January 11, 2012
Davis threatens to move Raiders to L.A. (yes, again; no, different Davis)
Newly anointed Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis made his first public remarks on the future of the team yesterday, and they were drawn straight from the threatmongering playbook:
"The timetable is yesterday. So that's where it is. We've got to get a stadium. We've got to get that done," Davis said Tuesday in his first public comments since taking over the organization in October following the death of his father, Al.
"It's such a competitive business. It really is competitive. We can't compete for a lot of the players that other teams can, at times."...
"We're trying to get something done up here but if we can't, we've got to get something done somewhere because we need to be able to compete," he said. "And that's where it's at."
The message is clear: If no new stadium is forthcoming in Northern California, then Davis will likely look south to Los Ange—
Davis said he has talked to groups in Los Angeles but hasn't received an offer he likes.
Well, alrighty then. It's no surprise that Davis hasn't liked the offers from L.A. — as covered here previously, they both pretty much come down to "if you pay for it, we will build," which isn't what most sports owners want to hear, especially in the NFL, where moving to a bigger market doesn't even get you more TV money. So this pretty much comes down to a reiteration of Davis' late dad's strategy: Complain loudly that you need a new stadium, and see what shakes loose, whether in Oakland, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, or Cucamonga. It's worked before, though sometimes you have to repeat it for a few years first.
December 30, 2011
California's RDA ruling could affect A's, 49ers, Chargers stadium plans
As if the umpteen stadium and arena battles ongoing in California needed more drama, the state's supreme court handed down this yesterday:
The court ruled unanimously in favor of a state law passed last summer that abolished redevelopment agencies and voted 6 to 1 to strike down a companion measure that would have allowed the agencies to continue if they shared their revenues.
More than 400 redevelopment agencies will cease to exist after Feb. 1. Authorized by law since 1945, the agencies have been responsible for such success stories as Old Pasadena and San Diego's Gaslamp Quarter but also plagued by projects that some argued had little public benefit.
First, some brief backstory: After Gov. Jerry Brown declared his intentions earlier this year to stop allowing city redevelopment agencies to siphon off property tax proceeds for local development projects, the state legislature offered a compromise of sorts: If RDAs would cut the state in on a share of the boodle, they'd be allowed to continue. Yesterday's court ruling struck down that deal, saying that while the state could shut down RDAs it couldn't attach strings to them; and so, as of a month and two days from now, all RDAs will cease to exist. (Ironically, the court was ruling on a lawsuit filed by a bunch of cities and their RDAs, which were trying to knock down only the piece of legislation that would eliminate RDAs, not the one that would allow them to continue. Whoopsie.)
This is big news for the sports world because, as you might imagine, cities have been thrilled to hand out development dollars when it's not really their money they're spending. (While technically RDA spending is just a straight-up TIF — any new tax revenue gets diverted to pay for the project — in practice, at least according to Brown, the state has ended up filling the gaps in school spending and other local services that have resulted.) So pretty much every sports construction project now underway or in the planning stages in California has involved RDAs, which means many of them may now be in jeopardy.
A quick scorecard, from north to south:
- Oakland's Victory Court plan for an A's stadium appears to now be out the window, since that relied on an RDA-based TIF. However, its second "Coliseum City" plan for the A's and Raiders could still move ahead, according to Newballpark.org, as Oakland's existing stadium site is "part of a separate joint-powers agreement which allows the Coliseum Authority to raise money for its own projects."
- Any thoughts of moving the Golden State Warriors to a new arena in San Francisco will likely be hampered by the ruling.
- Santa Clara's stadium funding was thought to be already in place — barring a last-minute petition drive — but $40 million of that was supposed to come from the city's RDA, which now must turn it over to the state instead. (I'm not clear on what happens to the $4 million the city RDA already pre-paid to the 49ers last March.) That's not a huge sum to be made up on a $1 billion project, but given how the whole financing plan is already held together by spit and baling wire, you never know what could turn out to be its striped bass.
