49ers stadium deal sees major hurdle

[pin0yb0i]

cedar fair, who owns great america opposes the stadium proposal because they think that business will be affected by construction and game day parking and traffic issues. this is a major set back.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_6163695

[BEAT LA]

cedar fair, who owns great america opposes the stadium proposal because they think that business will be affected by construction and game day parking and traffic issues. this is a major set back.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_6163695

this is wonderful!!!
hopefully they just cancel all the plans they have in santa clara and start making new plans in the city

[offtackle24]

this is wonderful!!!
hopefully they just cancel all the plans they have in santa clara and start making new plans in the city

if the city would give the 49ers a decent spot. Not many people realize that there are more 49er fans in sacramento than in the city of san francisco. Or that people in san francisco only represent 9% of the season ticket holders.

[49Faithful]

Screw Newsom and SF!!! If they dont want to give us a fair deal and with tailgating then to the heck with them.

[The Jerm!]

this is wonderful!!!
hopefully they just cancel all the plans they have in santa clara and start making new plans in the city

LOL, Wonderful for you. How many games do you attend a season? 1-2?

[ethanh]

Screw Newsom and SF!!! If they dont want to give us a fair deal and with tailgating then to the heck with them.

Please know the whole story before making statments about San Francisco and its mayor, (Hello, You are ripping the city where the team was founded/created and named after)

Nobody does not want tailgating, if you are talking about the Olympic parking garage that plan is dead. The new Hunters Point plan, while on toxic land and probably not ready by 2012, is being offered with incentives, more then SC has offered.

[jojob101]

MAN.. i just wanna break ground on a new park like yesterday!!! This organization deserves a new park and its taking way to long to get this done!!!

((((FREAK)))) <---- the kids were around...... i had to be polite..;)

[sandiegojoe]

That's crazy, this stadium would totally help great america. Not that many people outside of the area even know it exists, and now there'd be video of it televised during every 49ers game. Not to mention the games would be in the fall when attendance at great america starts to drop, people coming from out of town for a niners game would be likely to visit the park.

Hell, think of all the dads who will drop their wife and kids off at the park, and then head over to the stadium with their buddies.

the possibilities are endless. Disney didn't whine when they built angels stadium and the duck pond across the freeway to disneyland. It's just one more thing "to do" on a vacation out that way.

I doubt this is a major hurdle though. Probably just the company's attorneys getting things set up to protect (and benefit) great america. Just business strategy.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

....I doubt this is a major hurdle though. Probably just the company's attorneys getting things set up to protect (and benefit) great america. Just business strategy.

Ding, ding, ding , ding! Give that man a cigar!

In my opinion , that is the correct answer. This is a negotiating ploy, not a hurdle.

[Roaring Back]

Not looking good for the latest Santa Clara fantasy. Just one thing after another. And while Cedar Fair/Great America is publicly voicing its opposition to the stadium plan, NFL execs are meeting with Gavin Newsom as we speak.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=sports&id=5399083

[Teke]

I'm hoping they redo the project with a better looking stadium than the one proposed. Anyone think there's a possibility of that happening if the NFL offers to pitch in?

Also, does anyone doubt that if Eddie Debartolo were the owner we'd be looking at a first rate stadium (much like what the Cowboy's fans are getting); and the deal would have been done by now? Something tells me by the look of this stadium that the owners don't have a passion for the team like the fans do.

[Peter Proud]

Not looking good for the latest Santa Clara fantasy. Just one thing after another. And while Cedar Fair/Great America is publicly voicing its opposition to the stadium plan, NFL execs are meeting with Gavin Newsom as we speak.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=sports&id=5399083

See previous post above one quoted.

[smoking_rubber]

The major difference between SC and Anahiem, Disneyland didn't give up 60% of it's parking lot.

[pin0yb0i]

I'm hoping they redo the project with a better looking stadium than the one proposed. Anyone think there's a possibility of that happening if the NFL offers to pitch in?

Also, does anyone doubt that if Eddie Debartolo were the owner we'd be looking at a first rate stadium (much like what the Cowboy's fans are getting); and the deal would have been done by now? Something tells me by the look of this stadium that the owners don't have a passion for the team like the fans do.


i've posted the same quote to a similar comment a couple months ago but here..

HNTB is still early in the design process -between 2 and 3 on a scale of 1 to 10 -and free to throw around ideas to fit the stadium with its surroundings, such as Great America. 'We've even toyed with the idea of having some sort of amusement ride attached to the stadium,'Gonzales said.
http://www.europaconcorsi.com/db/rec/inbox.php?id=14722

also, imo, it's not as easy to make an open air facility aesthetically pleasant to look at as it is a domed or semi-enclosed stadium. because with domes the architects have more material to liberally express their visions. but with opened air stadiums, they tend to have to use more of the surrounding area, which in some cases may be an impractical use of land.

[Teke]

i've posted the same quote to a similar comment a couple months ago but here..

also, imo, it's not as easy to make an open air facility aesthetically pleasant to look at as it is a domed or semi-enclosed stadium. because with domes the architects have more material to liberally express their visions. but with opened air stadiums, they tend to have to use more of the surrounding area, which in some cases may be an impractical use of land.

The Seahawks built a beautiful looking stadium which is open air if I'm not mistaken. From the general feeling around the message board, I'd say most fans are happy that a new stadium is being built, however generally, they feel that since it's been such a long time coming management could have done a much better job of building a class A stadium. This one appears to be a very basic, barebones stadium.

To me, it speaks volumes of management's thought process for the whole thing. Spend as little money as possible to bring in as much revenue as possible. Sure that's a great business model, but would it kill ownership to show that they are fans of the team? I would think they'd want to own something that us fans could brag about.

[BEAT LA]

LOL, Wonderful for you. How many games do you attend a season? 1-2?

actually like 5 an average every season
and actually last year i only missed two games the home opener against the rams and the home closer against zona..and the reason why was cuz none of my fiends were able to get tix
so yeah...
and plus in the future i will be going to all 8 and im not trying to go all the way to SC
so yea..im thinking about the future too

[BEAT LA]

I'm hoping they redo the project with a better looking stadium than the one proposed. Anyone think there's a possibility of that happening if the NFL offers to pitch in?

Also, does anyone doubt that if Eddie Debartolo were the owner we'd be looking at a first rate stadium (much like what the Cowboy's fans are getting); and the deal would have been done by now? Something tells me by the look of this stadium that the owners don't have a passion for the team like the fans do.

totally agree
our proposed stadium doesnt even look all that nice
it looks plain
but hey as long as we get a new stadium ill be happy

[TheWiz]

cedar fair, who owns great america opposes the stadium proposal because they think that business will be affected by construction and game day parking and traffic issues. this is a major set back.
...

This is not a setback. Heck, we've got 3 other 'hurdles' to pass even before this one is a sincere concern. We've got finish the feasibility study and pass a council vote, pass an environmental impact study after that and then most likely a citizen vote on the matter. This isn't a stonewall by that conglomerate, if that's the right technical term. We've always needed to get their permission and it has taken months for them to formulate a public response.

