document, the DDA, is still being worked on.
3) Since the June election, the city's budget mess has been made very public in the SJ Merc and the SC Weekly. We are in the midst of a deep budget crisis, and the city manager just put out a letter to all bargaining units stating that unless there are salary reductions, there will be layoffs. Santa Clara has no money - we're in a deep budget hole right now. People here are extremely worried. In the midst of this, our police dept. has been providing free escorts for the 49ers since 2007.
4) We were promised during the stadium election that the stadium would cost Santa Clara residents nothing. The city council needs to make good on that promise, and write a DDA that will make sure the stadium costs us nothing - ever.
Posted by SantaClaraTaxpayer on November 1, 2010 10:26 AM
RE: point four, I believe SantaClaraTaxpayer is being facetious. Obviously nothing of the kind will happen.
The three principal stadium proponents running in tomorrow's election, Matthews, Mahan, & Kolstead, have accepted almost 100% of their campaign contributions from construction and trade interests who want to be involved with the stadium's construction.
It strains credulity past the breaking point to believe that these indivduals with have the city's financial health or resident's well being at heart.
Posted by SANTA CLARA JAY on November 1, 2010 12:02 PM
Jamie Matthews,Patricia Mahan, and Patrick Kolstad, currently running for Santa Clara mayor and council members, respectively,accepted campaign contributions from some or all of the following: the 49ers/49ers CEO Jed York/Turner Devcon (49ers stadium contractor)/HNTB (49ers architect). How can the people of Santa Clara possibly believe that these individuals, who have voted yes on everything that has come before the council related to the 49ers stadium, could possibly represent the best interests of the taxpayers? That's on top of major contributions from trade unions that want the stadium construction jobs, real estate interests, and other special interests outside of Santa Clara.
Yes Jay, I was being facetious. The Term Sheet is full of loopholes that will cost Santa Clarans money down the road, just as the contract negotiations have cost us plenty in consultants' fees and city staff time over the past few years.
The point I was trying to make is that whatever decision Santa Clara voters were going to make about the 49ers stadium has already been made. So there's no point in Goodell trying to appeal to them about how great the stadium deal is — which leaves him free to appeal to the players about how lousy the stadium deal is.
Posted by Neil on November 1, 2010 12:42 PM
The Commish is essentially telling the players that their 60% split of NFL revenues isn't going to be anywhere near that in the new CBA.
As for Mr. Goodell's statement that stadiums are moving into the private sector: Horse apples.
The NFL is giving us a load of sanctimonious nonsense about paying their own way, when they have no intention of doing so. When the dust from this CBA catfight dies down, these same millionaire owners will be in front of city councils, county boards and authority directors demanding big, greasy slices of corporate welfare paid for by taxpayers. Santa Clara, CA, is only the latest example of the multiple-hundred-million dollar subsidy.
Note that the Commissioner is speaking from Wembley Stadium in England. The 49ers charged themselves a "home" game playing in a European city - meaning even LESS pitiful stadium revenues being paid into Candlestick Park. That stadium is owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco, by the way.
Mr. Goodell better be demanding that 18-game season with everything he's got - as well as a big pay cut for the NFLPA.
Now, that I gotta see.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
-=0=-
Posted by Bill Bailey on November 1, 2010 01:31 PM
Why anyone would support the owners amazes me. The do not have to sign ANY player. They all choose to draft or sign whoever they want. This is a business. If you are not making money in a business, cut expenses or raise revenue. Also if you look at the Forbes list for owners, the teams are NOT the source of their income. Many have outside businesses, investments and inhereiatnnces. Good luck players, start saving your paychecks, and prepare for a long 2011.
Posted by mark R on November 1, 2010 07:06 PM
I just don't see the Stadiums in Santa Clara, LA, and maybe even San Diego being built. It looks like Propositions 24 & 25 will pass, and Jerry Brown & Gavin Newsome will be Governor & Lt. Governor, which will lead to much higher taxes, and the end to Super Majority Budgets being passed (So no more backroom deals like the one the helps the chances for a Chargers Stadium in SD). Watch Minnesota's Race closely: If Tom Emmer wins, the odds will increase that the Vikings will not be moving to California, or anywhere. If Dayton wins: Watch taxes go up, and eventually the Vikings will be gone.
Posted by David Brown on November 2, 2010 11:14 AM
Los Angeles will get a stadium built eventually. But that may take until 2020 to make it happen. Santa Clara Stadium seems contingent on the Oakland Raiders agreeing to a sub-lease with the 49ers to share and help build the stadium which is the best for both teams. I think San Diego can eventually get their stadium built but they'll have to incorporate the Wonder Bread building unless the government does something completely retarded and gets rid of the historical landmark but I'm sure they can do what they did with Petco Park. I see all 3 California stadiums getting built, it's just will it take until 2020 to get them done. The NFL can't sit in those aging stadiums forever.
Posted by kombayn on November 2, 2010 06:04 PM
The City of San Francisco is in no position to publicly finance a stadium for the 49ers. Even if the economy were 100% sound, the option is not viable. Why? Because the San Francisco Giants built a new home stadium with their own money. It would be an insult to their organization if the city were to publicly fund a stadium for a football team.
Now, given the poor financial history of recently constructed, or renovated, NFL stadiums, does it make sense for any city to provide taxpayer monies when the data clearly shows it will likely lose millions of dollars?