The Stadium Financing Breakdown [Archive] - 49ers Message Board Community

View Full Version : The Stadium Financing Breakdown

TheWiz

04-25-2007, 05:16 PM

As of last night the team decided to release its plans regarding how it is actually going to pay for the proposed stadium. Here is the general breakdown of how it will work.

150M: Comes from the NFL. This is the maximum under the previous G3 loan program that takes money from the revenue sharing pool in the league and loans it at almost no-cost to owners. The program was a vast success and has helped build and renovate multiple stadiums. While there is no guarantee that a new program will be installed, the expectation is that there is no reason for the owners to not grant the loan next spring. The league has high hopes for a new SF stadium and to able to get rid of one of its oldest stadiums in the process.

200M: An estimated 200M would come directly from the assets of our owners. With an average revenue stream that's about 5 to 6 years of profit from the team The owners have lost a lot of revenue in recent years buying out tickets to keep the team on local TV. But a winning year or two and some playoffs as well as a self-selling "Last Season in the 'Stick" year and half this could already be built up and paid for without the owners needing to seek private loans.

150M: Stadium Naming Rights. Given its location, a team with national exposure, and the high chances of hosting a superbowl there, the team can very easily get a 15M/year deal over 10 years on the naming rights. Some people like non-corporate names but this type of deal gets us a stadium for the next 25+ years.

150M: Corporate deals. Teams make a lot of money out of a lot more than just selling the naming rights. You get Coca Cola to sign a deal giving the team 10M for lifetime rights to all of the soft drinks sold. You get a local publisher to pay for the exclusive rights for printing programs for the games. Bose reduces their costs if we agree to put a nice "You're listening to Bose speakers" sign below the jumbotron. Advertisements on the sidelines, in our programs for local eateries and entertainment after the game, and from corporations who will pay up just to get exclusive access to a luxury box a few times a year. A lot of sponsors already pay top dollar to advertise at very little return because it is a form of an unspoken PSL for a luxury box. Most of the vendor and equipment deals would all be done around the same time the structure is being built.

160M: City of Santa Clara. How this money will actually be divested and from what sources will remain a debate for the next 6 or so months. Some will almost likely come from the electrical utility surplus. However there is also the possibility of several millions in bonds through their park and recreation authority. Not to mention land rights we can use to develop housing and offices and be drawing in regular income from their rent. However, it's still below the often used 180M and the goal is to use a smorgasboard of funding options to avoid heavy impact on the utility costs as well as drain any city source unfairly.

20M: Ticket Taxes. The team can actually get bonds directly from the new stadium authority that would be created for the tune of around 20M. It would repay the interest and eventual principle through a tax on ticket sales at the games and all stadium events. Look at the ticket tax this way. Given only 10 games and 65k fans, a $2 tax per ticket generates 1.3M per season. Now also combine that with the taxes also begotten from concerts and events. This tax would pay off the bonds in less than a decade. After that it would all go towards stadium maintenance costs.

20M: Stadium Builders Licenses (SBLs). I saved the worst for last. First of all, SBL's will not be mandatory for a very large percentage of seats in the stadium. The goal is to make them mandatory though for all of the great seats at a flat rate. Fans will also be able to purchase SBLs at lower costs for less prime seats. First of all, you can't shake a stick at the concept. Yes, it means fans pay more but it gives you lifetime rights to great seats. But it also gives you instant rights to ticket sales for other events. With minimal effort, an SBL pays for itself. Imagine it's June and the hottest music festival is coming to the stadium. Tickets are going for $80 a piece and selling out in hours except you as an SBL holder have first dibs. You buy the ticket, wait until a week before hand and pawn it to some college kid for $200 and boom, you've already earned back a lot of your investment. The other bonus is that as an SBL, you know the money can't be pocketed like some owners do with PSLs.

Total: 850M

------------------------------

Along the way the ownership ends up paying more than any previous owner for a stadium. Between a likely over 200M investment themselves, all of the revenue some owners get from stadium naming rights will be channeled right back into the stadium. It comes at a lower percentage of public cost than the last 15 stadium deals done in this country. So Santa Clara is actually assuming less risk per dollar.

The team would also agree to a 20 year lease which costs 5M per year in rent back to the city. It also places a percentage of maintenance costs on the teams shoulders and doesn't include taxes the team would pay in the long run. Each season the 10 games alone would generate local taxes and revenue to easily cover some of the city's worried costs like extra police presence, traffic, and safety.

XRaguX

04-25-2007, 05:35 PM

:platoon 86:20M: Stadium Builders Licenses (SBLs). I saved the worst for last. First of all, SBL's will not be mandatory for a very large percentage of seats in the stadium. The goal is to make them mandatory though for all of the great seats at a flat rate. Fans will also be able to purchase SBLs at lower costs for less prime seats. First of all, you can't shake a stick at the concept. Yes, it means fans pay more but it gives you lifetime rights to great seats. But it also gives you instant rights to ticket sales for other events. With minimal effort, an SBL pays for itself. Imagine it's June and the hottest music festival is coming to the stadium. Tickets are going for $80 a piece and selling out in hours except you as an SBL holder have first dibs. You buy the ticket, wait until a week before hand and pawn it to some college kid for $200 and boom, you've already earned back a lot of your investment. The other bonus is that as an SBL, you know the money can't be pocketed like some owners do with PSLs.

URGH!!!

However...

Cost per seat/Number of Seats:
$3,000 ~6,667
$2,000 ~10,000
$1,000 ~20,000

Still don't like it but at least it's not the $3,000-$10,000/seat cost that I've seen with other stadiums and stadium plans.

ethanh

04-25-2007, 06:16 PM

Peter Proud

04-25-2007, 06:20 PM

:platoon 86:

URGH!!!

However...

Cost per seat/Number of Seats:
$3,000 ~6,667
$2,000 ~10,000
$1,000 ~20,000

Still don't like it but at least it's not the $3,000-$10,000/seat cost that I've seen with other stadiums and stadium plans.

I find no reference to the SBL cost anywhere in the article. Where did those #'s come from?

rubi9er

04-25-2007, 06:49 PM

Fromthe3rdRow

04-26-2007, 10:24 AM

I'm sorry, but I still can't get excited over SBL's. I believe there are other options available which were not listed in the Wiz's detailed break down.

Naming Rights: $15m/year? That's all? We're talking about building THE premier outdoor stadium in the nation, located in the center of the high tech universe, surrounded by some of the most prosperous corporations on the planet.... and they're buying priceless advertising and heightened brand awareness, amoung a very, VERY lucrative demographic, for a measley $15m/year? Heck, back in the day, Master Lock was spending $1m/year for a 30 second TV spot during the Superbowl. How much exposure would a company receive if they were associated with the gold standard of the NFL, the San Francisco 49ers? I say the rights are worth $17.5m/year over 10 years, easy. Let's set up an auction between Intel, AMD, Google, Paypal and all the rest and we'll see where this thing goes. (Add $25m)

Additional Taxes: The Wiz noted that the proposed Stadium Authority would be empowered to collect ticket taxes. He does not mention a tax discussed during Tuesday's meeting. The team suggested a Parking Ticket tax might be appropriate. Currently, the city of SF collects $5.00 per vehicle at the 'Stick. I believe the current plan is to provide 30,000 parking spaces during game days in Santa Clara. That adds up to about $1.5m/year. It could easily be increased if a higher tax were placed on premium spaces. Oh, I don't know - how about a sliding scale of $2.50 for parking in lots near Mission College which require a shuttle to reach the stadium, $5.00 for parking garage spaces which are much closer, $7.50 for spaces which allow tailgating in and around nearby companies, and oh, I don't know - may $10-$15 for a select few "over sized" spaces for those who like to throw a serious tailgate party... But since I don't know the number of each which can be assigned - let's stick to the current $5.00 and $1.5m/year. That adds $7.5m over a five year period. (And that does not include taxes collected at other major events.)

Oh, and let's not forget the possibility of using a game day Hotel Tax. Perhaps the Sports Authority can assess a 15% tax on all hotel rooms for the week proceeding any major event at the stadium. I estimate 2000 rooms at an average cost/day of $80.00 each for 25 events per year at a 50% occupancy rate would generate a little over $2m per year. Of course, more rooms or a higher occupancy rate would allow us to estimate a lower tax than 15%. So again, over a 5 year period we've found another $10m.

So, I believe I've found about $32m of stadium funding which could be used instead of SBL's. Wiz suggests the SBL costs might only be $20m. Does this mean I can get a discount on my seats with the extra $12m?

Fromthe3rdRow

04-26-2007, 10:28 AM

160M: City of Santa Clara. ... However, it's still below the often used 180M and the goal is to use a smorgasboard of funding options to avoid heavy impact on the utility costs as well as drain any city source unfairly.

Don't forget the City of Santa Clara has been asked to relocate the power substation and the estimate for that is $20-30M, which pretty much brings the city contribution back to the $180M bantered about these last weeks. I hope the city staff comes up with creative ways of financing that can be accomplished without a public vote. I keep telling my neighbors to look at this deal from the "cup half full" point of view, not the "cup half empty." This is a great opportunity for Santa Clara so we need to make it work.

True, but relocating the sub stations would allow for system upgrades and improvements. That would be a very, very appropriate use for some of the Utility surplus held in city coffers. And if spending the $30m to improve services to the residents ends up costing them a few pennies, well, at least they are receiving something of value for the price - a better, cleaner, more efficient substation....

XRaguX

04-26-2007, 12:05 PM

I find no reference to the SBL cost anywhere in the article. Where did those #'s come from?

I divided the expected contribution from the SBL ($20MM) by possible costs ($3K, $2K & $1K) to determine the possible number of seats that would be effected.

20M: Stadium Builders Licenses (SBLs).

$20MM / $3,000 = 6,667 seats
$20MM / $2,000 = 10,000 seats
$20MM / $1,000 = 20,000 seats

SBL's will not be mandatory for a very large percentage of seats in the stadium. The goal is to make them mandatory though for all of the great seats at a flat rate.

If the stadium holds 70,000 seats, the percentage affected would be:

$3,000 = 6,667 seats = 10% of the seats will have a mandatory SBL
$2,000 = 10,000 seats = 14% of the seats will have a mandatory SBL
$1,000 = 20,000 seats = 29% of the seats will have a mandatory SBL

My guess would put the SBL cost per seats @ approximately $1,000 and would be mandatory on 20,000 (29%) of the seats. In other words, if you think your seats are better than 70% of the stadium, expect a mandatory SBL.

For me, if we keep seats similar to the ones we currently have, we would probably be just outside of the mandatory group. Regardless, it's still not a concept that I agree with.

Thanks for the info, Wiz.

