Update 10/11 1:20 PM: SFGate’s Raiders blogger Vittorio Tafur has some choice words from Amy Trask, indicating where much of the inspiration for this vision came from:
“There is no short answer. … We’re having ongoing discussions about the stadium opportunities. We’re working very, very cooperatively with the city and with the local officials. We’ve been extolling the virtues of this site for a quite awhile now. It was a year and a half, 18 months, give or take, maybe more, just under, but about a year and a half ago that I started talking about this site and using a new-stadium on this site as an opportunity to revitalize the whole area.
Why not, rather than look simply look at the stadium project, look at how one can use a stadium as an anchor for, or a catalyst for, an urban redevelopment that provides economic stimulus for the whole region? You guys know as well as I do that this site is centrally located, it’s tremendously well-served by public transportation. There are stadiums and facilities all over the country where they’re trying to figure out, how do we get subways or trains to come to our stadium? We’ve got BART. We’ve got Amtrak, the capitol corridor, the ACE train. So, it’s a central location on a freeway, well-served by public transportation.
So, about a year and a half ago, we started proposing and extolling the virtues of proposing the possibility of doing a stadium project on this site. Not as a stand-alone facility but as a catalyst for an urban renovation in the manner in which to bring economic stimulus for the whole region. We have been working very cooperatively with the city and the Joint Powers Authority. You guys understand this region. Right now, fans come to this facility and there’s nowhere for them to spend their money in the area. There’s one or two spots on Hegenbereger, but how about doing something here like was done on the waterfront.”
If the Raiders get a new stadium built in the Coliseum complex, be prepared for the place to look something like this:
You may notice something’s missing. That’s because there’s a large pedestrian plaza where the old Coliseum infield used to be. The finished product includes a $862 million stadium, which includes $144 million in debt remaining on the the original (and to be demolished) Coliseum. A stadium built for two teams would cost $880 million. Either way, costs would be slightly less than the $954 million projected for the 49ers stadium, though likely rising costs haven’t been accounted for in the Oakland model.
These and other facts come from a recent feasibility study (PDF) commissioned by the Coliseum Authority. The analysis was done by CSL, a firm that has done plenty of other similar studies, including the study for the Santa Clara stadium. Not surprisingly, CSLI breaks down the financing for the stadium (minus Coliseum debt) along very similar lines to what was pitched for the Niners:
- $96 million in public funds (redevelopment)
- $133 million in personal seat licenses membership equity fees
- $150 million from the NFL
- $339 million from the Raiders
If the 49ers and Raiders roomed together at the stadium, the financial picture would be vastly different:
- $110 million in public funds (redevelopment)
- $133 million in personal seat licenses membership equity fees from Raiders fans
- $133 million in personal seat licenses stadium builders licenses from 49ers fans
- $300 million from the NFL
- $30 million from the Raiders
- $30 million from the 49ers
One of these is impossible, whereas the other makes too much sense to actually happen. Keep in mind that the two-team model is the only truly feasible model in either Santa Clara or Oakland. Naming rights could be worth double for a shared stadium. There would be less competition for a bowl game, soccer friendlies, mega concerts – all of these big events would gravitate to one place. It’s just a matter of executing.
While the Niners are well ahead of the Raiders process-wise, the Silver & Black hold the trump card. Ever since the Santa Clara concept was unveiled, I was skeptical that the Niners could do it alone and I remain skeptical. It’s no fault of the team, it’s simply too expensive. It would be one thing if it was the Giants and Jets working together; at least they had a working relationship to help make the deal possible. Nothing like that exists here. And for the Yorks to hope that Al Davis’ wandering eye will somehow cease long enough to pen a long-term deal is, well, not very promising.
The holdup here is that Al could very easily move the Raiders south to Santa Clara. But you can’t expect him to agree to the same kind of 40-year lease to which the Niners are committing. It would be hard to see him commit to anything longer than a decade, hell, even 5 years. The Raiders are going to want to keep all of their options open, whether that means a new stadium in Oakland, or waiting out what happens with the Chargers in San Diego (or LA). Any short-term lease or flexible situation makes it harder to secure important pieces of financing, which will make it harder to get the stadium built. Not to sound callous, but the best thing for both teams – if they want to get something done together – may be for Mr. Davis to slip into a long coma. Or, you know. Then again, maybe Amy Trask’s eye is just as wandering.
