49ers stadium finalist for Super Bowl in 2016 or 2017 + Raiders news

The NFL’s rules for building a stadium are simple:

  • City/municipality must have skin (money) in the game
  • Minimum capacity of 63-65,000, with potential expansion to 70,000+
  • NFL will provide up to $200 million for per team/stadium if new construction
  • If successful, NFL will award a Super Bowl at a future date

At the NFL owners meetings today, the 49ers were notified that they are one step closer to that last bit. According to Sports Business Journal’s Daniel Kaplan, San Francisco/Santa Clara is a finalist for Super Bowl L (2016) along with Miami. The city that loses out on L becomes a finalist for LI (2017), competing with Houston.

View from nearby Capitol Corridor/ACE train station. Picture taken 10/9

The Super Bowl is an award from the league for getting a stadium deal. It’s no small reward, as numerous cities would kill for the opportunity to bring in hundreds of millions in economic impact to a region. The actual amount of economic impact is up for considerable debate, but no one can doubt the amount of media coverage, blocks of hotel rooms booked solid, and plain spending from visitors that occurs with each big game. Last February we discussed what hosting a Super Bowl in San Francisco would be like and what it would entail. It’s worth a read if you’re interested.

View from Santa Clara Golf & Tennis Club of north side of stadium

Miami is the competitor for L, and despite its 10-time history of hosting the game, is at a distinct disadvantage. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has warned the Dolphins and Miami that if the region wanted to continue hosting the game, improvements such as a roof would be required. For now, all the NFL is looking for are some improvements to sightlines, lighting and sound, and a canopy over some of the stands. If those improvements don’t happen (and they aren’t funded at the moment), it’s easy to see the 49ers and SF/SC winning by virtue of its newer facility and novel location.

…..

Kaplan also had a key Raider-related tweet coming out of the owners meetings.

In addition, Davis talked about how outdated the Coliseum is (Shush! Can’t badmouth the Coliseum dude!), while saying that he has little interest in sharing the Santa Clara stadium with the 49ers even though the 49ers deserve great credit for getting the stadium project done. The Coliseum remains the default option simply because the land and location are already prime, but as Davis continues to talk up Dublin’s Camp Parks site, one has to wonder what Davis really wants. Is he looking to pit two East Bay cities against each other, the way his dad had done in the past? Davis has to be looking to minimize the team’s exposure. Yet it’s hard to see how the Raiders could put together as richly-backed a deal as the 49ers for a new stadium. It sure seems as though the Raiders will be sticking at the Coliseum until the best deal possible falls into Davis’s lap.

81 Responses to 49ers stadium finalist for Super Bowl in 2016 or 2017 + Raiders news

  1. Dan says:

    Because he’s related to Al? The NFL didn’t exactly like Al Davis.

  2. berry says:

    @ML and.Dublin Jeff
    Amen. I’m with u guys. Besides I feel more LA ppl will want the Raiders than the Chargers or Rams. Easier transition, don’t have to change colors or anything. Will the A’s change theory colors or at least allternate it when they move to sj

  3. berry says:

    @Jeff
    Have to admit, there might be some owners in the NFL that still hold anger told the Davis clan. First off , fuck all them…but to ur point yes maybe there could be a few Raider haters, that want to see ownership change so that they play ball with the league. But of mark is truly Al’s kid he will hold on and successfully get a stadium for these new Raiders…and I know the Raiders are rebuilding but after seeing the chargers choke on Monday night, Phillips rivers time in san Diego could be on the clock, its peyton manning taking the west this year. But raiders will bounce back this season and are in better shape than san Diego.

  4. pjk says:

    re: But of mark is truly Al’s kid he will hold on and successfully get a stadium for these new Raiders

    …Al’s modus operandi was to play cities against each other (Irwindale, LA, Oakland) and see which one would give the Raiders the most goodies. It was never about the Raiders pitching in 10 cents for anything. In this case, Oakland apparently wants the Raiders to build their own stadium with their own money. It’s looking like LA, with Farmers Field, has the most goodies to give to the Raiders….

  5. Dan says:

    berry, if Mark is truly Al’s son then he’ll never get a new stadium. Al was never able to get a new stadium for his team. In fact only thing he was ever able to do was to move into old stadiums and get cities to pay for modest “improvement” to them. But when it came to new parks the roadside of history is littered with several of his failures. So hopefully Mark isn’t much like his dad at all, for Raiders fans sakes.

  6. Jeffrey says:

    If the NFL doesn’t want him as an owner, he won’t get a stadium anywhere because he can’t pay for one without league help.

  7. eb says:

    I think they want the owner of the Oakland Raiders (still a marquee franchise, even with this past decade) to be worth a lot more than what Mark is. He really doesn’t poses the capital most newer owners have. I don’t think the Al bias has crossed to his son. They couldn’t be that petty, right?