Peter Proud

04-26-2007, 12:25 PM

Thanks XRaguX and Fred. Of course with any project of this size, and a completion date a few years away, I expect some of the financing plans under control of the 49ers will be 'tweaked' a bit.

sats0

04-26-2007, 12:34 PM

20M: Stadium Builders Licenses (SBLs). I saved the worst for last. First of all, SBL's will not be mandatory for a very large percentage of seats in the stadium. The goal is to make them mandatory though for all of the great seats at a flat rate. Fans will also be able to purchase SBLs at lower costs for less prime seats. First of all, you can't shake a stick at the concept. Yes, it means fans pay more but it gives you lifetime rights to great seats. But it also gives you instant rights to ticket sales for other events. With minimal effort, an SBL pays for itself. Imagine it's June and the hottest music festival is coming to the stadium. Tickets are going for $80 a piece and selling out in hours except you as an SBL holder have first dibs. You buy the ticket, wait until a week before hand and pawn it to some college kid for $200 and boom, you've already earned back a lot of your investment. The other bonus is that as an SBL, you know the money can't be pocketed like some owners do with PSLs.

Mr. Wiz Sir,
Thank you for the detailed analysis as always. I do hope you are right about the total amount expected to be raised from SBLs being about $20 Mil. I reread the email from Dr. York, and it doesn't really break down the $330 Mil. that is supposed to be contributed by the Stadium Authority. I assume that this $330 Mil. is needed up front, before the stadium is completely built?

In that case, is it reasonable to assume that some corporation would pay $150 mil. up front for naming rights? It would seem far more plausible that the corporation would pay a fraction of that money up front, and then renew the option every x number of years, as it is being done at
Candlestick/3Com/Monster Park. Does anyone know of what other stadiums have been able to get up front for naming rights?

I'm also skeptical about being able to raise $150 mil. from exclusive concession rights. It would take an awful long time for someone to recoup that kind of investment. For example, at 50K hotdogs sold per game at $10 a dog, x 10 games a year gives you 50,000 x 10 x 10 = $5,000,000. Granted some extra revenue is generated when people see the hotdog wrapper and the next time they are at the grocery store, think maybe I'll buy that same dog. But still, that's an awful lot of money to get up front. Again, anybody got any inside info on what other stadiums have been able to get for exclusive concession rights?

I do hope you are right about the $20 mil. expected to be raised from SBLs, but my feel is that it is likely to be much higher than that. If the per seat cost of SBLs ends up being in the low thousands of dollars, then I think that would be palatable. In the good years, people were able to sell their seat rights to others for that amount, so the likelihood they can recover that investment is good. But if the number per seat ends up being in the high thousands of dollars, I better skip one meal a day and put that money in a piggybank starting today! :hide:

Peter Proud

04-26-2007, 02:23 PM

I'm sure that the SBL'S cost location, and amount of the mandatory seats was dicussed at great detail within the 49er organization and many different 'plans' while discussed, haven't been finalized.

Here's some possibilities that I envision could be incorporated into the final plan:

Mandatory SBL's would be assessed on seats between the 30 yard lines. Those in the lower half of the lower half of those areas could be paying somewhere between $8,000.00 to $5,000.00 per seat on the home side and $5000.00 to $3000.00 on the visitor's side. The next level behind those seats could be paying $5,000.00 to $3,000.00 per seat. Of course within those areas, the closer to the field and closer to the 50 yd. line could see the higher end of those figures.

The rest of the lower seats from the 30 yd. line around the endzones would vary from $3,000.00 to $1,000.00 and be optional. With the exception of the seats that have to be offered as single game seats to the public, all other seats will have the SBL option available, they won't be mandatory!

Other things to consider in regard to the above:
The 49ers could allow pre-payment plans to reduce the 'sticker shock' to both the mandatory and optional SBL's. I'm guessing that a good many fans would take advantage of a pre-payment plan. This would give the 49ers a pool of cash to gain interest on before the actual transfer of funds to the SCSA. Additionally, for all the 'optional SBL seats, the initial cost will be to those who choose to purchase the SBL option the 1st year of the stadium. After the 1st season, those who elect to then convert their seats to an SBL could possibly face a 'conversion fee' (payable to the 49ers/not SCSA).

As a reminder, I have not heard of anything above as either a rumor or fact. They are just some thoughts that cross my mind.

matineematt

04-26-2007, 03:35 PM

The baseball Giants used a prepayment plan, and it certainly took the sting out of it for me. It was spread over three years.

Fromthe3rdRow

04-26-2007, 04:23 PM

Peter Proud

04-26-2007, 05:25 PM

Oh no!!! Say it ain't so!! Did I just lose my Ammo Caddy? Don't tell my you're already rolling over on me.....C'mon now. Stiff upper lip and all that. There is no reason to consider three letter penalties on season ticket holders just yet .... There are many, many options still available. Don't throw that towel just yet. I don't hear no fat lady singing. And if I did - she'd get the first blast. Steady there amigo - don't shoot unti you see the whites of their eyes ....

Relax Fred.....I'm neither endosing what the team has proposed, nor am I suggesting they implement these thoughts. They are just some things that I think the team may try.

The SBL'S along with the rights to other stadium events just screams for the broker/investor type to step in and buy up as many SBL mandatory seats as possible.......AND THAT AIN'T 'FAN FRIENDLY'!!!!!

sats0

04-26-2007, 05:57 PM

Since we are talking about stadium naming rights, how about we also put the team name up for sale to the highest bidder? If the team is playing in Santa
Clara, why should the city of San Francisco get free advertising??? For the
right amount, we could just as well be called the Intel 49aniums, or Yahoo
yahooligans.

I can just hear Joe Starkey calling out "Touchdownnnnn Googlebots!"

I'm joking! I'm joking! C'mon where's that sense of humor! :hide:

Dynastic

04-26-2007, 07:40 PM

Another thing about SBL's (or PSLs as they are most commonly called) is that they are more of an investment than a sunk cost. So if you pay $2000 for an SBL, chances are pretty good you'll sell it for more than $2000 on the open market (i.e. Ebay). I own 2 PSLs for the Baltimore Ravens and they currently sell for higher than what we paid.

Think of it as setting aside a good sum of money to have the rights to the same season tickets all the time.

Yes, it does cater to the richer fans, but those who can save money and really want season tickets bad enough can still get 'em.

Dynastic

04-26-2007, 07:44 PM

I'm sorry, but I still can't get excited over SBL's.

You shouldn't be. SBL's will require more money, which is good for the team but not so good for the fans.

BUT...

You also have to realize most new stadiums have them nowadays. It's the nature of the NFL beast these days. Gone are the old days.

Peter Proud

04-26-2007, 07:56 PM

Already thinking of what to put saying regarding ***'s or ***'s on a shirt!

#1. SBL....Scr*w Builder's Licenses!

TheWiz

04-26-2007, 08:23 PM

Great info Wiz. I have no problem with SBL if they are priced fair and I like that it is optional only to the best seats. I wonder if lifetime SBL will hold up and not expire after a time like the SF giants did just this year. Aside from the location it looks like a fair breakdown.

The elephant in the room, will a vote have to go to voters?

I think there is enough stigma because of the recent MLB Giants and cross-bay Raiders seeming abuse of fan trust and the purpose of PSLs and SBLs. The team has mentioned that it is committed to rather period 6-8 year additions to the stadium to keep it state of the art over at least the first 20 years of life. A lot of attention is also planned in the building oversight. Serious construction errors in building Candlestick has not been forgotten and the team wants to make sure it gets a fully functional and capable stadium for its costs. For those who think the stadium design isn't sexy or as flashy as say DAL's, DAL also doesn't have a its foundation on top of a very active fault line that has devastated its city multiple times in the last century. But I digress. I can only hope that if ownership ever changes, SBLs for a likely 20-25 year renovation will fall only to new ticket holders if at all.

As far as I understand it, any withdrawal from the city utility surplus would come to a referendum vote next November. However, there is a big reason why the team didn't demand the methods by which the 160M from the city would be paid. That's because the lower the utility money the easier it will be to sell to the people to get a positive vote on the money. After all, a large chunk of that cash is there losing ground to inflation just out of worries of another energy crisis. But, it most definitely will come down to some vote because the city doesn't have 160M laying around in non-general fund accounts to dish out without serious mortgaging of their fiscal sanity.

Don't forget the City of Santa Clara has been asked to relocate the power substation and the estimate for that is $20-30M, which pretty much brings the city contribution back to the $180M bantered about these last weeks. I hope the city staff comes up with creative ways of financing that can be accomplished without a public vote. I keep telling my neighbors to look at this deal from the "cup half full" point of view, not the "cup half empty." This is a great opportunity for Santa Clara so we need to make it work.

Thank you for supporting the stadium. No structure of this magnitude is ever built without fear. I like to bring out a rather simple logical retort. I ask someone if they are in favor of the freedom tower at ground zero in NYC. You'll find 95%+ of people are. Yet if you ask them how much money has been wasted and lost to architects so far, they don't know. That tower which will produce no income and feasibly not draw any extra tourism towards the city will cost several times that of our stadium, all on public funds. Don't think I'm not in favor of a suitable memorial given the tragedy but you know what, that doesn't mean massive investment. I visited the Holocaust museum in Washington which is a modest building, and I was reduced to tears multiple times and still have memories. It didn't take a multi-billion dollar tower to make one appreciate the enormity.

Again, I'm rambling. As mentioned by another poster, substation updates and improvements of transmission lines is a part of rebuilding and improving the utility. I'm told that they will largely gut the equipment and only the walls will remain. All that moving the station means is that the utility will need to lay down new lines while infrastructure is being done in '08-'09 to the cite and build new age transmission equipment down the road in a new substation. So a lot of the cost of moving already is accounted for in the city utility long-temr projection, we'd just be asking them to move it up in the timeline. Also, someone yesterday told me that overall, electricity equipment tends to lose efficiency over time. So even a new installment of yesterdays technology will improve transmissions rate and reduce the production lost to worn equipment.

Naming Rights: $15m/year? That's all? We're talking about building THE premier outdoor stadium in the nation, located in the center of the high tech universe, surrounded by some of the most prosperous corporations on the planet.... and they're buying priceless advertising and heightened brand awareness, amoung a very, VERY lucrative demographic, for a measley $15m/year? Heck, back in the day, Master Lock was spending $1m/year for a 30 second TV spot during the Superbowl. How much exposure would a company receive if they were associated with the gold standard of the NFL, the San Francisco 49ers? I say the rights are worth $17.5m/year over 10 years, easy. Let's set up an auction between Intel, AMD, Google, Paypal and all the rest and we'll see where this thing goes. (Add $25m)

First of all, measley is a terrible term. That's actually a very healthy estimate that a lot of marketing professionals have been consulted on. People in the industry that regularly are consulted on items like naming rights and sports advertising said 15M is about right on the money for a brand new stadium in our region that could host a superbowl. Also, those superbowl ads are seen worldwide and by over a billion people. The ads in the stadium are largely seen by stadium patrons and barring repeat attendance is less than 700k per year. Try figuring out how many people combined watch 1 playoff game, 2 national games per year, 5 bay area games, and 2 preseason games over 10 years. Add in a top sof about 650k people at the stadium. It won't even hit close to 100M per year. Overall, corporations pay big bucks for stadium names because they get bragging rights in their industry but largely due to getting their name out there which largely increases company name recognition but not business. I largely disagree with you here, marketing people know their stuff.