Going back to the plan, I think they’re making a mistake. Instead of demolishing the entire Coliseum, they should reuse the East Side stand the way I described in March, transforming it into a convention center. The space is there and there’s plenty of opportunity for integration, whether it’s extra parking through a garage under the facility or a green roof creating a large amount of open space. After all, you’re already talking about a billion dollars, what’s another half-billion among friends? It would allow the employment base to be stabilized, since the low-wage service jobs common with these facilities could easily float between the arena, stadium, and convention center.
Beyond that, it’s clear that any stadium project would need TIF to help it get built, TIF that would come from surrounding development. Various industrial and commercial development projects would be encouraged, along with more sprawling parking across 880 (notice the pedestrian overpass). Not sure what that would mean for tailgating. I’m somewhat curious about the “Live/Work” area occupying the Coliseum North area (thanks Jeff), as it’s a stage that would probably trail the rest of the development.
Is it a pipe dream? Yes. I was somewhat disappointed that the Trib’s panel didn’t raise any questions about the Raiders’ future in Oakland, even though a feasibility study for the Raiders was due and up for review. Certainly, the Coliseum Authority, City, and County don’t want to lose the Raiders, but at what price? Knowing that Raiders could very well want only short-term deal in the South Bay, the Authority may be best served by waiting the Santa Clara process out – for if that fails, an East Bay stadium sounds like a decent fallback (though not as cost-efficient as a rebuilt Coliseum).
Other notes from the presentation:
The cited population figures are strange. They completely omit Sonoma, Napa, and Solano counties, which indicates they did a fairly lazy CSA lookup-and-add to derive the numbers.
I hadn’t seen a corporation count in one of these studies until now. Even with the omitted counties, the Bay Area would place third (fourth if LA had a team and was included in the comparison).
I took the corporation count further by making a before/after comparison. If a new football stadium were built along with a new ballpark for the A’s, there’d be a visible shift in the amount of premium options available to interested parties. There could even be some oversaturation of the premium product, especially club seats. The suite numbers look the same, but should be treated differently because the future total includes “minisuites,” which are smaller and more affordable than typical luxury suites. The oversaturation phenomenon is evident in New York, where the old stadium only had 500 club seats (2X teams) and the new one has 10,000 (also 2X teams).
I’m sure that many of you South Bay partisans will quickly say that the market can support the jump. I’m not so sure. Good thing club seats aren’t counted as part of the TV blackout quota.
It’s also not clear what the effects on the Warriors would be. BTW, the team currently owes $10.7 million in back rent and expenses to the Coliseum Authority, a likely goodbye present from outgoing owner Chris Cohan. The drive to rename the Warriors won’t go anywhere as long as there is this tension regarding financials between W’s and the Authority.
newballpark.org 
$339 mill from the Raiders? I’ll bet the Raiders are willing to contribute no more than $3.39.
The Coliseum site is interesting for this sort of application. SOme random thoughts:
.
I am wondering what, exactly, makes Coliseum North doable as ancillary development for this, but completely crazy for a baseball stadium/redevelopment plan?
.
It’s like Howard Terminal being off limits, per the Port, and all of the sudden being touted as a viable site for a ballpark.
.
And, this doesn’t even play up the real advantage of the Coliseum… there is half a modern football stadium there right now.
.
All in all, I like this better than Santa Clara.
from what i’ve read since i never actually sat in the mt davis area of the coliseum during a football game is that the seats all the way on the top of the structure is too deep and the luxary boxes pail in terms of size and amendities that these modern new nfl stadiums have.
also the east side as it’s been described a few times here looks and feels like an you’re at the airport.
i think location wise a football stadium at the coliseum parking lot is ideal. unlike baseball, the ideal place to build a football stadium isn’t somewhere in downtown and or in an urban area where you can go to restaurants/bars before/during/after the game across the street from said venue.
but i do think sc is the more likely option to take place. course the huge question would be if davis wants to be looked upon as the “second fiddle” because of the sc park’s proximity to the niners hq and that’s it’s in the heart of “niner country”.
The 49ers want to shoehorn a stadium into the Great America parking lot, where highway and public transit access is not all that great and the amusement park is suing them. Not to mention the 49ers plain don’t have the money for this project. A Coliseum parking lot stadium for both teams would be ideal.
Lga, I didn’t even think about those suites. I sat in one for a baseball game (3 innings is all I could take). They are small when compared with those at AT&T Park. Or maybe it is the layout, the East Side suites are sort of long and narrow, you can’t see the field from much of the suite. Either way, this is why I like the colonnade with open air minisuites. That will give an advantage to the A’s when selling premium seating.
Wow? Only 30 Million each from the Raiders and Niners for a shared stadium?