- San Jose's RDA already completed its part in the city's proposed A's stadium plan, giving team owner Lew Wolff an option to buy RDA-owned land for the project last month. Yet a lawsuit filed earlier this month by the Giants-funded Stand For San Jose charges, among other things, that San Jose illegally jumped the gun by agreeing to sell the land before going before a public vote; if a court agrees, then San Jose could be forced to go back and hold a referendum before selling the land — except at that point the RDA would no longer exist to do the sale.
- AEG's downtown Los Angeles football stadium project would use a TIF, but it seems that it's one that doesn't require an RDA. (I think this is because rather than actually redirecting the money, the city would just be totaling up the new tax benefits and hoping they're enough to pay off the stadium bonds, but don't quote me on that.) Still, this could give a minor boost to Ed Roski's City of Industry stadium plan in the race for first place among L.A. stadium plans that don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting approved by the NFL or attracting an existing team owner.
- The San Diego Chargers, whose stadium chief previously said that without RDA money, their stadium plans are "done, finished," are indeed completely hosed. But they kind of knew that already.
In any case, before anyone gets too excited about it being a new day in Baltimore, the state legislature — which, you'll recall, started off this whole mess by trying to save RDAs while reclaiming a share of their money — can always pass new legislation reestablishing some form of local redevelopment agencies. This being the California state legislature, of course, that will inevitably be a long and painful process — which is why I told the San Diego Union Tribune that my prediction is for "gridlock," as team owners wait to see how the new world order shakes out.
The interesting bits here in the short run will be how the 49ers (and, if necessary, the A's) handle the potential new speed bumps in their stadium campaigns. More news to come in the new year, I'm sure.
December 12, 2011
Oakland plans second vaportecture stadium for A's
Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, not content to have one A's stadium plan with no real idea how to pay for it, announced on Friday that "we are sending today a letter to Commissioner Selig to make it pretty clear that Oakland wants the A's, that we have two sites for the A's that are viable that could be delivered by 2014."
Site #2 is, in fact, the current site of the Oakland Coliseum (I can't be bothered to remember its latest corporate name — nice investment, whoever owns naming rights this week!), which would be replaced by a new A's baseball stadium, a new Raiders football stadium, and a new hotel under the latest plan. (Not-very-detailed renderings available at Newballpark.org.) This "Coliseum City" would be paid for by ... okay, Quan didn't actually mention that part, but the city has a Request For Proposals out for the project, which ... actually asks the developers to submit "a description of its approach to developing financing measures." Three guesses how many of the six developers who've reportedly responded to the RFP will be proposing to fund the whole project themselves?
Coliseum City, incidentally, would also include a renovated arena for the Golden State Warriors, which is significant because the Warriors owners last week met with San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and Giants CEO Larry Baer to discuss a new arena near AT&T Park to open in 2017, the year the Warriors' lease at Oracle Arena — which was completely rebuilt in 1996 for $121 million — runs out.
One more item from the Quan news conference: She said that the Giants claim they can use legal measures to delay any A's move to San Jose for as much as ten years. Which is exactly what they would say, and exactly what she would say, but just passing it along.
October 12, 2011
Raiders, 49ers on Davis' death and stadium deal: No comment
In case you're wondering what the death of Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis means for the team's possible relocation plans, the San Jose Mercury News has a rundown for you:
- "[Davis' son and new owner] Mark Davis did not comment on his intentions."
- "[Raiders CEO Amy] Trask said, 'I am working with our team, our organization and the Raider family to navigate a very difficult time.'"
- "[San Francisco] 49ers spokesman Steve Weakland said in an email: 'Out of respect to the Davis family and the Raider organization, we have no public comments at this time.'"
In other words, no news is no news. It's possible that Mark Davis has a bit less distaste for the 49ers than his dad, but in the end, what's expected to make a shared 49ers-Raiders stadium happen or not — whether in Santa Clara, Oakland, Los Angeles, or Kuala Lumpur — is likely going to be money, not enmity. Trask has already been working on it, after all, so if the numbers pencil out, having a different Davis to answer to isn't likely to change things — and likewise if they don't.