Additional Taxes: The Wiz noted that the proposed Stadium Authority would be empowered to collect ticket taxes. He does not mention a tax discussed during Tuesday's meeting. The team suggested a Parking Ticket tax might be appropriate. Currently, the city of SF collects $5.00 per vehicle at the 'Stick. I believe the current plan is to provide 30,000 parking spaces during game days in Santa Clara. That adds up to about $1.5m/year. It could easily be increased if a higher tax were placed on premium spaces. Oh, I don't know - how about a sliding scale of $2.50 for parking in lots near Mission College which require a shuttle to reach the stadium, $5.00 for parking garage spaces which are much closer, $7.50 for spaces which allow tailgating in and around nearby companies, and oh, I don't know - may $10-$15 for a select few "over sized" spaces for those who like to throw a serious tailgate party... But since I don't know the number of each which can be assigned - let's stick to the current $5.00 and $1.5m/year. That adds $7.5m over a five year period. (And that does not include taxes collected at other major events.)

Oh, and let's not forget the possibility of using a game day Hotel Tax. Perhaps the Sports Authority can assess a 15% tax on all hotel rooms for the week proceeding any major event at the stadium. I estimate 2000 rooms at an average cost/day of $80.00 each for 25 events per year at a 50% occupancy rate would generate a little over $2m per year. Of course, more rooms or a higher occupancy rate would allow us to estimate a lower tax than 15%. So again, over a 5 year period we've found another $10m.

So, I believe I've found about $32m of stadium funding which could be used instead of SBL's. Wiz suggests the SBL costs might only be $20m. Does this mean I can get a discount on my seats with the extra $12m?[/QUOTE]

The problem is that parking taxes tend to affect NFL fans only while costs for ticket taxes spread to all events. Also, parking taxes don't go to the team, they go to the stadium authority to help pay for maintenance and operating costs. First of all, no one likes the parking costs at Candlestick to start with. The team has the highest if not among the top 5 parking fees in the league already and it has skyrocketed since the mid 90s. That's already with $5 taxes that go to the city that they have largely not given back to the team for repairs in the early millenium. When the team moves, shuttle operations and payments to local businesses will likely warrant another increase in parking costs without any taxes. They are a possibility, but the team prefers ticket taxes more. Fans who want to see the latest top 10 hit band will not care if their tickets cost $50 or $56 dollars.

Hotel Taxes tend to depress tourism which is the opposite effect the team is selling. People who book trips to the city will see higher rates and avoid it. Hotel Taxes tend to be unknown to only people outside of the region and also are ignored by people on business trips most often. Add a hotel tax to the financing plan and you can bet 49er fans will remember to book hotels outside fo the city and take the rail in for the game. Heck, even North Bay resisdent will stay in a closer city like San Jose, not hotel taxes, and just drive down the road to Santa Clara the morning of the game. Hotel taxes will easily be sold as hurting tourism, hence why it's not being pitched. We're selling the stadium as a massive tourism draw, not as a "well it will depress tourism year round but we will make it up in 10 weekends per year!" deal.

Thanks XRaguX and Fred. Of course with any project of this size, and a completion date a few years away, I expect some of the financing plans under control of the 49ers will be 'tweaked' a bit.

Exactly. This is by no means a beginning and end to the financing. Instead it's an opening shot. One which we are not perfectly sold on as to exactly how the costs will break down as well as how the city will find 160M to pay for it. As long as the infrastructure is finished and the foundation in place in early '10, the stadium will be built by the start of the '12 season.

Mr. Wiz Sir,
Thank you for the detailed analysis as always. I do hope you are right about the total amount expected to be raised from SBLs being about $20 Mil.
[\QUOTE]

That is a preliminary quote. It can largely change and if history is any indication, it will go up over the next few months. I think it may be hard to get 20M in bonds from the city authority but I was also counting on some easily had State and county issued bonds to be a part of that structure. Also, the 150M in corporate sponsorship from stadium advertising, vendors, product providers and local advertisors could be a bit lofty. The financing package is fluid, it will adjust over many months. In some sense, it was the first serve of the first game of the first set. It wasn't a match-point ace in any sense.

[QUOTE=sats0;714979]
I reread the email from Dr. York, and it doesn't really break down the $330 Mil. that is supposed to be contributed by the Stadium Authority. I assume that this $330 Mil. is needed up front, before the stadium is completely built?

I took a tiny amount of liberty with the 330M. The Stadium authority will be a newly created Santa Clara controlled council that will oversee the building and construction and maintenance of the location that also has control over the non-NFL events to be held at the location. The owners and through the NFL expect to possibly contribute 330M to the stadium which in part hinges on more than a 150M NFL G3-style loan. They're hoping on at least an inflation based 180M-200M loan. I don't expect any immediate movement among owners to commit to a new program. Largely in part to over 450M being paid out this year alone and it will take years to rebuild that money. That mentioned, the team instead has a much better chance betting on getting the owners to agree next spring to a classical G3 style loan for the usual 150M. Meanwhile the Santa Clara region is ripe with wealthy corporate sponsors who could raise sponsor income dramatically in a bidding process.

In that case, is it reasonable to assume that some corporation would pay $150 mil. up front for naming rights? It would seem far more plausible that the corporation would pay a fraction of that money up front, and then renew the option every x number of years, as it is being done at
Candlestick/3Com/Monster Park. Does anyone know of what other stadiums have been able to get up front for naming rights?

Stadium financing plans are fluid. Keep in mind that really it will not take ~854M (the number du jour) in just labor and materials. A large chunk of that funding involves a standard inflation projection as well as payments of interest on loans for paying that labor on time and the materials. The NFL Loan, payments from the owners, and immediate cash flow from Santa Clara would largely fund half of the costs up front which won't occur until at the very earliest summer of '08 and even then the bulk of construction not until early 2010. But by that time the sponsor money, stadium naming money, and SBL cash will start coming in. Things likew ticket taxes will pay off the bonds the team buys, and ongoing income such as the stadium naming rights will largely go towards interest on those bonds, private loans, and the NFL loan.

I'm also skeptical about being able to raise $150 mil. from exclusive concession rights. It would take an awful long time for someone to recoup that kind of investment. For example, at 50K hotdogs sold per game at $10 a dog, x 10 games a year gives you 50,000 x 10 x 10 = $5,000,000. Granted some extra revenue is generated when people see the hotdog wrapper and the next time they are at the grocery store, think maybe I'll buy that same dog. But still, that's an awful lot of money to get up front. Again, anybody got any inside info on what other stadiums have been able to get for exclusive concession rights?

Concession rights is only a part of it. You're not including income from sideline ads, ads on the jumbotrons, income from sponsored half-time shows, billboard advertisments and even small stuff like ads in the interior walkways and concourse and in the programs. But also realize permit me to tweak your example. Hot dogs are cheap to produce and won't cost a fan $10. Let's chop that in half. Also suppose that among the fans at a fully packed game, only 10k buy a hotdog per person. Now let's also consider that items like Hamburgers sell for $6, small popcorn boxes at $4 a piece, fried chicken and fish fillets on patties at $7 each, and suddenly hot dogs may sell like hot cakes. More importantly, vendors are also open on the lower levels for 20-30 other non-NFL events per year! In the end a hot dog vendor could stand to easily project that it will earn $2M in profits for the stadium per annum. So over the next 10 years that's 20M going to the hot dog producer. First of all, any producer large enough to meet over 100k+ dogs per NFL season in a 5+ months span has operating money. Now, if they stand to possibly earn 20M
over the next 10 years don't you think they'd be willing to pay 3M or 4M alone up front? Heck, it reduces their intake but that's a projected income of over 15M for the company. It means jobs, name exposure, sales, you name it.

Now, consider that you just got 3M-4M from the people who only sell hot dogs! Imagine what the Soda and Beer companies will pay! They have an even bigger profit margin per unit and at as much as say $7.50 per beer or $5 for a large Coke packed with ice, you make a ton of money. But yet they also sell them at only $1 per bottle or $.50 per amount of coke syrup per large drink. Sales of soft drinks alone make a LOT more than food. Especially at alternative events with kids jumping around and yelling. Even water sales will bring you a massive income. Guaranteed income is something any company will jump on.

I do hope you are right about the $20 mil. expected to be raised from SBLs, but my feel is that it is likely to be much higher than that. If the per seat cost of SBLs ends up being in the low thousands of dollars, then I think that would be palatable. In the good years, people were able to sell their seat rights to others for that amount, so the likelihood they can recover that investment is good. But if the number per seat ends up being in the high thousands of dollars, I better skip one meal a day and put that money in a piggybank starting today! :hide:'

It is a low ball that could go up based on coporate ad sails, public money, expected loan rates, inflation impact, etc. However, in a likely 70k seat stadium the goal is to only making them for the key seat owners. Those between the 30 yard lines and 10 rows from the game, or those within the 40s up to 20 rows back. Endzone seats and some other closer seats would be involved but I'm talking less than 20k of the overall seats in the stadium. The team also expects a lot of fans will OFFER to pay smaller SBL costs for non-prime seats at a lifetime guarantee. However, as noted by the next poster, the team won't be sending an armored car to your house with 5 goons with bats asking for it all up front. Chances are that SBLs costs will come into play in '09 and '10 for current ticket holders and early buyers. Also don't forget that the team could make SBL rights available to luxury box holders at ten times and possibly then some cost to ticket owners. If you want a great seat in the new stadium, expect to pay posibly 2k over 5 or 6 years, possibly starting 2 years before you even get to stick your backside in your seat.

The baseball Giants used a prepayment plan, and it certainly took the sting out of it for me. It was spread over three years.

And every team can spread it out any way they wish. We won't begin infrastructure building until the last half of '09 or early '10 so expect maybe 2 or 3 years of payments before you get the experience and then another 2 or 3 after the fact.

I'm sure that the SBL'S cost location, and amount of the mandatory seats was dicussed at great detail within the 49er organization and many different 'plans' while discussed, haven't been finalized.

Here's some possibilities that I envision could be incorporated into the final plan:

Mandatory SBL's would be assessed on seats between the 30 yard lines. Those in the lower half of the lower half of those areas could be paying somewhere between $8,000.00 to $5,000.00 per seat on the home side and $5000.00 to $3000.00 on the visitor's side. The next level behind those seats could be paying $5,000.00 to $3,000.00 per seat. Of course within those areas, the closer to the field and closer to the 50 yd. line could see the higher end of those figures.

