49ers stadium pushback, Sharks add Citrix

Hot from the Merc’s Howard Mintz is word that the 49ers stadium in Santa Clara may be pushed back a year or more, according team president Jed York. The #1 issue being cited is the uncertainty regarding the NFL’s labor situation (the CBA ends after this season).

York remains confident that the team will be able to secure financing for the project, which calls for a new 68,500-seat stadium to be built on a parking lot adjacent to Great America theme park. Santa Clara voters in June approved the stadium deal, which includes a package of $114 million in public contributions and hundreds of millions of dollars that would be secured through stadium revenues, from luxury boxes to naming rights.

But a large chunk of the nearly $1 billion cost has always been linked to obtaining financing, which some sports economists have said could be difficult in today’s economic climate. The 49ers have retained the investment firm Goldman Sachs to secure lenders willing to finance the project.

We’ve been sounding the horn on this since the beginning, so this is no surprise. In the end, it doesn’t really come down to the 49ers. It comes down to the Raiders. Are the Raiders willing to be tenants of the Niners? And if so, for how long? Those are the questions that need to be answered before anyone on the outside digs into their pockets.

Update 3:00 PM: A Q&A with SacBee’s Matt Barrows and York sheds a little more light on the situation.

(Matt Barrows): When you say, “lynchpin” are you talking about knowing that the 2011 season will occur uninterrupted or securing a loan from the NFL?

JY: Well, I think there’s a combination. Obviously, you have the G3 program of $150 million coming from the league. That fund has obviously been tapped, and there’s nothing there to replace it other than a club seat waiver, which is not as efficient as a G3 financing. Absent a new labor deal that addresses the economic realties of the NFL today, I think it’s going to be very difficult to get that piece.

MB: Do you have any better assurance today that a G3 program or similar program will be part of a new labor deal?

JY: That’s a goal for the NFL. That’s a goal for everyone involved – that we continue to invest in our stadiums, whether that’s building new stadiums or renovating stadiums that already exist. And that’s certainly something the NFL is working on, trying to make sure that’s part of the new labor deal. Obviously, a new stadium is vital to the 49ers and to this area. But without a CBA that adequately recognizes the costs of a new stadium, the capital expenses, it’s going to be very difficult for us to move forward and obtain that financing in the second and third quarter of 2011 absent a big piece of the puzzle.

This is a major issue for the NFL, as the league and the players’ association are far apart on this. The current CBA essentially provides 60% of revenue to players. However, that 60% does not include club seat revenue. The players want a piece of this, but the league is refusing because the G3 program and any future stadium lending initiative is expected to use club seat revenue as one stream to secure the loans. It’s unclear how the two sides can come to a reasonable compromise, since plenty of premium seat revenue for recently built stadiums will have to be grandfathered into the agreement. Yet it’s also hard to see the NFL going beyond the 60% high water mark for regular revenue distributions to players, and that may be the best concession the league can make. This has gotten even more complicated because in the past the union has pledged part of its 60% share to help fund G3. There’s also the matter of the rich franchises (Dallas, Washington, New England, both New York teams) wanting to keep more of their locally generated money. The two sides have historically been better partners (league owners as well) than their counterparts in the other three leagues, but there are limits to how accommodating either side will be.

On the other side of SJC, HP Pavilion have entered sponsorship deal with Citrix which will get the company’s name and logo on the outside of all of the arena’s luxury suites, concierge desks, and some arena walls. The deal is worth $150,000 a year, plus Citrix is ponying up for its own suite. The article (premium subscription required) by SJ/SV Business Journal’s Eli Segall, notes that

The deal, a first for the arena, is part of a growing trend of targeted sports marketing and an indication that athletic sponsorships may be on the rise this year, as analysts have predicted.

But Citrix is not aiming its logo at the masses. Instead, the company is targeting pockets of the arena where corporate entertainment is taking place, and where executives who might buy Citrix products might see its brand.

It makes sense for Citrix to do this, considering the number of different products it has and the local companies it often has to compete with (Cisco, VMWare to name two).

