I'm not sure why one team would have to hold the lease, while the other would have to sublease from the first team. Is there a technical reason for that?

Al Davis would never sublease from the 49ers. He'd do something drastic before he did that. Heck, he'd probably just fold the franchise before he did that. Even if you could prove to Al Davis that it was to his economic benefit (by a long measure) to do that, he wouldn't.

It's the "Us against the world"-mentality of Raiders fans and the organization itself. We've all seen the shirt, hats, bumper-stickers, etc. "Go Raiders! F*%& everyone else!". They think it's cool. They're pretty much the only ones who do.

But, even at that, I can't see why Santa Clara cannot have two tenants.

They can be co-tenants or co-developers — the Giants and Jets did it — but it requires a more intricate partnership between the two teams. That'll be no easy feat to negotiate either.

Again, not saying it can't be done, but there are a lot of hurdles. It helped a lot in NJ that the Giants and Jets were already sharing a stadium, not to mention that the Jets had effectively had every other stadium option shot down.

Mike M.

I think the main reason for the sub-lease for a second team is that the 49ers alone have been in negotiations the past four years with the city representatives. Certain benefits they will want to preserve for themselves, so they are not going to bring in another team as co-partners and re-start negotiations.

It's in the term sheet, the decision to bring a 2nd team on board is at the sole discretion of the 49ers.

Al pays minimal rent for his Oakland lease-why would he pay more for a Santa Clara lease? He would have (or more accurately the Santa Clara authority) to put it mildly, a really difficult time selling PSLs again in a new stadium. So it's really hard to see how this (the Raiders) could possibly benefit the stadium authority in paying off bonds.

And before anyone mentions it, the naming rights for the Raiders are about 1.5 million a year.

It makes me absolutely sick that Santa Clara's City Council is only focused on getting this stadium built and are totally ignoring everything and everyone else in Santa Clara.

Everything that the city does is about the 49ers ... and making them happy. What happened with taking care of the City's business? And serving all the citizens of Santa Clara? Why is no one telling the truth about the awful access? And the 100% lack of dedicated parking? Call the City Manager's office and get a copy of the July 2009 "Transportation Management Plan" and get the truth for yourself. It should be something that each and every fan reads to understand the awful 'enhanced fan experience' that Jed has in store for us. And, remember, almost all their "Core Parking" is gone ... Great America has notified the city and niners that their lot is not available on game days! Get the truth.

Spending 1/2 of our RDA money just to continue with this is absolutely ridiculous!

It is the City of Santa Clara -- not the City of the 49ers. We are not their personal ATM and this entire project needs to be scraped if the 49ers can't afford to build the whole thing themselves.

Santa Clara is not (and should never be) in the stadium business. Stop this nonsense before we go broke.

Mike M - The Term Sheet specifies that the 49ers are the tenant, and they alone get to decide whether or not to sublease to a second team, presumably the Raiders. Santa Clarans don't get another vote on whether or not the Raiders can come.

Ranger is correct when he says that the rent the Raiders would have to pay in SC is higher than what they currently pay. Plus, there's supposed to be a big payoff to Santa Clara's RDA if a second team plays in the stadium.

How many lawsuits has Al Davis filed against the Raiders current host city/county? Santa Clara would have that possibility too.

How will 49ers fans feel when they have to pay for Personal Seat Licenses but the Raiders fans don't have to? There's nothing in the Term Sheet that specifies that the fans of a subtenant would have to buy PSLs. PSLs didn't work when the Raiders came back to Oakland in the mid-90's, and Oakland/Alameda Co. got stuck with about $200 M in debt which they're still paying off.

A slight correction: The Term Sheet makes Jed York/49ers not a tenant, but a landlord.

Santa Clarans who voted for Measure J last June 8th handed Jed York that second team sublease - and Santa Clara no longer has any control over it.

Calling Jed York a landlord is in fact more true than it was before our June 7th City Council Meeting. That evening, City Staff admitted that the Santa Clara Stadium Authority had nowhere near the scratch to operate the stadium year-round - so we're turning control of the stadium over to the 49ers for a minimum of six months every year (search: "Triple-Net Lease 49ers").

As for this Raiders nonsense, I'll believe it when Al Davis actually puts his John Henry on a subtenant lease - an agreement in which the 49ers are clearly calling all the shots.