The rest of the lower seats from the 30 yd. line around the endzones would vary from $3,000.00 to $1,000.00 and be optional. With the exception of the seats that have to be offered as single game seats to the public, all other seats will have the SBL option available, they won't be mandatory!

Other things to consider in regard to the above:
The 49ers could allow pre-payment plans to reduce the 'sticker shock' to both the mandatory and optional SBL's. I'm guessing that a good many fans would take advantage of a pre-payment plan. This would give the 49ers a pool of cash to gain interest on before the actual transfer of funds to the SCSA. Additionally, for all the 'optional SBL seats, the initial cost will be to those who choose to purchase the SBL option the 1st year of the stadium. After the 1st season, those who elect to then convert their seats to an SBL could possibly face a 'conversion fee' (payable to the 49ers/not SCSA).

As a reminder, I have not heard of anything above as either a rumor or fact. They are just some thoughts that cross my mind.

First of all, wow, I think those costs are very high for an average fan. Unless our slightly newer southern location draws a lot of top-class Hollywood people I don't know if SBL costs at that level are appealing to anyone. Especially considering the ticket costs. I'm not exceptionally up to date on SBL trends and figures to forgive me if I am nieve on them. However, I'd like the teams goal to focus on more uniform, low cost SBLs over a large region of premium seats. Then offer a tiered options to lower tier seat fans as low as $500 for the further seats. Fans who buy SBLs are more eager to buy season tickets to get their moneys worth and in the end drive up initial ticket sales.

I must admit that I do love the idea of allowing fans to pay a few to buy initial cost SBLs after the first year. That would be a huge boost not only to SBL sales but also to paying off stadium costs. The more gameday income, sponsorship, and SBL income the owners get the sooner they clear their loan and connected interest debts and start making big money. The more money owners earn, the sooner stadium upgrades and the looser the purse strings become.

samer

04-27-2007, 05:31 PM

I think there is enough stigma because of the recent MLB Giants and cross-bay Raiders seeming abuse of fan trust and the purpose of PSLs and SBLs. The team has mentioned that it is committed to rather period 6-8 year additions to the stadium to keep it state of the art over at least the first 20 years of life. A lot of attention is also planned in the building oversight. Serious construction errors in building Candlestick has not been forgotten and the team wants to make sure it gets a fully functional and capable stadium for its costs. For those who think the stadium design isn't sexy or as flashy as say DAL's, DAL also doesn't have a its foundation on top of a very active fault line that has devastated its city multiple times in the last century. But I digress. I can only hope that if ownership ever changes, SBLs for a likely 20-25 year renovation will fall only to new ticket holders if at all.

As far as I understand it, any withdrawal from the city utility surplus would come to a referendum vote next November. However, there is a big reason why the team didn't demand the methods by which the 160M from the city would be paid. That's because the lower the utility money the easier it will be to sell to the people to get a positive vote on the money. After all, a large chunk of that cash is there losing ground to inflation just out of worries of another energy crisis. But, it most definitely will come down to some vote because the city doesn't have 160M laying around in non-general fund accounts to dish out without serious mortgaging of their fiscal sanity.

Thank you for supporting the stadium. No structure of this magnitude is ever built without fear. I like to bring out a rather simple logical retort. I ask someone if they are in favor of the freedom tower at ground zero in NYC. You'll find 95%+ of people are. Yet if you ask them how much money has been wasted and lost to architects so far, they don't know. That tower which will produce no income and feasibly not draw any extra tourism towards the city will cost several times that of our stadium, all on public funds. Don't think I'm not in favor of a suitable memorial given the tragedy but you know what, that doesn't mean massive investment. I visited the Holocaust museum in Washington which is a modest building, and I was reduced to tears multiple times and still have memories. It didn't take a multi-billion dollar tower to make one appreciate the enormity.

Again, I'm rambling. As mentioned by another poster, substation updates and improvements of transmission lines is a part of rebuilding and improving the utility. I'm told that they will largely gut the equipment and only the walls will remain. All that moving the station means is that the utility will need to lay down new lines while infrastructure is being done in '08-'09 to the cite and build new age transmission equipment down the road in a new substation. So a lot of the cost of moving already is accounted for in the city utility long-temr projection, we'd just be asking them to move it up in the timeline. Also, someone yesterday told me that overall, electricity equipment tends to lose efficiency over time. So even a new installment of yesterdays technology will improve transmissions rate and reduce the production lost to worn equipment.

First of all, measley is a terrible term. That's actually a very healthy estimate that a lot of marketing professionals have been consulted on. People in the industry that regularly are consulted on items like naming rights and sports advertising said 15M is about right on the money for a brand new stadium in our region that could host a superbowl. Also, those superbowl ads are seen worldwide and by over a billion people. The ads in the stadium are largely seen by stadium patrons and barring repeat attendance is less than 700k per year. Try figuring out how many people combined watch 1 playoff game, 2 national games per year, 5 bay area games, and 2 preseason games over 10 years. Add in a top sof about 650k people at the stadium. It won't even hit close to 100M per year. Overall, corporations pay big bucks for stadium names because they get bragging rights in their industry but largely due to getting their name out there which largely increases company name recognition but not business. I largely disagree with you here, marketing people know their stuff.

Additional Taxes: The Wiz noted that the proposed Stadium Authority would be empowered to collect ticket taxes. He does not mention a tax discussed during Tuesday's meeting. The team suggested a Parking Ticket tax might be appropriate. Currently, the city of SF collects $5.00 per vehicle at the 'Stick. I believe the current plan is to provide 30,000 parking spaces during game days in Santa Clara. That adds up to about $1.5m/year. It could easily be increased if a higher tax were placed on premium spaces. Oh, I don't know - how about a sliding scale of $2.50 for parking in lots near Mission College which require a shuttle to reach the stadium, $5.00 for parking garage spaces which are much closer, $7.50 for spaces which allow tailgating in and around nearby companies, and oh, I don't know - may $10-$15 for a select few "over sized" spaces for those who like to throw a serious tailgate party... But since I don't know the number of each which can be assigned - let's stick to the current $5.00 and $1.5m/year. That adds $7.5m over a five year period. (And that does not include taxes collected at other major events.)

Oh, and let's not forget the possibility of using a game day Hotel Tax. Perhaps the Sports Authority can assess a 15% tax on all hotel rooms for the week proceeding any major event at the stadium. I estimate 2000 rooms at an average cost/day of $80.00 each for 25 events per year at a 50% occupancy rate would generate a little over $2m per year. Of course, more rooms or a higher occupancy rate would allow us to estimate a lower tax than 15%. So again, over a 5 year period we've found another $10m.

So, I believe I've found about $32m of stadium funding which could be used instead of SBL's. Wiz suggests the SBL costs might only be $20m. Does this mean I can get a discount on my seats with the extra $12m?

The problem is that parking taxes tend to affect NFL fans only while costs for ticket taxes spread to all events. Also, parking taxes don't go to the team, they go to the stadium authority to help pay for maintenance and operating costs. First of all, no one likes the parking costs at Candlestick to start with. The team has the highest if not among the top 5 parking fees in the league already and it has skyrocketed since the mid 90s. That's already with $5 taxes that go to the city that they have largely not given back to the team for repairs in the early millenium. When the team moves, shuttle operations and payments to local businesses will likely warrant another increase in parking costs without any taxes. They are a possibility, but the team prefers ticket taxes more. Fans who want to see the latest top 10 hit band will not care if their tickets cost $50 or $56 dollars.

Hotel Taxes tend to depress tourism which is the opposite effect the team is selling. People who book trips to the city will see higher rates and avoid it. Hotel Taxes tend to be unknown to only people outside of the region and also are ignored by people on business trips most often. Add a hotel tax to the financing plan and you can bet 49er fans will remember to book hotels outside fo the city and take the rail in for the game. Heck, even North Bay resisdent will stay in a closer city like San Jose, not hotel taxes, and just drive down the road to Santa Clara the morning of the game. Hotel taxes will easily be sold as hurting tourism, hence why it's not being pitched. We're selling the stadium as a massive tourism draw, not as a "well it will depress tourism year round but we will make it up in 10 weekends per year!" deal.

Exactly. This is by no means a beginning and end to the financing. Instead it's an opening shot. One which we are not perfectly sold on as to exactly how the costs will break down as well as how the city will find 160M to pay for it. As long as the infrastructure is finished and the foundation in place in early '10, the stadium will be built by the start of the '12 season.

Mr. Wiz Sir,
Thank you for the detailed analysis as always. I do hope you are right about the total amount expected to be raised from SBLs being about $20 Mil.
[\QUOTE]

That is a preliminary quote. It can largely change and if history is any indication, it will go up over the next few months. I think it may be hard to get 20M in bonds from the city authority but I was also counting on some easily had State and county issued bonds to be a part of that structure. Also, the 150M in corporate sponsorship from stadium advertising, vendors, product providers and local advertisors could be a bit lofty. The financing package is fluid, it will adjust over many months. In some sense, it was the first serve of the first game of the first set. It wasn't a match-point ace in any sense.

I took a tiny amount of liberty with the 330M. The Stadium authority will be a newly created Santa Clara controlled council that will oversee the building and construction and maintenance of the location that also has control over the non-NFL events to be held at the location. The owners and through the NFL expect to possibly contribute 330M to the stadium which in part hinges on more than a 150M NFL G3-style loan. They're hoping on at least an inflation based 180M-200M loan. I don't expect any immediate movement among owners to commit to a new program. Largely in part to over 450M being paid out this year alone and it will take years to rebuild that money. That mentioned, the team instead has a much better chance betting on getting the owners to agree next spring to a classical G3 style loan for the usual 150M. Meanwhile the Santa Clara region is ripe with wealthy corporate sponsors who could raise sponsor income dramatically in a bidding process.

Stadium financing plans are fluid. Keep in mind that really it will not take ~854M (the number du jour) in just labor and materials. A large chunk of that funding involves a standard inflation projection as well as payments of interest on loans for paying that labor on time and the materials. The NFL Loan, payments from the owners, and immediate cash flow from Santa Clara would largely fund half of the costs up front which won't occur until at the very earliest summer of '08 and even then the bulk of construction not until early 2010. But by that time the sponsor money, stadium naming money, and SBL cash will start coming in. Things likew ticket taxes will pay off the bonds the team buys, and ongoing income such as the stadium naming rights will largely go towards interest on those bonds, private loans, and the NFL loan.

