Gavin Newsom on Murph/Mac talks HP and 49ers

[ethanh]

Some interesting points and a mention of prop D&F to build Hunters Point. Also mentions how at the Bill Walsh ceremony he wanted to talk how the team is a part of the city but did not because out of respect for York being there.
Forward about halfway through to get to the stadium part.

http://media.knbr.com/knbr/0817newsom2.mp3

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Yep. I heard some of it. I'm afraid I tuned him out when he started mouthing the same nonsense I've heard from other stadium opponants.

"No return on investment." - Uh huh - spend $160 M to own the entire stadium with a $960 M price tag. That's a bad return? No wonder SF city budgets are in such bad shape - if the mayor things that's a bad deal....

"Used only 10 times per year". Sure, the city will tell every promoter in the nation that they absolutely CAN NOT use the stadium for World Class Soccer/Futbol events, college bowl games, rock concerts, truck rally's, festivals and goodness know's what else. Cause you know, if it was used more than 10 times and the city collected all that extra revenue - gee, it might embarrass the mayor of San Francisco and all those NIMBY's that oppose the stadium.

Go ahead, listen to the Mayor peddle his propoganda - but please understand, he does have a slight bias. He's desperately trying to convince the good citizens of San Francisco that it's not his fault the Niners are looking to build elsewhere. He's got an election to think about....

[ethanh]

Yep. I heard some of it. I'm afraid I tuned him out when he started mouthing the same nonsense I've heard from other stadium opponants.

"No return on investment." - Uh huh - spend $160 M to own the entire stadium with a $960 M price tag. That's a bad return? No wonder SF city budgets are in such bad shape - if the mayor things that's a bad deal....

"Used only 10 times per year". Sure, the city will tell every promoter in the nation that they absolutely CAN NOT use the stadium for World Class Soccer/Futbol events, college bowl games, rock concerts, truck rally's, festivals and goodness know's what else. Cause you know, if it was used more than 10 times and the city collected all that extra revenue - gee, it might embarrass the mayor of San Francisco and all those NIMBY's that oppose the stadium.

Go ahead, listen to the Mayor peddle his propoganda - but please understand, he does have a slight bias. He's desperately trying to convince the good citizens of San Francisco that it's not his fault the Niners are looking to build elsewhere. He's got an election to think about....

Tuned him out? You pretty much paraphrased the whole thing on the stadium, you missed the part where he thought Bill Walsh and Eddie would know the importance of keeping th team in SF. As for the election he is basically running unopposed, so what does he care if not a fan? He may still be paying lip service but there is enough evidence out there to show SC in not that great of a location. He also mentioned a vote to rebuild the HP area, if it passed, and it was before the SC vote would you be against them staying in SF?

[49Faithful]

Gavin Newsom is a bytch. He don't care about Frico he is just worried about his political career. The Dems have him lined up to be a President the next election if Dems dont win this up coming election.

[Texicali blue]

Gavin Newsom is a bytch. He don't care about Frico he is just worried about his political career. The Dems have him lined up to be a President the next election if Dems dont win this up coming election.

Total nonsense. No such plans are in the works, as you will see with Rudy, it is one thing to be the mayor of a large city, but not enough to get you through the nomination process.

[Texicali blue]

Yep. I heard some of it. I'm afraid I tuned him out when he started mouthing the same nonsense I've heard from other stadium opponants.

"No return on investment." - Uh huh - spend $160 M to own the entire stadium with a $960 M price tag. That's a bad return? No wonder SF city budgets are in such bad shape - if the mayor things that's a bad deal....

"Used only 10 times per year". Sure, the city will tell every promoter in the nation that they absolutely CAN NOT use the stadium for World Class Soccer/Futbol events, college bowl games, rock concerts, truck rally's, festivals and goodness know's what else. Cause you know, if it was used more than 10 times and the city collected all that extra revenue - gee, it might embarrass the mayor of San Francisco and all those NIMBY's that oppose the stadium.

Go ahead, listen to the Mayor peddle his propoganda - but please understand, he does have a slight bias. He's desperately trying to convince the good citizens of San Francisco that it's not his fault the Niners are looking to build elsewhere. He's got an election to think about....

I hear this all the time with the people pushing for public funding of these stadiums and it seems like a HUGE assumption to me.

How much money does a show generate?

How many different venues are available in the bay area who are already equipped and experienced at puttin on shows, and why would they host the show at your venue instead of an already established one?

Soccer doesn't generate revenue in this country. At least, not enough to claim it as a consistent source.

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

just sell the public on the guaranteed benefits from ownership of the grounds, don't try to forecast income you can't guarantee because nothing pisses the people off more than being told an obvious lie/piece of misinformation/spin.

As for the Mayor pandering to the public, what is he supposed to do?

