PDA

View Full Version : Financing A Stadium


TheWiz
04-02-2007, 09:14 PM
There are a half a dozen or so notable team events that will occur in the next month...

- Whether or not RB Hicks signs an offer sheet elsewhere will be known as will his participation with the team past April as a result.
- It seems highly certain that we will either see Smiley agree to a much cheaper deal than expected or we will see him posing with another teams' jersey at a press conference. There is a chance he gets traded post draft to a club still needing OG help and an '08 pick, but I think it less likely at the moment.
- Of course, the draft is quickly approaching.
- Individual player workouts for potential draftees. Keep in mind that these are almost never used to actually scout players you intend to draft in day 1. While a team on the edge may invite a 1st or 2nd rounder, usually it's just for more information like another interview, more MRIs, seeing them play on natural grass, etc. The majority of these workouts are used to scout players who could go late in day 2 or go undrafted since teams really only get to see them at pro days, if they attend those events. A pro day is a controlled atmosphere, a team workout is the anti-combine, you choose not to participate at your own peril. For many players, impressing at these workouts is what can mean the difference between a 20k bonus just to come to camp or a bare minimal deal to work your butt off for 3 weeks and get cut with no bonus.

Don't get me wrong, my mind is heavily buried in the upcoming draft but there is only so much one can think on one topic. In fact, a study I read about suggested that the more information and criteria you have the more likely you are to make bad decisions. It was a cross study of many disciplines including stock brokers and sports betting. People who got more in depth and private information tended to make the worst choices as opposed to those who followed classic indicators only. So, obsessing over Wonderlic scores, shuttle times, game footage loops against top 25 teams, and hand size it's only going to kill me by the end of the month.

One that intrigues me the most that is not game related is the impending meetings with the Santa Clara officials regarding our financial plan for the proposed stadium. This is supposed to occur in a 2-stage process. The first meeting in 9 days will revolve around pitching the idea of the stadium to the city. Clearly, before you break the bad news about ripping up streets and asking for money from a city you want to make them salivate over increased tax revenue, increased jobs and tourism, and the like.

The first meeting is an economic impact study presentation. You'd be surprised how the trickle down economics work in these studies. The presence of a stadium can easily drive up property values in residential zones over time, increasing taxes. A stadium also not only brings in games but concerts, various other sporting events, media events, and conventions/goods shows. These lead to increased tourism which leads to more businesses moving into town, more jobs at existing business, and makes current business happy because it increases their attractiveness. More taxes also mean better schools and social programs that encourage families towards the region. It's a big, long loop. All this report will generall sell is two ideas. How much actual increased tax revenvue the city will likely gain and how they would be silly to pass up on the deal.

The second meeting will be the teams formal proposal, 2 weeks later. We have all seen the artists rendering of the region used to convince the city into agreeing to talks in the first place. But a formal proposal is more like selling the novel instead of just the cover. It will include what infrastructure changes (roads,water lines, sewage lines, electricity, data lines, etc) will need to be made just to make the stadium ready to build. This likely will be the bulk of the first 12-18 months of building and impacts the city the most. It will make the area a veritable traffic jam for that time span while everything is converted and digging and foundation work is done on the stadium. The proposal also will include a more detailed map of the stadiums location and design as well as other features in a very real world sense beyond the artistic rendering. Where exactly will the stadium be, it's location relative to the pipeline, and how it really fits in real world scale.

Between the stadium building plans, infrastructure details and economic impact, funding will lastly be discussed. Exactly how the team will pay for the stadium is a the real crux of the argument. If we could build it without a penny from Santa Clara and even buy the land we build it on it would be an open and shut case. But the fact remains that the team will ask the city for money, land, and incentives packages. Especially after making them pine for the tax dollars and increased city tourism and city recognition.

Here is an example of a possible 'finance' package providing all of the factors...