Another slight correction: All that our RDA gets out of a potential Raiders sublease is some debt forgiveness. That's all.

And the Raiders will pay the Stadium Authority no more than the 49ers will.

That second-team lease is designed only for the Yorks' benefit. Not for ours. Five Stadium Boosters on our City Council made quite sure of that.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
But that issue of **Raider's** PSLs IN SANTA CLARA is a great catch, SCT! Neither our Stadium Authority nor our RDA will have the power to demand PSL money from Raider Damnation.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Bests,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-

"...which, since it presumably requires one to be the tenant and one the landlord, is going to be no easy feat to negotiate."

Neil, wish I could vote you a Pulitzer Prize.

NOT ONE PRINT OR BROADCAST MEDIA OUTLET IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA would call the sublease precisely what it is by name - although that's nothing more than what the stadium Term Sheet of 6/2/2009 states in black-and-white.

Hmmm. You appear to have put more objective facts out there with one blog entry than Santa Clarans have been getting out of the 49ers in the past four-and-a-half years...

Bests,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-

Bill,

Why would the 49ers want "control" of the stadium during any part of the non-football season? Wouldn't that something that would have to be forced on them? How does that benefit them?

That six months includes the NFL season.

In fact, I'm not sure that the 49ers particularly want to be running the stadium - but keeping up the appearance of solvency in the Santa Clara Stadium Authority keeps the 49ers from having to deal with an Indianapolis-style (or Cincinnati-style!) PR disaster here. Maintaining some facade of normalcy, even with a financially-feeble Stadium Authority, still allows the 49ers to shove most of the losses of NFL stadium operation onto the Stadium Authority.

There's another negative aspect to the "triple-net lease," however, and that's giving the 49ers even more veto power than they have now over any non-NFL events within that same six month window. The Santa Clara Stadium Authority will get peanuts from such events anyway, and our City's General Fund will get next to nothing. But losing the authority to book such events inside the half-year that the team's running the stadium makes this an even lousier deal for Santa Clara and for Santa Clarans.

Basically, the analogy is biological - a really good parasite refrains from killing its hosts.

Particularly when the selection of hosts is limited.

Bests,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-

ReadyRanger, we face the exact same issue in Sacramento. You wouldn't believe the number of funding ideas we've had here, including selling "unused" City property to help fund the arena.

Meanwhile, we can't get the City to mow the lawn in the park I live 100 feet from. Why? Because this district's mower broke. We have a $39M deficit, so we lay off City employees. But that's okay, because we have land worth somewhere between $30M and $60M we can use to help pay for an arena.

They just replaced the mower. We went from April until about a week ago, then they finally mowed.

But, no problem, let's concentrate on an arena, because that'll help solve our deficit, because of ALL THAT MONEY! we're going to make from it. $7B over 30 years, all from a $387M investment. By my calculations, a 60% annual ROI. Heck, let's build a new arena every 10 years at that rate.

"We'll figure something out." - BEWARE of vague pronouncements like this, you'll pay for it later.

Al Davis will wait until the last possible second before joining the 49ers in Santa Clara.

By waiting, he insures the Raiders get the best possible lease as the 49ers will be desperate at that point in time if it comes down to sharing for Santa Clara to be built.

Raiders lease in Oakland is up in 2013, why do anything until then anyways?

Do not think for one moment Al would by choice play in Oakland if he can get a good deal in Santa Clara for 10 years or so and wait for Oakland to get it going down the road. Santa Clara is going to be a jewel of a stadium in his market....why would he pass that up if he had a choice?

Stadium Builders Licenses NOT Personal Seat Licenses are lifetime rights to the seats for all events including a 2nd NFL team.

The Oakland Football Marketing Association made a colossal mistake of offering 10 year PSLs in 1995. Had they made them lifetime like SBLs, they would have sold at a much better rate.

Therefore any SBL owner who buys one can buy season tix for the 49ers or both teams. If they refuse the 2nd team (Raiders) the Stadium Authority can simply sell those tickets on a per game or as a season ticket package to someone in the general public.

The Raiders of course want to stay in Oakland but how is that possible? Like SantaClara Jay mentioned the Coliseum Authority still owes 150M from the 1995 renovations and cannot do anything until that debt is paid.....not happening soon.