Is there something he could offer that he's been holding back on, besides public money?

And if they do hold those events at the new stadium, aren't the existing venues getting screwed over?

Because it's not like the bay area is hurting for venues to host those events.

Out of curiosity, how many such events were held in the bay area last year and where did they hold them?


Because I can't stand hearing Millionaires/Billionaires in the pro sports leagues whining about the public not paying enough for their private properties.



Is there a piece of real estate that the city is refusing to cough up?

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Ahh Tex. I really do appreciate your anti-establishment viewpoints - but this time it's a little far off the mark. I think you need to be closer to the situation in order to see and hear it more clearly.

I noticed you totally skipped over the "bad return on investment" issue. None of the opponents want to acknowledge that the team and the NFL are essentially "giving" a stadium away for a very minimal investment. The city owns the stadium, continues to own the land and owns a considerable percentage of all revenues generated - INCLUDING non-football events.

And you're joking right? The promoters will have a choice of holding their events in run down, crumbling Candlestick Park or in the graffiti stained, vandalized, urine soaked home of the Oakland Raiders. Hmmm. Or maybe, they could use a $960 M state of the art brand new shiny stadium in sunny Santa Clara....

All together now - " Duh!"

By making that choice - does that "screw" the existing venues? Well, perhaps if the existing venues (the ONLY two stadiums in the region with comparable seating capacity) had invested a little more in maintaining their facilities, as well as their relationships with their tenants - this would not be an issue to begin with.

Oh, and by the way - futbol does generate revenue in this country. Have you heard about this fancy boy that came across the pond recently? That Beckam bloke is filling a few seats I'd say.

And as for the Bay area in particular, Lew Wolf, the owner of the A's and the San Jose Earthquakes proved the potential for soccer in this area by SELLING OUT the Oakland Colosseum (something the Raiders have failed to do in years) by hosting a futbol match - YES That IS SOCCER, between two international teams.

Now I know it's not saying much that soccer can sell more tickets than the Raiders - but it is certainly revenue worth considering .

[Texicali blue]

Ahh Tex. I really do appreciate your anti-establishment viewpoints - but this time it's a little far off the mark. I think you need to be closer to the situation in order to see and hear it more clearly.

I noticed you totally skipped over the "bad return on investment" issue. None of the opponents want to acknowledge that the team and the NFL are essentially "giving" a stadium away for a very minimal investment. The city owns the stadium, continues to own the land and owns a considerable percentage of all revenues generated - INCLUDING non-football events.

And you're joking right? The promoters will have a choice of holding an events in run down, crumbling Candlestick Park or in the graffiti stained, vandalized, urine soaked home of the Oakland Raiders. Or - a $960 M state of the art brand new shiny stadium in sunny California.

All together now - " Duh!"

By making that choice - does that "screw" the existing venues? Well, perhaps if the existing venues (the ONLY two stadiums in the region with comparable seating capacity) had invested a little more in maintaining their facilities, as well as their relationships with their tenants - this would not be an issue to begin with.

Oh, and by the way - futbol does generate revenue in this country. Have you heard about this fancy boy that came across the pond recently? That Beckam bloke is filling a few seats I'd say.

And as for the Bay area in particular, Lew Wolf, the owner of the A's and the San Jose Earthquakes proved the potential for soccer in this area by SELLING OUT the Oakland Colosseum (something the Raiders have failed to do in years) by hosting a futbol match - YES That IS SOCCER, between two international teams.

Now I know it's not saying much that soccer can sell more tickets than the Raiders - but it is certainly revenue worth considering .

you've still left a host of questions unanswered.

How many events are held of the type that you claim the "new stadium" can hold during the non-football season?

How many were held last year?

And sorry, but you DO have to think about its impact on the other venues, the 49ers don't have to, they are singleminded, but the mayor, he DOES have to think about more than just what's best for the SF49ers.

And I didn't gloss over anything, I simply questioned why you didn't base your talking points around the realities of the income to be made, the guaranteed income coming from ownership of the stadium instead of trying to inflate it with the "possible other income sources" none of which are guaranteed.

Now, as for why I would choose to play in an older venue as opposed to a new one, there are many reasons why I would choose the older venue.

Price, if I can make more money at one location than the other, I choose it.

Experience--knowing the location has succesfully put on such shows in the past.

that's 2 right off the top of my head.

but you still haven't answered the question, how many such shows took place last year in the bay area?

to my knowledge, most artists are abandoning large arenas for smaller venues and doing addtional shows if the demand is high enough, it's easier, and less costly to do so than it is to book a 60,000 seat venue and not fill it halfway.

Also, would a performer prefer to play in Santa Clara and would people go there to see them as opposed to playing in the northern parts of the bay area instead?

Because I remember going to shows at the 'stinky, urine soaked' horrible reverb sounding Cow Palace and LOVING IT.