1) The city forgoes on leasing the land to the park and instead turns the rights over directly to the team. The city also will go without property taxes until the stadium itself is completed. This is a very small concession since they will gain a lot more in taxes in '012-'015 than they could selling leasing rights up until then.
2) The team asks for 3 fairly valuable plots of land in the surrounding area at no cost but without any tax credits. The team will build condominiums and rental properties on the land and use the profits to help pay off the stadium costs. The city loses the potentially lucrative costs of selling to a private developer but will receive taxes and residents sooner than if it waited longer to sell the land.
3) The team will ask the city for 150M in funds from a variety of funds bearing cash surpluses but mostly 135M of it from the electric utility fund. This will come in roughly equal payments of 50M over the '08-'011 years. The funds will pay for all of the infrastructure and a large part of the landscaping costs but also the costs needed to build housing on the plots given by the city.
4) The team will aggressively seek a new G-3 Style program through the NFL. While none, to my knowledge, was agreed upon during the recent meetings, this fund would not be required to be accessible before '08. The first goal would be to create the fund or at least make certain it would be available by this fall. A second goal is to get a 200M loan. While the previous limit was 150M, the leagues profits and growth and desire to replace Candlestick as a venue will be big selling points. The team could easily get a 200M, zero-cost loan this way.
5) Stadium naming rights then come into play. Lots of speculation has occured but nearly all of it centers on the team able to gain 10M/year for selling these rights. A 15-year naming rights deal nets the team 150M in cash. Such a deal can be speculated to include up to 10M in payments (2M/year) from now until 2012 while the stadiumj is built and an additional 9M/year over the first 10 years of stadium play ('12-'22). Then a payment of 20M could buy out their deal or the sponsor could pay another 10M/year over another 5 years and the team also holds rights to cancel the deal in '22. In short, this financing helps to pay off all interest from loans and pay off parts of the loans over the course of its existance.
6) The team secures 100M in low cost loans from private lenders. The default rate on a loan to an NFL team must be lower than the chance of getting trcuk by lightning 3 times. It's backed by a multi-billion dollar per year revenue sport and an owner who at least can sell his franchise rights for hundreds of millions of dollars. The revenues from naming rights and property income will offset any interest costs and still pay off part of the principle. At the same time it defers a lot of the cost past the '17 season when the ownership can easily pay down this loan.
7) The rest falls to ownership directly. While the league loan and city funds will throw around 350M straight into the pot to get the stadium built another 150M and unrealized property income pays off parts of loans and all interest. That's 500M. Then the team has a 100M loan it will pay off in the '17-'22 time frame. That comes to 600M which leaves 200M for the team to cover. Considering how the team can make 30-40M per year with a playoff level team and an easy 40M-50M when it moves to a better stadium, paying off 20M per year from '07 to '17 is a piece of cake.

Keep in mind the actual eventual costs do come to 200M (league) + 100M (private) + 200M (personal) = 500M while also almost all profits from the city-donated land end up paying down interest and eventually loan principle. But the team will need the stadium until '22 before ownership can see full, complete profits from its operation and even then maintence costs could start to build up.

A brief idea: The city pays money up front and land rights and the league gives us a big, very cheap loan. This finances the roads, utility lines, and foundation of the stadium and all construction through most of '09. The team will already be receiving income from naming rights and property rentals/sales to continue on as well as having saved cash from the last 2 NFL seasons. Then a 100M group of private loans pays to start building the stadium along with about 50M in owners direct cash. The remainder is built and finished in forms of deferred payments, some immediate cash, and also very low cost inflation-fixed loans. The loans are all paid off in various ways until '22.

The only downside is increased, albeit still cheap, costs for Santa Clara electricity users. All of which can easily be replace and fixed. While the city will lose a utility cushion, it will be receiving an increased tax income from as early as mid '08. After all, the city will be pitched the idea that its surplus won't last long anyhow. They're spending nearly 20M per year just to keep costs cheap and hope that in 5 years, the other 200M going towards transmission and generation improvements will keep the costs low. Out of 2 reports I have seen, both say the city is more or less spending upwards of 300M to secure that the average private citizen doesn't spend as much as an extra $60 per year, inflation adjusted, through 2037. Barring another huge financial windfall from PG&E short comings, the system would be quite insolvent beyond that point. I expect the results to show the city will incur enough extra taxes to offset almost all of that cost to private citizens and the increased revenue for most businesses will in fact offset their extra costs to say the least.

khanusma
04-02-2007, 09:27 PM
... it's only going to kill me by the end of the month.