Please know the whole story before making statments about San Francisco and its mayor, (Hello, You are ripping the city where the team was founded/created and named after)

Nobody does not want tailgating, if you are talking about the Olympic parking garage that plan is dead. The new Hunters Point plan, while on toxic land and probably not ready by 2012, is being offered with incentives, more then SC has offered.

This sia falsehead ethanh. First of all, Santa Clara hasn't offered a single dime other than the funds they've spent for the feasibility study. We have asked them for funds and even at this point, none of that is set in stone. It's a basic offer package that will undergo many revisions and detail changes over the next 9-12 months before a final, concrete, ironclad deal is completed.

The incentives being offered are not in any way more profitable than Santa Clara. In fact, the city is offering nothing more than expedited cleaning and free purchase of the land if we build the stadium. Meanwhile, Lenar is building a large housing upgrade and small commercial upgrade to the area in a deal that has nothing to do with the stadium. The best offer we can get at the moment would be to get Lennar to cover some infrastructure costs, far from the 180M investment we're asking from Santa Clara. The city has not offered a dime to pay for the stadium. Even at our higher levels of fame we only squeaked a 100M bond measure by for a 550M renovation project I believe it was. I doubt at this day and age we could get a 200M or 300M offer from the city, something which would be about average for most public stadiums in this day and age.

Ding, ding, ding , ding! Give that man a cigar!

In my opinion , that is the correct answer. This is a negotiating ploy, not a hurdle.

Agreed Fromthe3rdRow. They're posturing to get a piece of the pie. They get nothing special by just rolling over and playing dead at this point. Meanwhile, if the city and team all agree and this detail remains, they can basically blackmail the team. They know if we can finance the stadium, we're also not going to balk at only a few million to get it all done.

I'm hoping they redo the project with a better looking stadium than the one proposed. Anyone think there's a possibility of that happening if the NFL offers to pitch in?

Also, does anyone doubt that if Eddie Debartolo were the owner we'd be looking at a first rate stadium (much like what the Cowboy's fans are getting); and the deal would have been done by now? Something tells me by the look of this stadium that the owners don't have a passion for the team like the fans do.

The NFL is a large factor in the deal! The stadium project is expected to cost over 900M and likely closer to 1B+ all is said and done. If Santa Clara even pays up 160M that goes into the stadium, 20M to move its substation, that leaves over 800M more or less for the team to cover. Even concession rights, advertising, and naming rights won't take out half of that. The NFL agreeing to a new sort of '3G Loan' program is rather important because the owners are not capable of paying 400M out of their pockets just for construction. The3G program was created largely with stadiums like Candlestick in mind. Meanwhile it has cost nothing for the league and in fact raised profits along the way and creating such a deal will be a big concept at next year's owners meetings. Around the same time we will be working out contract details with Santa Clara if we pass all of the other hurdles.

You have no clue when it comes to Eddie. If Eddie were still the owner we would've renovated Candlestick back in 2000-2001. It wouldn't be a world class stadium. It would be a spit-shine on Candlestick with a 15-20 year lifespan, tops. He didn't have a new stadium planned, he had a deep renovation in mind for a stadium that cannot be renovated. You'd now have a new upperdeck that would block any sort of skyline. The stadium would like a big cylindrical shopping mall, you'd have 1 more large video screen in the stadium bowl, new seats and not a heck of a lot more. His deal was to basically throw makeup onto the stadium, not make it any better by itself.

If the owners wanted low resistance and minimal investment and higher returns, they would've agree to the first deal. You'd now have a stadium that would get a makeover that would only make it viable for over only 10-15 years. It would include a vast parking garage that may not even be possible to build. It would be an audition for engineering marvels:parking garages long before it would be labeled for a special called Great NFL Stadiums: Candlestick Park.

And don't being to believe that 'Eddie' would be getting Santa Clara done any faster. Eddie has no magical powers. Even with more money on the table. Santa Clara still would be doing both studies. Great America's owners would still be holding up on the matter even more aggressively.

This entire "But Eddie would make it all better" idea is complete, utter, hogwash. Don't even get me started on a post on that matter.

The Seahawks built a beautiful looking stadium which is open air if I'm not mistaken. From the general feeling around the message board, I'd say most fans are happy that a new stadium is being built, however generally, they feel that since it's been such a long time coming management could have done a much better job of building a class A stadium. This one appears to be a very basic, barebones stadium.

To me, it speaks volumes of management's thought process for the whole thing. Spend as little money as possible to bring in as much revenue as possible. Sure that's a great business model, but kill ownership to show that they are fans as well as businessmen? I would think they'd want something we could brag about.

Who has any right to say it won't be a class 'A' stadium? A new stadium is already a class 'B' just by itself, regardless of design. Other stadiums that are older don't have any of the capabilities of new stadiums. They're renovations with new luxury boxes and a few new flashes. Older stadiums built more than 15 years ago don't have the infrastructure nor the technology insight to predict future needs. Older stadiums don't even have the space to easily run HDTV lines or the lines needed for internet and audio applications. Stadiums built before '95 have no insight into these matters.

'Spend as little money as possible to bring in as much revenue as possible.' I also think this is a terrible idea. So, they spend as little money as possible by building a brand new stadium that costs them more money than any owner has previously invested in a new stadium. Even percentage-wise, it beats inflation. The Yorks are paying more than any owners previously. They're also giving up almost all profits on everything outside of just ticket sales for quite a while. Naming rights, parking costs, concession rights and advertising deals up front are just a few costs all being forfeited just to build the stadium. It mainly leaves only league-wide and ticket sales as the only sources of potential profit for them. So how they are spending less and earning more makes no sense to me. They could've spent a percentage of the amount and gotten bigger profits in San Francisco at their current stadium, sheesh.

[Teke]

You have no clue when it comes to Eddie. If Eddie were still the owner we would've renovated Candlestick back in 2000-2001. It wouldn't be a world class stadium. It would be a spit-shine on Candlestick with a 15-20 year lifespan, tops. He didn't have a new stadium planned, he had a deep renovation in mind for a stadium that cannot be renovated. You'd now have a new upperdeck that would block any sort of skyline. The stadium would like a big cylindrical shopping mall, you'd have 1 more large video screen in the stadium bowl, new seats and not a heck of a lot more. His deal was to basically throw makeup onto the stadium, not make it any better by itself.

:link:



If the owners wanted low resistance and minimal investment and higher returns, they would've agree to the first deal. You'd now have a stadium that would get a makeover that would only make it viable for over only 10-15 years.


Tell me how a $150M investment over 15 years is more worthwhile than a 1B investment today over the course of 40 years? With inflation, you're looking at the 1B being a piddly investment, even in 20 years time (especially in the bay area which is much more sensitive to inflation then, oh, say Arizona).


And don't being to believe that 'Eddie' would be getting Santa Clara done any faster. Eddie has no magical powers. Even with more money on the table. Santa Clara still would be doing both studies. Great America's owners would still be holding up on the matter even more aggressively.

This entire "But Eddie would make it all better" idea is complete, utter, hogwash. Don't even get me started on a post on that matter.

