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.
I do not think EITHER the Niners or Raiders have that much leverage. Look at the Vikings: They have one only more year on their lease at the Metrodome, and they are no closer to having a new facility, or moving out of Minnesota to a ready-made facility. In addition, I cannot see the 49ers willing to be a junior partner of the Raiders in Oakland, nor do I see Al Davis accepting being the same in Santa Clara to a team he despises more than anyone (Except maybe the Kansas City Chiefs). The only way that the leverage comes is if (And that is a BIG IF), the shovels are in the ground in LA. That would change the calculus of the equation where you would see a legitimate option for the Raiders, Vikings, Chargers etc. Until that occurs, and we are a long way away from that, don’t count me in as a believer.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Minnesota lost the Vikings to L.A. ala’ the Minnesota Lakers…
No, but that would be coincidental.
Given the existing economic climate in California, I think a shared stadium is probably the only idea that would work without public financing. There’s a good chance it would pencil with two major tenants.
But where?
In the end here, Al Davis’s psychosis will rule the day, and there will be no shared stadium. That’s a shame. Instead of one privately-run stadium that would financially work, we’ll get two publicly-run stadiums that won’t financially work.
It’s not like the Bay area has 20 million residents. Oh well, since we couldn’t agree on a location 4 miles away, just toss the whole idea. Sounds good.
The terms in Santa Clara leave it to the 49ers if there will be a second team in the proposed stadium-the council would have no say in the matter (although they obviously would love the idea of the Raiders).
I think about the the misinformed or oblivious residents (the vast majority) who would be in for a real surprise to have 20 Sundays a year dedicated to game days–“who, who authorized this?!”
I don’t see how a second team would be any panacea for the city either. The Raider’s experienced their own PSL debacle–why would it go any better for them a second time around outside of their home turf?
Also Al pays minimal rent in Oakland and would expect the same in SC.
Futhermore, are companies making pledges on luxury suites going to be willing to share them? Wouldn’t having to do so reduce their desirability? How has this worked in NJ?
Good point Jay about the luxury suites. PSLs are another issue.
There is nothing in writing that says that Raiders fans would have to pay for seat licenses in a stadium in Santa Clara. The Term Sheet says only that 49ers fans are expected to pay for seat licenses. I don’t see that sitting well with 49ers fans (why should one set of fans pay for seat licenses but the other set of fans using the same stadium doesnt’t have to pay for seat licenses?)
It didn’t work to sell seat licenses to Raiders fans for the Oakland Coliseum, hence Oakland and Alameda County got stuck with about $200 million in debt.
Also note that the current agreement on the table between SC and the 49ers no longer contains ticket taxes as a way to pay off stadium debt. (Ticket taxes were in the Term Sheet that was on the ballot). They took away the one sure source of revenue to pay off the construction bonds. PSLs and naming rights income are far less certain.
Just a guess here, but I think that part of the reason that the NFL is pushing the shared stadium idea is that they’d prefer to be away from Santa Clara and closer to Oakland or San Francisco.
To Jay’s question, suites are sold on a yearly (or multi-year) basis. Having two teams theoretically makes a suite more attractive.
We here in Honolulu and across Hawaii and the Pacific Ocean region are waiting confidently for the day the Raiders relocate here to the Islands. Of course, Al Davis will have to pass and ownership will change for many reasons, not the least of which will be tax and other inheritance issues. The Raiders can be confident an amazing stadium that is on a par with what was constructed in Arlington will be constructed here, and international support of the club from across Asia will be just one of many reasons this move will be a glowing success. Bring it on Raiders to Honolulu ! Honolulu Raiders 2015 !
The perfect scenario: The NFL builds a stadium in the bay area ( santa clara, Oak., S.F., S.J.) for the 49ers AND Raiders.
They also build a stadium in LA for the Chargers AND Rams and the result is this;
North/South NFC rivalry again with Niners/Rams snd AFC Chargers/Raiders.
Two state of the art stadiums in CA that can host Super Bowls to boot. A real Charger fan can make the 90 mile drive 8 times a year and Raider fans are all over the state. It would be sweet.
“The perfect scenario: The NFL builds a stadium in the bay area ( santa clara, Oak., S.F., S.J.) for the 49ers AND Raiders.
They also build a stadium in LA for the Chargers AND Rams and the result is this;
North/South NFC rivalry again with Niners/Rams snd AFC Chargers/Raiders.”
It would be the perfect scenario…”if the NFL builds it”. It would be great it the public would have to pay a dime.
“A real Charger fan can make the 90 mile drive 8 times a year”
People are fans of the teams who play in their cities, not the franchises who move from city to city. While the drive to LA is not enormous hardship, the point is it wouldn’t be SD’s team any more.