So.. you do it b/c you like it or b/c you get paid for it?? :)

canadianjedi
04-03-2007, 12:59 AM
bake sale?

Niner Jan
04-03-2007, 02:46 AM
Wiz,

Can you fill in a little about the 2 April dates for the next two Santa Clara City Council meetings? I heard from the president of our 49ers Booster Club that there were soon to be 2 SCCC meetings...and I presume the time is the same as the last 2 that I attended, namely 7 pm?

Niner Jan

XRaguX
04-03-2007, 12:06 PM
Wiz,

I would think that PSL (taboo & I know 3rdRow will be gunning for me) would be used in the finance plan to either offset some of the direct ownership costs or the contribution from Santa Clara but you failed to mention them. It's pretty standard practice in all recent stadium development so why wouldn't they be used in our situation?

Peter Proud
04-03-2007, 01:07 PM
Wiz,

I would think that PSL (taboo & I know 3rdRow will be gunning for me) would be used in the finance plan to either offset some of the direct ownership costs or the contribution from Santa Clara but you failed to mention them. It's pretty standard practice in all recent stadium development so why wouldn't they be used in our situation?

:shoot: :shoot: 3rdRow isn't to only one!

I haven't forgotten the survey that the 49ers trotted out showing there was support for ***'s (I don't use those letters either). Since then, there was been no mention of the survey or the possiblity of ***'s. This could be because they do not want to anger those Season Ticket Holder at a time when as much support as possible is needed.

I'm sure when the team and Santa Clara make public any financing plans , if it shows Santa Clara or it's citizens putting up money without the 49ers showing that nowhere are the Season Ticket Holders being asked for a 'contribution', someone from Santa Clara or it's citizens will not just complain about it, but the possiblity of a citizen's group filing suit certainly exist.

So....if there is anyone from the 49ers Front Office who would care to state what the teams' position (including details) on ***'s currently is, I would most certainly appreciate an update via a press release (put it out in the open!).

TheWiz
04-03-2007, 03:59 PM
Wiz,

Can you fill in a little about the 2 April dates for the next two Santa Clara City Council meetings? I heard from the president of our 49ers Booster Club that there were soon to be 2 SCCC meetings...and I presume the time is the same as the last 2 that I attended, namely 7 pm?

Niner Jan

To be the best of my knowledge, all of the meetings will be at 7 pm so as to make as accessible to the working public as possible. For future reference, you can find the current Santa Clara meeting schedules posted here:

http://www.ci.santa-clara.ca.us/calendarcm_cur.html

So far the team has actually not been working dirtectly with the city council. The meetings have involved the planning committee, who are the ones who actually vote on issues such as major city building projects. However, many council members have attended to stay directly informed. There are two schedule meetings coming up, causing some confusion because a news article on Saturday state the incorrect date. As per the city schedule at that link, the meetings will be on the 11th and 25th.

The first meeting is going to be an economic impact report on the 11th. This is the teams chance to pitch the positives the city will feel as a result of a new stadium. How much extra tax money, impact on local retailers, etc. If you're a city resident and are skeptical, this is a meeting to attend. Otherwise no special details on the stadium will be revealed.

The second meeting will definitely be the bigger one everyone will be more interested in attending, on the 25th. The team will need to pitch its proposed financing package and with that comes any requests for city funds. It will include a building report on roughly what city infrastructure changes will be needed to sustain the new stadium. A proposal to handle the parking issues and so on will be presented. This is the big pitch. After letting the city dream of the eoncomic impact for 2 weeks, then we will give the initial pitch.

The important thing to remember is that this will be an ongoing process. Debate over the citie's contribution will be weighed back and forth, the financing plan could sway a few different ways too. The there will probably be more studies over the spring and into the summer on potential impacts.

Wiz,

I would think that PSL (taboo & I know 3rdRow will be gunning for me) would be used in the finance plan to either offset some of the direct ownership costs or the contribution from Santa Clara but you failed to mention them. It's pretty standard practice in all recent stadium development so why wouldn't they be used in our situation?