August 15, 2011
Santa Clara reclaims half its redevelopment funds for 49ers
The city of Santa Clara looks to have finally resolved its attempts to reclaim redevelopment funds that it had earmarked for a San Francisco 49ers stadium and which the state was trying to take back. The upshot: The city will repay the state $11.2 million this year and $2.7 million each year thereafter, amounting to about half of the city's available redevelopment funds, but will be allowed to keep the rest.
With the city having promised $40 million to the 49ers, $2 million and change per year isn't going to cut it, so it's unclear what this will mean for the stadium plan. "In a project of this size and financial complexity, it's going to require some flexibility to see it through," 49ers spokesperson Steve Weakland told the San Jose Mercury News, which translates as "We'll figure something out."
Realistically, a few million missing dollars in public money isn't likely to have as big an effect on whether the project gets built as the underlying shakiness of the $493 million in private money, what with the economy still in the crapper. NFL money would help some, obviously, but it still looks as if the most financially workable scenario involves the 49ers and Raiders sharing a stadium — which, since it presumably requires one to be the tenant and one the landlord, is going to be no easy feat to negotiate.
July 26, 2011
The NFL's new stadium fund explained (sort of)
With the NFL lockout finally over, the blogwaves are afire with talk of how the league's new collective bargaining agreement will affect various teams' stadium campaigns. We've already seen a report that the San Diego Chargers could get up to $150 million in NFL stadium funds, another that the San Francisco 49ers and Raiders could pool their stadium credits to get $300 million for a shared stadium, and still others that AEG's planned Los Angeles stadium could get a cut. (The Minnesota Vikings could also be in line for funds, though apparently they've already been counting that particular chicken before it hatched.)
So how much money is really available, and where is it coming from? The press reports are maddeningly incomplete and contradictory, but this is, to the best of my knowledge, what's going on:
- Back in olden times, the NFL had a program called "G-3," which allowed home teams to keep the visitors' share of club seat revenues to use to help pay off new stadium costs. Initially implemented to help convince NFL teams to remain in large markets — it was originally concocted, in fact, by New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, who limited it to the top six media markets, of which he just happened to play in #6 — it was eventually expanded to the whole league. Then the program ran out, and the flow of funds stopped.
- The successor to G-3 — which, sadly, won't be called G-4 — instead takes a 1.5% cut off the top of NFL revenues, and allocates it to stadium projects. (Sources disagree over whether this comes entirely out of the players' share or the owners would contribute as well.) At $9 billion a year in total league revenues, that would imply $135 million a year in stadium credits — though apparently the math isn't nearly so simple, which may explain why this article says only $95 million. Still, that's a huge amount of money, enough over ten years pay off about $734 million in stadium bonds. (It's not $950 million in stadium bonds because payments ten years from now aren't worth the same as payments now.)
- That huge number notwithstanding, scuttlebutt is that only three teams will be allowed to tap the new stadium loan fund, with rumors putting a cap at $150 million per team. That'd mean that from among the 49ers, Raiders, Vikings, Chargers, any team moving to L.A., and maybe the Jacksonville Jaguars, at least a couple of teams would get left out in the cold. Unless the NFL expanded the program again, which it seemingly would have the money to do.
All in all, this is a good thing for both teams wanting to build stadiums and for taxpayers not wanting to put their own money into stadiums, as this is the NFL recognizing that — because of its weird status as a league where the vast majority of revenue comes from national TV contracts — if it wants to encourage teams to stay in big markets and avoid killing the Fox golden goose, it needs to subsidize stadiums with its own money. Of course, it also could end up helping grease the wheels for some otherwise stuck stadium projects that would still involve some taxpayer money — $150 million per stadium doesn't go all that far — so in that sense, not so good. But in the grand scheme of things, billionaires voting to spend some of their own billions on projects to increase their billions is nothing to sneeze at.