I prefered to go there than any other venue near that size in SF for a show because of the atmosphere, even though I know it was a hellhole.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Tuned him out? You pretty much paraphrased the whole thing on the stadium, you missed the part where he thought Bill Walsh and Eddie would know the importance of keeping th team in SF. As for the election he is basically running unopposed, so what does he care if not a fan? He may still be paying lip service but there is enough evidence out there to show SC in not that great of a location. He also mentioned a vote to rebuild the HP area, if it passed, and it was before the SC vote would you be against them staying in SF?
Yeah, I think I did, by describing two of the favorite arguments used by stadium opponants and showing how they are completely meaningless.

As for what Bill and Eddie might think - I agree they would both understand the importance of maintaining a connection to San Francisco. However, you can not underestimate their savy as businessmen. Based on their past actions, I would guess they would both be more interested in doing what is best for the Team and the organization rather than what is best for the city.

But that's only my opinion....

[Roaring Back]

There really is no need to debate the finer points of the stadium issue. Santa Clara has never come through with a stadium proposal, and there is no reason to expect this time to be any different. The Santa Clara proposal has gotten San Francisco's attention. It has served it's purpose.

See you all at the game at Hunter's Point or south of China Basin seven years from now.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

If you have any questions, I highly recommend you read and review the proposal made by the Niners to the City of Santa Clara. It provides a wealth of information. Or you can visit www.supportourniners.com (http://www.supportourniners.com). Collecting that information yourself will insure you receive accurate data, and not someone elses exaggeration or distortion.

I'm afraid I can not quote the number of events held at both Monster Park and the Oakland Colleseum last year. That would take a little research I don't have time for at the moment. (I've finished packing the car and am about to head on up to the stick in a few more minutes.)

However, I do recall the financial analysts hired by the city of Santa Clara agreed with the team's estimates that only 14 non-football related events per year would be enough to generate enough revenue to create positive cash flow for the stadium. (And this is even after a sizeable chunk if re-invested back into the stadium for maintainance and upgrade.)

And you're very welcome to hang onto your nostalgia for older venues. I've been to the Cow Palace... and I've ALSO been to the HP Pavillion in San Jose. One guess which one I preferred. But of course, neither has the seating capacity of a stadium or can deliver the same type of entertainment which can be obtained in an open air environment.

Apples and oranges my friend. And some of those old apples are getting a little rotten if you ask me....

[Fromthe3rdRow]

There really is no need to debate the finer points of the stadium issue. Santa Clara has never come through with a stadium proposal, and there is no reason to expect this time to be any different. The Santa Clara proposal has gotten San Francisco's attention. It has served it's purpose.

See you all at the game at Hunter's Point or south of China Basin seven years from now.
Uhm, I doubt the team is going to allow the city to set the agenda. Both have already agreed there approach to developing a stadium plan will be a negotiated partnership. You too may want to visit the website I cited above in order to obtain more information.

[Texicali blue]

If you have any questions, I highly recommend you read and review the proposal made by the Niners to the City of Santa Clara. It provides a wealth of information. Or you can visit www.supportourniners.com (http://www.supportourniners.com). Collecting that information yourself will insure you receive accurate data, and not someone elses exaggeration or distortion.

I'm afraid I can not quote the number of events held at both Monster Park and the Oakland Colleseum last year. That would take a little research I don't have time for at the moment. (I've finished packing the car and am about to head on up to the stick in a few more minutes.)

However, I do recall the financial analysts hired by the city of Santa Clara agreed with the team's estimates that only 14 non-football related events per year would be enough to generate enough revenue to create positive cash flow for the stadium. (And this is even after a sizeable chunk if re-invested back into the stadium for maintainance and upgrade.)

And you're very welcome to hang onto your nostalgia for older venues. I've been to the Cow Palace... and I've ALSO been to the HP Pavillion in San Jose. One guess which one I preferred. But of course, neither has the seating capacity of a stadium or can deliver the same type of entertainment which can be obtained in an open air environment.

Apples and oranges my friend. And some of those old apples are getting a little rotten if you ask me....

I'm not trying to be rude here, but your answer doesn't hold water.

You can't make a claim like "you can host other events" and then when asked for information to back that up say, "I don't have any, it would require work" and expect it to fly.

And I imagine that I am not the only one who doubts the viability of those claims or the deal would have been closed long ago, don't you think?

Enjoy the game, wish I was there.



Also, no offense intended, but visiting the team's PR site is not a good way to obtain objective source material. Of course the company they hired to pitch their product is telling you how great it would be, they're paid a lot of money to do just that.(even so, it was just a vague line, not an actual detailed report--but I'm sure they do have figures elsewhere)

I want to see an independent audit, from a source not paid for by the team, does anyone know if such a thing exists?