PSL's are an idea that took off in the 90s but generally has fallen on bad times lately for many reasons. The initial goal was that current season ticket owners had to pay a license/rights fee in order to get the rights to the same seats in a new stadium. Then it was extended to any season ticket holder who buys tickets for the first time which encouraged ticket holders to keep renewing to get their moneys worth and hence sell more tickets. There are problems with the system.

There are really no requirements on how the money was spent. Owners used them from everything to a new field turf to a new Superscreen or routine stadium maintenance and not just new stadiums or large renovations. One owner escrowed the funds and pocketed the interest each year. This led the players union to complain. In essence, PSL's gave the owners ways to earn money that was not being accounted for. Since an owner could use PSL's to cover maintenance expenses, he got to keep several million per season without needing to declare PSL's as extra income. Now PSL's are calculated rigorously into the salary cap space calculations. It has also been noted that PSLs tend to drive away more first time season ticket holders. While decade long holders tedn to have no problem with it, it dissuades an average fan when he sees the up front extra cost. It works well for stadiums packed with seats held by some fans for decades but not for us, the team will want to spur more season sales in 2012.

:shoot: :shoot: 3rdRow isn't to only one!

I haven't forgotten the survey that the 49ers trotted out showing there was support for ***'s (I don't use those letters either). Since then, there was been no mention of the survey or the possiblity of ***'s. This could be because they do not want to anger those Season Ticket Holder at a time when as much support as possible is needed.

I'm sure when the team and Santa Clara make public any financing plans , if it shows Santa Clara or it's citizens putting up money without the 49ers showing that nowhere are the Season Ticket Holders being asked for a 'contribution', someone from Santa Clara or it's citizens will not just complain about it, but the possiblity of a citizen's group filing suit certainly exist.

So....if there is anyone from the 49ers Front Office who would care to state what the teams' position (including details) on ***'s currently is, I would most certainly appreciate an update via a press release (put it out in the open!).

That's a rather biased opinion. As will be shown, the city stands to gain millions per year in extra tax revenue from the stadium. Not to mention a Superbowl can easily flood millions into the local economy. More tourism and higher sales will lead to more businesses moving in and so on and so forth.

Ticket holders already help by paying for tickets. Don't even think a new stadium will come with cheaper tickets, chances are that they will rise.

Peter Proud
04-03-2007, 06:55 PM
This is not the entire quote, just The Wiz's response to what I had posted.

PSL's are an idea that took off in the 90s but generally has fallen on bad times lately for many reasons. The initial goal was that current season ticket owners had to pay a license/rights fee in order to get the rights to the same seats in a new stadium. Then it was extended to any season ticket holder who buys tickets for the first time which encouraged ticket holders to keep renewing to get their moneys worth and hence sell more tickets. There are problems with the system.

There are really no requirements on how the money was spent. Owners used them from everything to a new field turf to a new Superscreen or routine stadium maintenance and not just new stadiums or large renovations. One owner escrowed the funds and pocketed the interest each year. This led the players union to complain. In essence, PSL's gave the owners ways to earn money that was not being accounted for. Since an owner could use PSL's to cover maintenance expenses, he got to keep several million per season without needing to declare PSL's as extra income. Now PSL's are calculated rigorously into the salary cap space calculations. It has also been noted that PSLs tend to drive away more first time season ticket holders. While decade long holders tedn to have no problem with it, it dissuades an average fan when he sees the up front extra cost. It works well for stadiums packed with seats held by some fans for decades but not for us, the team will want to spur more season sales in 2012.

That's a rather biased opinion. As will be shown, the city stands to gain millions per year in extra tax revenue from the stadium. Not to mention a Superbowl can easily flood millions into the local economy. More tourism and higher sales will lead to more businesses moving in and so on and so forth.

Ticket holders already help by paying for tickets. Don't even think a new stadium will come with cheaper tickets, chances are that they will rise.

Thank you Wiz for the detailed info regarding ***'s. Without saying that there won't be any ***'s, it seems by what you have posted that it would be counter-productive to the current needs and plans for the future of the 49ers. I confess that it just seems to me to have worked it's way into recent stadium financing plans. Churchill was right in his assessment of fear.

While I hope that ***'s are not part of the stadium financing plan, I still would like to see the 49ers address the issue via their website or thru a press release.