Therefore the Raiders will be in Santa Clara as unfortunately for Santa Clara Plays Fair, Santa Clara is far ahead of Oakland big time.

If you look at the deal Santa Clara got compared to other cities for NFL stadiums this is a great deal overall....especially if the Raiders move in.

I am actually against public $$ being spent to subsidize rich owners. But this deal is good and I would say better than almost all other NFL stadium deals out there.

The 49ers have the wealthiest fan base in the league and 150M sold in luxury suites is remarkable considering the stadium is 4 years away.

Keep in mind no other Bay Area franchise has won more than the 49ers. The "faithful" including myself will be there in #s supporting this team.

Corporate dollars and rich fans get this thing built...It is only a matter of time.

Sid,

Look at what you wrote about SBLs: " any SBL owner who buys one can buy season tix for the 49ers or both teams. If they refuse the 2nd team (Raiders) the Stadium Authority can simply sell those tickets on a per game or as a season ticket package to someone in the general public"

What you're saying is that 49er fans have the right to purchase better Raider season tickets. Raider fans will have the vice-versa privilege. Does this really make any intuitive sense to you? I mean, come-on.

The reality is that the SA is counting on the 49ers fans to pony up big time for SBLs and no one, unless severely diffusional (I know--the majority of our city council) could possibly expect Raider fans to be asked to buy seat licenses again.

Therefore, if the Raiders move to a SC stadium, you'd have the resentment of 49er fans who would (rightly) feel like they are getting played as schmucks by helping to subsidize Raider fans. Boy that's gonna work out great!

I wouldn't go so far on the relative "great deal" [for a NFL stadium] limb. I'm sure the council is coming up with ways to make it a "worse" deal for the city. No doubt in my mind about that. Have you ever heard of a business transaction being negotiated where one party (our city) is adamant that they will, never ever, ever walk away from any deal that can be arrived at?

Put it this way, if you're shopping for a new car and the salesman names an opening price would you respond "That's doable!" or would you act disinterested?

Also, the 150 million suite sales figure has been bandied about to create buzz. The source is, of course the 49ers! What does it mean, is there any documentation? I haven't seen anything. Do you believe anything Jed York says?

You got it wrong again, Sid.

Al Davis doesn't get a lease, he gets a SUBlease - and Jed York will be his landlord.

But the worst part is that Santa Clara has no choice in the matter: Voting yes on Measure J gave the power of sublease exclusively to the 49ers.

Also, they're not Stadium Builders Licenses. They're the same PSLs that left such a stink in Raider Damnation.

When you're ready to pay $20,000 - each - for a PSL in Santa Clara, Sid, then you can call it whatever you want. Until then, it's a PSL.

"I am actually against public $$ being spent to subsidize rich owners." ---sez Sid.

Then why are you supporting the ripoff of Santa Clara by the 49ers? In the first year of operation, we get 180,000 bucks into our General Fund - while Jed York walks out that door with well over $130 million in NFL revenues. Don't even think of challenging the facts, Sid - they're in the same place I told you they were when you pulled this stunt last time: Santa Clara City Website, Sports Business, Forbes.com,...

"Corporate dollars" are not building the stadium, Sid - the biggest share is down to Santa Clara's Agencies.

As for the same Personal Seat License being sold for both teams - complete nonsense, Sid. You will NOT be guaranteed season tickets rights for both teams with one PSL. Won't happen.

Try reading our Council's Agenda Reports. The real reason why the 49ers' Stadium Subsidy is a bad deal for Santa Clara is on the public record - as it has been for over four-and-a-half years now.

Always a treat,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-

The 49ers belong in Los Angeles.

Barnum Bailey,

Here here!

I sincerely hope this whole Santa Clara boondoggle fails and the 49ers end up going to LA. Does this most recent development make that more or less likely?

I should also point out that Jed York calls himself "probably the biggest proponent" of an LA team. I hope he puts his money where his mouth is and makes the 49ers that LA team.

You fellows are really onto something. Here's how that could work:

Remember the so-called "Farmers Insurance" naming rights deal?

Anyone here over the age of 12 think that most or even a major part of that $700 million is going towards construction of AEG's stadium?

Nahhh - please don't fall for that. Any such claims are Stadium Booster propaganda. Nothing more.