But isn’t that $30 mill each contingent on getting $300 mill from an NFL stadium funding program that no longer exists? Both the Oakland and Santa Clara plans lack this little thing called money.
Anybody been polling 49er season ticketholders on how much they are prepared to spend on their “stadium builders licenses,” better known as dreaded PSLs? I’m guessing they’ve been banking somewhere on the order of $0 for these.
Looks good to me. That probably means it won’t happen.
It never ceases to amaze me how the Coliseum authority bends over and spreads em for the Raiders, but they pucker up faster than a prude for the A’s…
Access to the Oracle would be more direct but I don’t immediately see how the Warriors would benefit from this redevelopment plan. The Oracle is a swell enough place but after going to the game there last night, I’m reminded of how cramped the concourses are even for a preseason-sized crowd. Also (dead horse), the location is horrible. There is absolutely nothing to do before and after games. It feels so remote BARTing over there and back. Aside from the game, you really have to bring your own entertainment. Last night, I saw a 13-yr old puke up a stomach of gin and Hawaiian Punch there. Ah, to be a kid again…
correction in my previous post, the mt seats on top are too steep, not deep. sort of the problem the chisox had with us cell before they renovated it, wonder if the same could be done with the mt davis seats.
as for the luxury suites, for football the view is probably good. like with the “bleachers” for baseball, they cut off the view of the outfield but for football the field of play is well visible from both the seats and suites.
LetsgoA’s. Problem with the top of Mt Davis over the Cell is that the upper deck of Mt. Davis isn’t nearly as tall itself. So lopping off the top would have less of an effect. What they’d really need to do is lose one of the levels of suites which just isn’t feasible.
I like it. Both teams sharing a stadium is the only way to go, be it SC or the Coli lot. I’d say tear Mt. Davis down and start from scratch. Mediocre structure for football and lousy of course baseball.
yeah nothing really can be done to improve those seats.
maybe another suggestion for improving the suites is to combine two into one. maybe knock a wall down between two suites and create one larger one where you can renovate it a bit. not like those suites are selling out either for baseball or football either.
Adding a nice hotel, some retail and a few restaurants(sports bars) would make that area 10 times better. I remember back in the day when Sam’s Hof Brau was the place to go before or after a game, but the food wasn’t that great. Harry’s Hof Brau over in SL is 10 times better. I do miss as a teen playing pinball and video games at the old Malibu Grand Prix. Mini-golf course too. But they all fell in disrepair, poorly managed and were torn down for more parking.
Looks like a winner and it is financially feasible. Only problem is interim parking during construction. A lot of parking is going to be lost during construction. Who is the Champion? Perata won’t touch it after his last foray that left the City of Oakland holding the bag. Moreover, nobody likes the neighborhood where the cops were killed. Any plan for this site must include responsible redevelopment the surrounding East Oakland.
BG–i know the Coliseum area is not the safest area around, but the general area isn’t too bad. More industrial than anything and I’ve had no problems parking my car on the streets there for 30 years and have never been a victim of crime there. The Oakland cops killings last year were around 74th and Mac Arthur, about 2 1/2 miles away from the stadium. The west side of the freeway, near the airport, seems safer than the east side. I agree, some responsible development around there is a must.
Somebody help me understand how the ‘9ers stadium in SC is projected at $950M—and more than likely will cost $1B+—this report projects a stadium in Oakland will be just over $700M and about $735M for 2 teams—infrastructure req’mnts are pretty much set in both places and regardless this doesn’t include any upgrades there–land is not included—looking at stadiums built recently the Oakland stadium is really being low-balled–30% less than the SC project—you get what you pay for–isn’t that the problem we have with the Coli today and the botched remodel when the Raiders returned?
@GoA’s – For both stadia, the pure construction cost was stated to be $610+ million, though the Santa Clara study also included a $111 million inflationary adjustment (from 2007 to 2010). I didn’t see such an adjustment in the Oakland study. Also, the Oakland stadium is 3,000 seats smaller, which is probably worth $20 million or so.
ahh–thx ML—what contributes to the remaining $200+M for the SC stadium with the $950M number typically used?
Where does the oft discussed BART to OAK connector fit into all of this, if at all? Otherwise, I like it; a baseball stadium could still be added in as well.
Quick question: Is Fig. 3 suggesting that all the land around is going to be acquired as well? Or are they merely noting that the current development is “employment based”? I’d love to see the Wal-Mart relocated, and those hotels could definitely be upgraded.
@Nic – It’s in the second pic. There’s no plan for a special AirBART station to serve the development.