Thanks again, You've given me hope!

TheWiz
04-04-2007, 06:45 AM
Clearly I spoke too soon on this one Peter Proud. According to an article out this morning there is a very good chance that the team will ask fans for a Charte Seat License (i.e. lifetime PSL) that will buy you lifetime rights to a seat for season tickets.

Here is the article from the Mercury:

http://www.mercurynews.com/sportsheadlines/ci_5589665

I still think they're merely floating the idea right now but I think it's a big mistake since it tends to drive away new season ticket buyers. I don't think that it is an issue at the moment. I'll try to get back to this post later today.

Peter Proud
04-04-2007, 09:21 AM
Fans Still Have Allegiance...When people moved from Bay Area cities to more affordable housing, they stayed fans and Season Ticket Holders. But 3-4 years later, commute cost have doubled, inflation is up, interest rates for loans and credit cards are up also. The 49ers shouldn't be so quick to say that the Season Ticket Holders will pay. Future surveys by the team should be restricted to Season Ticket Holders only. If non-season ticket holders are included, they are more apt to say they'll pay.....but currently they don't even pay for season tickets!


I am a Season Ticket Holder...and I was NEVER surveyed! I think the team may have purposely surveyed non-season ticket holders to achieve their desired result.

XRaguX
04-04-2007, 04:04 PM
Fans Still Have Allegiance...When people moved from Bay Area cities to more affordable housing, they stayed fans and Season Ticket Holders. But 3-4 years later, commute cost have doubled, inflation is up, interest rates for loans and credit cards are up also. The 49ers shouldn't be so quick to say that the Season Ticket Holders will pay. Future surveys by the team should be restricted to Season Ticket Holders only. If non-season ticket holders are included, they are more apt to say they'll pay.....but currently they don't even pay for season tickets!


I am a Season Ticket Holder...and I was NEVER surveyed! I think the team may have purposely surveyed non-season ticket holders to achieve their desired result.


PP - Didn't mean to exclude you in the shotgun reference. I've just got a few blasts from 3rdRow and remember the name. BTW...Aren't you a Raider fan but have very good 49er tickets? Just trying to remember.

My family's been STH's for many years now and have seen the turmoil, the exodus as well as have made our own decisions to reduce the number of tickets we buy. At this time, we're in the East & North Bay so the move down the Peninsula will double all of our trips.

While I don't think ***'s would make us totally give up all tickets, I suspect that we'd further reduce the number of tickets purchased each year and divy up the games. While there's inherent value in lifetime ***'s, I don't think many average fans can justify the significant commitment associated with them.

Wiz - I appreciate your insight into my question and I can only hope that ***'s remains as unmentionable.

Peter Proud
04-04-2007, 04:38 PM
PP - Didn't mean to exclude you in the shotgun reference. I've just got a few blasts from 3rdRow and remember the name. BTW...Aren't you a Raider fan but have very good 49er tickets? Just trying to remember.

My family's been STH's for many years now and have seen the turmoil, the exodus as well as have made our own decisions to reduce the number of tickets we buy. At this time, we're in the East & North Bay so the move down the Peninsula will double all of our trips.

While I don't think ***'s would make us totally give up all tickets, I suspect that we'd further reduce the number of tickets purchased each year and divy up the games. While there's inherent value in lifetime ***'s, I don't think many average fans can justify the significant commitment associated with them.

Wiz - I appreciate your insight into my question and I can only hope that ***'s remains as unmentionable.

Still RAIDERS 1st, but definitely a fan of the 49ers too!

I'm of the mindset that the 49ers are hoping a lot of things fall into place in their favor. #1 is that the team gets above 500 and makes the play-offs starting this year and continuing. #2 is that a winning team will increase the amount of Season Ticket Holders thru retention and new STH's. #3 is that both cities will then be pressured by the teams' success by their citizens to have the stadium built in their jurisdiction.

Things that haven't been defined yet: #1 If the stadium is to be built in San Francisco, where will the 49ers play if the old stadium is to be built at Candlestick? #2 If the new stadium is to be built in Santa Clara, then the 49ers have to negotiate a new lease for Monster Park with a very angry landlord, or find another place to place until the new stadium is built.