Why would Great America still be "holding up on the matter even more agressively"?

You know I can't really prove Eddie would have gotten anything done faster, nor did I even say he would have (but I'm about to). I said he would have done a better stadium. No one thinks he has magical powers. If you want to have an informed debate like adults please don't try to undermine my argument by putting words in my mouth.

As I have read a decent amount of info on the history of the 49ers, I have come to realize that Eddie Debartolo Jr. was somewhat of a dealmaker. A people person... everything about him screamed it. His ability to connect with players and people around him including those in local government was uncanny. For example, have you ever read the story of how he had set up program where the 49ers could call a special line to have the police come and escort them from clubs when they were too drunk to drive? You call it magic, I call it an unexplainable, quite likeable presence that got the 49ers organization, fans, and city many consessions over his tenure (such as hanging on to some good players who could have jumped ship when they became free agents).

Now the point I was making was that York seems to be out for one thing and a lot of people can see it (and have alluded to it to as well). Like I said before, it's nice that we're getting a new stadium, but since it's taken so much time to do so, I'd like to have seen a little more thought go into it then a generic bowl with a view of an amusement park.


Who has any right to say it won't be a class 'A' stadium? A new stadium is already a class 'B' just by itself, regardless of design. Other stadiums that are older don't have any of the capabilities of new stadiums. They're renovations with new luxury boxes and a few new flashes. Older stadiums built more than 15 years ago don't have the infrastructure nor the technology insight to predict future needs. Older stadiums don't even have the space to easily run HDTV lines or the lines needed for internet and audio applications. Stadiums built before '95 have no insight into these matters.


So it's be up to date with today's technology. Wouldn't you assume a stadium should at least have that much (besides a field of course).

It mainly leaves only league-wide and ticket sales as the only sources of potential profit for them. So how they are spending less and earning more makes no sense to me. They could've spent a percentage of the amount and gotten bigger profits in San Francisco at their current stadium, sheesh.

So I can deduce from your argument that the only reason to build a new stadium is because it's too old? Are you saying the only way a new stadium makes money is through ticket sales? If so then why even build a new stadium unless you're adding more seats? If this is your logic then tell me why all owners are falling over themselves to build new stadiums and every year there's at least one city in the news pissed because the team needs help building it. You make it seem like it's such a burden on an owner to build a stadium, but if that were the case you'd see 25 dilapidated stadiums in the NFL right now.

[TheWiz]

:link:

You want a link to a piece of information that is largely well known by fans and anyone who followed the team in the 1997-1999 period when Eddie went under prosecution for his dealings with Louisiana gambling boats? You're asking for a link to a piece of news nearly 10 years old that may not even exist?

All of this is well known fact.

- Debartolo had a deal in place right before he was a criminal witness. It involved a 100M bond measure that barely passed a popular vote to finance the deal.
- The backbone of the deal was a shopping mall to be built with the stadium along with a large housing project near the stadium. Both would be important in the first few years to financing the stadium building costs.

There were not HDTV plasma screens in the project. There were no proposed general internet kiosks built in certain area using iMac computers for season ticket holders. No "49ers Walkway" with room for statues of previous team personalities or a large marble 'wall of honor' listing great achievements of years long gone. Heck, recent years have only shown one thing and that is that we're skimming the surface of technology. Where audio, internet, television or sensory technology will be in 10 years, no one knows. Hence why stadiums don't just run lines anymore, they run pipelines designed to allow plenty of room and easier access for future data lines in the stadium and up to street level. They allow ceiling and floor panel room for wireless technology or possibly to mount new technology later on. You get the point.


Tell me how a $150M investment over 15 years is more worthwhile than a 1B investment today over the course of 40 years? With inflation, you're looking at the 1B being a piddly investment, even in 20 years time (especially in the bay area which is much more sensitive to inflation then, oh, say Arizona).

Because over 10-15 years when you factor in inflation it's no less 'piddly' (what does that even mean?) than say 1B over 40 years! It's a common practice in economics to consider doubling costs every 15 or 20 years. So, a 1B investment in 40 years is worth 250M today whereas a 150M investment is worth 75M in 10 years on that scale, less so otherwise.

Here is the idea. First off, how many owners do you know that will own the team in 20 years? So let's be naive and think that Jed will run the team 2 years from now and for another 45+ years thereafter. Let's see, if you're not going to own a team in a few years, which is more profitable, spending 150M or 1B? Even worse, you're in a less fortunate position if you don't sell! So you'd spend 150M on a stadium that is sinking into the ocean and has no infrastructure to support moden technologies? Great. In 2023 when Intel Stadium in Santa Clara has brand new 3Gen wireless cell phone/email/internet/hdtv handhelds on half its seats you'd have a stadium at Candlestick Point that needs to be replaced and in 2023 dollars, think about 2B for a new park.

The owners could MUCH more easily bank on a cheap renovation and get back some fans and have large portions of it financed by another organization. How is that easier than 1B over 40 years? First off, 150M depreciates over 10-15 years as well and is less of an investment even on a 15-year doubling scale which is nearly 5% per year inflation. Secondly, why spend tons if you want to sell the team anytime soon? If they sell in 5 years, do you still want to spend 1B as an owner or only 150M?


Why would Great America still be "holding up on the matter even more agressively"?

Let's see. Consider the stances involved.

The Yorks: We love the site and transportation and location with regards to team facilities. But we're asking for 180M in spending from the city as an investment. It's going to be tight, we're giving up a ton of profit sources over the next few years to give you this deal and 180M is just what it will cost to make it happen.

Eddie: Money? No problem! I can sell some real estate deals to pay for a large portion of it. My family company will lend me some low cost business loans too. You don't need to pay a thing but you need to move that substation. That's it, move that sucker and we're talking about a massive deal that makes your city millions. I have 100 dollar bills falling out of my socks, want some?

Seriously, tell me which owner you think a corporation would label as "more likely to buy their way through a deal"? The one asking the city for money or the one who throws money at every obstacle. The way Eddie ran the team you imagine that he started every meeting with anyone involved with the team with "Wait, do you want more money?". Would they handle us more aggressively? Heck yeah! They'd be asking Eddie to pay the next 10 years worth of Great America's gross profits up front a few months ago because he'd pony up the money. Now their owner sees the likelihood of us actually getting money from Santa Clara and now they realize, "hey we are in position to secure more profits".

[QUOTE=Teke;826678]
You know I can't really prove Eddie would have gotten anything done faster, nor did I even say he would have (but I'm about to). I said he would have done a better stadium. No one thinks he has magical powers. If you want to have an informed debate like adults please don't try to undermine my argument by putting words in my mouth.

I didn't put words in your mouth. The fact is that everyone around here stooped to "If Eddie was still the owner..." arguments a long time ago. They're old. They perpetuate a non-provable belief that Eddie could do everything fans only dreamed of. Not to mention the fact that it relies on the stigma the Yorks are not the same brand of owner regardless of the vastly different leagues and circumstances they arrived under. I never said you labeled Eddie had magical powers. But yet you are buying into the "If Eddie was still the owner..." mentality which I am attacking. Eddie got lucky enough to find Walsh and from there threw an open checkbook on the table and fell asleep for over 15 years for all I care. Everything else had to do with decisions outside of his bank account. When he left in fact the team achieve a level of salary cap bankruptcy not yet matched and it took years to recover from.