[Fromthe3rdRow]

I'm not trying to be rude here, but your answer doesn't hold water.

You can't make a claim like "you can host other events" and then when asked for information to back that up say, "I don't have any, it would require work" and expect it to fly.

And I imagine that I am not the only one who doubts the viability of those claims or the deal would have been closed long ago, don't you think?

Enjoy the game, wish I was there.



Also, no offense intended, but visiting the team's PR site is not a good way to obtain objective source material. Of course the company they hired to pitch their product is telling you how great it would be, they're paid a lot of money to do just that.(even so, it was just a vague line, not an actual detailed report--but I'm sure they do have figures elsewhere)

I want to see an independent audit, from a source not paid for by the team, does anyone know if such a thing exists?

Same could be said for your argument. You claim there are no events, but have no evidence of same. But you want me to do the research to prove your point?

Negative. Ain't gonna happen. I live here in the SF Bay area. i have a pretty good idea of how many events are currently held at both Candlestick and Oakland and I don't think 14 events is out of line. The experts hired to do the analysis provided that count.

But then again, I would not be surprised if the city were able to bring in more than 14 events since a new stadium would also have some additional special features. Such as:

a first class convention center across the street
a family oriented amusement park immediately to the south,
an 18 hole golf course directly to the north,
two full service hotels within walking distance
and immediate access to light rail which will connect users to downtown San Jose, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Los Gatos.The stadiums in Candlestick and Oakland pale in comparison. A new stadium in Santa Clara would be a unique site which may even be able to compete with facilities outside of the region. Few other places in the entire country offer such amenities. Suggesting there is no way the city would be able to host non-football related events in these circumstances seems more outlandish than my suggestion they could hold 14 or more per year.

You should also know that the city is still on schedule with their stated plans to carefully evaluate the proposal provided by the Niners. They clearly stated they were going to take their time and arrive at a decision which is in the best interests of their city. Suggesting they need to rush in order to "close the deal" is pointless. If and when the city decides to take action, I am sure they will do it according to their schedule, not yours, nor mine.

Lastly, you should also know that both the City of Santa Clara and the Regional Sports Authority (Not sure if I have the group's name exactly right, but you get the jist.) each hired their own independent experts to analyze the proposal submitted by the team and it's potential economic benefits to the city and the surrounding region.

Both of those additional studies, which were NOT PAID FOR by the Niners - agreed with the Niner's reported economic benefits, and projected revenues. In fact, the city's report suggested the Niners were too conservative in some of their figures and indicated there was an even larger benefit to the city than the team suggested. (The city of Santa Clara maintains a website with links to all of this information. Try using Google - it works great.)

[Tovey21]

There really is no need to debate the finer points of the stadium issue. Santa Clara has never come through with a stadium proposal, and there is no reason to expect this time to be any different. The Santa Clara proposal has gotten San Francisco's attention. It has served it's purpose.

See you all at the game at Hunter's Point or south of China Basin seven years from now.


Agreed, the whole thing was just a big scare tactic. Any New stadium will be built in SF.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Agreed, the whole thing was just a big scare tactic. Any New stadium will be built in SF.That is absolutely NOT what the team is currently saying. They are only considering ONE site for a new stadium, and that site is in Santa Clara.

To place an even finer point on this issue, you should realize the team has not even suggested they have a back up plan at this point. While they have indicated a willingness to listen to proposals from SF, nothing has been proposed which has been good enough for the team to name as a BACK UP plan for the Santa Clara site.

Seems to me the team is pretty serious about building a new stadium directly across the street from team headquarters.....

Oh, and while typing this, I heard on the news that Giants Stadium in NY had 60 thousand fans show up to watch fancy pants and the LA Galaxy play a match hosted by the NY Red Bulls. Normally, the NY team boasts a little over 11,000 in paid attendance per game. Hmmm. Seems like money can be made by holding a soccer match ........

[49ers Ephon]

yeah if beckham is playing in every game

[Fromthe3rdRow]

yeah if beckham is playing in every game
Yeah, but there will always be another fancy pants to take his place ...

[Kenage]

I just have one question...if Newson says a stadium deal is so bad for Santa Clara how is a stadium deal good for San Francisco?

[ethanh]

I just have one question...if Newson says a stadium deal is so bad for Santa Clara how is a stadium deal good for San Francisco?

Good point , I would think because the team is named after the city so there is more of a sense of ownership. Also, the fact the HP plan includes rebuilding a community much the same way PAC Bell helped the SOMA area. Third, the fact that the land they want to build on is pretty much worthless otherwise.

[Coldrain85]

I just have one question...if Newson says a stadium deal is so bad for Santa Clara how is a stadium deal good for San Francisco?

Because he's the mayor of SF. He would look bad if he said otherwise.