Come on 49ers, answers to question need to start being addressed and released to the public on a quicker and more detailed basis.

XRaguX
04-04-2007, 05:43 PM
Still RAIDERS 1st, but definitely a fan of the 49ers too!

I'm of the mindset that the 49ers are hoping a lot of things fall into place in their favor. #1 is that the team gets above 500 and makes the play-offs starting this year and continuing. #2 is that a winning team will increase the amount of Season Ticket Holders thru retention and new STH's. #3 is that both cities will then be pressured by the teams' success by their citizens to have the stadium built in their jurisdiction.


I completely agree with your assessment. In fact, I've long believed that York's decision to fire Terry “Don't-Have-A-Clue” & Erickson was precipitated by a realization that what happens on the field directly relates to the asset value (The 49ers). New stadiums significantly increase the value of an NFL team so if I was an owner, it would be my #1 priority.

In the early years of his ownership, many people criticized York for being “Cheap” and for approaching ownership like a business. To be honest, I have to admit that I had doubts and could be found perusing DumpYork...com a few times. Unfortunately, he didn’t make the connection into how much the actual fan (and STH’s) can affect the potential value of the team. Truth be told, he really dropped the ball, shot the goose that lays the golden egg, screwed up, etc. However, as of today, I have a new level of respect for the York’s primarily due to his business sense.

When the York’s first took ownership, the 49ers had wide-reaching support from STH, The Bay Area, and across the nation. Blackouts weren’t even a consideration and there was very little impact as tickets increase from $50 to $68 in 3 years. However, as these ticket prices were being introduced, the product on the field deteriorated and fan discontent spiraled out of control. Any discussion of a new stadium was quickly replaced by talk of Television Blackouts.

Now, he understands that in order to get a new stadium, he has re-build the wide-spread fan support. Luckily for us, this goal is directly aligned to our desire to have a fun and competitive team.

The York’s have learned some hard lessons but I have to give them credit for learning from their mistakes. While I would like the stadium built in SF, I have to admit that any new stadium will provide a huge lift to the team. Finally, while the York’s may not ever have the opportunity to be beloved like Eddie was before them, there aren’t too many alternatives that would provide the fans the future that is currently unfolding.

TheWiz
04-07-2007, 04:06 PM
Still RAIDERS 1st, but definitely a fan of the 49ers too!

I'm of the mindset that the 49ers are hoping a lot of things fall into place in their favor. #1 is that the team gets above 500 and makes the play-offs starting this year and continuing. #2 is that a winning team will increase the amount of Season Ticket Holders thru retention and new STH's. #3 is that both cities will then be pressured by the teams' success by their citizens to have the stadium built in their jurisdiction.

Things that haven't been defined yet: #1 If the stadium is to be built in San Francisco, where will the 49ers play if the old stadium is to be built at Candlestick? #2 If the new stadium is to be built in Santa Clara, then the 49ers have to negotiate a new lease for Monster Park with a very angry landlord, or find another place to place until the new stadium is built.

Come on 49ers, answers to question need to start being addressed and released to the public on a quicker and more detailed basis.

The only problem is that almost all certainty regarding the stadium is Santa Clara will need to be determined well before this time next year. I expect haggling and discussions over financing and such to be involved over the summer. But final discussions and a public blessing to go ahead should be done by next Spring. If they drag on, Hunter's Point will only get more and more attractive as a backup plan. It will take 2 years, from early '10 to summer '12 to complete the stadium and as I understand it, that doesn't include the road and infrastructure work that will need to be done in late '08 until the stadium foundation is built. So the team roughly has not much more than a year after financing is set to hire construction companies, perfect architecturial plans, and start building. So waiting until we finish the playoffs in early '09 would really be late and any effect of a good season this year will be minimal unless we really make a huge splash.

The lease is not a concern. We already picked up the 5 year option we have on Monster Park for the '07-'11 seasons which is why the team is gunning for an '12 stadium opening. It keeps us from any sort of new lease or negotiations with the city as well as gives us a little breathing room now to shop for a stadium deal and location. The team has an agreement with the city to keep buying 5-year leases at pre-determined amounts for the following 3 five-year stretches. If we wanted to, we could stay in the park until past the '26 season. It's all contractual so city happiness has no factor anyhow.