  8. berry says:

    That is why it is going to take winning seasons managed by Reggie and Dennis al in order for the Raoders to get it . And as a fan I think they finally headed right direction…cmon u guys remeber the 1998-2003 era. U couldn’t get a ticket and raider merchandise was always restocked. A winning Raoders team effects the bay area better than then the 49ers. But look st the Atlanta game. They caalled ghost holding penalities on the raiders and didn’t even mention the player they called it on. Look at the tape. The ref calls holding #71 and points the wrong way then switches…its obivious that some not all refs can be biased against Oakland especially when there driving on teams

    Sry went to s raider rant…but I beileve of ML says Dublin is a small.possibility, ima hold on too that small as hope for a future stadium

  9. notsellingjeans says:

    @duffer: I think the NFL likes having Buffalo as a bridge to Toronto (they play games their occasionally). My hunch is that franchise will either get a new stadium in Buffalo, or in Toronto, within 20 years.

    Jacksonville’s lease is iron-clad, I believe…locked in until 2027(?). In 20 years I could see them being in London. The NFL is the one North American league that could feasibly have an overseas team, thanks to a full week between games. Even then it’s a huge longshot.

  10. Sid says:

    The Raiders are just in denial. They will be in Santa Clara in the next 2-4 years with the 49ers.

    The 49ers stadium was built with 2 lockers rooms and can digitally flip all of this outside signs for the Raiders like the Giants and Jets do in New York.

    The red seats? So what? The Raiders played with red seats at the Coliseum for years before they moved to LA.

    The Raiders will fail in getting a new stadium for the simple fact they cannot get a free one or even a half of a free one. Their fans do not have the $$ for PSLs and suites and that has been proven.

    They will go in circles for another 2 years and then tuck their heads between their legs and call the 49ers.

    This is what the NFL wants and they do not care what the Raiders want. No way they go back to LA since they would have to prove Santa Clara not being a viable option….not happening.

    The Raiders will be playing in a new shiny stadium soon guys….in Santa Clara.

  11. berry says:

    Well siddy… you do have a good point.. but i still hold hope for Dublin…………….sigh maybe Oakland too. Anybody going to the jacksonville game this sunday??? ill be there with the crew holla at me.

  12. letsgoas says:

    i still wouldn’t rule out the raiders staying at the coliseum for the foreseeable future. the coliseum although not great is a hell of a better football venue than it is a baseball one.

  13. Dan says:

    True. And as soon as the A’s leave one of the NFL’s bigger issues with it vanishes since there won’t be dirt half the season anymore.

  14. A'sRaidersSharksFan says:

    As I have said before on this topic, there is nothing concrete keeping the Chargers in LA and they have no back up options like the Raiders do in the Bay Area : Oakland , Dublin or Santa Clara etc. Family and friends living down in Southern California have told me that the Chargers are very likely to relocate to LA this time around. If the Chargers move there, any talk of the Raiders moving down there are put to bed. The NFL will not have 2 AFC teams playing in same division sharing a stadium when the Raiders could just share a stadium with the 49ers if push came to shove. The color of the seats could be a neutral green instead of red or black.

    Anyways there is a Raider Fan Discussion Board called raiderfans.net were various Raider related topics are discussed including new stadium possibilities. There is a poster that is very knowledgeable on the subject, having studying it for years. He attends all of the SOS meetings and has stated The county, city and the Raiders are currently making good progress in getting a stadium deal done. Here is a quote and link to his current post on where the process is and how it would be financed.

    http://www.raiderfans.net/forum/oakland-raiders-forum-message-board/192915-article-mark-davis-reiterates-his-desire-remain-oakland-east-bay.html

    The Raiders are not moving back to L.A. folks. Please think for yourselves, and stop listening to these uninformed media idiots. There are those of us who are very close to the situation, and actually can provide little tidbits of info. as we get them.

    First, the 2 Oakland proposals: Rick Tripp Development has a proposal on the table for a new Raiders stadium in Oakland, that is 100% privately financed (through a Saudi-owned investment bank, three private equity funds, a pension fund, in-stadium taxation, etc.) With that being said, his company also just received a 9 figure conditional commitment for naming rights should his project be the chosen one. There is a confidentiality agreement in place until a couple of milestones are reached, but I can tell you that the company is outside of the Bay Area (but in the U.S.), as to not interfere with the Raiders other sponsorship opportunities and ventures, and that it will be the first venture into the sporting world for this company.