As I have read a decent amount of info on the history of the 49ers, I have come to realize that Eddie Debartolo Jr. was somewhat of a dealmaker. A people person... everything about him screamed it. His ability to connect with players and people around him including those in local government was uncanny.

His willingness to pay players far more than market value to play for the 49ers as well as his deep connections to the mafia made him 'friends' with lots of people. When you've got deep connection to people who kill others over disagreements, you don't have a problem convincing small time local politicians. Not to mention making football players on your payroll happy.


For example, have you ever read the story of how he had set up program where the 49ers could call a special line to have the police come and escort them from clubs when they were too drunk to drive? You call it magic, I call it an unexplainable, quite likeable presence that got the 49ers organization, fans, and city many consessions over his tenure (such as hanging on to some good players who could have jumped ship when they became free agents).

Have you ever wondered how he convinced the San Francisco police department to actually agree to that deal? Or about the fact that before the salary cap, keeping free agents was a matter of wallet size and not rhetoric? Do the facts that he got entangled in illegal gambling rackets not ring any bells? Or perhaps how his level of corruption was so deep his own sister easily sued him afterwards to get control of the family company? Or how about his endorsement of front office members who violated salary cap regulations in the mid 1990s that later cost the new owners front office a 1st day draft selection? His lavish expenditures on players before the league made it illegal to do so without reporting it for compensation purposes?


Now the point I was making was that York seems to be out for one thing and a lot of people can see it (and have alluded to it to as well). Like I said before, it's nice that we're getting a new stadium, but since it's taken so much time to do so, I'd like to have seen a little more thought go into it then a generic bowl with a view of an amusement park.

Actually the stadium design was what is called a 'sketch'. Not a single brick has been set nor has a single deal been finalized that creates that stadium.

What more 'thought' do people expect? Seriously? You do realize you're building a stadium on top of a voracious fault line. Fancy things like alien-ship designed trims are only due to snap off and cause more damage as a result. A retractable roof in the bay area is better known as a "falling death-trap of destruction" next time a solid 6.0 shakes a little bit. What is innovative? What part of 'looks like something an architect drew while on his 3rd joint' is attractive? Out of all of the fans who complain that the stadium looks boring not even one of them has a better idea.

Is it impossible to believe that there are simply not that many structures that can be built around a require rectangular field? No owner is going to build luxury or press boxes along endzones, they offer the worst views and least building capacity with which to view games for those venues. So you want something other than an oval shape around the field? I hate to tell you built little else outside of an oval wraps around a rectangle unless you want something closer to a circle, with 50 yard deep sideline perhaps? That's innovative, never been done before, fans will love that! We can put telescopes by the seats! Of course I'm speaking sarcastically.

You want hip, you want cool, you expect new age. It's not going to happen. Really, look at stadiums built in the NFL and college. There is nothing exceptionally innovative! Try drawing a rectangular field then draw anything new and different around it that gets fans closer to the field and is possible by modern standards and an "upper-upper deck" is not among them. You won't find one. So what you're arguing about is window dressing. Inside of that Dallas stadium? Guess what, a predictable bowl shape with upper and lower decks.


So it's be up to date with today's technology. Wouldn't you assume a stadium should at least have that much (besides a field of course).

I really think you missed my point on this one. What defines "A-Class"? It was said that the Santa-Clara stadium won't even be "A-Class" I'm curious as to which stadiums have anywhere near the concessions and amenities possible at the proposed new stadium? If "A-Class" is some unattainable level of offerings for fans, what stadium easily trumps it? Clearly if we aren't proposing an "A-Class" stadium one must imagine at least 5 or 6 other stadiums better than our proposal.


So I can deduce from your argument that the only reason to build a new stadium is because it's too old? Are you saying the only way a new stadium makes money is through ticket sales? If so then why even build a new stadium unless you're adding more seats? If this is your logic then tell me why all owners are falling over themselves to build new stadiums and every year there's at least one city in the news pissed because the team needs help building it. You make it seem like it's such a burden on an owner to build a stadium, but if that were the case you'd see 25 dilapidated stadiums in the NFL right now.

- It's not the only reason but the fact that your stadium could actually crack and implode under the weight of fans during another major earthquake seems to be a good impetus to convince an owner. If the playing field is so close to high tides that it gets soft and mushy one must wonder what happens to the tons of steel and concrete that make up the stadium seating. The fact that Candlestick park is actually sinking more below see level in terms of seating each year is also worth worrying about.

- I didn't say the only way a new stadium is worth building is through ticket sales. I said the team is forfeiting huge amounts of potential profits besides tickets to get a deal done. Plenty of owners in the league pocket the concessions revenues, parking charges, advertising costs, stadium naming rights or even the darned concessions sales rights. This team is giving up all of that just to get the stadium built. That's right it will all go into steel and concrete and plastics and glass and bricks and not into owners pockets. Through this deal the 49ers owners only stand to get future revenue in the new stadium from just ticket sales for over 5 years and never anymore in some cases.

- "If so then why even build a new stadium unless you're adding more seats" You're generalizing an idea that cannot be generalized. You're comparing land and construction and material costs across the NFL versus our situation. In the east, cities may be more likely to finance pro-teams and have lower building costs. Carolina and Jacksonville both built good stadiums lately without public problems. Also, adding quantity of seats has nothing to do with quality of seats. Adding a whole tower of luxury boxes earns a lot more per ticket than any upper deck would. Not to mention replacing old, cracked plastic seats in Candlestick with reinforced, extra-wide padded seats draws better ticket prices.

- "If this is your logic then tell me why all owners are falling over themselves to build new stadiums and every year there's at least one city in the news pissed because the team needs help building it." Why are owners falling all over themselves? Because the G-3 program designed by the NFL made it possible for exceptionally low-cost loans to be given to teams to renovate and build new stadiums. Because anything new forces fans to visit just to see what it's all about. Because stadiums built in the 70s had no foresight into the internet or HDTV or cell phones let alone even closed circuit TV systems and heated seats in cold weather. Because new stadiums are in fact going to be bigger and build with modern spenders in mind and also include space for unpredictable technologies. I'd also love to know which cities were 'pissed because the team needs help buidling it' that you speak of. Because few cities have ever even launched a campaign close to that of San Francisco on those grounds. One where a city in the middle of a vast , regional economic boom that has received endless tourism and benefits from a team it never has supported financially that dares to oppose a 100M bond measure for a deal built upon low cost, affordable housing units and a shopping mall is only barely passed by popular vote acts indignent. Owners want to build new stadiums because new stadiums mean new profits! Not renovated stadiums so much as new stadiums. The NFL is the biggest revenue league in the country and it brings in huge amounts of economic activity and investment wherever it builds, plain and simple. You don't want to give 80M to renovate the stadium? Fine, the team can take it's 40M/year impact and tax revenues and lease dollars and its' unmeasurable city namer recognition and tourism draw along with it. So may many restuarants and hotels and soon local curiousity attractions may fold under the lack of visitors and advertising. Get the picture?