July 21, 2011
Raiders, 49ers double down on stadium demands
In case you missed it — and judging from my email inbox this morning, not many of you did — the San Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders have finally bowed to the wishes of the NFL and begun discussing a shared football stadium, a la what the New York Jets and Giants pulled off in New Jersey:
"We've put our teams together," 49ers Chief Executive Jed York said late Monday at an event for NFL fans in Los Angeles. "It doesn't mean we're going to find the right deal that fits for both teams, but we're certainly going to get a look at those options."
The Raiders appear amenable to a partnership. "We have said repeatedly that we have an open mind with respect to our stadium solution," said Raiders chief executive Amy Trask, also on hand for the "NFL 101" event, held at the Los Angeles Coliseum. "An open mind means an open mind as to sharing a facility with the 49ers. I say to Jed regularly that we should have not only an open mind to the sharing of the facility, but to the location of the facility which we might share. And so there are a lot of options for us to consider."
The key phrase there, obviously, is "the location of the facility." The 49ers have been focused on Santa Clara, but that's been on hold since last fall due to financing holdups. (Though if the NFL settles its labor situation this week as rumored, that should help clear things up there some.) The Raiders, meanwhile, have been mumbling quietly about a new stadium in Oakland, but not much has been heard on that front since Oakland's stadium authority announced a feasibility study almost a year and a half ago. San Francisco is still pushing its own stadium plan, meanwhile, and there are plenty of other cities in the Bay Area within driving distance of Oakland and SF on a Sunday afternoon, if it comes to shaking loose new ideas.
Reading tea leaves, it seems like the pact between the two Bay Area teams is on the one hand an admission that in the current economic climate (and California's current budget mess, not to mention its laws about public referendums for taxpayer-subsidized projects), neither team has a great shot at getting a stadium built on their own; and on the other, a show of force that could be used to pit local governments against each other in a bidding war. After all, if you're the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority, which is more likely to light a fire under your butt: The Raiders asking for a new stadium, or the Raiders and 49ers saying, "You can have both of us together, or else we're both heading to the South Bay?" It's all about the leverage.
June 13, 2011
AEG outs five NFL teams as L.A. relocation targets
AEG president Tim Leiweke, not content to be dropping arbitrary deadlines for his company's downtown Los Angeles stadium plan, let loose another media salvo on Thursday by declaring that his boss, Philip Anschutz (the "A" in "AEG"), was prepared to buy an NFL team to move it to L.A. — and then naming names about which teams he was considering:
"St. Louis, Jacksonville, not extensively, certainly Oakland, San Diego, Minnesota are still in the mix," Leiweke said listing the teams AEG has met with before adding: "We're not packing any [moving] vans right now."
Now, "met with" doesn't necessarily mean the current team owners are actually considering AEG's offer (or that there's a solid offer to consider). Still, it was enough to set off media mayhem in the listed cities. A San Diego Chargers blog declared that "The Hit List Is Out"; Oakland Raiders CEO Amy Trask issued a statement denying that her team was for sale; and Minnesota Vikings execs insisted that their only meetings with AEG were over possibly operating the new stadium they want built in Minnesota.
Meanwhile, though the St. Louis Rams probably aren't for sale, ESPN noted this would give their owner welcome leverage in his own stadium campaign. And that's the main upshot here: For Leiweke to come out with a statement like this is a win-win for all the bigwigs involved — AEG gets a carrot to dangle alongside its July 31 deadline stick, and the owners of all the rumored move targets get a threat to use against their own localities, plus plausible deniability against being blamed for threatening a move.
And as for us? We get to play the home version. (Currently leading: The Jacksonville Jaguars, by a sizeable margin over "nobody" and then the Raiders.)
April 28, 2011
Can't tell the Oakland Coliseum names without a scorecard
The Oakland Coliseum just got its fourth corporate name in the last 14 years, after Overstock.com agreed to pay $1.2 million a year for the next six years for naming rights for the home of the Raiders and A's. (Make your own jokes about unloading excess outfielders.) That's not a ton of money, but as I told the Bay Citizen (and Craig Calcaterra seconded), used stadium names aren't worth much, because eventually everyone just calls it "the Coliseum."