I would like to see the new stadium built in Santa Clara even though it will add another hour to my drive.

1) Hunter's Point is the ugliest part of the Peninsula. It always has been. I don't want to be forced to go there for any reason. Someone mentioned China Basin as well, and there's absolutely no way that's going to happen. There is not enough land for a sports complex that large.

2) The weather is much nicer in Santa Clara. Candlestick is freezing cold 95% of the time, and since I'm forced to sit (which I hate), I'd rather not freeze my a$s off.

3) Easier access in Santa Clara. More freeways, and a better parking situation to boot.

4) I know this reason is selfish, but a stadium in Santa Clara means that some existing season ticket holders will not renew. That equates to better seats for me, especially because I'll pay whatever I have to pay to get good seats. I don't care if it's $5,000 for a SBL for the best seats (which I have a feeling it will be), nor do I care where the new stadium is in the Bay Area. I'll pack up and move with them regardless. It's called 49er Faithful. I've already spoken with several season ticket holders who are threatening not to renew their tickets. That's going to fall on deaf ears though because there are plenty of people in the south bay who will be eager to take their place, and they will be more than willing to shell out the cash. That's what it's really all about. Money. Not to mention the luxury boxes for all of those highbrow dotcom execs. Santa Clara makes sense for all kinds of reasons.

The people who seem to be doing the most complaining are the people who live closer to Candlestick and don't want to drive to the south bay. :bohoo:

Deal with it or give up your season tickets. I'd rather y'all just suck it up and go where the staduim goes. I'd rather not see a bunch of rich South Bay bandwagoners in YOUR seats.

[ethanh]

1) Hunter's Point is the ugliest part of the Peninsula. It always has been.
2) The weather is much nicer in Santa Clara. Candlestick is freezing cold 95% of the time, and since I'm forced to sit (which I hate), I'd rather not freeze my a$s off.

The people who seem to be doing the most complaining are the people who live closer to Candlestick and don't want to drive to the south bay. :bohoo:


I have problems with everything above.
1st you could have said the same thing about SOMA 8 years ago and look at it now, One of the best places to see a game. How can you compare being along the waterfront with city skylines to a parking lot surrounded by corporate sprawl?

Second have you been to games at Candlestick in the Fall or the city? It is absolutly the best weather in the entire country period. The games the last few years have been too hot if anything and SC is only hotter.

Third, If you live the city the team is named after shouldn't the games be
near you. As it is it will be faster driving or taking BART to go to Raider game for people living in SF.

[Tovey21]

That is absolutely NOT what the team is currently saying. They are only considering ONE site for a new stadium, and that site is in Santa Clara.
To place an even finer point on this issue, you should realize the team has not even suggested they have a back up plan at this point. While they have indicated a willingness to listen to proposals from SF, nothing has been proposed which has been good enough for the team to name as a BACK UP plan for the Santa Clara site.

Seems to me the team is pretty serious about building a new stadium directly across the street from team headquarters.....

Oh, and while typing this, I heard on the news that Giants Stadium in NY had 60 thousand fans show up to watch fancy pants and the LA Galaxy play a match hosted by the NY Red Bulls. Normally, the NY team boasts a little over 11,000 in paid attendance per game. Hmmm. Seems like money can be made by holding a soccer match ........


Considering Santa Clara most likely won't cough up the nearly 200 mil York is asking for I hardly doubt the Santa Clara site being looked at as the only site.

If truly believe the Yorks don't have a back up plan you really must believe everything you read.

[Tovey21]

Because he's the mayor of SF. He would look bad if he said otherwise.

I would like to see the new stadium built in Santa Clara even though it will add another hour to my drive.

1) Hunter's Point is the ugliest part of the Peninsula. It always has been. I don't want to be forced to go there for any reason. Someone mentioned China Basin as well, and there's absolutely no way that's going to happen. There is not enough land for a sports complex that large.

2) The weather is much nicer in Santa Clara. Candlestick is freezing cold 95% of the time, and since I'm forced to sit (which I hate), I'd rather not freeze my a$s off.

3) Easier access in Santa Clara. More freeways, and a better parking situation to boot.

4) I know this reason is selfish, but a stadium in Santa Clara means that some existing season ticket holders will not renew. That equates to better seats for me, especially because I'll pay whatever I have to pay to get good seats. I don't care if it's $5,000 for a SBL for the best seats (which I have a feeling it will be), nor do I care where the new stadium is in the Bay Area. I'll pack up and move with them regardless. It's called 49er Faithful. I've already spoken with several season ticket holders who are threatening not to renew their tickets. That's going to fall on deaf ears though because there are plenty of people in the south bay who will be eager to take their place, and they will be more than willing to shell out the cash. That's what it's really all about. Money. Not to mention the luxury boxes for all of those highbrow dotcom execs. Santa Clara makes sense for all kinds of reasons.