59 Responses to 49ers stadium pushback, Sharks add Citrix

  1. Dude says:

    I’m at the point where I can’t take a football stadium proposal seriously until the Raiders and 49ers agree to share it. They’re not going to build separate facilities and neither one will be able to do anything until the league kicks in some money anyway. The league clearly wants them to share. Given the labor situation and its effect on stadium funding, not to mention Davis and the Yorks not even talking about sharing a stadium, nothing will happen for quite some time.

  2. Jeffrey says:

    Exactly what Dude says… I abide.

  3. Ed says:

    Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.

  4. letsgoas says:

    safe to say the a’s will build their park before the niners/raiders do with theirs?

  5. jk-usa says:

    If the A’s do go to SJ and win a WS in Oakland in the meantime, would Wolff have the parade in Oak or SJ? Both cities are broke, but he’d insist on paying extra police costs in SJ but not in Oak.

  6. pjk says:

    Oakland has had 40 years to offer strong support of the A’s and has failed. Oakland has had 15 years to come up with a ballpark plan but instead opposed and blocked everything, not to mention wrecking the existing ballpark. Bye bye Oakland.

    In the on-deck circle: San Jose.

  7. Sid says:

    The 49ers could get their place built without the Raiders but not vice versa.

    The Raiders best bet is to renovate the current Coliseum to football only and share the 49ers new stadium or Candlestick in the mean while.

    Oakland has made a commitment to the Raiders at the expense of the A’s and at this point need to make sure they keep them in town.

    Once the NFL figures out their new CBA they will then provide the last $150 million for the Santa Clara stadium to get built as Jed York pointed out.

    If that last piece is the final hurdle then the 49ers are in good shape. The other pieces of the financing plan are feasible…I can go into detail on my thoughts on this if need be.

    The Raiders need to understand that unless they want to share in Santa Clara that renovating the Coliseum is their only choice. The corporate support the 49ers have much like the A’s are if the stadium gets built in the South Bay and not the East Bay.

    Do I think they will share??? Yes, but only after the Raiders fail in Oakland the way the A’s did in the past.

  8. Dude says:

    Wow, Ed, misread much? Hardly nihilistic, just realistic. It’s not like I’m saying the teams are going to fold or anything radical like that. These things are expensive. Both teams need one. And I don’t think either team can do it alone. Yeah, that’s worth invoking a reference to Nazis. Wait a minute, did you drop a “J” from your name? That might explain your oversensitive response.
    .
    Sid, my concern with the Yorks is that even if the NFL kicks in $150M (which they could make contingent on a shared stadium, who knows?), I don’t think they can come up with the rest. I’m not privy to their books of course, but I don’t believe they have pockets deep enough to pull this off alone. So, I’d be interested in your thoughts on how they might do that. I’m sure there will be lots of sponsorships and PSLs, etc. But they’ll still need to come up with several hundreds of millions of dollars at some point, don’t you think?

  9. Briggs says:

    If the Raiders and 49ers are to share a stadium, I really think it’d going to come down to the cities Santa Clara or Oakland. With the incredible about of money either city hopes to spend on their respective stadium projects, I’d think the ball is in their court to reach out to the other team. The Raiders and 49ers are looking out for their individual interests, like any business would. It’s possible that one team would reach out to the other, but not likely. Though, I’m not familiar with how the NFL handles teams sharing a market so this might not be a can of worms either city is ready to open.

  10. LoneStranger says:

    jk, we get it. You’re butthurt. You don’t need to keep coming up with these absurd scenarios just so you can put down Wolff some more.

  11. Zonis says:

    Ungh…. Godwins law has been broke. Discussion ended.

    New thread please.

  12. Briggs says:

    All the emotionally charged chatter about whether it’s right or wrong the A’s are looking into San Jose is pretty pointless. Really, at this point it’s not a matter of right or wrong, good or bad or anything like that. Even if you’re disguising your rant with attendance figures and such, it’s a dead end.