Neil’s quite right about the leverage.
Since the lockout, the 49ers have been attempting to blame all of their financing troubles on greedy NFL players. But the “two team stadium” has been just as much of an obstacle to them getting financing.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Santa Clarans, if you voted for Measure J, you gave Jed York not only the exclusive right to decide whether there’ll be a second team – but also the exclusive right to nearly all of those lease proceeds. There’s virtually no benefit to our city’s General Fund. Any base lease payment goes to the Stadium Authority – and that’s no more than the 49ers themselves are paying.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
PSLs? LOL. For our little 49ers fans, you bet. But Raider Damnation? The Santa Clara Stadium Authority currently has absolutely NO power to charge Oakland fans for any Personal Seat Licenses – because the 49ers control that sublease.
Bests,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
-=0=-
No PSLs for Raider season ticket holders but charge them for 49ers!?
That doesn’t make intuitive sense to me as being fair at all.
I highly doubt that there would be much demand for them, but still…
How could be done without the alienating the 49er fans? A recipe for disaster
Is the Stadium Authority (implicitly backed by the City of Santa Clara) still planning to issue $330m in Bonds paid out of:
1) PSL’s
2) Naming Rights
3) Pouring rights
It would take $25m a year pay down the Bonds. IF the Niners and Raiders can generate $100m in PSL’s, $10M in Naming Rights, and $7M in pouring rights, the Financing could work. Its still a long shot, but adding the Raiders should increase the value of both the Naming and Pouring rights.
Ugh. Can’t they BOTH move to LA and rid the Bay Area of the trivial exercise in tribal brutality known as football?
I hate sports. Not pro or college sports. The very idea of them. Especially team sports.
I used to like watching pro sports.
Several factors turned me off from them. The main reason was the rampant greed as exemplified in the player salaries and demands from owners for taxpayer supported palaces.
Also, with drug use I don’t really believe anything I’m watching is “real” anymore. I’m currently reading “Fight of the Century” about Ali-Frazier 1 which interests me because I believe it is (and will remain) the biggest sporting contest of my lifetime and that neither of the principals were on performance drugs. If the event was today I’d have trouble believing the same.
Thirdly I think people take spectator sports way too seriously. This is the “Chomsky” critique; people don’t pay attention to what’s happening politically in their life but can recite the lineups of their local teams and get quite impassioned about it. I’m sorry but the older I get the greater waste of time I think that is.
To SCBruin:
“Is the Stadium Authority (implicitly backed by the City of Santa Clara) still planning to issue $330m in Bonds paid out of:…”
Stadium Authority debt is going to be way more than that amount, as we learned in the Santa Clara City Council meeting of June 7th – not only is the $330M in the rear-view mirror, both the City Council and the 49ers are fully prepared to pile way more debt onto the Stadium Authority.
That evening, City Staff specifically said that the 49ers were now down for ONLY “15 to 25%” of what staff called “development costs,” while the total “development cost” of the stadium will be up to $950 million dollars.
The notion that they’re going to make up $330,000,000 plus way more in Personal Seat Licenses (yes, they are REALLY PSLs) and in naming rights is completely ludicrous.
By the way, those are only the CONSTRUCTION costs.
Wait till the Santa Clara Stadium Authority has to pay ALL of the OPERATING costs of an NFL stadium, to the tune of $25,000,000 to $35,000,000 per year – every year, and with NO guarantees that the San Francisco 49ers will support them.
Rip off. Total.
Bests,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
-=0=-
The Santa Clara site has no dedicated parking lot like Candlestick and the Oakland Coliseum have, or like the SF Hunter’s Point site has. The Santa Clara site will have:
1) a parking garage (no tailgating),
2) a parking lot leased by Great America Amusement Park, which has indicated that it will be open on game days to share the ‘synergy’ of it’s park with the stadium (NFL patrons would have to pay not only parking fees for that lot, but also buy tickets to the amusement park, which substantially raises the cost to park there),
3) parking in lots owned by businesses, which may not be amenable to the trash, drinking, and liability of open grills associated with tailgating.
Are 49ers and Raiders fans really aware of how difficult tailgating will be at the Santa Clara site? And how, unlike Candlestick and the Coliseum, there is no direct freeway access to the Santa Clara site?
Now consider that businesses would be expected to send their employees home early (like 3 pm) on weeknight game nights so that their parking lots would be available to NFL patrons. Who will compensate those businesses for lost employee work hours? The NFL has already acknowledged that weeknight games would be difficult at the Santa Clara site because of the parking problems. And, fans would need to drive to the stadium site during rush hour, which starts at about 3 pm here. Weeknight traffic is bumper to bumper already without adding stadium traffic.