The people who seem to be doing the most complaining are the people who live closer to Candlestick and don't want to drive to the south bay. :bohoo:

Deal with it or give up your season tickets. I'd rather y'all just suck it up and go where the staduim goes. I'd rather not see a bunch of rich South Bay bandwagoners in YOUR seats.


Miss if you can't take a little cold air then stay home. I once travaled to wisconsin to see the Niners play the Packers in a playoff game and there cold makes SF cold look like hot day on the beach with a little breeze.

I'm from San Jose and not one of those fans who cares about traffic or season tickets. I care about the 67 years of Tradition that's in San Francisco that would be just to painful to let go.

[smoking_rubber]

Considering Santa Clara most likely won't cough up the nearly 200 mil York is asking for I hardly doubt the Santa Clara site being looked at as the only site.

If truly believe the Yorks don't have a back up plan you really must believe everything you read.

First, it's nearly 150 million since we're rounding off. Second, Santa Clara will LIKELY pay whatever is required. Show me one quote from anyone currently in office that says they "most likely won't cough up" enough money.

[Tovey21]

First, it's nearly 150 million since we're rounding off. Second, Santa Clara will LIKELY pay whatever is required. Show me one quote from anyone currently in office that says they "most likely won't cough up" enough money.

Read between the lines.

If they we're likely to pay that much the city vote would of already been passed and we getting ready to build the new stadium instead of us still talking about it right now.

[Coldrain85]

I have problems with everything above.
1st you could have said the same thing about SOMA 8 years ago and look at it now, One of the best places to see a game. How can you compare being along the waterfront with city skylines to a parking lot surrounded by corporate sprawl?

Urban renewal plans for SOMA were in the works before the stadium was built. The city planned on doing that regardless. Have you been to Hunter's Point lately? It's a sh|thole now, and it will still be a sh|thole if they put a stadium there. Walking to/from the game will be out of the question. A stadium in Hunter's Point will do little to revitalize the area. Historically, stadiums have not necessrily been a good thing for a run down part of a city. It's been tried before with few results. The only benefit is cheaper land.

Also, traffic would be just as bad getting to/from a game in Hunter's Point as it is now.

Second have you been to games at Candlestick in the Fall or the city? It is absolutly the best weather in the entire country period. The games the last few years have been too hot if anything and SC is only hotter.

Since 1987 bro, and your claim that it's the best weather in the entire country is so far off the mark I wonder if you have ever been to SF. I went to HS in SF, I lived there for several years, and I find myself there pretty much every other weekend. Hotter is relative as well. It's comfortable in SC. It's cold and windy in SF most of the year. Late summer and early fall can be nice at times, but not always. Sept/Oct is usually when I do the most surfing in Santa Cruz.

Third, If you live the city the team is named after shouldn't the games be near you.

Sure, and the NY Giants play in New Jersey. Tell that to their fans.

As it is it will be faster driving or taking BART to go to Raider game for people living in SF.

Well, then be a Raider fan. I don't give a crap where in the Bay Area the stadium is built. I'm one of the 49er Faithful and I'll be there no matter what. If they do end up building in the ghetto that is Hunter's Point, I'll be there and I won't be complaining. I would rather the stadium move south though, even though it would add 1 hour to my drive. Just MO.

[ethanh]

Urban renewal plans for SOMA were in the works before the stadium was built. The city planned on doing that regardless. Have you been to Hunter's Point lately?
Also, traffic would be just as bad getting to/from a game in Hunter's Point as it is now.

The city is rebuilding Hunters Point that was the whole point the Mayor made about the 49ers leaving a community that needs them.
Check the link to the plan. Hardly a #$%hole as you say
http://www.socketsite.com/Chronicle%20Graphic%20Hunters-Candlestick%20Plan.jpg


Since 1987 bro, and your claim that it's the best weather in the entire country is so far off the mark I wonder if you have ever been to SF.


So you don't remember Madden saying how, In the fall SF is best weather in the country and this is the time to come to the city, all those years on TV? Besides the Houston game, where it rained all over the bay 2 years ago, what game had bad weather that SC would've been better?
Sure, and the NY Giants play in New Jersey. Tell that to their fans.



I don't give a crap where in the Bay Area the stadium is built.


I don't give a crap about NY they can subway or drive a mile across a river and they are in a new state. If NY moved the stadium 9 miles away from Philly (I.E. San Jose) they might be a little upset.

I agree about traffic although SC as yet to convince me getting out of there it that great. Have you ever left Shoreline? In the End I just do not see SC and the site they have as that great, not great enough to leave the city they were founded in anyway.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Read between the lines.