    Simply put, the A’s current ownership wants to look elsewhere. It’s not illegal or even unethical. It’d be unethical to bind them to Oakland indefinitely simply because a few people place arbitrary value in the team’s zip code and they aren’t willing to travel a few extra miles to see them play. The A’s will still be on the radio and TV (I hope), so nothing is changing on that front. Teams have relocated many times throughout baseball history. This isn’t even a true relocation. My closest baseball buddy is a diehard Expos fan. Now, THAT was a relocation.

    Wasn’t there a message board associated with this site that no one ever used? That would’ve been a good forum for anti-Oakland, anti-San Jose, anti- San Francisco, anti-Giants, anti-Bud Selig tantrums that don’t really advance the discussion. Be anti-whatever you want, but realize that the A’s potential move has nothing to do with any of the things mentioned above and everything to do with economic realities.

  13. Marine Layer says:

    Did the Lebowski references fly over a few heads? I guess it still is a “cult” classic.

  14. Briggs says:

    I think Raising Arizona is their best. I’m crappin’ you negative, boi.

  15. Ed says:

    Dude: it was just a Lebowski reference. I actually agreed with everything you originally posted. You’re being very un-Dude-like. ;-)

  16. jk-usa says:

    Just a side note. If it’s the Giant’s/Rangers in the WS, the TV ratings will be a disaster. No LA, Chicago, Bos or NY in there, I predict the worse ratings ever in modern history, which was in 2008 with an 8.3 rating, a 14 share and 13.6 million viewers. The ratings have been going down for over 20 years now.
    The highest ever was Yankees/LA in 1978 with an avg. of 44.2 mill per game. Most A’s WS were in the 30-35 mill range, but the A’s/Giants was pretty crappy (at that time) at 24.5 mill.

  17. Jeffrey says:

    OVER THE LINE!!!!!!!!! Yes, this is another Lebowski ref.

  18. Jeffrey says:

    The Dude abides….

  19. Ed says:

    This is not Vietnam, this is newballpark.org. There are rules.

  20. Jeffrey says:

    Shut up, Donnie

  21. plrraz says:

    No offense, jk-usa,

    But you hit a personal pet peeve of mine – who the f@ck, outside of the networks cares about ratings? This is what lead to the All Yankees/Red Sox All the time coverage that we are now treated to by Espn & Fox.

    Do you think this should be a popularity contest? This is just one more reason the big market teams like the Bankees are consistently in the playoffs – more revenues, no salary cap, more to spend, the rich get richer and the small market teams get screwed.

  22. ST says:

    ls – too funny….jk being “butt-hurt”…roflmao

    dude – that my sentiments exactly as well. Al Davis needs to wake up and realize this and just have a shared venue with the Niners (a la the Jets/Giants). This is coming from a south bay guy who despises the raiders too…

  23. jk-usa says:

    @plrzz–Uh, excuse me,but I’m just stating my prediction on the low TV ratings and a little history of the ratings. It is what it is, regardless of revenue sharing, high payroll, low payroll, small/big market, etc..What’s with the #%&*! language on here? Grow up, paleeeeeezzzzzzzz!!
    @ST & LoneStranger–”butt-hurt” isn’t too nice of a thing to say. Some of you guys aren’t too classy on here. I’ve been unfairly ripped too many times in here. Just because I love Oakland and despise the A’s horrible ownership,doesn’t mean I should be treated this way. You guys have your love for San Jose and the ownership, and disdain for Oak and their leadership, but I have NEVER ripped you and insulted you personally for it.

  24. Dude says:

    Ah! My apologies Ed! Went right over my head as I have never seen the Big Lebowski. Very undude-like, indeed.

  25. David says:

    don’t sweat it jk-usa… the A’s are still Oakland’s no matter what anyone on this blog says! Whenever anyone says something like “Oakland blew it …” i just ignore it. They want, what we already posses. The onus is on SJ and things are not as “rosy” as the SJ partisans think they are, in my opinion.

  26. SanJoseA's says:

    Anyone know why the gints have the upper corner of the 3rd level seats along the left field area closed off…or at least it looks like it is closed off….

  27. pjk says:

    re: Just because I love Oakland and despise the A’s horrible ownership

    What would be a good ownership? One that is willing to run the A’s as a money-losing charity?