Also consider that the lawsuit filed by Great America (Cedar Fair) Amusement park was dismissed because the city doesn’t have a contract yet with the 49ers (not because the suit was without merit). The lot where the 49ers want their stadium is currently leased from the city by Great America, which could refile their lawsuit once there is a signed contract.
Note that the signed contract was due 1 year ago. We don’t know what the delay is because all negotiations are happening behind closed doors.
First of all if a 2nd team moves in with the 49ers the City of Santa Clara gets back their entire 114M investment. But you guys forget about that on purpose.
2nd of all a two-team stadium in Santa Clara will work with the Raiders joining as if you do the math:
300M- NFL (150M each team- NY got the same)
193M- 49ers contribution (they have this sitting in the bank right now)
140M- Luxury suite sales already in the books
That is 633M already accounted for without any taxpayer money from Santa Clara in a two-team scenario. That is 633/987= 65% of the final cost and the stadium is 4 years away still.
This plus these items have not come into play yet:
-SBLs (These will sell easily if Luxury boxes already netted 140M, 49ers fans have $$)
-Naming rights
-Luxury boxes (still plenty left)
-Advertising contracts
I am not even counting the extra revenue from the Raiders for arguments sake just the extra NFL payout.
Santa Clara gets back their investment because of the additional investment the NFL is going to make with the Raiders joining in.
Parking? Mission College has already pledged their entire parking lot for game days. As for weekday night games…they are so rare that the businesses who help out will get $$ for their sacrifice…some rev share from the team/city.
People can work from home on those rare 4-6 nights a year. Working virtually is very common in Silicon Valley. We are talking about 4-6 nights out of 365 days in a year?…That a whole lot isn’t it! Now you guys are not producing valid arguments.
Compared to Minnesota where the state/county are going to pitch in a significant sum, Santa Clara is getting a great deal here if you compare.
As for the Raiders, with the A’s still stuck in Oakland they are at least 10 years away from getting something down out there.
Sign a 10 year lease with the 49ers in SC, then keep trying in Oakland for when the new CBA is up in 2020 they can then ask for $$ for something in Oakland down the road.
LA is going to get the Chargers and Rams. Rams have an out clause in 2014 if they do not have a new stadium or renovated place by then.
2015 is going to be a good year for the NFL in the Bay Area….A Super Bowl every 5 years!
“First of all if a 2nd team moves in with the 49ers the City of Santa Clara gets back their entire 114M investment. But you guys forget about that on purpose. ”
FALSE, Sid. Read the actual stadium Term Sheet before posting falsehoods.
“I am not even counting the extra revenue from the Raiders for arguments sake just the extra NFL payout.”
FALSE, Sid. The Raiders pocket all of their own NFL revenues – same as the 49ers do – and they pay NONE of that to the City of Santa Clara or to any of its agencies. The Raiders pay no more than the 49ers do for their lease – and the lease doesn’t pay us, it pays the 49ers.
“300M- NFL (150M each team- NY got the same)”
FALSE, Sid. There is absolutely no guaranteed that both the 49ers and the Raiders get that $150 million each. You’re believing what you want to believe, but you have no proof.
“People can work from home on those rare 4-6 nights a year. Working virtually is very common in Silicon Valley. We are talking about 4-6 nights out of 365 days in a year?…That a whole lot isn’t it! Now you guys are not producing valid arguments. ”
FALSE, Sid – you’re argument is the invalid one. The original EIR actually called for every tech company who signs a deal with the parking district to clear their own parking lots at 3:00 pm on Mondays for MNF. Totally, absolutely ridiculous.
“-Luxury boxes (still plenty left)”
The 49ers pocket all of that money. Not one cent in luxury box money goes to Santa Clara or to any of its agencies. This is why your $633M figure is totally bogus.
“Santa Clara gets back their investment because of the additional investment the NFL is going to make with the Raiders joining in.”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
FALSE, Sid, and in fact, this was the most untruthful part of your claims above. Santa Clara will NEVER recover that “investment,” because it is a subsidy and not any kind of investment. City Staff went completely through this in the spring and summer of 2007, and they were forced to acknowledge that the massive stadium subsidy causes a negative ROI under virtually every circumstance. Not even the second team sublease – which remits to the 49ers and not to our city – changes that.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Sid, you obviously don’t understand the Term Sheet or any part of the stadium subsidy in Santa Clara.
When you’ve read the actual deal and understand it, try us again.
Bests,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
-=0=-