Worse yet for the new name owners: They themselves are in the process of changing their name, to O.co (supposedly this already happened back in January, but I guess either someone forgot to get the memo or it doesn't apply within the U.S.). So if anyone calls it anything but "the Coliseum" it'll likely be "the O," which will only end up being free publicity for a different company, or maybe for robot assistants.
Meanwhile, the San Francisco 49ers have hired CAA to sell naming rights to their as-yet-unbuilt Santa Clara stadium, which makes it even less clear what the heck Gideon Yu is for.
December 10, 2010
No real news on Vikings, Raiders, L.A. stadiums; Blue Bombers, maybe a little
At the end of a busy week, you don't mind if I jam together items about four different football teams in two different leagues into one post, do you? Surely you don't, so let's get on with it:
- Now Tim Leiweke of AEG says he's not going to wait until after the lockout to start on an L.A. stadium, promising: "I spend most of every waking hour on the NFL. I'm going to tell you this; we're going to give this our best shot in the next two to three months." Apparently this solely refers to an "agreement with the city and the NFL," but not actual stadium designs, or funding plans. Which leaves... the shape of the negotiating table?
- Amy Trask, who's in charge of getting a new stadium for the Oakland Raiders, says, "There will be a new stadium for the Raiders, it's on the horizon and it's very exciting." (What else is she going to say?) She also says she's "tenacious," "tough," "my hope is that I'm fair," and "it's not my job to be lovable." She left out "vague," but that's kind of in the job description.
- The price of the new Winnipeg Blue Bombers stadium has now risen from $160 million to $190 million. The team would now be responsible for putting in $70 million of the cost, which would cut into the new revenues that were supposed to be the point of building this thing, but them's the breaks. (It's also notable that now that the team will continue to be owned by a community non-profit instead of a for-profit developer, it's considered okay to ask for a bigger team contribution.) A final plan is expected next week.
- The Washington Post considers the likelihood of the Vikings moving out of Minnesota, and concludes: We dunno.
And there we go. Now, if FoS readers can help out by devoting the comments section to discussion of World Cup soccer as usual, we'll have a perfect hash of an item. Have a great weekend!
October 12, 2010
Rumors and the report of rumors in California NFL stadiums
Lots of news today among the various California locales considering new or renovated NFL stadiums — though actually, "news" might be pushing it. Here, you decide for yourself:
- Majestic Realty, the developers who want to build an NFL stadium in the City of Industry, now say they'll redesign their stadium to be able to fit World Cup soccer there. "Because we're building a new stadium, we could incorporate anything FIFA could want," Majestic stadium architect Dan Meis told the Associated Press. Or to put it another way: This is still vaportecture for now anyway, but we can change it round if you like.
- The Oakland Raiders are talking to city officials about a new stadium on the site of the Oakland Coliseum that would be, according to team CEO Amy Trask, "an anchor for, or a catalyst for, an urban redevelopment that provides economic stimulus for the whole region." From the sound of it, this is code for "ballpark village," but Trask didn't provide specifics.
- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell chimed in that he's concerned about low attendance at Raiders games, and that he'd like the Raiders and San Francisco 49ers to consider a shared stadium. (Oakland claims it can build an $880 million stadium with no public money, though it apparently doesn't count property and hotel taxes as public money.) He also said that the NFL needs to do a better job selling the stadium experience compared to staying at home and watching on HD TVs,, and specifically cited how great it is to watch in person at ... a Raiders game: "It's a great experience being there feeling that passion and excitement. It's something you don't get at home." (Make your own joke about how "at home, it's more crowded.")
- The city of Pasadena, meanwhile, actually made real news, approving a $152 million renovation of the Rose Bowl to take place over the next three football offseasons. The Pasadena Star News reports that "the project is expected to generate enough revenue to cover the debt service 1.475 times," though it doesn't provide details of whether this is via a more lucrative lease with UCLA or higher ticket prices or added tax revenues or what. The project would also be subsidized by the use of federal stimulus bonds, so taxpayers across the U.S. will each be tossing in a few cents for the Rose Bowl's newly widened access tunnels.