    The other Oakland plan is being run by the City of Oakland, County of Alameda, and the JPA (Joint Powers Authority). They have appointed JRDV Urban International (which also includes Dallas-based HKS Sports and Entertainment) and Forest City Real Estate Services LLC for the development, planning, and architecture work. This proposed stadium plan, actually features a retractable room, as they would like it to also be used for large conventions and concerts as well. The city and county cannot justify the cost of a new football stadium for only 10-12 home games a season, plus a Super Bowl. This plan would require a $150-$200 million dollar loan from the NFL (and for all you naysayers who claim that the NFL will not loan the “other” Bay Area team funding, look no further than this article: Oakland Raiders Stadium: NFL Commissioner Sent Eric Grubman To Oakland – Oakland City Buzz | Examiner.com), in-stadium taxation, federal and transportation funding (the Coliseum site is eligible for this because of the close proximity of BART, Amtrak, the 880 and 580 freeways, and the Oakland Airport), and a form of Japanese private investor ship, etc. There may come a point where Rick Tripp’s Development team could become interactive with this plan also. There has been some recent talk of this being a possibility. Remember, voter approval is not needed for a Raiders stadium in Oakland, as the City owns all of the land in and around the site-with the exception of a Denny’s and truck yard. Tax dollars will not be available for this project, as Alameda County taxpayers are still on the hook for the renovations (addition of 10,000 seats-Mt. Davis, the Eastside and Westside clubs, and luxury box suites) done to the Coliseum when the Raiders returned to Oakland in 1995.

    Now on to the L.A. stadium proposals. For 1., the NFL has made it perfectly clear that THEY will play a heavy role on deciding which stadium proposal will move forward, and which existing NFL team will be allowed to relocate. Per the NFL, both L.A. stadium proposals must include the option to house 2 NFL teams as well. The Raiders WILL NOT relocate to a stadium where they “might” have to share it, when they can do just as well in their own market in Santa Clara with the S.F. 49ers. The NFL has also mandated that neither AEG (who currently runs the Oracle Arena and O.co Coliseum in Oakland-and who also has an agreement with the JPA that they cannot speak to the Raiders about relocation-not the no-poaching clause that was originally reported), nor Majestic Realty can speak to any NFL team about relocation until at the conclusion of the 2012 season at the earliest.

    Both L.A. groups (AEG with the Farmers Field proposal in downtown L.A., and Majestic Realty with Los Angeles Football Stadium in the City of Industry) are requiring a certain percentage of ownership in whatever team decides to relocate to Los Angeles. Makes sense, right? Why would they build a stadium for a prospective team unless they had some kind of stake in the future success of the venture? Remember, the NFL has stated that they are not behind the current business models of either of these groups. They have said that they have seen progress, but not enough for them to back either one completely at this point. It is speculated that they prefer AEG’s Farmers Field proposal, but no one has gone on record to verify this. In any account, where this concerns the Raiders franchise, Mark Davis has repeatedly said that the Raiders are not, and will not be up for sale. He will not give up controlling interest (which is a contractually structured 47%) in the franchise, and the silent stake holders, have shown absolutely zero interest in selling their shares. With that being said, things could always change if all of his preferred options go down in flames. Highly doubtful that all of them don’t pan out.

    Not to mention all of the potential lawsuits that AEG is beginning to face in their quest to win the NFL’s approval. See attached article: LegalNewsline | Farmers Field bill challenged in Calif. court

    In the end, what is currently true, is that CEO Amy Trask and General Managing Partner Mark Davis are working extremely hard, and negotiating solely with the City of Oakland, County of Alameda, and the JPA to construct a new stadium on the current Coliseum site in Oakland. There are a lot of moving parts in East Bay politics, and when it comes to the Coliseum Complex, things are quite complicated. That’s why patience is needed. Silence is deafening sometimes, and the B.S. media reports and constant L.A. garbage can certainly wear on the best of us, but trust me, at this current moment in time, another relocation to L.A. by the Raiders franchise is nothing more than a far-fetched delusion. I am not saying that this could never be an alternative, but it isn’t now, and hasn’t seriously been (even with the garbage reports of Mark Davis being seen at a basketball game with Ed Roski-both own season tickets for the L.A. clippers, and Mark spends ½ of his time in L.A. and ½ of his time with his mother in Oakland) in the recent past.”

  15. Jeffrey says:

    Having been to a few other NFL stadiums… The Coliseum is not really all that good. It suffers from the same problems it does when it is a baseball venue. But it’s worse because there are more people in the building. The concourses are too narrow. Concession lines back up to make the problem worse.
    .
    The Mt. Davis side is alright, but it’s not anymore than average. I think it’s hilarious the peoe thought a Super Bowl could one day be held in the Coliseum. The biggest strategic blunder in Oakland sports history was half assing a football half stadium onto the Coliseum. If there is a time when Oakland has no sports teams, the timeline of their exodus begins with that ridiculous idea.