There’s no promise of redeveloping the surrounding land, especially the further out you go.
The ultimate for a pro-Oakland guy like myself would be to see this Raider/49er complex fly; the 980 decking dream park for the A’s; and in about 10 years the outdated Oracle and HP Pavilion in SJ growing more obsolete, eventually being torn down and move the W’s and Sharks to the new Oracle Arena at Victory Court. Guaranteed sellouts all venues for at least the first 10 years. Oakland will have 5 teams, SC County just the mini-Giants and Earthquakes.
jk…. (face palm).
re: Somebody help me understand how the ’9ers stadium in SC is projected at $950M—and more than likely will cost $1B+
Yes, new stadiums in Arlington, Texas and East Rutherford NJ, where don’t have to spend $$ on earthquake-proofing, both cost well over $1 bill but the Niners are going to get theirs in for less than $1 billion. Spare us. Maybe they’ll make it out of Lego blocks?
Double face palm AND smh
@Jeffro–what’s wrong with dreaming a little dream? I know the money isn’t there to do all that, but all 3 venues would be cooler than cooler. All right in the heart of the bay area with great transportation, parking and eventually more stuff around the facilities to do stuff.
@LarryE–such a mild response from you. TY. I was expecting to get my head torn off or the like. I’ll be decent and won’t rip your hometown (SJ) like before, but will just pump up Oaktown a bit more…lol.
Go Raiders!! Go Braves!!! Getting ready to leave for Raiders game after I send this. By all!!
Go Raiders, indeed.
@pjk
Legos are expensive.
Hooray for the Raiders, wish I could say the same for ATL…
There will be a lot of rightfully unemployed NFL head coaches this offseason.
Don’t forget go Eagles!
niners need to tank and go for luck with the #1 pick next year in the draft.
tired of wasting another year on smith at qb.
@jk:
Your loyalty for East Bay sports in admirable. Though, don’t base the pride of your city on whether or not they have a sports team. Oakland will be Oakland whether they have the A’s or not.
RE: 49ers
If they lose next week, they absolutely do need to tank the rest of the season. I don’t even know what to call it, but this Alex Smith thang needs to be set adrift; sail out to international waters and just let it go…. Speaking of stadiums, I’ve been meaning to do a photo essay on Kezar Stadium (what’s left of it). Any ideas or suggests on how to approach it?
@Briggs – Start with this article. You might get some ideas from the clipped articles.
win or lose next week, niners will or should be entering 2011 with a new starting qb.
Marine Layer, Thanks for posting on this study and giving your take, good analysis. As for a wandering eye of Al Davis or Amy Trask looking to possibly relocate out of the Bay Area to LA, I don’t think that is likely to happen. For one thing there is no guarantee LA will remain an open market for much longer. The Jags, Chargers or even the Rams are the most likely candidates to relocate to LA this time around. Ed Roski is the only one proposing to build a stadium in LA and he wants controlling interest, the Davis Family will not go for that. Talking some people I know in Southern California who have kept up with this issue say that the Chargers are most likely going to relocate to LA in the near future. Spanos who is the owner of the team is good friends with Roski making this potential partnership a good match. The NFL has already stated they want the Raiders and 49ers to share a new stadium and the split the costs, that is their preference for the Bay Area. It was great to see the Raiders beat the Chargers today by the way.
There is another potential issue that hasn’t been brought up with this proposed stadium is the conflicting time line clash of the A’s still playing at the Coliseum while trying to build this new stadium. If the Raiders and 49ers wanted to get started building this stadium the A’s would still need to play at the Coliseum, this could really hold things up. The Raiders and 49ers could play at Candlestick temporarily until the new stadium is built. Its to bad the A’s are not going to soon be moving into a new ballpark to get around this thorny issue.
I guess as some deal re: territorial rights, the A’s can play temporarily at AT&T Park while football stadium, Cisco Field are under construction.
It would be nice to see the Giants stop trying to drive the A’s out of the Bay Area and work something out while the A’s play a couple seasons at ATT Park. The San Jose Sharks played at the Cow Palace while SJ’s arena was under construction. We’d need Selig to firmly tell Neukom that no, you are not driving the A’s out of the Bay Area.
jk-usa. I like your vision. A joint 49er and Raiders Stadium at the Coliseum with a new home for the A’s in Downtown Oakland on the air-rights of 980. Both have free land.
–
But how about a Sharks and Warriors Stadium on the air-rights of 980 between 12th, 14th, Brush and Castro across from the new A’s 980 Park?????