- "You make it seem like it's such a burden on an owner to build a stadium, but if that were the case you'd see 25 dilapidated stadiums in the NFL right now." Wow, exxageration of the case at its best. First of all, that is far from the case. The "12th oldest" stadium was built in '85, barely even 20 years old. Arrowhead stadium was finished in '72 and it is undergoing a massive renovation. What about a baseball stadium built in '61 and only later retrofitted for an NFL team built right next to a bay on one of the worlds most active earthquake fault lines? Oh wait, that's us and the team hasn't had a single renovation since the Chiefs had a brand new stadium.

Hate to tell you, but what about 'dilapadated' doesn't strike you? The 49ers own the worst stadium in the league. Back when Eddie even still owned the team it was approaching 25+ years old just for us let alone the Giants! Old, worn stadiums damage revenue and ticket sales and in the end, profits. That forces owners into positions with shrinking profits and even greater need to build new stadiums! Each year fans complain more and you have less incoming money to accomplish the task. You want to see 'desperate need'? Wait until the Chargers try to replace Qualcomm, an almost equally old stadium that has atleast been renovated more for football existance. Talk about even worse land values and building costs! The fact that owners ask for assistance given the likely revenue is only unique out west. Art Modell got a deal from BAL back in the mid 90s to put together a then state of the art stadium vastly built on public funds just to get an NFL team in Baltimore.

The lack of financing is a local issue tied to political and social roots, not financing. Not to mention you gave no creedance to the G-3 Program. This offered 150M per team just to renovate and build new stadiums for years, a source that was tapped dry before our current stadium deal. One which also replaced and helped renovate over a dozen stadiums in its short existance since the salary cap era. One that is likely to be rebuilt and re-offered given how much it has helped improve fan revirews of stadiums. The league went on a campaign to reduce its level of old stadiums and introduce new offerings at around the same time MLB was not popular. A result is a new league image and gameday experience across most of the league, period.

[offtackle24]

wow thats the longest post- ive ever seen


I agree with the wiz on that money for the niners was no problem with eddie. From the very beggining he wanted only the best and was heavily involved with the team. I remember in the championship or super bowl games, he would always be in the locker room and cheer with the teammates. He would give anything for this team- I could not say the same for dr york.

[Ness]

Clowned.

[Giant9erShark]

if the city would give the 49ers a decent spot. Not many people realize that there are more 49er fans in sacramento than in the city of san francisco. Or that people in san francisco only represent 9% of the season ticket holders.

there are more 49er fans in San Francisco than in the city of Sacramento.
More STH =/= More Fans

[Niner Jan]

I'm hoping they redo the project with a better looking stadium than the one proposed. Anyone think there's a possibility of that happening if the NFL offers to pitch in?

Also, does anyone doubt that if Eddie Debartolo were the owner we'd be looking at a first rate stadium (much like what the Cowboy's fans are getting); and the deal would have been done by now? Something tells me by the look of this stadium that the owners don't have a passion for the team like the fans do.

I just wanted your remarks to look SILLY after the masterful job that WIZ did in his point-by-point rebuttals. Your remarks look like child-talk next to the intelligent, informed post by WIZ.

I would recommend that you do more research before you mouth off your ignorance of all that is entailed in this new venture. I've been to the City Council meetings and have sat for lengthy periods to hear the detailed presentation of the proposed stadium. I've also attended a TOWN HALL meeting in Santa Clara where Jed York faced belligerent Santa Clarans with their loaded questions steeped in fear, ignorance of the facts, and prejudice against the idea of a stadium from the outset.

There is nobody who could do a better job than WIZ because he knows all the facts, is highly educated, and knows how to get the points across. So, don't go attacking him without knowing what you are up against. You'll lose every time!

The ridiculous idea that an owner can pay for a stadium all by himself is so silly that it doesn't even deserve a reply.

As for the time it takes to present a proposal and allow the City to do its own investigation, you can't expect it to move any faster than the six-months FEASIBILITY STUDY it is currently undergoing.

So any nonsense remarks about dragging feet just show ignorance on the part of the speaker of those statements--WHOEVER said them!

People shouldn't rattle off empty words before they have studied the background material about which they are sounding off... :thud: :wild:

[Teke]

Wow what a long post. I find many flaws in your argument, such as referring to my use of the word dilapidated and then switching up and talking about how the 49ers stadium is in fact dilapidated. I never said it wasn't. It's a classic bait and switch, go back and read my post and you'll see I was talking about the fact that if owners only rebuilt stadiums because they were old (which is the reason you gave for them wanting to rebuild stadiums) then we'd have 25 dilapidated stadiums (which we don't).

Look I don't have time to sit here all day trying to impress teenagers and old ladies (which you seem to have). So I'm not about to get into a pissing match with you over this. Hell, the last message I sent took up too much of my time. I come on this board to read about the 49ers and state my opinions on things I think are important.

The fact is, you don't even know my view on where I want a stadium (I've never stated it). You just assume that since I'm arguing with you I don't want one in Santa Clara (which I can tell you want REALLY bad). I do, in fact, want the stadium in Santa Clara. It'll be cheaper, and easier to get in and out of the stadium, plus it will be about 45 minutes less of a drive that Candlestick is from my home.

[MarcusCA420]

Santa Clara?
NO NEW STADIUM NEXT TO GREAT AMERICA!
HORRIBLE IDEA!

KEEP OUR NINERS IN SAN FRANCISCO!:clapping:

[offtackle24]

there are more 49er fans in San Francisco than in the city of Sacramento.
More STH =/= More Fans

woah there- thats not true there are more 49er fans that are season ticket holders in sacremento than in san francisco. Who told me that?

Jed York himself when we were watching OTAs

[ethanh]

I keep hearing that stat about no one in SF is a fan or season ticket holder. Somebody please give a link to that information. What city has the most 49ers fans, how big is their population in comparison? Are we comparing San Francisco with the rest of the country?

[ethanh]

This sia falsehead ethanh. First of all, Santa Clara hasn't offered a single dime other than the funds they've spent for the feasibility study. We have asked them for funds and even at this point, none of that is set in stone. It's a basic offer package that will undergo many revisions and detail changes over the next 9-12 months before a final, concrete, ironclad deal is completed.


Wiz isn't giving the land for free to the 49ers more then what SC is going to offer? Wont the 49ers then infact be the primary owner of the stadium unlike in SC where the city will own the stadium? Also if a vote goes to SC I doubt it will pass any better then the one that passed in in SF. The city will vote and already passed the plan for the rebuilding of Hunters Point with or without the 49ers and they are going to divert property tax money to the project.

[Peter Proud]

I keep hearing that stat about no one in SF is a fan or season ticket holder. Somebody please give a link to that information. What city has the most 49ers fans, how big is their population in comparison? Are we comparing San Francisco with the rest of the country?

http://www.nbc11.com/news/10632086/detail.html

About 9 percent of 49ers season ticket holders live in San Francisco, while some 30 percent live in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties combined.