Concession rights is only a part of it. You're not including income from sideline ads, ads on the jumbotrons, income from sponsored half-time shows, billboard advertisments and even small stuff like ads in the interior walkways and concourse and in the programs. But also realize permit me to tweak your example. Hot dogs are cheap to produce and won't cost a fan $10. Let's chop that in half. Also suppose that among the fans at a fully packed game, only 10k buy a hotdog per person. Now let's also consider that items like Hamburgers sell for $6, small popcorn boxes at $4 a piece, fried chicken and fish fillets on patties at $7 each, and suddenly hot dogs may sell like hot cakes. More importantly, vendors are also open on the lower levels for 20-30 other non-NFL events per year! In the end a hot dog vendor could stand to easily project that it will earn $2M in profits for the stadium per annum. So over the next 10 years that's 20M going to the hot dog producer. First of all, any producer large enough to meet over 100k+ dogs per NFL season in a 5+ months span has operating money. Now, if they stand to possibly earn 20M
over the next 10 years don't you think they'd be willing to pay 3M or 4M alone up front? Heck, it reduces their intake but that's a projected income of over 15M for the company. It means jobs, name exposure, sales, you name it.

Now, consider that you just got 3M-4M from the people who only sell hot dogs! Imagine what the Soda and Beer companies will pay! They have an even bigger profit margin per unit and at as much as say $7.50 per beer or $5 for a large Coke packed with ice, you make a ton of money. But yet they also sell them at only $1 per bottle or $.50 per amount of coke syrup per large drink. Sales of soft drinks alone make a LOT more than food. Especially at alternative events with kids jumping around and yelling. Even water sales will bring you a massive income. Guaranteed income is something any company will jump on.

'

It is a low ball that could go up based on coporate ad sails, public money, expected loan rates, inflation impact, etc. However, in a likely 70k seat stadium the goal is to only making them for the key seat owners. Those between the 30 yard lines and 10 rows from the game, or those within the 40s up to 20 rows back. Endzone seats and some other closer seats would be involved but I'm talking less than 20k of the overall seats in the stadium. The team also expects a lot of fans will OFFER to pay smaller SBL costs for non-prime seats at a lifetime guarantee. However, as noted by the next poster, the team won't be sending an armored car to your house with 5 goons with bats asking for it all up front. Chances are that SBLs costs will come into play in '09 and '10 for current ticket holders and early buyers. Also don't forget that the team could make SBL rights available to luxury box holders at ten times and possibly then some cost to ticket owners. If you want a great seat in the new stadium, expect to pay posibly 2k over 5 or 6 years, possibly starting 2 years before you even get to stick your backside in your seat.

And every team can spread it out any way they wish. We won't begin infrastructure building until the last half of '09 or early '10 so expect maybe 2 or 3 years of payments before you get the experience and then another 2 or 3 after the fact.

First of all, wow, I think those costs are very high for an average fan. Unless our slightly newer southern location draws a lot of top-class Hollywood people I don't know if SBL costs at that level are appealing to anyone. Especially considering the ticket costs. I'm not exceptionally up to date on SBL trends and figures to forgive me if I am nieve on them. However, I'd like the teams goal to focus on more uniform, low cost SBLs over a large region of premium seats. Then offer a tiered options to lower tier seat fans as low as $500 for the further seats. Fans who buy SBLs are more eager to buy season tickets to get their moneys worth and in the end drive up initial ticket sales.

I must admit that I do love the idea of allowing fans to pay a few to buy initial cost SBLs after the first year. That would be a huge boost not only to SBL sales but also to paying off stadium costs. The more gameday income, sponsorship, and SBL income the owners get the sooner they clear their loan and connected interest debts and start making big money. The more money owners earn, the sooner stadium upgrades and the looser the purse strings become.

Under what basis? I say we spend a good 1-2 bill on a stadium + hotel.

BrielleSF

04-28-2007, 02:35 PM

"First of all, wow, I think those costs are very high for an average fan. Unless our slightly newer southern location draws a lot of top-class Hollywood people I don't know if SBL costs at that level are appealing to anyone. Especially considering the ticket costs. I'm not exceptionally up to date on SBL trends and figures to forgive me if I am nieve on them. However, I'd like the teams goal to focus on more uniform, low cost SBLs over a large region of premium seats. Then offer a tiered options to lower tier seat fans as low as $500 for the further seats. Fans who buy SBLs are more eager to buy season tickets to get their moneys worth and in the end drive up initial ticket sales."

Let me get this straight...The York's are going to move my team out of my city to a place I could care less about (can you guess, I don't support the move). Then on top of it they want me to give them (billionaires might I add), thousands of dollars above the thousands I already pay for the seats that I have had in my family for over 50 years, so I can continue to sit in the seats that we have had for all this time? Excuse my french but that's bull******!

TheWiz

04-30-2007, 03:39 PM

Let me get this straight...The York's are going to move my team out of my city to a place I could care less about (can you guess, I don't support the move). Then on top of it they want me to give them (billionaires might I add), thousands of dollars above the thousands I already pay for the seats that I have had in my family for over 50 years, so I can continue to sit in the seats that we have had for all this time? Excuse my french but that's bull******!

That's a neat trick since the team hasn't even been in Candlestick for 50 years. Secondly, you are free to keep sitting in your seats or at least their spacial location for the as long as you wish. However, I think that eventually the demolition crews and police will have a quarrel with you.

I'm sorry that you somehow find that the owner asking for fans to help pay for part of the gameday experience. Forget that for an owner the public has idiotically branded as 'cheap' has put forth a financing plan that calls for him to pay more than any previous owner. Your ticket doesn't go into the owners back pocket. 100M salaries and 10M bonuses and stadium employees and coaches don't pay themselves. Not to mention the past few years the owners have spent millions of their own money to buy tickets to make sure they wouldn't be blacked out by fans too cheap to join you at the stadium. Your tickets don't buy stadiums, owners do, tickets pay for the product on the field. The Yorks could build a field in a Napa valley pasture, erect metal stands around it and charge $200 a head in they wanted to. Instead they're building a state of the art stadium, in a location vastly superior in accessibility.

sats0

04-30-2007, 05:13 PM

Robert.W.Bumala

04-30-2007, 05:20 PM

sats0

04-30-2007, 05:43 PM

The game day experience has a certain value. Back when the tickets cost $35.00/game the 49ers had a waiting list for season tickets 20,000 strong, they raised the prices to $65.00 and now they don't actually sell out the 64K seat stick, it's over 90% so there's no blackout, but there are tickets available for almost every game. I don't know how they are going to raise the cost per game, whether it's by PSL or ticket tax, and expect to sell out a 68K stadium.
On another note: it's funny how owners make rules, then find ways to break them. The owners created revenue sharing where all the money collect for all the games is shared evenly among the teams, then invented PSLs to collect money for a ticket without having to share. Some of the small market owners are pressuring the commissioner to do something about it. So far they've been blocked, but who knows.

Actually the games were no longer sold out after a number of losing seasons, not immediately after the ticket prices were raised. Also, many people are turned away from buying game tickets because of the poor transportation to Monster Park, the broken down state the stadium is in, and the lousy weather. Like I said, if Arizona could sell out their new stadium when they hardly EVER had sold out games, then selling out our new stadium will be absolutely no problem. Only way I see it happen is if the prices get really out of line with what other teams are charging.
I guess we all have our comfort level of what we are willing to pay to be STHs. It's tough to have to shell out a lot of money for a number of years and justify that kind of expense. But I would ask you, for whatever you have paid for your tickets for the past years, are the memories worth it?
If they are, then you'll grumble and mumble, but in the end you will pay up and continue to be a STH. If it's simply more than what you can justify, then give some new fans a chance to create their own memories. It won't make you any less of a fan - there are only 64K fans inside the stadium, and millions of them outside. I've been a fan for a really long time, but only became a STH 3 years ago when I could find the time and money to do so.

Peter Proud

04-30-2007, 06:10 PM

Any team with a brand new stadium is going to have sell-outs the 1st year. How will they do the following years? If they don't put a winning team on the field soon the 'honeymoon' will be over. Winning football is very important to selling seats. When the 49ers were at there best, you couldn't get season tickets. A few bad seasons later and STH's were offering them for free at times.

ethanh

04-30-2007, 06:27 PM

A Also, many people are turned away from buying game tickets because of the poor transportation to Monster Park, the broken down state the stadium is in, and the lousy weather.[/B]
You have not been to a game the last two years, aside from the Houston game it has been some of the hotest Sundays in my memory there.

Other than that I agree with the current situation.

A question, when the honeymoon does end and if the 49ers return to mediocrity where will the stadium be better situated to draw people to? SF on the bay in a newly rebuilt community like the Giants AT&T or in parking lot in SC? I keep dreaming, I know. but I am sure I am right.

Robert.W.Bumala

04-30-2007, 07:21 PM

Actually the games were no longer sold out after a number of losing seasons, not immediately after the ticket prices were raised. Also, many people are turned away from buying game tickets because of the poor transportation to Monster Park, the broken down state the stadium is in, and the lousy weather. Like I said, if Arizona could sell out their new stadium when they hardly EVER had sold out games, then selling out our new stadium will be absolutely no problem. Only way I see it happen is if the prices get really out of line with what other teams are charging.
I guess we all have our comfort level of what we are willing to pay to be STHs. It's tough to have to shell out a lot of money for a number of years and justify that kind of expense. But I would ask you, for whatever you have paid for your tickets for the past years, are the memories worth it?
If they are, then you'll grumble and mumble, but in the end you will pay up and continue to be a STH. If it's simply more than what you can justify, then give some new fans a chance to create their own memories. It won't make you any less of a fan - there are only 64K fans inside the stadium, and millions of them outside. I've been a fan for a really long time, but only became a STH 3 years ago when I could find the time and money to do so.

I don't know, the Raiders went to the Supper Bowl, and still couldn't sell out the stadium. But then they are the Raiders. I think that with the competition for the entertainment dollar in the Bay Area, it's going to be a tuff sell. Face it, Arizona doesn't have all the things going on like we do here. With two Football teams, and two Baseball teams, plus Hockey and Basketball we have a lot more choices than other places.

TheWiz

04-30-2007, 09:00 PM

I realize that at this stage the actual cost of the licenses is not predictable, but if it is in the $1K to $2K range, that is quite reasonable in my opinion, when you consider that even now you can turn around and sell your seat rights at Monster Park and get that kind of price for good seats. So in effect it becomes a loan that you pay the 49ers at the beginning, and have the opportunity to recoup your money, and possibly even get more at a later time when you no longer want the rights.

As I posted above. For the premium/great seats the team is not only offering rights to the spot for the stadium lifetime but also rights to all events at the stadium. So any fan who truly despises paying money to his team for SBLs will find it very easy to buy and then scalp his seats to fans for other events to repay the cost.

(Hmm, is there going to be a rule requiring that you cannot resell for a certain number of years to avoid this kind of scalping?).

SBL licenses are not transferable directly. A fan is permitted, though not legally, to sign a deal with someone who forwards them the cost of season tickets and then the SBL holder can forward the tickets to the new seat owner. In essence, keeping the team in the dark about who is really filling the seat. But overall, SBL rights cannot be scalped at all in a direct manner. If someone files for season tickets they will either need to pay for an SBL as well or face the uncertainty of being able to keep those seats.