The relative footprints of the existing Coliseum and the new stadium overlap only slightly, and probably only the exterior ice plant landscaping outside Gate C. The A’s could conceivably play there until 2013 while a football stadium was under construction. One thing that doesn’t appear to be factored in is the cost of relocating utilities, such as the power transmission lines and the sewer interceptor. It’s also likely that the question of who owns the BART bridge will have to be answered, because seismic improvements will be needed.
Also – Oakland should focus more on retaining teams, not grandiose visions of bringing new teams in. It’s more likely that in 2020 there will be no teams in Oakland than four, especially if it’s not prudent.
Hockey would bomb in Oakland (again).
Yes, let’s move the Sharks out of San Jose, where they sell out every night and spent $35 mill of their own money on the arena, to Oakland, where NHL hockey already failed.
re: A’s 980 park. Just show me the list of billionaires ready to spend $ 1billion to buy the A’s and build a new ballpark in Oakland. That’s what it’s going to take, since Oakland has no money and the leading mayoral candidate has already given up. Another candidate repeats the “spend not one dime on the A’s” mantra.
The days are numbered for all 3 teams left in Oakland. The Warriors will probably set up shop in Frisco before the decade is out, the Raiders will move to Santa Clara or LA and the A’s hopefully will go to San Jose.
ROFLMAO (re: pipedreams in Oakland)
As much as I hope Oakland can improve its socioeconomic outlook, there are far more pressing issues than building sporting venues. Sure there are economic benefits from hosting MLB, NFL and the NBA, but not on the level needed to right the ship. Oakland has ports, rails, an abundance of industrial land. The Bay Area has a history of innovation and leading the charge on future technologies. I’m no specialist on long-term city planning but my idealistic pipedream would be for Oakland to become the world leader in Green Technologies with factories and development headquarters planetd firmly in the East Bay. Environmentally-friendly light bulbs, cleaning detergents, and the like. Oakland could literally be green collar.
@NamTurk–i know the Sharks aren’t going anywhere, but if Oak had a new cool facility in a unique area, they would draw good for hockey, if it was the Sharks. A 2nd team wouldn’t make it though.The Golden Seals back in the 70’s averaged around 6-7k a game back when the facility wasn’t that good for hockey. Not a winning season, new owners about every year, total chaos, they were quite colorful though, and I remember Crazy George there getting the crowds fired up. I still have a bunch of old programs, like my A’s, I enjoy browsing through now and then. I also enjoyed the World Team Tennis team, the San Francisco Golden Gators, who played at the arena in the late 70’s. They got maybe 2-3k a game in there. That league is still around and Sac has a good team that plays at the Galleria in Roseville.
goodell was at the coliseum yesterday.
a shock? not really when both sf and oak played at home on the same day, which i don’t think happens a lot of the times.
@letsgoa’s–i was at the Raider game and saw Goodell all over the place, talking to reporters, fans, posing for pics. I got some pics of him from afar. Did he go across the bay for the 49ers too I wonder?
“We’re working very, very cooperatively with the city and with the local officials.”
The biggest difference between the A’s and the Raiders.
who knows, he probably did.
raider game ended about an hour before the niner game started and with the sf-phi game being the prime time game of the week for the nfl on snf on nbc, goodell probably did stop by as he probably flew out of sfo too.
Anon of course the Raiders are working with the city. Oakland is the abused girlfriend and the Raiders are her abuser… the city of Oakland has shown time and again they’ll bend over and beg for more from the Raiders despite all the Raiders have done to screw them over.
The Raiders and Oakland cooperated to take what had been a fun, unique ballpark and turn it into a football monstrosity, after rejecting the A’s requests for baseball-only modifications.
@anonymous–totally agree—its really unfortunate that Oakland officials screwed the A’s over with the return of the Raiders than blew them off for the Uptown ballpark…and still 15 years later don’t have one agreed upon site that the leaders can rally around—they have always favored the Raiders at the expense of losing the A’s—very unfortunate
A little off topic here, but I see many empty seats in the 3rd deck in ATL. I know Oakland’s been bashed as a lousy sports town, but the ATL has been known to be also pretty lousy.
when you’ve been to the playoffs as much as atl has for the past two decades, maybe fans are not as excited about an alds. add to that atl isn’t a baseball city and turner is one of the biggest parks in baseball. still never forgot 03 when cubs fans took over the ted.
atl has had issues with attendance thru out the years with their pro teams, similar to oakland in a way.
i was too young to know how it was back in the late 80-early 90s at the coliseum for playoffs.
but in 00, 01 the place sold out, course it helped it was the nyy and all the games on the weekday happened at night. 02 with min, i remember game 5 the 3rd deck wasn’t filled. 03 sold out in game 1 on the classic ramon bunt base hit to win the game. 2nd game during the day it wasn’t. game 5 it was a sellout again at night 06 all 3 home playoff games were sold out, course it “helped” with the tarp on the 3rd deck.
so all home playoff games at night during the a’s playoff runs in the 2000s were sold out eh?