If 9% of the STH's live in San Francisco, then 91% don't.

[TheWiz]

Wow what a long post. I find many flaws in your argument, such as referring to my use of the word dilapidated and then switching up and talking about how the 49ers stadium is in fact dilapidated. I never said it wasn't. It's a classic bait and switch, go back and read my post and you'll see I was talking about the fact that if owners only rebuilt stadiums because they were old (which is the reason you gave for them wanting to rebuild stadiums) then we'd have 25 dilapidated stadiums (which we don't).

Look I don't have time to sit here all day trying to impress teenagers and old ladies (which you seem to have). So I'm not about to get into a pissing match with you over this. Hell, the last message I sent took up too much of my time. I come on this board to read about the 49ers and state my opinions on things I think are important.

The fact is, you don't even know my view on where I want a stadium (I've never stated it). You just assume that since I'm arguing with you I don't want one in Santa Clara (which I can tell you want REALLY bad). I do, in fact, want the stadium in Santa Clara. It'll be cheaper, and easier to get in and out of the stadium, plus it will be about 45 minutes less of a drive that Candlestick is from my home.

Actually the reason I gave for them rebuilding stadiums is because they were not only old but as implied, beyond an expected level of decency. How repairing and replacing more old stadiums leads to more of them being dilapidated is still beyond me. It seems that if you constantly keep replacing out of date with brand new and the older with improved and revised that you only end up with BETTER stadiums, not more run down ones. Dilapidated means to allow to fall into ruin is disrepair. How greater frequency of repairs leads to more disrepair confuses me.

- You're spending time bashing the responders? Guess what, I wrote a post on a public message board. If you care so little for the audience why bother posting yourself? I also take into exception how immature that is. I didn't write my post for anyone, I can't control who reads and responds to it. Attacking those who agreed with me on a personal level like that is childish in its own light. Ninerjan has a better insight into the actual process through actual personal appearance at the meetings and she's a more devoted fan than you'd care to ever want to believe.

- I never made assumptions on your preference and I don't get into personal attacks on any level. Just because a debate can be heated in no way means it involves any sort of rancor. State your case, support it, and respond. Simple as that.


Wiz isn't giving the land for free to the 49ers more then what SC is going to offer? Wont the 49ers then infact be the primary owner of the stadium unlike in SC where the city will own the stadium? Also if a vote goes to SC I doubt it will pass any better then the one that passed in in SF. The city will vote and already passed the plan for the rebuilding of Hunters Point with or without the 49ers and they are going to divert property tax money to the project.

- Except Santa Clara isn't charging the 49ers or demanding a payment for the property the proposed stadium would be on. The deal as designed doesn't ask the team to pay up front for the land and the property taxes in large part will be paid as part of the lease agreement. There is NO deal, even a passing one, with the city. So who would be the owner of the stadium if it were built at Hunter's Point has not only not been discussed but is even more of a hypothetical at this point.

- You are right about the overall project. But the project itself has no dependancy on a stadium, period. It's about housing and low level markets and commercial sales than it is about an NFL stadium. Like almost any urban development deal, the company financing it stands to turn a profit onb the investment. If we build there or not it will all still be built except for a question of an NFL stadium or a nice seaside residential park.

http://www.nbc11.com/news/10632086/detail.html

About 9 percent of 49ers season ticket holders live in San Francisco, while some 30 percent live in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties combined.

If 9% of the STH's live in San Francisco, then 91% don't.

Thanks for referencing that.

[Giant9erShark]

woah there- thats not true there are more 49er fans that are season ticket holders in sacremento than in san francisco. Who told me that?

Jed York himself when we were watching OTAs

There are equal STH fans in Sacremento yes i never denied that but that does not mean there are more 49er FANS in Sacremento than in San Francisco.

[Niner Jan]

If the 49ers won't own the stadium (Santa Clara would), why would they own the land on which it is built? That doesn't make any sense! I believe the City of Santa Clara would donate the USE of the land for stadium purposes--if it gets built at all.

To quote the 49ers, "we are in business of football, not football stadiums." They want to form a partnership with Santa Clara to help pay for the stadium, but giving the ownership to the City for their contribution of land and 20% of the money. Not a bad deal for the City...

http://www.svmg.org/press/press_releases/2007_0614.html

I love the article about the 210 Silicon Valley companies that favor having the 49ers Stadium in Santa Clara. That gives me some HOPE.

Niner Mom :tearup: :towel: :clapping:

[XRaguX]

http://www.nbc11.com/news/10632086/detail.html

About 9 percent of 49ers season ticket holders live in San Francisco, while some 30 percent live in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties combined.

If 9% of the STH's live in San Francisco, then 91% don't.

This isn't an attack on your post, Peter. Just want to point out something regarding these numbers.

Here's where I think there's some friction with some fans. If only 30% of STH live in SM or SC counties, then you have a farily significant portion of fans (let's say 50-55%) that live in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano & Contra Costa that will now have to drive an extra hour to and from games. 101 sucks on any day and don't think it will be an easy commute on Sundays.

I'm not going to get in a pissing match with anyone regarding how this is a "small" sacrifice if you are a "true" 49er fan. I know for a fact that this is a concern for many STH in the North & East part of the Bay.

I know we need a new stadium. I also know that Hunter's Point is a pipedream. However, the proposed location in Santa Clara is a significant move away from a large portion of fans. Additionally beyond San Jose, there is little in terms of major metropolitin areas like Sacto so it's not regionally centralized.

I do not have a counter proposal and if this is all that is available, then it'll have to do and things will adjust accordingly (more STH in SC & SM, less in North & Eat Bay). However, everyone should realize that there will be a lot of current fans impacted negatively and their frustation shouldn't be marginilized.

[Peter Proud]

No matter where the team ends up, unless it's at the present site, everyone will have some adjusting to do. But that's how life is...full of changes.

[bdawson]

The only reason Cedar Fair is making waves is they want a piece of the action. They pay the city of Santa Clara for traffic control and various right of ways. Therefore they are seeking to share the risk.

This has nothing to do with "loss of attendance". In fact, statistics show that (in every case) where a sports franchise has moved into a neighborhood, the surrounding area benefits greatly.

Great America will lose parking spaces they don't even use. In return their visibility will increase and the likelihood of parents dropping their kids off while going to the game should be spurring them to co-marketing deals, not threatening gestures.

Boycott Great America until they come to their senses. See how many empty parking spaces they have when 49er fans refuse to ride their rides or let their kids piss in their water park!

cedar fair, who owns great america opposes the stadium proposal because they think that business will be affected by construction and game day parking and traffic issues. this is a major set back.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_6163695

[TheWiz]

If the 49ers won't own the stadium (Santa Clara would), why would they own the land on which it is built? That doesn't make any sense! I believe the City of Santa Clara would donate the USE of the land for stadium purposes--if it gets built at all.