Yeah its terrible that the stadium cannot be built in SF, but look at the bright side - we are finally going to get a brand new facility in a place with no swirling winds and fog, and good public transportation. If Wiz's projections are correct, this is actually a really good, workable solution. Now, if the price starts creeping up higher than $2K, I'd be worried. :go9ers:

I'm sure that like the seating prices, SBLs will be tiered. Think about it. If you want the rights to great seats along the 40 yard line for the next 25+ years, it likely will be expensive. Especially because you can scalp your tickets two games per year on a huge premium and still pay off the SBL costs as a fan. The team knows that scalping occurs and if anything, SBLs mean that serial scalpers will earn less and true fans can break even.

The game day experience has a certain value. Back when the tickets cost $35.00/game the 49ers had a waiting list for season tickets 20,000 strong, they raised the prices to $65.00 and now they don't actually sell out the 64K seat stick, it's over 90% so there's no blackout, but there are tickets available for almost every game. I don't know how they are going to raise the cost per game, whether it's by PSL or ticket tax, and expect to sell out a 68K stadium.

By offering not only a vastly superior game day experience but also by putting a better product on the field. Consider fewer seaside drafts, less bayside fog, twin megatron HDTV screens, easy concourse access, and a vastly smoother commute to and from the game. That's how.

On another note: it's funny how owners make rules, then find ways to break them. The owners created revenue sharing where all the money collect for all the games is shared evenly among the teams, then invented PSLs to collect money for a ticket without having to share. Some of the small market owners are pressuring the commissioner to do something about it. So far they've been blocked, but who knows.

Entirely not true. First of all, revenue sharing is a very hot button issue in the league. Even the CBA goes into great detail as to what sources and types of income need to be reported to the NFL on an annual basis. A lot of that same contractual language goes into the source for revenue sharing. Not all of the money collected for all games is shared, it's much more detailed legally than you may think.

However, PSL usage is heavily covered in the CBA. Teams who choose to pocket CBA cash find it will become highly sharable income in the league. This is designed to keep any owner from abusing the concept. Trust me when I say that PSLs and their usage as income is very, very highly regulated. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there is as much contractual space and terms devoted to PSLs as there are restricted free agents in the CBA.

Any team with a brand new stadium is going to have sell-outs the 1st year. How will they do the following years? If they don't put a winning team on the field soon the 'honeymoon' will be over. Winning football is very important to selling seats. When the 49ers were at there best, you couldn't get season tickets. A few bad seasons later and STH's were offering them for free at times.

Very true. Up front for 1-2 years fans just buy tickets to see what it's all about if nothing else. However, they're also quicker to buy tickets on a whim later on based on optimism because the experience is that much better.

...

A question, when the honeymoon does end and if the 49ers return to mediocrity where will the stadium be better situated to draw people to? SF on the bay in a newly rebuilt community like the Giants AT&T or in parking lot in SC? I keep dreaming, I know. but I am sure I am right.

Well, consider the fact that the vast majority of STHs(Season Ticket Holders) live outside of the city, they're all commuting into the city. The Santa Clara location is vastly superior in terms of commuting capabilities. Not only is it an easily reachable spot from the north bay area along 2 public transportation methods, but it's also located between and on several key area highways easily capable of holding gameday traffic. Candlestick has never been a great commuting location, having to dump most of its gameday traffic onto a single nearby highway. Don't even get me started on Hunter's Point in terms of traffic.

You're expressing bias through your own words. A toxic waste dump spewing asbestos into the area is suddenly ideal whereas Santa Clara is 'a parking lot'? Before Candlestick park the locaton was just some park and half a year mudhole. Language tricks won't work here. That 'parking lot' is situated in a very good site even the comissioner has given his thumbs on. This 'parking lot' site has better transportation, nearby retails and food options, and is in a strong, growing entertainment district. Sorry but that same mud hole and toxic dump accessible through a myriad of backroads is not as appealing.

What really drives me nuts is the current whining of SF-based fans. The owners could easily get a highly publically funded stadium with a retractable roof too in LA county. Yet they stick to the south bay area, find a GREAT transportation accessible area, and offer to pony up a record amount of owner cash and less public cash than recent years, and you complain as a population. Trust me when I say that there are only 2 more options. The first will kick in if Santa Clara is too near-sighted and academic driven to agree to the stadium offer and it will force the team to consider Hunters Point or San Jose. When that gets turned down, this team will be headed south to LA, like it or not.

Peter Proud

04-30-2007, 09:55 PM

see below

Peter Proud

04-30-2007, 11:16 PM

As I posted above. For the premium/great seats the team is not only offering rights to the spot for the stadium lifetime but also rights to all events at the stadium. So any fan who truly despises paying money to his team for SBLs will find it very easy to buy and then scalp his seats to fans for other events to repay the cost.

SBL licenses are not transferable directly. A fan is permitted, though not legally, to sign a deal with someone who forwards them the cost of season tickets and then the SBL holder can forward the tickets to the new seat owner. In essence, keeping the team in the dark about who is really filling the seat. But overall, SBL rights cannot be scalped at all in a direct manner. If someone files for season tickets they will either need to pay for an SBL as well or face the uncertainty of being able to keep those seats.

In the past, a fan wanting Season Tickets could pay a current STH 'X' amount of money for the STH to transfer his seats to a new STH. The new STH has only to pay the bill each year to retain those seats. In the new stadium, after a STH pays the SBL if he later transfers the seats, does the new STH have to pay an SBL also?

Are you saying that under the SBL's, an existing STH buys the SBL. Later he transfers the seats to a new STH. Then the new STH would have to purchase a SBL for each seat if they wished to keep those seats?

ethanh

04-30-2007, 11:55 PM

A toxic waste dump spewing asbestos into the area is suddenly ideal whereas Santa Clara is 'a parking lot'?
The owners could easily get a highly publically funded stadium with a retractable roof too in LA county... When that gets turned down, this team will be headed south to LA, like it or not.

"Toxic waste dump" sounds just as biased to me as a "parking lot" if not more.

Words like moving to LA do not scare me, If an owner hijacked a team like the 49ers to LA, then that team/owner never deserved my alliegance anyway and would be dead to me. The SF 49ers would live on as legend and the real SF 49ers would never leave.

If the 49ers move to SC I will take it although while there is a chance, however small, I will try. If you can convice me otherwise keep trying. Until the shovels start I will push for the team to stay and to have the vision to make HP an amazing location. I would not be a 49er fan without a little whine, Right?

TheWiz

05-01-2007, 09:21 AM

"Toxic waste dump" sounds just as biased to me as a "parking lot" if not more.

That was my point, it was supposed to be a biased reflection. The fact that the original poster used parking lot as a negative I found it funny how they thought a large expanse of asphalt was worse than a Superfund site. The original poster was biased and angry so I just brought similar language to the table to make my point.

In the past, a fan wanting Season Tickets could pay a current STH 'X' amount of money for the STH to transfer his seats to a new STH. The new STH has only to pay the bill each year to retain those seats. In the new stadium, after a STH pays the SBL if he later transfers the seats, does the new STH have to pay an SBL also?

Are you saying that under the SBL's, an existing STH buys the SBL. Later he transfers the seats to a new STH. Then the new STH would have to purchase a SBL for each seat if they wished to keep those seats?

When you purchase and SBL, you are buying the rights to the seat for the life of the stadium and for many premium seats, also for non-NFL events. The purpose of this is not only fund the stadium construction but it entices people to keep coming back. Fans are more likely to keep buying the season tickets to get the most out of the SBL payments. If you decide to stop buying the season tickets, you are in essence waiving those SBL rights. What happens from there largely depends on the rules the team sets forth. The only regulations on SBLs pertain to how income from their sales can be used.

By league rules, SBL/PSLs are not reported to then league if used to finance stadium building, rennovation, and expansion. If they are used for regular maintenance it must be reported as income by the owner. If the owner earns interest on stored up PSL costs and uses that interest for anything but stadium building/renovation it must also be reported. However, whether a team attaches lifetime or 10 years rights to seats or anything of that sort is up to each club to determine.

In our case SBLs could go in any direction. In any case, SBLs are not transferable. If you buy an SBL, you can't 'transfer' the rights to the next guy. The rules will either be that if you pass on buying season tickets your SBL expires or you always hold SBL rights and first dibs on a seat regardless of how recently you bought season tickets. In some cases, once you pass on season tickets, you waive the rights to the seat and the next guy can pay his own SBL and buy the exclusive rights. In the other case, someone can sit in your seat but if 2 years later you want season tickets again, you still get first dibs. Fans who get complete rights to seats every year are more likely to plunk down more cash since the SBL will never expire. On the other hand, if SBLs expire, the team stands to gain more income in the future on SBL sales to renovate the stadium from selling the rights to seats multiple times.

Either way SBLs will be a rolling income source for the stadium. Expect the best seats to sell their rights a year or more before the stadium is even built. I also think the team will make them optional for anywhere in the stadium, even nosebleed seats, if the fan wishes to buy the rights. The team loses nothing from SBL sales, only gains. If a fan doesn't want the tickets later the tema is free to sell them to someone else.

Peter Proud

05-01-2007, 10:46 AM

XRaguX

05-01-2007, 11:13 AM

When you purchase and SBL, you are buying the rights to the seat for the life of the stadium and for many premium seats, also for non-NFL events. The purpose of this is not only fund the stadium construction but it entices people to keep coming back. Fans are more likely to keep buying the season tickets to get the most out of the SBL payments. If you decide to stop buying the season tickets, you are in essence waiving those SBL rights. What happens from there largely depends on the rules the team sets forth. The only regulations on SBLs pertain to how income from their sales can be used.

By league rules, SBL/PSLs are not reported to then league if used to finance stadium building, rennovation, and expansion. If they are used for regular maintenance it must be reported as income by the owner. If the owner earns interest on stored up PSL costs and uses that interest for anything but stadium building/renovation it must also be reported. However, whether a team attaches lifetime or 10 years rights to seats or anything of that sort is up to each club to determine.

In our case SBLs could go in any direction. In any case, SBLs are not transferable. If you buy an SBL, you can't 'transfer' the rights to the next guy. The rules will either be that if you pass on buying season tickets your SBL expires or you always hold SBL rights and first dibs on a seat regardless of how recently you bought season tickets. In some cases, once you pass on season tickets, you waive the rights to the seat and the next guy can pay his own SBL and buy the exclusive rights. In the other case, someone can sit in your seat but if 2 years later you want season tickets again, you still get first dibs. Fans who get complete rights to seats every year are more likely to plunk down more cash since the SBL will never expire. On the other hand, if SBLs expire, the team stands to gain more income in the future on SBL sales to renovate the stadium from selling the rights to seats multiple times.

Either way SBLs will be a rolling income source for the stadium. Expect the best seats to sell their rights a year or more before the stadium is even built. I also think the team will make them optional for anywhere in the stadium, even nosebleed seats, if the fan wishes to buy the rights. The team loses nothing from SBL sales, only gains. If a fan doesn't want the tickets later the tema is free to sell them to someone else.