Damn Giants!!! Here come the texts from my Giants fan friends… I really think the Giants are going to get owned by Philly though, this series seems like a luck fest for them. The Posey blown call, the Braves bad defense and relievers, all one run wins. I think Philly’s going to mop the floor with them.
@letsgoa’s–good points. Spoiled from all that winning.They did get 53,284 yesterday, 107% capacity which is great. It’s a school night tonight and i just found the attendance and it’s 44,532, 89.5%. Bobby Cox’s last game. Seems like he’s been there forever. I think he left Lowe in there a tad too long, but I think they would of lost it anyways. I hate the Giants, but they were the better team and deserve to go to the next round. Philly will take them in 6 though.
atl’s offense was on par with sfg’s for probably being the worst offense in the playoffs and add to that atl was missing two key contributors in jones and prada in their lineup.
then wagner getting hurt which cost them game 3.
agreed that phi with that threesome of halladay-oswalt-hamels is nasty. imo the best starting 3 in all of the playoffs and what they did against cin who had statistically the best offense all year long in the nl was scary. picked phi to win the whole thing before the playoffs and i’ll be rooting for them even more now.
Yeah, the Philly’s are outright scary. The Giant’s pitching has been great, but they need to score more runs.I’m rooting for TB to knock off Texas. They’ll probably lose to the Yanks, but you never know.
Great…another week and a half of “Giants playoffs fever.”. Can’t bash on them to much though; family members and co-workers are Giants fans and they all want to see the A’s playing in SJ.
So to them I say congrats! Back to the topic at hand; I now see why the city of OAK doesn’t give a damn about the A’s…
It’s because of my beloved Silver and Black!
Maybe Giants fans need to be told what their owner is like – how he desperately wants to drive the A”s out of the Bay Area just so he can fill his own already-fat wallet and doesn’t much care how this devastates A’s fans. How he’s denying San Jose a chance to get major league baseball. I’ll bet 9 of 10 Giants fans don’t even know his name.
@Tony–i have co-workers who love the Giants and I always rub it in how they haven’t won jack.They’re mixed on where the A’s should play. They say the A’s need to get out of that dump and a DT/JLS park would be cool, but can they fill it year in/year out. They also say SJ can support the A’s, just look at the Sharks. I say just look at the W’s support in Oakland for a horrible team for 15 years.
If the Giants somehow win the whole thing, what does that do to the A’s moving to San Jose? I’m afraid the A’s won’t be able to get the votes from MLB owners or the BRC will recommend Oakland knowing that it is a death sentence. Are these scenarios far-fetched?
@Chris – The Giants winning or losing has no bearing on what happens with the A’s. You can’t count on playoff revenue and fervor every season – unless you’re the Yankees.
I don’t even want to imagine the Giants wining the whole thing, the Giants playoff fever we’re dealing with right now is annoying enough. If they won the world series we would be hearing about it for a very long time, and the attention would have astronomical proportions. Who knows, they would probably temporarily paint the SF side of the bay bridge orange and black! Of course I’m exaggerating, but it would be bad for sure.
Chris,
Simple answer to your question: nothing!
In fact, as I stated in a previous thread, the Giants current success at the gate and on the field is proving they don’t need to hold San Jose hostage to be financially sound.
Heck, when the Giants were lousy between 03-08 they still drew good crowds to ATT Park. OT, check out the
Baseball SJ blog to see their take on the Giants current run of success; very interesting! Let’s also not forget that the A’s and Giants have co-existed for over 40 years in the Bay.
@ tony d. – I read the latest Baseball San Jose blog entry. Thanks for pointing it out. I guess I really am paranoid. However, until ground is broken I will be uneasy/sensitive towards anything that can thwart a new A’s stadium in San Jose.
@ Briggs: The only green Oakland is pursuing is in a doobie. They’re banking their economic future on marijuana, want to be the “Amsterdam of America”. Who needs tech companies, eh?
Hell, if Oakland becomes the biggest legal distributor of marijuana I say cheers if it helps their economy. Actually they already do have the largest legal distribution retailer (for medical use of course) conveniently on waterfront!