I completely agree with your assessment. In fact, I've long believed that York's decision to fire Terry “Don't-Have-A-Clue” & Erickson was precipitated by a realization that what happens on the field directly relates to the asset value (The 49ers). New stadiums significantly increase the value of an NFL team so if I was an owner, it would be my #1 priority.

In the early years of his ownership, many people criticized York for being “Cheap” and for approaching ownership like a business. To be honest, I have to admit that I had doubts and could be found perusing DumpYork...com a few times. Unfortunately, he didn’t make the connection into how much the actual fan (and STH’s) can affect the potential value of the team. Truth be told, he really dropped the ball, shot the goose that lays the golden egg, screwed up, etc. However, as of today, I have a new level of respect for the York’s primarily due to his business sense.

When the York’s first took ownership, the 49ers had wide-reaching support from STH, The Bay Area, and across the nation. Blackouts weren’t even a consideration and there was very little impact as tickets increase from $50 to $68 in 3 years. However, as these ticket prices were being introduced, the product on the field deteriorated and fan discontent spiraled out of control. Any discussion of a new stadium was quickly replaced by talk of Television Blackouts.

Now, he understands that in order to get a new stadium, he has re-build the wide-spread fan support. Luckily for us, this goal is directly aligned to our desire to have a fun and competitive team.

The York’s have learned some hard lessons but I have to give them credit for learning from their mistakes. While I would like the stadium built in SF, I have to admit that any new stadium will provide a huge lift to the team. Finally, while the York’s may not ever have the opportunity to be beloved like Eddie was before them, there aren’t too many alternatives that would provide the fans the future that is currently unfolding.

The media and a bunch of clueless team veterans led the charge. I'm sorry but bottled water and belt buckles is the dumbest and most underhanded and one-sided way to attack an owner that I've ever seen. Just because he didn't throw cash around like water made him 'cheap'. It's amazing how much York got battered and beaten around and Kraft, a very similar owner is lauded and honored. Don't forget that Kraft owned the team for a decade before he started winning seriously, yet no one ever called him cheap.

Kraft more or less dated his way to success. Out of college he dated the daughter of a prominent New England businessman and philanthropist who used his muscle to get Kraft onto a board of directors at a major paper company. Kraft was part of a committee that saw extensive growth and profits over the next 15+ years. In the late 80s, the ownership was so desperate for cash it sold the land rights to the stadium to Kraft for I believe 40M. The business dealings of the owners plummeted and they sold the team to a St. Louis based ownership group. Kraft held the efective lease rights and land for the stadium and the owners had sold the team at a slightly low cost in a hurry. The new ownership wanted to move the team to St.Louis as part of a huge land development deal but Kraft refused. He more or less blackmailed the new owners by refusing all offers to buy out their contract on the site. Low on funds they turned around and sold it to him for under 200M, something he borrowed a lot of money to achieve. He ran a very cheap ship early on, in debt from buying the team and even remade the team logo for extra profits. He even basically abused the state of Connecticut to leverage Massachusetts into giving him a completely publically financed new stadium. For those who say York married into wealth and isn't a football person and is cheap, I find it hilarious when they list Kraft as a great owner. The man practically blackmailed his way into being an owner and also got himself a free stadium out of the deal. Yet he eventually cleaned up his act, got Parcells and then struck gold with the current staff so he's brilliant.

Niner Jan
04-11-2007, 01:02 PM
Wow, that was a mouthful about the crafty Kraft! You didn't mention the team of which he was the owner, I think. Since the state mentioned was Massachusetts, might a guess be farfetched as the Patriots? Just wondering...haven't had a chance to RESEARCH it yet.

I'm always astounded how vocal and irrational many fans operate when it comes to talking about the ownership. I'm glad that XRaguX gave some credit (grudgingly and eventually) to the change that Dr. York underwent when he replaced Erickson and Donahue. I was in the same boat myself immediately after John fired Mariucci suddenly and publicly on TV, so I can relate to his feelings before and after the firing. It took ME a while to try to forgive and forget. :angel:

So much clamor arose over the drinking water episode (and I think postage stamps incident) but I note that there was not balanced vocal support for the many good actions and expenses that he undertook to improve things for the 49ers. It takes humility to recognize blame and error on the opposing end, so I really commend XRaguX for his forthrightness and conviction.