You're correct, owning is not the right term. But this much is true. Right now the city owns the land and gets revenue from leasing it to Cedar Fair. If the stadium is built on the site, profits from the stadium will all end up going into the Stadium Authority. While the lease with Cedar Fair, like most leases, can be cancelled if both parties agree, it's not a bedrock type of lease. Building an NFL venue with 20+ years of guaranteed events there more or less negates the cities ability to use the land for anything else. So while they won't lose or be giving the rights to the land, they're only be leasing it, the 49ers lease isn't in tens of thousands of dollars and would force the city to pay for the stadium if the deal is cut shorter than its base length. More or less unless Santa Clara finds 400M under its mattress to buy out the pro-rated cost of the stadiuma t some point, they won't be able to use the land for that entire timepan.

This isn't an attack on your post, Peter. Just want to point out something regarding these numbers.

Here's where I think there's some friction with some fans. If only 30% of STH live in SM or SC counties, then you have a farily significant portion of fans (let's say 50-55%) that live in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano & Contra Costa that will now have to drive an extra hour to and from games. 101 sucks on any day and don't think it will be an easy commute on Sundays.

I'm not going to get in a pissing match with anyone regarding how this is a "small" sacrifice if you are a "true" 49er fan. I know for a fact that this is a concern for many STH in the North & East part of the Bay.

I know we need a new stadium. I also know that Hunter's Point is a pipedream. However, the proposed location in Santa Clara is a significant move away from a large portion of fans. Additionally beyond San Jose, there is little in terms of major metropolitin areas like Sacto so it's not regionally centralized.

I do not have a counter proposal and if this is all that is available, then it'll have to do and things will adjust accordingly (more STH in SC & SM, less in North & Eat Bay). However, everyone should realize that there will be a lot of current fans impacted negatively and their frustation shouldn't be marginilized.

You can't win no matter things are built. If you build the stadium further north southern fans are ticked off. If it's too south, northern fans are unhappy, etc. Fans should be ecstatic that the drive is going be an hour on 101 and not 3 hours. You're talking about a maximum in a miracle year of hosting the superbowl of 11 games plus 2 preseason games. If you're not even a season ticket holder, you go to less than that. This is a 3+ hour event. If driving is so bad leave early and beat traffic and tailgate. Also remember that while you may be going from 20 minutes to an hour of driving, consider it a small price to pay to actually go to a brand new stadium.

The only reason Cedar Fair is making waves is they want a piece of the action. They pay the city of Santa Clara for traffic control and various right of ways. Therefore they are seeking to share the risk.

This has nothing to do with "loss of attendance". In fact, statistics show that (in every case) where a sports franchise has moved into a neighborhood, the surrounding area benefits greatly.

Great America will lose parking spaces they don't even use. In return their visibility will increase and the likelihood of parents dropping their kids off while going to the game should be spurring them to co-marketing deals, not threatening gestures.

Boycott Great America until they come to their senses. See how many empty parking spaces they have when 49er fans refuse to ride their rides or let their kids piss in their water park!

I think you misread their complaints. Cedar Fair isn't saying that having an NFL stadium next door will adversely affect its profits. Mostly they're complaining that BUILDING an NFL stadium will affect its profits. Cement trucks, welders, diggers, dump trucks, welders and so on all could impact them. The sounds of jackhammers and riveters and metal and sawdust can fill the air and blow towards them on windy days. The attraction stands to lose appeal if the sounds of theme parks rides sounds like a noisy block in brooklyn. They could even make the argument that a big stadium next door ruins the open view but the team could easily show people don't attend that park via surveys. I'm sure it the games and rides and attractions, not a fraction of an open skyline.

But Cedar Fair is trying to get a piece. That's why they waited to complain. They spent weeks pouring over the idea and their men all said that they stand to gain profit by making themselves a barrier.

[Peter Proud]

Regarding the dust issues....All construction sites have to perform certain procedures to avoid releasing 'loose particles' into the air...per California Air Resource Board regulations. Cedar Fair knows about that regulation, they just threw it in there to make it appear they will suffer more.

If the construction site doesn't adhere to CARB regulations the contractor will be fined or shut down.

How much will there attendance go up during event weekends? Each venue stands to gain from each other.

[laradioken]

Let's not beat the deat horse folks. We should wait to see if the deal is still a go; but why not revamp Candlestick? In 'n Out is a nightmare there; but they could easily fix that.

[Peter Proud]

Let's not beat the deat horse folks. We should wait to see if the deal is still a go; but why not revamp Candlestick? In 'n Out is a nightmare there; but they could easily fix that.

Please explain...I'm sure Mayor Newsom would like to know.

[ethanh]

Please explain...I'm sure Mayor Newsom would like to know.

Put a new stadium in the center of the area like where the dirt lots start not up against the hill. Build an over pass to the north over the water to Hunter Point and open up new parking lots in that direction to the north east. That would give more streets to exit east on and make getting out not just Paul ave and the south exit. What are we waiting for?:wheel:

[estrine]

I just watched the vidieo by Vice President Lisa Lang on supportourniners.com .I did hear from Lisa about working with the City Of Santa Clara in bringing the Niners to Santa Clara.I was wondering why Cedar Fair was not mentioned by Lisa Lang.I heard that we can not go forward with the Niner stadium with out the approval from Cedar Fair.We must also work with Cedar Fair to get the Niners stadium to Santa Clara.I am for getting the Niners to Santa Clara.We can not ignore the fact that Cedar Fair is also a major player in this.

[TheWiz]

Put a new stadium in the center of the area like where the dirt lots start not up against the hill. Build an over pass to the north over the water to Hunter Point and open up new parking lots in that direction to the north east. That would give more streets to exit east on and make getting out not just Paul ave and the south exit. What are we waiting for?:wheel:

Yeah...excellent idea. First of all, do you know how much it costs to build over water? I don't either but I'm willing to bet it costs a lot more than land. You need crews to sink concrete bases, you need a solid enough waterbed to build on too. The concrete and metal girders and everything involved is a lot harder to build than flat asphalt. I think a danger exists as well in a non-suspension style bridge in the area that won't resist tremors well. Also, the Lennar project next to Hunter's Point is going forward and I don't think a big parking lot is their main interests. It might be hard to even push a 'green' lot to them.

Also, Candlestick is far beyond good renovation. They can change the trim, put in new seats, etc but deep down the stadium is flawed. Between non-working heated seating during its entire existance and a sinking playing field, it's a problem. As much as people want to stay and Candlestick point, are they aware of the disaster they'd need to weather while changes were made?

Where will fans park? You don't think massive road replacements and infrastructure upgrades won't make traffic even worse for 2+ years? Overpasses and off ramps and such are not just built overnight and some can take years to build and clog traffic immensely while built.

I just watched the vidieo by Vice President Lisa Lang on supportourniners.com .I did hear from Lisa about working with the City Of Santa Clara in bringing the Niners to Santa Clara.I was wondering why Cedar Park was not mentioned by Lisa Lang.I heard that we can not go forward with the Niner stadium with out the approval from Cedar Park.We must also work with Cedar Park to get the Niners to Santa Clara.I am for getting the Niners to Santa Clara.We can not ignore the fact that Cedar Park is also a major player in this.