If the L.A. stadium "deal" proceeds, we'll probably be learning that the lion's share of that $700 million will go straight into the pockets of the team that L.A., the NFL and AEG can persuade to move in.

If it were otherwise, AEG wouldn't be tapping Los Angeles taxpayers to (1) issue over $250 million in bonds to tear down part of their own Convention Center, (2) give up millions in convention revenues and (3) pay back a back-breaking public debt.

Based on what I personally have witnessed out of the San Francisco 49ers in the nearly five years they have been manipulating us and our elected leaders - and based on the money they've actually sucked out of Santa Clara since 1987 when they first got the "sweetheart lease" for their Training Center - I wouldn't shed a single tear if they became the Los Angeles 49ers.

You can have 'em.

Bests,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-

Bill,

I think we'd probably have to pay them to go away--but it would probably be worth it.

The 49ers pay $24K a year for 11 acres of city land in perpetuity for their training center/HQ.

A couple cities up, in Mtn. View, Google is paying the city a $30 million up front payment and $1.2 million a year for a nine acre city lease.

I conclude that you just can't "buy" city leadership like we've got in Santa Clara, or can you?

"The 49ers pay $24K a year for 11 acres of city land in perpetuity for their training center/HQ."

It's nearer to $26K, last fiscal year, but your basic point is quite right - it's a pittance.

In fact, the 49ers demanded and got Section 17.3 added to the Term Sheet of 6/2/09, which states that the Training Center lease now gets extended to run with the Stadium Lease, renewal after renewal, with no renegotiation of terms.

Our city's leaders are leaving money on the table with that Training Center lease - as they will no doubt do with any future Stadium Lease. See the Term Sheet, Section 4.3(a) for the exact reasons why - $180,000 into our General Fund the first year if a stadium opens.

Peanuts.

Our group obtained a copy of the original 49ers' Training Center Lease from 2/12/1987. Here are the four pages that tell the TRUE story:

santaclaraplaysfair.org/files/49ers_Training_Ctr_Lease_Extracts.pdf

I'll anticipate the next ridiculous claim out of the Stadium Boosters right now: NO, the 49ers DID NOT pay for any of the public infrastructure at Tasman Drive and Centennial Way in Santa Clara. Our Redevelopment Agency paid 100% of those costs, contrary to the claims of Councilwoman Patricia Mahan. We rebutted those claims, easily, on two occasions:

stadiumfacts.blogspot.com/2011/03/49ers-stadium-subsidies-truth-as_30.html

Well, yeah - we can't "buy" leadership such as this in Santa Clara.

But we certainly cannot *afford* it, either.

Bests,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-

San Francisco is the supreme ruler of all. Los Angeles and it's cockroach residents who are all effeminate, don't deserve a NFL team.

The superiority of the Bay Area and its greatness surpasses anything in Los Angeles.

Anybody in Los Angeles should bow down to the San Francisco Bay Area.

49ERS 5 time champs!

Bow Down to San Francisco superioity.

San Francisco is the supreme ruler of all. Los Angeles and it's cockroach residents who are all effeminate, don't deserve a NFL team.

The superiority of the Bay Area and its greatness surpasses anything in Los Angeles.

Anybody in Los Angeles should bow down to the San Francisco Bay Area.

49ERS 5 time champs!

Bow Down to San Francisco superioity.

San Francisco is the supreme ruler of all. Los Angeles and it's cockroach residents who are all effeminate, don't deserve a NFL team.

The superiority of the Bay Area and its greatness surpasses anything in Los Angeles.

Anybody in Los Angeles should bow down to the San Francisco Bay Area.

49ERS 5 time champs!

Bow Down to San Francisco superioity.

Why does Santa Clara "deserve" an NFL team? Why are we being punished this way?

49ers Superiority has an inferiority complex.

What a joke: The Forty-Whiners beat the loser-Raiders last weekend 17-3 --- but three fans got shot or beaten in the 49ers' *own* stadium or *own* parking lot!

It bears repeating: The San Francisco 49ers are a second-rate team. They can't get to their own playoffs, and have not been able to do so since 1994 - SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO.

The glory days are over. Now, the San Francisco 49ers are determined to cheat my city of Santa Clara, California, out of millions of dollars in public subsidies. The ridiculous deal for the city of Santa Clara benefits only the team - not Santa Clara.