In my occasional brief brushes with Dr. York, I have found his manner very direct and "unstuffed" (as in "stuffed shirt"). He even replied to my e-mails and s-mails, when I know he is a very busy businessman.

I was also glad to see XRX acknowledge that football IS a business--much as we fans do not see it in rational terms but in emotional ones. I compliment him for his insight there, too.

If there are ways for ordinary fans to donate money to the financing of the stadium, I will definitely be the first in line to help. I hope that a way can be set up that would make donations to the stadium as tax-deductible so that ordinary (non-corporate) sponsors can make their support for the 49ers new playing field a more concrete reality. :money:

To Wiz, I note that the 2 dates you mention are the "day-before" dates of the SC CC regular dates (4/10 and 4/24), so I presume that these dates are in addition to the CC meeting dates--unless the dates mentioned are ADDITIONAL meeting dates. Perhaps those two other dates are meetings closed to the public...I'll have to go back and read your post again; writing this, I am relying on my MEMORY of what you wrote. :dootdoot:

Thank you, Wiz, for taking so much of your valuable time to enlighten us fans. We appreciate your dedication to keeping us better informed. :heart:

Stumpy
04-11-2007, 04:51 PM
I know who the Wiz is now. He is none other than Dr. York himself. Believe me, he is way too eager to defend York’s name, and seems to take the attacks personally. I have no problem with Dr. York, but I don’t know of any other 49er fan that so animatedly defends the man.

Also, as team owner, Dr. York has every right to use this forum, and poses no threat to divulge intimate inside information that could hurt the team, since he would only report what he wished the public to know about his own product.

Peter Proud
04-11-2007, 05:29 PM
I know who the Wiz is now. He is none other than Dr. York himself. Believe me, he is way too eager to defend York’s name, and seems to take the attacks personally. I have no problem with Dr. York, but I don’t know of any other 49er fan that so animatedly defends the man.

I've got a bridge......you interested? :pigfly:

Also, as team owner, Dr. York has every right to use this forum, and poses no threat to divulge intimate inside information that could hurt the team, since he would only report what he wished the public to know about his own product.

Glad you approve. :pigfly:

sats0
04-11-2007, 06:56 PM
I hope the 49ers really look at all possible ways of funding the stadium and not stick it to us season ticket holders with a ***. It is always easier on the pocket book if the costs are spread out over as large a population base as possible. I hope that the entire bay area would realize that the 49ers are a regional asset, and the entire community benifits by their presence in the area. People will go and buy 49ers merchandise in the entire bay area, not just in Santa Clara or San Francisco, and people will stay at hotels and eat at restaurants in surrounding cities as well as where the stadium is located. A half cent sales tax county wide would raise significant funds without significantly impacting anyones lifestyle. It seems to me I'm perpetually paying for BART earthquake retrofits with these half cent sales taxes, so why not a 49er stadium too? I pay for BART even though it is useless for me where I live and work, but at least I would use the stadium.

So ideally, it would be great if the cost of the stadium was spread out over the entire county, or even nearby counties. But that's not something that I'm going to hold my breath over. Maybe they could even auction off bricks for the stadium, where if you pay a certain amount, you get your name imprinted on the brick for everyone to see for eternity, or the next big earthquake, whichever comes first.

Niner Jan
04-12-2007, 01:15 AM
Sats0,

Go to the Santa Clara website to catch all the details presented last night at the City Council's meeting. I'll post the link here for your convenience:

http://www.ci.santa-clara.ca.us/city_gov/49er_stadium_proposal.html

There will be another meeting in 2 weeks at which the public will be further informed of details about the new stadium. I plan to be there.

matineematt
04-16-2007, 10:19 AM
I bought a seat license when the Giants moved to Pacific Bell Park. The payments were spread out over time, and we were told that it all went towards construction costs. Regardless, the experience in the new ballpark is so much better than the experience at Candlestick that I have never regretted the investment, even when the on-field results are disappointing.