We’re veering off into a very bad direction here, people.
@ML: But its relevant. Oakland talks a big game with little or nothing to back it up financially. When talking about VC or 980 or wherever, you gotta ask where the money is coming from. My point was that Oakland is banking on pot. Not the bet I’d take, but there it is.
@LGA
In the 2002 playoffs, the attendance for games one, two, and five were: 34,853; 31,953; and 32,146, respectively. This was pretarp attendance, so lots of open seats.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MIN/MIN200210040.shtml
Roger Goodell stopped by the Bay Area to meet with the 49ers and Raiders on their stadium issue.
http://thetvrealist.com/gossip/Goodell-encourages-joint-Bay-Area-stadium-3703791.html
He wants them to share and that should be their strategy going forward. Right now they are each doing their “own thing” and not working together.
The SF 49ers plan in Santa Clara is the best bet by far and I will break down the financing and why it works with or without the Raiders.
$114 million- Redevelopment Funds from Santa Clara for infrastructure improvement around site.
$330 million- Stadium Authority (Santa Clara)- Naming rights, advertising rights, membership fees, luxury suite sales, and ticket sales. This will be the “easy” part as that is why the City of Santa Clara took it upon themselves to do this. The Raiders messed up back in 1995 because they did not give out lifetime seat licenses, theirs were for 10 years. The 49ers are giving out lifetime licenses like what New York just recently did. With the corporate support, and affluent fan base in the South Bay the suites, seat licenses, and naming rights will go pretty quickly.
-This # is actually a low figure and the City of Santa Clara knows any shortfall here comes from their general fund and they would never do this unless they felt by a “long shot” this was going to be easy.
$493 million- 49ers and NFL.
-The 49ers have a “sweetheart lease” at Candlestick and make $$ hand over fist.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_San-Francisco-49ers_307075.html
Since 2001 they have made in profit $199 million and we all know that is way lower than the actual #. Meaning after a $300 million dollar contribution from the team the only delta is $193 million from the NFL.
The NFL may not have their fund anymore but $193 million is peanuts to the league to get a stadium done in such a lucrative market like the Bay Area. If the Raiders join the 49ers then this gets done with excess $$ left over.
I know you all are wondering where the $$ comes from here. The South Bay and its citizens/corporations will not see this place not get built after a successful public vote. It is only a matter of time before the 49ers start playing here…The Raiders would be smart to jump while the getting is good or find themselves stuck at the current Coliseum for 20 more years.
re: The South Bay and its citizens/corporations will not see this place not get built after a successful public vote.
There was a successful vote for $100 mill for a stadium-mall at Candlestick in 1997. That never got built. The 49ers have no corporate sponsor and I’ll bet boatloads of their season ticketholders will drop their subscriptions once the 49ers start demanding they buy PSLs.
The best option for the 49ers and Raiders is to renovate the baseball half of the Coliseum into a football stadium while the A’s move to San Jose. Half of a new stadium already exists in Oakland and there is great highway and BART access right there. Unlike in Santa Clara, which would have the stadium shoehorned into a small piece of the Great America parking lot, with poor highway and public transit access and Great America suing over the whole thing.
The stadium and mall at Candlestick didn’t get built because of DeBartolo’s legal problems. It’s not at all relevant to Santa Clara. Access to freeways and transit at the Santa Clara site is not quite as good as Oakland, but it certainly isn’t poor. And there are going to be PSLs wherever a stadium is built so that’s not a good argument for one location over another either. Great America’s complaint is a valid concern. You should stick with that and the aircraft noise/traffic angle. Those are the strongest arguments against Santa Clara at this point.
I keep hearing that SC residents would change their vote if they knew the Raiders would be sharing a new stadium with the 49ers, not wanting that “undesirable element” in the neighborhood. You know, all the looting, vandalism and fires set amongst the businesses along Great American Pkwy. Also, Great America would be even more irate losing more Sunday dates with both teams there. That settles it, Oakland it is for the two.
That “element” has been at Great America for years.
Yes, the 49ers stadium is right in the flight path of SJ Airport. Apparently no other NFL stadium would have this problem. I’ve tried to conduct meetings outside at the adjacent hotel and had to halt when the planes were overhead. As I’ve stated before, good luck for concert goers at that stadium. “I know! It’s only rock and roll but – ” WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH.
Or QBs calling signals. Maybe they can reschedule flights so they only happen when the opposing team has the ball?