If they we're likely to pay that much the city vote would of already been passed and we getting ready to build the new stadium instead of us still talking about it right now.
Hmm. "Reading between the lines". I've always compared that to reinterpreting the printed word into an entirely different message. As if the reader is not satisfied with what has been written, and is more interested in creating their own truth of what is before their very eyes......Nah. Sounds like too much work to me. I think I'll accept what I hear and read instead of inventing my own version.

And besides, your impatience is showing. Please go back and re-read the part where it was clearly stated that there is no delay. There is no "city vote " that should have already happened. The city is doing exactly what they said they would do. They are carefully and thoroughly examining the proposal, their financing options, and developing a plan that will provide the most benefit for their citizens.

Unfortunately, it appears they are not doing all of that according to your time table. I'm sorry, but it looks like you may be dissapointed on that one. This deal is far from being concluded. There is a mountain of details which must be defined before it is either pursued or abandoned. Nothing is final and won't be for some time. I suggest we all relax, support our team and hope they are able to build the best stadium they possibly can.

[Texicali blue]

Same could be said for your argument. You claim there are no events, but have no evidence of same. But you want me to do the research to prove your point?

Negative. Ain't gonna happen. I live here in the SF Bay area. i have a pretty good idea of how many events are currently held at both Candlestick and Oakland and I don't think 14 events is out of line. The experts hired to do the analysis provided that count.

But then again, I would not be surprised if the city were able to bring in more than 14 events since a new stadium would also have some additional special features. Such as:

a first class convention center across the street
a family oriented amusement park immediately to the south,
an 18 hole golf course directly to the north,
two full service hotels within walking distance
and immediate access to light rail which will connect users to downtown San Jose, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Los Gatos.The stadiums in Candlestick and Oakland pale in comparison. A new stadium in Santa Clara would be a unique site which may even be able to compete with facilities outside of the region. Few other places in the entire country offer such amenities. Suggesting there is no way the city would be able to host non-football related events in these circumstances seems more outlandish than my suggestion they could hold 14 or more per year.

You should also know that the city is still on schedule with their stated plans to carefully evaluate the proposal provided by the Niners. They clearly stated they were going to take their time and arrive at a decision which is in the best interests of their city. Suggesting they need to rush in order to "close the deal" is pointless. If and when the city decides to take action, I am sure they will do it according to their schedule, not yours, nor mine.

Lastly, you should also know that both the City of Santa Clara and the Regional Sports Authority (Not sure if I have the group's name exactly right, but you get the jist.) each hired their own independent experts to analyze the proposal submitted by the team and it's potential economic benefits to the city and the surrounding region.

Both of those additional studies, which were NOT PAID FOR by the Niners - agreed with the Niner's reported economic benefits, and projected revenues. In fact, the city's report suggested the Niners were too conservative in some of their figures and indicated there was an even larger benefit to the city than the team suggested. (The city of Santa Clara maintains a website with links to all of this information. Try using Google - it works great.)

1.)I never said there wouldn't be ANY events. I said those types of shows(arena shows) are not as popular now as they were previously and artists are opting for smaller venues with addtional shows.

You see, arena shows require more equipment, and are more costly, well, artists and labels aren't interested in spending money half as much as they are in making money.

That's why I said to come up with a number to prove your claim has any merit.

I don't have to provide anything in that regards as I am not making the claim that this venue will provide revenue outside of the football season, the 49ers are making that claim, and those who believe them ought to do some research, independent of the team's PR firm(cse&l) and what they claim.


Also, wow, you would throw away years of unsuccesful MLS all because they sold a bunch of tickets to ONE GAME.

It's called a novelty, and they pass.(no pun intended)

If NY puts 60,000 butts in the seats at their next game instead of sinking back to the abysmal number previously achieved, I will concede that point and claim soccer as a profitable business in the US of A.

[Coldrain85]

The city is rebuilding Hunters Point that was the whole point the Mayor made about the 49ers leaving a community that needs them.
Check the link to the plan. Hardly a #$%hole as you say

Well, then I hope the good people of SF County can come together and make it happen. The one thing we all agree on is that the 49ers deserve a new stadium. The reason I'm jumping on the Santa Clara proposal is because as of right now the SF plan is dead in the water. The Hunter's Point renewal is a nice idea. My attitude towards it though, and with most other things, is I'll believe it when I see it.



So you don't remember Madden saying how, In the fall SF is best weather in the country and this is the time to come to the city, all those years on TV? Besides the Houston game, where it rained all over the bay 2 years ago, what game had bad weather that SC would've been better?


Madden isn't right all the time. I do agree though in that Sept/Oct is the best time to come to SF. The weather isn't always great, but the chances are better. Rain is rain, but what I'm referring to is the cold wind and marine layer. SC doesn't get any of that. SF gets it all the time.