  28. Marine Layer says:

    I’m pretty sure that’s the auxiliary press box, playoffs only.

  29. letsgoas says:

    anybody have images of the niners stadium design back in 1997 under the eddie d/policy regime?

    imo that stadium design sans the stupid mall idea was much better than what the yorks put out there in recent years with the santa clara design.

  30. Briggs says:

    @pjk

    Back in 2002 & 2003, the auxiliary press section was in the left-center bleachers at AT&T Park. I think they have a better setup now with them tucked away in the upper reserved level.

    Regarding Cisco Field at Diridon, it’s possible they’d run into the same issue. Considering the Stub Hub price of a Standing-Room-Only ticket at last night’s NLCS game, that’s a lot of money they’re forfeiting. I don’t recall seeing aux press at Minute Maid Park during the 2005 NLCS or World Series. I make that comparison because MMPark & ATTPark share many design similarities and both lack sizable ancillary surrounding structures.

  31. Sid says:

    @Dude- Here is the breakdown of the finances for the 49ers new stadium

    $114M- Redevelopment Funds from Santa Clara for the infrastructure in the area.

    $330M- Sales of Charter Seat licenses, naming rights, season tickets, advertising from a Santa Clara run Stadium Authority. The 49ers were very generous to SC on this part as this # is low. The City Council members know this and were willing to take this upon themselves for 1 reason.
    -Any “shortfall” comes out of the general fund but any “excess” goes into the general fund.
    -Santa Clara figures they will get $50M-$70M extra out of this for general city services. This plus the 49ers will donate millions to their broke school district every year once the stadium is built. This is a great deal for Santa Clara as they have a private means to fund their broke city services in the near future.

    $343M- From the 49ers
    http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_San-Francisco-49ers_307075.html
    They have made $199 million in profit since 2001 and we all know that # is low as they have a “sweetheart lease” at Candlestick and sell out every game making money hand over fist. They will for sure need a loan of around $100 million from the bank but their team value as Forbes.com points out will increase at least $200 million because of the new stadium. Therefore a lender will give out the loan to the 49ers as long as the rest of the financing with the NFL is in place.

    $150M- From the NFL
    Here is the problem that Jed York spoke about to the media just recently. With no CBA this piece is going to be tough regardless of the Raiders. If the Raiders jump in then Santa Clara gets back their $114M in redevelopment funds. Of course the NFL will want to pitch in $75M each team instead of $150M for one team hence why Roger Goodell wants them to share one place.

    In conclusion the #s do make sense, albeit more for Santa Clara than the 49ers themselves…Odd considering how most cities get ripped off in this process. At the end of the day the NFL needs to get their act together as a league or teams like the 49ers/Raiders will continue to play in old decrypt stadiums with no end in sight.

    The NFL now holds all the cards in getting this done. Hopefully they do in the near future so the 49ers can get the stadium they deserve.

  32. fc says:

    OT – I see where the SJRA has another ballpark walking tour scheduled for next Thursday 10/28, 5:30 pm.

  33. Marine Layer says:

    @Sid – You’re talking the talking points and swallowing them whole. I’ve done a set of projections based on the $330 million Stadium Authority piece. If the Niners and the Authority come up short or miss on any of the major portions (SBL sales, naming rights), there is tremendous risk. No one can say that “the 49ers are being generous” because no one from the team has actually provided projections for the SBL’s. They aren’t bearing the risk. The Authority – and by extension, the City – is. Plus, they’re counting on a 40 year, $280 million naming rights deal. That’s a lot to ask for, and they’re competing with the Cowboys and Giants/Jets for the opportunity.

  34. pjk says:

    Yes, the 49ers have these rosy projections for PSLs and stadium sponsorships when all we need to do is look at Dallas and NJ to see how well those have gone over lately. The two most modern stadiums in the NFL, both booked for Super Bowls, have no takers for their expensive naming rights.

    Meanwhile, we can be sure the 49ers would love to have Cisco as a sponsor and take them away from the A.s. Get moving on the San Jose ballpark, Selig.