I think I can answer my own question but I have to ask....

If you choose a seat (i.e. 25-30 yard line) which does not have a mandatory SBL, what are your rights if someone wants to pay the SBL on the seats? In other words, if you have the seats but haven't paid the SBL, could someone buy it out from under you? Additionally, how much control would you have of the seats for 49er games?

TheWiz

05-01-2007, 12:49 PM

So the way I read that is as follows:
1. Current STH pays the SBL for each of the seats on their acct. If he does not renew the season tickets they of course are the 49ers and any new STH would have to pay a new SBL.

2. Current STH retains SBL but not wanting to purchase seats for that season sells just the season himself or allows team to sell the seats for that season while still having 1st dibs on the following seasons.

3. Current STH can transfer seats to another individual but that individual would have to pay for SBL'S.

I believe 1 and 2 are True, while 3 is False. Am I correct?

1 and 2 are two plausible outcomes yes. Whether the team will give lifetime rights or if you're required to keep purchasing season tickets is not yet determined. 3 doesn't exist.

I think I can answer my own question but I have to ask....

If you choose a seat (i.e. 25-30 yard line) which does not have a mandatory SBL, what are your rights if someone wants to pay the SBL on the seats? In other words, if you have the seats but haven't paid the SBL, could someone buy it out from under you? Additionally, how much control would you have of the seats for 49er games?

You have no rights. Someone could come in and offer to buy the SBL and the next year they get the rights to the seats from underneath you. So, if you want to stick to your seat, you should by the SBL. I imagine SBL rights go by season so you can't have your season seats stolen from underneath you midseason.

XRaguX

05-01-2007, 02:32 PM

You have no rights. Someone could come in and offer to buy the SBL and the next year they get the rights to the seats from underneath you. So, if you want to stick to your seat, you should by the SBL. I imagine SBL rights go by season so you can't have your season seats stolen from underneath you midseason.

So the reality of the situation is that, in order to ensure your location (which has been the whole point of being an STH for the last 40 years), you'll have to pay for the SBL's regardless if they are mandatory or not.

I completely understand the inherent value of seat rights so I’m not debating the economics of SBL’s. I don’t like them but I also realize that, if designed correctly, there’s recoverable value for any right’s holder. However, I am beginning to become concerned on how these SBL’s are being positioned and communicated.

While anyone can debate how the majority of SBL’s will be “optional”, the reality is that there’s significant risk to NOT BUY the SBL. Wiz, as you probably well know, this is a different economic principle from a simple asset acquisition decision. The purchase decision of an SBL will have a lot more to do with limiting downside risk (e.g. insurance) rather than determining specific value.

Say what you will about the option but, as I see it, STH will HAVE TO BUY the SBL or risk being forced out of the stadium during more successful times. Additionally, once this concept becomes more widely understood, I think there will be a lot more debate on the plan.

An additional question I don’t understand is the argument that there’s significant value that can be recovered outside of 49er games. In the past 5 years, there are very few events held @ traditional football or baseball stadiums that have sold out. The Police concert @ McAfee is a rare exception. The Rolling Stones @ PacBell/SBC/AT&T/YouNameHere Park is another example. These are exceptions rather than rules.

While it would be great to have a guaranteed seat to these type events, there’s no guarantee that the new 49er stadium will be the prime destination for any of these concerts when it’s built. Additionally, while a seat on the 30 yard line 30-40 rows up provides a first-class view for a 49er game, it’s may not be the most desirable or desired seats for a variety of other events.

Finally, as some already know, the process of selling a ticket for an event (i.e. NCAA Regional Finals, Baseball, Professional Lacrosse, etc) isn’t nearly as easy as you’d think. While it’s nice to sell tickets for 75% above costs, the actual leg-work and demands to complete the transaction can take a toll. Additionally, even after you think you’ve fully weighted the hassle of selling a ticket, you may still find yourselves apologizing to your stadium friends for selling your seats to “…that drunk, belligerent Rams fan.”

I think most STH to any sports team will agree that sometimes it’s a lot easier to simply give your tickets to a deserving charity or group rather than trying to recoup your costs.

sats0

05-01-2007, 02:57 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the SBL be payable to the Stadium Authority, whereas the season ticket would be payable to the 49ers? Ok, I
also answered my own question by re-reading the letter from Denise and John York (see attached quote below).

"Under the proposal, the Stadium Authority would sell Stadium Builders Licenses (SBLs) for a certain percentage of the seats. These transferable licenses would give their holders the right to buy 49ers season tickets every year over the entire life of the new stadium, along with rights to tickets for other stadium special events. Revenue from the licenses would be used exclusively to fund and maintain the stadium with no proceeds going to the team."

The key word I'm focusing on here is "percentage". So let's say they decide that 50% of the seats should have SBLs. Then the owners of these SBLs would be free to select whatever seats they want, assuming that they are available and not already taken by some other SBL owner with more seniority. So once the 50% quota is reached, the remaining STH should be able to always get into the stadium from one year to the other, but just may get booted out of their seats if some SBL owner wants them. That's not likely to happen as you would assume that the SBL owners would take the best seats available to them to begin with.

Peter Proud

05-01-2007, 05:49 PM

sats0

05-01-2007, 07:03 PM

So if a seat is 'SBL opitional' and the current STH chooses to not buy a SBL, but another individual wants those seats so all that individual would have to do is pay the SBL and the current STH would lose their seats?

Explain how that would be opitional.

Ok, first let me clarify that all this is speculation on my part. I don't work for the 49ers, nor do I have any inside sources. I'm just trying to understand all this myself and figure out what is the most beneficial way I can bring this up with my wife so I can convince her it's a good deal :hide:

All I can infer from the letter is that a percentage of the seats require a SBL. It doesn't say what percentage, or where the seats are located. What I think that means is that the Stadium Authority opens up the books and asks for people to buy the SBLs. The first ones who have the opportunity to buy the SBLs are current STHs, in order of seniority. Those that buy the SBLs get to choose their seats and get the right to keep them from year to year. If all the SBLs are sold before the stadium opens and the SBL owners have selected their seats, the remaining seats are now open to the general public (probably here also there will be a priority given to current STHs).

There is no mention of recurring SBLs, or anyone having to fork over money for SBLs after the needed 50% have signed up and paid. So it would appear to be a one time deal. However, it does also say that the Stadium Authority is supposed to generate the money for renovation of the stadium, and I'm not sure if that money comes from future SBL sales. The advantage of owning the SBL is that you will have chosen the seats you want - probably the best ones in the stadium. This is giving seat selection priority to those people who are not current STHs but are willing to buy SBLs a way of jumping ahead of those STHs who are not willing to buy SBLs when selecting seats. So the priority when selecting seats would be:

Current STHs who buy SBLs (highest priority)
Non STHs who buy SBLs
STHs who do not buy SBLs
Non STHs (lowest priority)

Perhaps the Wiz can enlighten us on what is likely to happen?
If this thing is so complicated I'm wondering how the Raider fans were able to figure it out???

XRaguX

05-02-2007, 04:04 PM

So if a seat is 'SBL opitional' and the current STH chooses to not buy a SBL, but another individual wants those seats so all that individual would have to do is pay the SBL and the current STH would lose their seats?

Explain how that would be opitional.

Exactly. :pullhair:

Wiz - Please feel free to correct us if we are interpreting this incorrectly.

BrielleSF

06-06-2007, 03:25 PM

[QUOTE=TheWiz;730882]"That's a neat trick since the team hasn't even been in Candlestick for 50 years. Secondly, you are free to keep sitting in your seats or at least their spacial location for the as long as you wish. However, I think that eventually the demolition crews and police will have a quarrel with you."

It's sad that I actually have to clarify this but just because my family's seats have not been at Candlestick for 50 years does not mean my family has not held season ticket seats for that long. We got our seats when they played at Kezar. My great uncle was their controller back then.

"I'm sorry that you somehow find that the owner asking for fans to help pay for part of the gameday experience. Forget that for an owner the public has idiotically branded as 'cheap' has put forth a financing plan that calls for him to pay more than any previous owner."

First of all, I already pay for the gameday experience by purchasing season tickets every year!

Second of all, **** straight I think he's cheap. I don't recall him willing to pony up any money when the staidum was going to be in SF! It's great that everyone is all happy about the Yorks as of late, but I haven't forgotten how many corners he tried to cut after he took the team over from Eddie D. OR the fact that it has only been a recent decision to use York personal money to get a new stadium built. He's owned the team for years now but not until he brought in Nolan did I start to agree with his spending decisions or his commitment to the team...but I still think he's cheap. And I'm not the only one.

TheWiz

06-06-2007, 07:11 PM

First of all, I already pay for the gameday experience by purchasing season tickets every year!

Second of all, **** straight I think he's cheap. I don't recall him willing to pony up any money when the staidum was going to be in SF! It's great that everyone is all happy about the Yorks as of late, but I haven't forgotten how many corners he tried to cut after he took the team over from Eddie D. OR the fact that it has only been a recent decision to use York personal money to get a new stadium built. He's owned the team for years now but not until he brought in Nolan did I start to agree with his spending decisions or his commitment to the team...but I still think he's cheap. And I'm not the only one.

- Umm, no, it doesn't. Your ticket buys you the rights to watch the game and to sit in a seat or on a spot on a bench. That's it. An owner is under no obligation to provide anything else. Your ticket doesn't buy 20 foot DVD screens. It doesn't buy padded seats, concession stands, announcers, or sound systems. If all you want is to see the game played you're ripping yourself off. You could sit at home with earplugs and get a better view for nothing. People pay for tickets to have the right to see the action live, in person, and to enjoy things like concessions food and a live crowd, none of which you pay for, the team provides. Your ticket buys you nothing along those lines. They're all paid for by ownership to get you to buy tickets, not paid for by your tickets. In fact, almost all of the income beyond your tickets doesn't even go to the owner.

Ah, how the misinformed live. I'd love to spend all day explaining why so many things are wrong with the idea that York is cheap. Largely because of media spin and a few popular alumni complaining about next to nothing.

- "I don't recall him willing to pony up any money when the stadium was going to be built in SF!" Oh, where is the news release where the team and the city sat down to discuss financing? That's because it never happened! You know why? Because Lennar's proposal and idea was so weak the team abandoned it long before paying for it was even a consideration! It was never discussed! The city sure as heck wasn't even willing to donate 100M for the project. Did you really think Lennar was going to build us a stadium for free? HECK, at that price EVERY owner would agree! You're calling him cheap for something that never happened! It's like calling a date cheap because you think they wouldn't have picked up the check had you gone out!