February 15, 2010
Oakland to study shared Niners-Raiders stadium
And we're back to this again: The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority Board is about to conduct a "feasibility study" of building a new NFL stadium either on or adjacent to the site of the Oakland Coliseum, for the Raiders and possibly the San Francisco 49ers as well.
A shared 49ers-Raiders stadium, a la the new New York Jets-Giants facility opening this year, has already been endorsed by the NFL, and 49ers owner Jed York said he'd consider moving to Oakland, though it's unclear how much that's a ploy to get Santa Clara and San Francisco to up their antes for stadium bids. Especially since Alameda County supervisor Gail Steele promised that no public funds would be used in building a new stadium, given that the county still owes $150 million on its ill-fated renovations to the Coliseum 15 years ago. Though as readers of this site know, there are public funds and then there are public funds.
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.
December 11, 2009
More shots fired in 49ers stadium war
Speaking of Bay Area bidding wars, San Francisco responded to this week's activity in Santa Clara by issuing new renderings of its own planned 49ers stadium yesterday (coming on the heels of last month's new renderings).
"These illustrations not only show how dramatic a new stadium could be for San Francisco, but they also show how this entire project is going to completely rejuvenate an entire community," Mayor Gavin Newsom told a press conference. First FoS reader to find the rejuvenation in the illustrations wins a free prize!
Meanwhile, NBC Sports football blogger Mike Florio cites a "league source" as telling him that the NFL would prefer that the 49ers and the Raiders share a stadium, since one would be cheaper to build than two. That source wouldn't be the NFL commissioner ten months ago, would it?
November 19, 2009
Raiders re-up in Oakland through 2013
In what has to be classified as a major surprise, the Oakland Raiders have agreed to a three-year lease extension at the Oakland Coliseum, keeping the team there through 2013 — and are even agreeing to a $5 million a year rent hike.
"To be honest, I was looking for more money," city councilman (and Coliseum Authority co-chair) Ignacio de la Fuente tells the San Francisco Chronicle, noting that stadium operations and debt on Mount Davis currently comes to $12 million a year. "The reality is that the original Raiders deal did not work out very well for us, but at this point, we might as well try to work out a long-term lease and a long-term solution."
Unless there are further details that are going unreported (like, say, hidden rent kickbacks), this seems like a pretty good negotiating job by de la Fuente, especially given the threat posed by the new Los Angeles stadium. (Though it's worth noting that wouldn't be built until at least 2012, so the Raiders presumably needed to extend their lease for at least one year.) The city, county, and stadium authority all still need to sign off on the deal, which is expected by the end of the year.
October 07, 2009
L.A. developers target six (or seven) NFL teams
Majestic Realty stadium czar John Semcken has officially announced his hit list for NFL franchises to lure to Los Angeles, and it looks like the L.A. Times guessed right:
Semcken said new talks would begin after the Super Bowl in February, and may involve the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Buffalo Bills, the Minnesota Vikings, the St. Louis Rams, the Chargers and the Oakland Raiders.
The San Francisco 49ers could also be pursued if a vote for a new stadium in Santa Clara fails.
Semcken said a new stadium could open in 2013, but a team could be relocated as early as next year or the year after, playing at a temporary site for the first couple of years.
In related news, Majestic owner Ed Roski has lost $1 billion of his $2.5 billion net worth in the last year, according to Forbes, thanks to the California real estate crash. Stadium consultant Marc Ganis calls this "significant"; Majestic says it's just a flesh wound.
July 08, 2009
Oakland taxes county, A's tax fans
The new budget passed by the city of Oakland includes an 18.5% city tax on parking at Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, something that's allowed by law, but Oakland is only just now getting around to doing because of the fiscal crisis infecting every corner of California. (Have I mentioned the IOUs?) Under the A's and Raiders lease agreements with the Coliseum, however, the teams are allowed to deduct any parking taxes from their rent payments — meaning the city is effectively siphoning off money from the county, which promptly responded by suing the city.