  16. stanley stanson says:

    Off topic but I have to say if Wolff wants to get an affirmative stadium vote from the SJ public he sure is making it hard on himself. This stance isn’t exactly going to create warm and fuzzies by the electorate in SJ and especially not to the unions.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_21803381/oakland-owner-lew-wolff-urges-no-san-jose?source=rss

  17. Tony D says:

    @Stanley,
    Please read the article you referenced. Wolff has no problem with an across the board (statewide) hike in the minimum wage, but just doing so in SJ while (say) Santa Clara doesn’t could pose problems for hospitality revenue in SJ. So I’d agree with Wolff that raising it in SJ while our neighbors don’t could pose revenue problems for SJ.
    FWIW, still don’t believe there will be a ballpark referendum in the end, but as always, another topic for a future post…

  18. pjk says:

    As if the construction unions that would build the ballpark work for anything close to minimum wage. The construction unions will undoubtedly support the ballpark. SJ’s minimum wage hike would just ensure more layoffs of minimum wage workers, for sure. Struggling small businesses can’t absorb a 25% wage hike without offsetting costs by letting people go. The initiative will almost definitely fail. Even the bleeding-heart Mercury News opposes the measure.

  19. Dinosaur Jr says:

    Please spare us all the diatribe on how raising the minimum wage would hurt millionaires like wolff. T

  20. GoA's says:

    @djr- your like a bad gossip rag- Wolff made it very clear that he has no problem raising the minimum wage- but do it on a statewide basis rather than a city basis-

  21. Briggs says:

    @GoA’s,Tony D., pjk: If San Jose voters approve this, it’ll be another example of San Jose thinking like a big city– which it is. In a state as diverse as California, minimum wage can not be set at the state level. The cost of living varies too much from county to county. San Francisco’s MW is $10.24. San Jose is the leader of Silicon Valley, so that must lead the charge. Milpitas or Santa Clara still provide plastic bags, while San Jose takes the hit because it’s the responsible thing to do. They need to do the same thing here.

  22. GoA's says:

    @Briggs–not here to debate the merits of right or wrong–that is completely OT-was clarifying LW’s comments

  23. Briggs says:

    @GoA’s: Your completely write. Pardon me for offering a counter-point rather than being a complete jerk and resorting to name calling.

  24. GoA's says:

    @Briggs–thx for the editorial comments—pretty sure I can make my own decisions without your help–and definetely noticed how you took the high road by avoiding name calling…now back to our regular programing–

  25. pjk says:

    Briggs: Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be for young people, people starting out who live with somebody else, people in school training for real jobs, etc.. (I used to earn $2.65 an hour pumping gas way back when while I was in high school.) These jobs were never meant to enable somebody to sustain a house and family in a high-cost place like San Jose. If this minimum wage measure passes, look for lots of minimum wage earners to lose their jobs while the remaining will get a raise and a doubling of their workload. Small businesses (which pay minimum wage) simply cannot absorb a 25% wage hike. Unless we’re all willing to pay 25% more for everything we purchase at minimum wage-paying stores, restaurants, etc….

  26. eb says:

    Well said, Briggs.

  27. Anon says:

    Off topic but I have to say if Wolff wants to get an affirmative stadium vote from the SJ public he sure is making it hard on himself. This stance isn’t exactly going to create warm and fuzzies by the electorate in SJ and especially not to the unions.
    http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_21803381/oakland-owner-lew-wolff-urges-no-san-jose?source=rss

    What does this exactly have to do with a stadium vote? For a city that has predominantly been anti-union (see Measure B), his opinion will have little bearing on public opinion on the A’s.

  28. Anon says:

    @GoA’s,Tony D., pjk: If San Jose voters approve this, it’ll be another example of San Jose thinking like a big city– which it is. In a state as diverse as California, minimum wage can not be set at the state level. The cost of living varies too much from county to county. San Francisco’s MW is $10.24. San Jose is the leader of Silicon Valley, so that must lead the charge. Milpitas or Santa Clara still provide plastic bags, while San Jose takes the hit because it’s the responsible thing to do. They need to do the same thing here.

    Big city thinking? As in the origin of this proposal was from a minimum wage college student? You don’t do things just because you want to act a certain way. You do things based on data, cause and effect analysis, return on investment, etc. Do you realistic think that raising wages ~ 25% from state levels won’t have repercussions in the form of layoffs? With less workers on the same budget, how will that affect customers who demand the same level of service and quality? Will they be willing to live with diminished value on their hard earn dollar? Will the workers be more productive just because they get guaranteed raises? As I said, you don’t do things just because you try to mimic others, you do it because it makes sense to do it.

  29. jeffrey says:

    Oh geez.

  30. berry says:

    Healthy debate…

  31. berry says:

    So ur telling me , Quan and city of Oakland have been playing dumb and actually have a super secret plan to keep the raiders…well I beieve it when I see it

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>