- "It's great that everyone is all happy about the Yorks as of late, but I haven't forgotten how many corners he tried to cut after he took the team over from Eddie D" Corners? What corners? Please tell me what corners were cut? What, he spent tens of thousands on water filtration at the team facility and held back some bottled water? Heck, he LOST money in the process. Some stupid belt buckles nobody cared about? The weight room expansion he paid for? Oh, the infamous player complaining because he had to pay for a stamp?! Heck, York has lost far more money improving team facilities in ways that Eddie D never paid attention to that calling him cheap is an insult. Bottled water, some stamps, and stupid buckles don't even come close to some of the improvements he has made.

- "OR the fact that it has only been a recent decision to use York personal money to get a new stadium built" What world do you live in? Do you not realize that you've got to first find a suitable location to build stadium long before how you pay for it is a consideration?! You don't just choose to build a stadium, work out a whole financial deal, and then worry about where it will be later! Where it will actually be placed has vast effects on costs and the overall deal with a municipality! It wasn't until recently the team actually had a plot of land and interested partner to the point where paying for a stadium was even an issue!

- "He's owned the team for years now but not until he brought in Nolan did I start to agree with his spending decisions or his commitment to the team" That's fine. I'm sure his choice to hire Donahue was a big mistake, after all, it was only Bill Walsh's suggestion. His choice to fire Mariucci was a mistake, after all, didn't he succeed so well in Detroit? And owners are impervious, no previous 49ers owner had ever hired a coach as bad as Erickson! Even hall of fame owners have hired dud coaches just as much as great coaches have drafted dud players. Choosing to hold onto the team and turn down offers from Oracle CEO Ellison and a bunch of rogue businessmen led by 49ers alumni shows committment. I find it hilarious how people knock York for not having a sports background but think Ellison was a better option. This is a guy whose only method is to throw money at a problem, it worked so well for the USA team in the America's Cup process this year. It has also won so many trophies lately for the Redskins.

Kenage

06-07-2007, 03:40 PM

TheWiz

06-07-2007, 09:54 PM

Nice post Wiz. If the City of Santa Clara decides not to build the stadium for the 49ers do they go to the City of LA with the same deal to them right away or do they look at any other North Cali locations first?

A number of options open up.

Hunter's Point is still an option. Recently the team sued the city over its lease. As part of the team's lease with the city, the city is required to pay a certain amount for maintenance per year. Yet since around the '00-'01 season the city did not pay up and diverted those funds to other city projects. So the team sued and the city has settled for a lump sum. As a result of the settlement the team has the money to fix the stadium parking, drainage issues, elevators and several major plumbing issues. However, it also made the team agree to add a year onto its lease. So actually we can continue to play through the '12-'13 season. That extra year could be enough to swing ownership into thinking Hunter's Point could be a viable site for the '13-'14 season.

However, it will take LA interest or a severe lack of options before the team would ever consider that option. I'm sure there are some cities more than anxious to provide money and another big factor is regional impact. Plenty of NFL stadiums are built in cities generally too small for their own stadium. Sometimes deals involve surrounding cities and a whole county chipping in with bonds and cash investments. Also, if it got desperate enough, even are state legislators would be pressured to find state funds to finance a deal in a smaller city to keep the team local enough.

It's far from becoming an LA matter at this point. We do have an overwhelming majority of interest in Santa Clara. We're offering them an amazing sweetheart deal. Sure a big office building may bring in more direct revenue but booming entertainment brings in more residents and businesses.

ethanh

06-08-2007, 08:39 AM

It's far from becoming an LA matter at this point. We do have an overwhelming majority of interest in Santa Clara. We're offering them an amazing sweetheart deal. Sure a big office building may bring in more direct revenue but booming entertainment brings in more residents and businesses.

Good to hear LA is not an option on the table as of now. Also intersting points on extending the lease and Hunters point option. Not sure Santa Clara needs more residents or propety value, as it is already an elite area of the State, but a stadium would add some excitement to the town and probably make it a less boring of a suburban/ corporate sprawl.

TheWiz

06-08-2007, 10:29 AM

Good to hear LA is not an option on the table as of now. Also intersting points on extending the lease and Hunters point option. Not sure Santa Clara needs more residents or propety value, as it is already an elite area of the State, but a stadium would add some excitement to the town and probably make it a less boring of a suburban/ corporate sprawl.

That's the missing part of the commentary.

A new office building may be nice. Of course, how many businesses want to have an office building next to an amusement park? Also, there is no guarantee employees would live in the city. They could just as easily commute from San Jose, and so on. Santa Clara doesn't have problem attracting businesses. On the other hand, increasing local attractions brings money into the city. It may not add directly to taxes, but it adds to local business revenue. Increased revenue means more profits which aids expansion and growth and more jobs. The closeness of attractions also brings up property values which in turn become extra tax revenue and so on. These are trickle down effects that cannot be put into reports because you can't estimate them. One economist can just as easily say property values will increase 3% as another can say it will only be .4%. Likewise, a business building has no such effect. In fact, it only takes an economic downturn to empty half that building whereas the 49ers would likely come with a 25+ year lease.

sats0

06-08-2007, 11:25 AM

That's the missing part of the commentary.

A new office building may be nice. Of course, how many businesses want to have an office building next to an amusement park? Also, there is no guarantee employees would live in the city. They could just as easily commute from San Jose, and so on. Santa Clara doesn't have problem attracting businesses. On the other hand, increasing local attractions brings money into the city. It may not add directly to taxes, but it adds to local business revenue. Increased revenue means more profits which aids expansion and growth and more jobs. The closeness of attractions also brings up property values which in turn become extra tax revenue and so on. These are trickle down effects that cannot be put into reports because you can't estimate them. One economist can just as easily say property values will increase 3% as another can say it will only be .4%. Likewise, a business building has no such effect. In fact, it only takes an economic downturn to empty half that building whereas the 49ers would likely come with a 25+ year lease.

Another important aspect of having a stadium as opposed to more office buildings is that it serves as a CATALYST for other development. It would lead to other improvements in infrastructure, roads, parking, extra public transportaion, the replacement of the existing power station with a newer more efficient one, etc. that normally would not have happened. Office buildings will also add more traffic on weekdays - imagine 19,000 MORE cars on the roads every weekday instead of on the weekends when the offices are closed!

It's hard to account for the publicity you get also. Every time there is a picture of downtown SF or the Golden Gate Bridge or a cable car, it serves as free advertising that draws more visitors to the city that may have no interest in football at all. Similarly, a picture of Great America, or other attractions nearby will draw more tourists to the area. Ok, so there aren't that many (any?) scenic places worth visiting in Santa Clara, but at least some of the people may stay in hotels that are located in the city.

I do hope that the current deal with Santa Clara goes through. If it doesn't, I hope people recognize that the 49ers are a REGIONAL ASSET that have a positive impact on the entire area, and I hope that we can get some sort of agreement worked out between SF, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Marin counties, with the realization that ALL counties benifit if the 49ers stay in the area regardless of where the stadium is actually located. Perhaps one of our elected officials will have the foresight to lead such an effort. If not, perhaps a grassroots movement by 49er fans will force the various counties to work together.

ethanh

06-08-2007, 12:08 PM

Kenage

06-08-2007, 12:48 PM

A number of options open up.

Hunter's Point is still an option. Recently the team sued the city over its lease. As part of the team's lease with the city, the city is required to pay a certain amount for maintenance per year. Yet since around the '00-'01 season the city did not pay up and diverted those funds to other city projects. So the team sued and the city has settled for a lump sum. As a result of the settlement the team has the money to fix the stadium parking, drainage issues, elevators and several major plumbing issues. However, it also made the team agree to add a year onto its lease. So actually we can continue to play through the '12-'13 season. That extra year could be enough to swing ownership into thinking Hunter's Point could be a viable site for the '13-'14 season.

If the City/State could do the cleanup in a timely matter Wiz would the Niners prefer that site over Santa Clara? I think if all sides were equal they would still want to be in Santa Clara for location and ease of access, but the Hunter's Point site would look nice on tv. I have no idea how the City of Santa Clara could turn down the Niners deal but we shall see. I do not endorse tax payer money going to fund private stadiums for with the Niner deal the City would own the stadium down the road so the money is more than worth it.

TheWiz

06-08-2007, 10:33 PM

If the City/State could do the cleanup in a timely matter Wiz would the Niners prefer that site over Santa Clara? I think if all sides were equal they would still want to be in Santa Clara for location and ease of access, but the Hunter's Point site would look nice on tv. I have no idea how the City of Santa Clara could turn down the Niners deal but we shall see. I do not endorse tax payer money going to fund private stadiums for with the Niner deal the City would own the stadium down the road so the money is more than worth it.

'in a timely manner' is a really big if. The idea that a SF mayor can pull enough string to get the Navy workforce to fast track cleanup is a little byond belief. Especially when the mayor has been in enough personal troubles lately to not get re-elected. So his ability to pull political strings right now are very weak, especially on a federal level. The Hunter's Point site has serious ground water and soil concerns which could take well over 3 or 4 more years of extensive effort to clean up. Even then, further testing will likely find some miss-steps during our construction on the site. That results in more cleanup, delayed construction, penalties paid to contracts, and inflations affecting costs.

As pointed out a previous poster with environmental cleanup experience, there is nearly no way to guarantee, regardless of man and machine power and money, that everything will be clean faster.

Personally I think it's ridiculous for tax-payers to stand against such investments. The costs of a new stadium can easily push 1B these days. Meanwhile, they'rte huge infusions to local economy and entertainment and draw new businesses. The infusion into local entertainment brings in new bars, restaurants, clubs, and retailers as a result. I coudl go on but the fact is that the trickle down economic effects are strong.

Niner Jan

06-09-2007, 01:36 AM

Thanks, WIZ. Very informative. You should be a lawyer because you are very persuasive and enlightened. I always read what you write, even when I don't understand all of it (especially cap stuff).

I've been going to the Santa Clara City Council meetings and viewing the presentations; also listening to the arguments on both sides. I've done my part to argue for the stadium by giving my 2-minute opinions before the CC. The first time, I thought I'd die for fright, but it's getting a little easier each time. (I also spoke before the Sunnyvale CC on a different local issue.)

The Vice-Mayor brought up the issue of a Class A business building (whatever that means) an an alternate proposal for use of that land. He argued that there had been a sign for about a year advertising for such a proposal, but there were no bites! Besides, look at all the EMPTY vacant business buildings along Hwy 237!

The reason the alternate idea came up was because last week, the City's consultants presented THEIR comparative study on behalf of the City to contrast with the 49ers proposal. The Class A office building idea was presented as an alternative concept in that presentation.

Niner Jan :go9ers: Time for :zzz: now.

Kenage

06-09-2007, 03:35 PM

If I read the article on the city's consultant his findings about the money a new stadium would bring were right in line with the 49ers people. I would agree with you Niner Jan about the office building idea. Sure it could provide more money, but the Niner stadium would be guaranteed money each year for the city and they would make millions on it when they own it. Thank you Niner Jan for all the work you put into the new stadium. It is really nice that as a fan you go to all the meetings to make sure the fans voice is heard.