Team ownership --- read: Yorks --- is basically handing us this line of total nonsense:

" Even though the San Francisco 49ers are one of the NFL’s three currently winless teams and mired in last place in the NFC West, owner and president Jed York predicted they are going to bounce back in historical fashion.

“We’re going to win the division,” York predicted Monday morning in a text to ESPN.:

Search for: blacksportsonline.com/home/2010/10/49ers-owner-jed-york-on-0-5-record-we-will-win-the-nfc-west/

...to read the entire blather. It's just laugh-out-loud funny.

See why the 49ers are such a joke? They're a 5-11 team looking for a city to pay for their next stadium.

Unfortunately, the city of Santa Clara, California, may be the suckers that are going to do that.

Bests,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-

In case you haven't seen it, an independent traffic engineering firm analyzed the 49ers Santa Clara stadium traffic/parking plan that was part of the environmental impact report, and found the plan to be flawed (for example, the EIR overestimated the number of people who will take mass transit and the number of people who will be in each car driving to the stadium). The article is by Al Saracevic of the SF Chronicle. The comments contain a surprising amount of additional information, plus comments by 49ers fans.

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/28/SPV81KRMCC.DTL

You are incorrect Bill on the SBLs...Stadium Builder Licenses were used in New York just recently and they are "lifetime" rights for "all events"....That includes a 2nd NFL team.

PSL is a Personal Seat License that is different in that it has a "end term"....Big difference.

49ers fans if given the option of purchasing a 2nd NFL team will think like I do....Sell them off and subsidize the cost of the SBL and 49ers season tickets plus other events.

The licenses will not be all 20k each. In fact they will vary in price from all over the stadium depending on seat location.

Also if you look at the 330M Santa Clara is pitching in its under the veil of a tax sheltered Stadium Authority that is producing the $$ from revenues from the 49ers....not from the city itself or from bonds.

Naming rights and SBLs are included and 3rd party agencies who are "professionals" are working on this as I write this.

If 40k of seats are sold at 5k a piece for SBLs if you do the math that is 200M dollars....200M of 330M Santa Clara owes for that piece?

That is me horrendously underestimating the cost and # of seats available.

If naming rights are even a fraction of what New York and LA got then its a "slam dunk". 130M is all that is needed. LA got 700M and New York got 450M-500M.

Also the 140M in luxury suites are no BS guys. Why would the 49ers lie about that?

"Individuals" comprised 100% of those sales. Corporations have just started to look into buying these themselves.

There are 3rd parties who are experts selling these items to make sure this stadium gets built.

If you look at the #s

Raised:
114M- Santa Clara RDA
140M- Luxury suites
254M- Total

Future:
200M- NFL (1 team)
100M- Luxury suites, advertising,
200M- Naming rights
200M- SBLs
33M- 49ers contribution from team coffers

987M- Total #

I am underestimating SBLs and naming rights. If the Raiders move the NFL contribution will be 300-400M and Santa Clara gets their # back for the RDA funds for the most part.

Here is where the 49ers can fail and this is what you should be banking on...Debt service.

The debt service for the Santa Clara Stadium Authority and RDA piece will easily be covered by the revenues from the SBLs, naming rights, and advertising since its tax sheltered and those revenues go straight there.

The 49ers on the other hand will have 50M a year at least in debt service with little way of paying for it...This is where Santa Clara got away like bandits.

They put all the debt on the 49ers while the City is using revenues from the 49ers and the stadium itself to pay its share.

SBLs, naming rights, and advertising are huge revenue streams the 49ers gave up to the Stadium Authority.

If the Raiders move in then the debt service will be minimized as the NFL will contribute more $$.

Otherwise the 49ers will have to sell 1/3 of their team to pay the debt service year to year.

That is why the 49ers need the Raiders even under a sub lease. Their debt service will be so high they need a 2nd NFL team.

The 49ers have won more than any other Bay Area team and Silicon Valley is the "wealthiest" metro area in the US.

Do not doubt people will pay for SBLs in this stadium. 49ers fans are rich and love the team.

If they pull off even 1 winning season in the next 2 you will see all the fans lining up like years past. They are that loved.

8 years of losing would put most teams in the blackout zone like the Raiders...but not the 49ers, even in the dump known as Candlestick.