None of which stopped the A's from immediately announcing that they'd be raising parking fees by $2 per car effective immediately in order to pay for the tax — which, in case you were napping during that last paragraph, the A's won't actually have to pay. "In an effort to reduce the impact to our fans, the A's are only passing along a portion of the new tax," A's president Mike Crowley told the Oakland Tribune. Voila!
February 17, 2009
Raiders float renovated Coliseum, with malls
The Oakland Raiders have proposed renovations to the Oakland Coliseum as part of a larger development with retail stores, condos, restaurants. San Francisco Chronicle columnist Ray Ratto speculates that this is just a ploy to counter talk of sharing a stadium with the San Francisco 49ers.
SF Weekly's Joe Eskenazi is skeptical as well, quoting our own Neil deMause to the effect that "football is a terrible anchor" for development. To Raiders CEO Amy Trask's suggestion that the Baltimore Ravens stadium helped spur development of that city's Inner Harbor, deMause replies: "Given that the entire inner harbor was developed five to 10 years before the Ravens stadium opened, that's a neat trick."
February 03, 2009
Goodell: Everybody gets a new stadium!!!
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell had a busy weekend. In between watching some football game, he took time out to address the stadium situation of three of his league's teams. Needless to say, in no case did he say, "Enh, they're fine where they are":
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell conceded Friday that the 49ers and Raiders stadiums must be replaced, and he said that a shared stadium facility may be the best option in a credit challenged economy racked by recession and job losses.
Asked whether he and the NFL have determined that a joint stadium should replace the decaying Oakland Coliseum and Candlestick Park, Goodell said, "The point that you point out here is that this facility is badly needed in the Bay Area. We have asked both teams to evaluate the possibility of a shared stadium.
"We can't come to a conclusion right now if that's the best option. And in these times, when it's more challenging to get these stadiums built, we have to be more creative."
Nice touch with the "decaying," there - usually the adjective of choice is "crumbling" or "outmoded," but the stench of maggots really gives some extra zest to the image.
In any case, the real news here is that 1) the NFL has sided with the two-team option as the best bet for a new Bay Area stadium, and 2) they still don't have a clue who'd pay for it. Goodell mentioned the New York Jets and Giants stadium as a precedent, but that was able to draw off league suite revenues under the now-defunct G3 program; without outside aid, it's not clear whether the Raiders and 49ers would be any better able to make money going halfsies at a new stadium than building one apiece. In which case, you'd think they might be just as well staying put - but we can't have that, can we, Commissioner?
"I know [owners] Zygi Wilf and Mark Wilf want to continue to have the Minnesota Vikings in Minnesota in a new stadium and I share that," Goodell said during his state of the NFL address in Tampa, Fla. "They have worked very hard to be able to get to that point. They have understood the priorities of the community, they have stood by and they've allowed the baseball stadium and the Gophers [football] stadium to move forward because they recognize those priorities and there are always priorities in the community.
"I think we have to continue to work with the governor and the leadership in that community to understand those priorities and figure out how we get a new stadium built. That is necessary for the Vikings. We all want the Vikings to be there in the long term, successfully. They need a new stadium, that's clear. I think it's recognized by all parties and we need to get down to the difficult business of figuring out how to do it."
Clearly not.
January 10, 2009
Niners to consider Raiders stadium share?
The San Francisco 49ers on Friday acknowledged that the battered economy likely will slow down their plans to build a new stadium in Santa Clara and now has them willing to discuss a once unthinkable option - sharing a new home with their cross-bay rival, the Raiders.
This isn't the first time the notion of a shared 49ers-Raiders stadium - who knows where - has been floated, but it is the first time the 49ers have publicly said they'd consider it, albeit only if they keep getting nowhere with their own Santa Clara plans. If the teams do end up sharing digs, it could provide another option for the similarly stadium-stymied Oakland A's: Stay put at the Oakland Coliseum and tear down the Raiders-inspired "Mount Davis," which most Bay Areans seem to agree is the only thing that ruined the place for baseball.