  35. Briggs says:

    Has Cisco made any payments to the A’s yet for the naming rights? If not, they’ve gotten a nice about of free advertising over the past couple years. Marketing-wise, you’d definitely get your corporate name mentioned in the media a lot more with baseball stadium.

    For just aesthetic reason, I’d prefer the A’s have a more pleasing sounding corporate sponsor. Cisco either conjures up random images/logos I only really see when I’m at work– and not having a good time. If Cisco hangs in there, I hope they at least switch out Field for Park or Yards or something. Say this aloud: Citi Field. Safeco Field. Cisco Field. If Cisco wants their name to stand out, it might be worth their while.

  36. jk-usa says:

    @Briggs–agreed. Cisco’s been getting a free ride since the Fremont deal started in 2006.
    Say this aloud, sounds so much better than a techie name: Clorox Yards; Kaiser Field; Dreyer’s Grand Park. Okay, I’ll get ready to get pounced on by the Oakland haters on here!

  37. Marine Layer says:

    @jk-usa – That’s called baiting. I don’t want to hear any complaints from you in the aftermath.

  38. Nam Turk says:

    Dreyer’s Grand Park? Haha, maybe if Cisco falls through, we can see Falafel’s Drive-In Field at San Jose.

  39. Marine Layer says:

    @Nam Turk – If Falafel Drive-In is not in there, I will start a public campaign to make it happen.

  40. Briggs says:

    I’m hoping for a Winchester Mystery Clubhouse.

  41. pjk says:

    Have Kaiser, Clorox and Dreyer’s gone on record willing to commit tens of millions of dollars to ballpark sponsorship like Cisco has? Oh, they haven’t? What’s stopping them?

  42. Briggs says:

    Lew Wolff was just on Ron Barr on KTRB. I only caught the final few seconds. You can probably find a podcast.

  43. A's Fan says:

    While we’re talking about CIsco Field food, I’m Gordon Biersch will be the beer vendor.

  44. Marine Layer says:

    @Briggs – Damn I missed it. The Sports Byline USA website is not really good with archiving podcasts. I’ll try to catch it later tonight if possible.

    @A’s Fan – The beer sponsor? Unlikely. Pouring rights are not cheap. That’s really for the Big Three. They’re set up to be a featured beer, however.

  45. Dude says:

    As long as we’re throwing things out there, I want a Lagunitas stand. With all their special, limited run brews it would never get old. Plus, they are awesome.

  46. Marine Layer says:

    @Dude – Now yer talkin’! Lagunitas is offered on tap at SJ Muni, though from what I remember it’s just the IPA. Kronik (Censored) might be a possibility since it’s offered year-round. I’d love to have WTF or Hop Stoopid at a game. I wouldn’t hold my breath for either of those or, god forbid, anything from Russian River.

    I’d love to have the following at every portable beer stand in the ballpark:
    On tap:
    1. Bear Republic Racer 5
    2a. Lagunitas Kronik
    2b. El Toro Poppy Jasper
    3. Gordon Biersch Marzen
    4. Widmer Hefeweizen (for people who want it)

    Leave the domestics and the bigger craft beers like Sierra Nevada Pale/Summerfest and Anchor Steam in bottles.

    Give me one of beers 1-3 on the list and a large falafel from Drive-In and I’m a very happy boy.

  47. tony d. says:

    Blue Moon anyone? Especially on a warm Summer day in downtown San Jose. Aloha!

  48. GoA's says:

    A friend of mine attended the North First Street Business Appreciation Luncheon and Mavrogenes of the SJRD was there–when asked about status of the A’s moving to SJ he said they expect a favorable decision from MLB in the next 6 months–March timeframe—election would follow if necessary….anyone else hear of this new timeframe….and why another 6 months?

  49. jk-usa says:

    @GoA’s–6 months?…omg…this is getting ridiculous now.

  50. Dude says:

    ML – I’d know I died and went to heaven if they sold their Imperial Stout there, but I don’t think it has a broad enough appeal to ever happen. Racer 5 would be great too. Good call. Have you had the Little Sumpin’ Wild? Been meaning to try that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>