@pjk- The planes can be re-routed for 3 hours on a Sunday to avoid the stadium if need be as this was addressed in the EIR.
Oakland lacks the corporate base to make this happen as in the case with the A’s. You think for one second Cisco, HP, Google, Apple, etc…are going to advertise or put their name on a Oakland football stadium?? Dream on….even with the 49ers there.
The San Francisco proposal fell through because Hunter’s Point is a terrible location. I went to this past Sunday’s Eagles-Niners game and getting in and out of there sucks. 101 south is packed for 10 miles from Candlestick out to Millbrae. Also the neighborhood is horrendous. For how bad Candlestick is as a stadium on top of the bad location and the team “stinking it up” it is unreal the Niners don’t blackout like the Raiders.
The Coliseum site is a “dump” as well and is not located in a good neighborhood either. The ancillary development will not work as who goes to Oakland to shop?? Santa Clara is near Valley Fair and Santana Row. Both of which are far superior to any Oakland shopping center or mall.
Santa Clara is the best bet as it has very good access points to the area already because of all the businesses in the area already. Raider Nation would only be there for 10 games a year. For the $$ it is worth having them share the stadium.
That area is made for over thousands of people per day to go through because of work. With the exception of Monday or Thursday night football, traffic will not be a problem and parking will be double than what is at Candlestick right now.
You all also need to realize that Great America is closed in November and December as their operating season is April 24-October 31.
What Great America is whining about is not the football dates but all the concerts, soccer games, and other events that will be held at the stadium the rest of the year.
Great America makes squat for Santa Clara while the 49ers are going to donate millions to their broke school district each year after the stadium is built….Hence why SC residents overwhelmingly voted in favor of this project. The schools are the city’s #1 priority and the 49ers are going to make sure every school has the best facilities possible over the next 10 years.
Santa Clara is also a “neutral site” between SF and OAK. It makes more sense to play here where both teams can reap the benefits of the corporate base and existing infrastructure.
Oakland is going lose the A’s and Raiders for sure in the next 4 years. At least the Raiders will still retain the Oakland name unlike the future San Jose A’s.
I’m sorry but re-routing air traffic for football games seems rediculous. Even if it can happen it just sounds ludicrous. Yes we all know the area around the coliseum isn’t good, but you can’t argue the convenience of the bart station and freeway ramp location. If they can incorporate some retail areas around the park (as shown in the picture) for people to hang out at before and after the games, I think it could be a great place for both teams. About the corporate support, a company would have to be crazy not to support a two team NFL stadium, I don’t care if you put it in Vallejo the support would be there for a Raiders/49ers stadium. Side note – whenever I see Sid posted I know to expect an essay long post 🙂
@Sid/Ralph – Woah. Let’s get our facts straight. Per the EIR, SJC is not expected to have significant impacts due to the stadium. There will be TFR’s issued for games per FAA regulations, but those will impact general aviation aircraft, not commercial jets.
Great America pays $5 million in annual rent to the City of Santa Clara. The 49ers have never even approached that cumulatively over the two decades they’ve been at Centennial Drive. They will finally pay $5+ million as a result of the stadium, but that money will be going mostly towards debt service. The money the City gets from Great America goes straight into the General Fund.
As for the undesirable element, residents won’t have to worry too much. There won’t be much tailgating space for the undesirables to wreak havoc. Yahoo is going to build a large campus there with buildings on top of garages. It’s going to be a lot more corporate/in-out than what either 49er or Raider fans are used to at their respective old stadia.
re: The planes can be re-routed for 3 hours on a Sunday to avoid the stadium if need be as this was addressed in the EIR.
Has San Jose agreed to this? San Jose is losing money BigTime on its newly expanded airport. i suppose San Jose could reroute the planes for a very large fee from the 49ers.
Re: “At least the Raiders will still retain the Oakland name unlike the future San Jose A’s.”
Would they? The Raiders have abandoned Oakland before- seems like they could garner more corporate support if they went with “San Jose Raiders”. I’m not advocating it, just wondering if it’s possible they’d change their name too.
re; a company would have to be crazy not to support a two team NFL stadium,
The NFL just opened one of these in New Jersey. Yet, corporate naming rights have gone begging. No one wants to pay for them so the stadium is known as “New Meadowlands Stadium.” New stadiums in New Jersey and Arlington, Texas have had companies pass on buying the naming rights, even with Super Bowls planned for both buildings.
I’ll bet I know what might persuade San Jose to re-route the planes (if that is even possible):
“Now taking the field, ladies and gentleman – Your San Jose 49ers!!”