Because Cedar Park has little to no basis for complaint. Local and county laws are what govern parking lot space and often require many, many more spots than are required. Parking lot laws require so many spots based on the business type, size, and maximum expected patronage size. And they over-allocate to allow room for emergency vehicles, in case parking is needed in extreme cases, and so on. But this often leads to huge lots at malls and venues where most of the spaces are never used. If a natural disaster occurs and a local red cross unit must move in, it's great, but is otherwise empty asphalt.

Their park in Santa Clara is an example of that fact. It has far reaches over by that substation and in that corner which are inaccessible. They really have no reason to complain. The stadium will be on unused spots and the addition of the garage will make extra parking for Cedar Fair's concerns available. They're complaining on and on about noise and construction refuse, which is not legitimate. I don't think anyone goes to a park full of flashing likes, the rolling thunder of roller coasters and ride, splashing water slides and so on for peace and quiet. In fact, a new ballpark next door would actually probably help create a new attraction on the skyline. After later years the stadium will only increase their revenue.

The only they're holding out is because they see it is likely we will surpass votes and contests in Santa Clara. If they remain as the only hurdle between us and a lucrative stadium deal they can more or less blackmail the team for profits. We could have an entire deal agreed and done and they can refuse to budge unless we pay them some ridiculous sum. That's why they waited so long. They waited until, as recently, things looked rosy for us and then formulated a political plot for money and executed it. Plain and simple. The basis for their complains could have been made in December if that's how they felt. It's propoganda and money, that's all.

[ethanh]

Yeah...excellent idea. Where will fans park? You don't think massive road replacements and infrastructure upgrades won't make traffic even worse for 2+ years? Overpasses and off ramps and such are not just built overnight and some can take years to build and clog traffic immensely while built.


Come on Wiz, I didn't suggest my idea was a good one or a probable issue, it was a reply that if Candlstick was going to be the site what would you do to fix it? What would you do to fix the area for traffic, assuming you could play elsewhere (Oakland:hide:) while you rebuild for two years. With the whole Candlestick area bigger then the purposed new sites and all those vacant lots to the north east, how would you fix Candlestick as a last resort?

[Pound th' Rock]

Demolish alcatraz....

Build a new bart line...


:whistling:

[TheWiz]

Come on Wiz, I didn't suggest my idea was a good one or a probable issue, it was a reply that if Candlstick was going to be the site what would you do to fix it? What would you do to fix the area for traffic, assuming you could play elsewhere (Oakland:hide:) while you rebuild for two years. With the whole Candlestick area bigger then the purposed new sites and all those vacant lots to the north east, how would you fix Candlestick as a last resort?

If it was that darned easy to come up with a plan then there in fact would be a deal already done at the location. The actual insurmountable problems of construction and traffic and renovation are what has the team abandoning the site.

- Renovating the stadium is more or less out of the question. Deep down, that stadium is full of flaws that renovating will not dig out. Consider the heated seats that have never worked or perhaps the sinking playing field. You can't go under and through foundations to add what it would take to run drainage and little could be done to spruce up the inside of the stadium. The best that could be done would be to add more around the stadium but it will never change the fact that it's a smaller baseball park in design. Renovating is great when what you need is to add an upper deck and maybe a new tower and things like padded seats and extra ticket gates and things like that. You need a very solid core and you're throwing some new offerings, extra seats, and flashier add-ons for fans. The Candlestick stadium lacks that.

- Building on the site is a nightmare. If the team built on the current parking lot, how could that be done? Where would fans even park for years? How about ripping up the rounds around the stadium to get the new utility lines built? Then once the stadium is near finished, there is no way crews will be capable of demolishing, removing the old stadium and pipelines, and placing all new lots in less than 9 months if not a year.

- Moving out just to build at Candlestick is an even more costly venture. Who will pay to take down the old stadium? The City? I doubt it. Also, the team would be on the hook for a lease with the city while being required to buy a new one elsewhere. Unless of course the city is so grateful they release the team from their lease for a few years to demolish the Stick and build a brand new stadium on the lot of the current one. That's a plan the team doesn't like though. First off, you lose a LOT of revenue doing that. The cost of a lease at a nearby university's school would be high. It also brings up the fact that there could be no "farewell to the 'stick" runup. Ownership will be able to milk that horse so much in the remaining few years to get better profits at the site than they've practically ever seen that it's not worth relocating.

Candlestick is not a great site for a future park. If anything it would be cheaper to build almost anywhere else. It would let the team stay on their current location, not disrupt the current site, and removes them from having to demolish the stadium or the city for that matter. At least the city will get a venue it can abuse for a few more years for some profits.

If the city had an open, nice enough plot of land you bet the team and city would be working on something. A toxic naval yard over a mile from a major highway next to a housing project is not a solid site. The team searched in '03-'04 for sites and looked at Hunter's Point and passed on it after a little research. They paid to get the best Candlestick design they could get from a specialized firm and they got a Modern Architecture parking garage. Finding sites with ample transportation, parking, local support, and infrastructure is not easy to do and that's why many teams do build in suburbs.

[Warrior]

:zzz:

[offtackle24]

:zzz:

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

[Iamavictory]

Demolish alcatraz....

Build a new bart line...


:whistling:

I know this has been said before jokingly, but is it even big enough to hold a stadium? If so, that what about parking? And if it could hold suffecient parking, could they build access to the island? I know it's never going to happen, but how awesome would that be? Talk about having a venue like no other......I don't care, built a stadium already and stay the SF 49ERS!

[estrine]

We can all e-mail Cedar fair Great America and let them know how we feel about the Stadium.Tell others to e-mail Cedar Fair to show our support for the new Stadium.If we can show how many people in the Bay Area are in support for the new Stadium.We could possibly change Cedar Fairs current position on the Santa Clara Stadium.

[TheWiz]

We can all e-mail Cedar fair Great America and let them know how we feel about the Stadium.Tell others to e-mail Cedar Fair to show our support for the new Stadium.If we can show how many people in the Bay Area are in support for the new Stadium.We could possibly change Cedar Fairs current position on the Santa Clara Stadium.

That's likely the worst thing you could possibly do. Cedar Fair isn't opposing because they actually are concerned. They're opposing because they stand to make a profit on it all. Public opinion will help the stadium deal go through every hurdle but it can't happen if Cedar Fair refuses to step aside. The more letters they get the more leverage they gain as being the only obstacle left. It's called blackmail. If one little company and a few million dollars in supposed revenue loss worries are all that is between us and a brand new stadium in Santa Clara, the owners will pay Cedar Fair the money. Plain and simple.

Consider a similar situation. You've got another kid on the way in a few months and you need to add onto the house. You get a loan from the bank to build the add-on. Contractors come by and quite you prices and you've got everything ready. Except the addition goes 2 feet over your line into a neighbors yard and you need his approval. Well, he sees you're spending a ton of money on the addition and he decides he stands to make some himself if he just stands in the way.