I agree about traffic although SC as yet to convince me getting out of there it that great. Have you ever left Shoreline? In the End I just do not see SC and the site they have as that great, not great enough to leave the city they were founded in anyway.

The benefit of SC is that east bay and peninsula traffic will both have a separate route. 880 vs 101. Access roads from points south are numerous as well. I know what you mean about Shoreline. Point taken. I saw pretty much every Dead show there from 87-95, among others. Shoreline can be a real cluster*uck if you're arriving at the last minute, or if you don't know the local roads. I saw Roger Waters there last fall. Great show, but on a weeknight everyone was arriving at the same time and we knew to park across 101 and walk a mile. It saved us at least 30 minutes of sitting in the car. The problem with Shoreline is the same problem that plagues Candlestick. Only 1 freeway. No matter which way you come from you only have 2 access roads to choose from once you get off the freeway.

[Roaring Back]

Rain is rain, but what I'm referring to is the cold wind and marine layer. SC doesn't get any of that. SF gets it all the time.

In the summer.

[prospector]

Tuned him out? You pretty much paraphrased the whole thing on the stadium, you missed the part where he thought Bill Walsh and Eddie would know the importance of keeping th team in SF. As for the election he is basically running unopposed, so what does he care if not a fan? He may still be paying lip service but there is enough evidence out there to show SC in not that great of a location. He also mentioned a vote to rebuild the HP area, if it passed, and it was before the SC vote would you be against them staying in SF?



Believe me, Eddie D. knows all about the city of SF and it's lack of initiative in building a stadium.

[prospector]

I hear this all the time with the people pushing for public funding of these stadiums and it seems like a HUGE assumption to me.

How much money does a show generate?

How many different venues are available in the bay area who are already equipped and experienced at puttin on shows, and why would they host the show at your venue instead of an already established one?

Soccer doesn't generate revenue in this country. At least, not enough to claim it as a consistent source.

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

just sell the public on the guaranteed benefits from ownership of the grounds, don't try to forecast income you can't guarantee because nothing pisses the people off more than being told an obvious lie/piece of misinformation/spin.

As for the Mayor pandering to the public, what is he supposed to do?

Is there something he could offer that he's been holding back on, besides public money?

And if they do hold those events at the new stadium, aren't the existing venues getting screwed over?

Because it's not like the bay area is hurting for venues to host those events.

Out of curiosity, how many such events were held in the bay area last year and where did they hold them?


Because I can't stand hearing Millionaires/Billionaires in the pro sports leagues whining about the public not paying enough for their private properties.



Is there a piece of real estate that the city is refusing to cough up?




Two words: Super Bowl. Guaranteed. That is an incredible money maker for the hosting city, and San Francisco not only would get it once, they would be in the regular rotation. And Gavin Newsome and the other politcos know this. The fact that he fails to mention this supremely significant detail when he talks about the "10 games" says a lot.

[prospector]

Well, then I hope the good people of SF County can come together and make it happen. The one thing we all agree on is that the 49ers deserve a new stadium. The reason I'm jumping on the Santa Clara proposal is because as of right now the SF plan is dead in the water. The Hunter's Point renewal is a nice idea. My attitude towards it though, and with most other things, is I'll believe it when I see it.





Madden isn't right all the time. I do agree though in that Sept/Oct is the best time to come to SF. The weather isn't always great, but the chances are better. Rain is rain, but what I'm referring to is the cold wind and marine layer. SC doesn't get any of that. SF gets it all the time.




The benefit of SC is that east bay and peninsula traffic will both have a separate route. 880 vs 101. Access roads from points south are numerous as well. I know what you mean about Shoreline. Point taken. I saw pretty much every Dead show there from 87-95, among others. Shoreline can be a real cluster*uck if you're arriving at the last minute, or if you don't know the local roads. I saw Roger Waters there last fall. Great show, but on a weeknight everyone was arriving at the same time and we knew to park across 101 and walk a mile. It saved us at least 30 minutes of sitting in the car. The problem with Shoreline is the same problem that plagues Candlestick. Only 1 freeway. No matter which way you come from you only have 2 access roads to choose from once you get off the freeway.



Fatman Rocks. :towel:

[Texicali blue]

Two words: Super Bowl. Guaranteed. That is an incredible money maker for the hosting city, and San Francisco not only would get it once, they would be in the regular rotation. And Gavin Newsome and the other politcos know this. The fact that he fails to mention this supremely significant detail when he talks about the "10 games" says a lot.

That's a non-sequitor, as a super bowl would sell just as many tickets in SF as in Santa Clara.

And, there has yet to be any agreement that if built, a Super Bowl will be awarded, unlike with Dallas.

So, it comes back to setting real, honest expectations.

Sell the city on why the stadium is a good deal without the superfluous unpredictable extra income possibilities and the peope will support the plan.

Offer them something totally unreal and they will smell the BS.