Category Archives: Football

11.26.10
by

Caveat citizen

A pithy piece on stadia and politics comes this week from an unusual place: a law firm. Attorneys Christopher Bakes, Scott Anders, and Jeremy Vermilyea of West Coast firm Bullivant Houser Bailey PC penned a succinct rebuttal (on Lexology) to a recent Wall Street Journal article on how municipalities are more averse to publicly financing stadia than before.

Bakes, a lawyer for the firm’s Sacramento office and an avowed Giants fan, represented the City of San Francisco in 1992 when the team threatened to move to Tampa, which gives him a pretty unique perspective on how stadium deals work. In his and his colleagues’ view, the problem for most stadium initiatives is not so much public financing as much as proper education of the public. That might be better termed “selling” the concept, in any case it’s part of the process. Here’s how they explain it:

Why stadium and ballpark initiatives fail. The key point missed by The Wall Street Journal is why so many stadium proposals became — and continue to become — problematic in the first place. It has far less to do with public funding than it does with good governance and public engagement, or (more likely) the lack of public engagement. This is because despite repeated failures at the ballot box and elsewhere, public officials and team owners almost never correctly interpret what is actually going on.

Voters don’t reject great ideas, they reject great ideas that aren’t carefully explained to them. When first proposed, ballpark proponents rarely list as a first priority the need to educate the public on why a ballpark is beneficial. It is as if the good public officials of Seattle (or San Diego, or Pittsburgh, or Minnesota) didn’t know about any of the troubles in Baltimore (or San Francisco, or Philadelphia, or Milwaukee), and simply moved along as if their new ballpark was the only one that had ever been conceived anywhere in America.

Later in the piece, the Giants and 49ers efforts are lauded for their outreach efforts with the public. It’s noted that the Giants’ plan, from conception to opening, took eight years (1992 to 2000). The 49ers’ stadium is on a similar path, with initial work dating back to 2007 and a likely opening in 2015. In San Jose, the process started in 2005 and an opening isn’t likely until at least 2014.

That brings me to Oakland. We’re about a year removed from Let’s Go Oakland’s unveiling of four sites, which apparently was done just to show that at least on the surface there was more than one. Any amount of scrutiny, which wasn’t done by local media, would’ve shown that there were really two sites, JLS West and Victory Court. Now that Victory Court is the chosen site, the clock will begin on December 1, when the first planning commission hearing for public comment is held. If the process holds true, a ballpark wouldn’t open until… 2018 or 2019.

If you think Oakland is somehow going to be able to shortcut the process, think again. The last large development project completed in Oakland was Uptown. Compare what Forest City originally pitched to what was eventually built:

Obviously, market conditions dictated how expansive the project became. Still, it’s likely that citizens will point to this as part of the City’s track record when it comes to executing on large projects. If MLB places faith in Oakland to get the ballpark plan done, it will do so knowing that the timeline will be quite long, through 2018 or later. And if proponents try to short circuit the process? There is no shortage of potential litigants ready to gum up the works.

Then again, as the article stated,

It has far less to do with public funding than it does with good governance and public engagement, or (more likely) the lack of public engagement.

The whole thing could get done more quickly if there’s a lack of public engagement. If that’s what happens, God help Oakland and A’s fans.

11.18.10
by

It’s good hittin’ weather


It’s the halfway point of the NFL season, which means that football is completely dominating the sports world. The NFL Network had its first Thursday night broadcast of the season, and two college football games will be played in MLB ballparks this weekend: Illinois-Northwestern at Wrigley Field, and Army-Notre Dame at Yankee Stadium. The Yankee Stadium football layout is from home plate to centerfield, making seats at the 50-yard line no great shakes. Wrigley Field is much more interesting, as it orients the gridiron much like AT&T Park but with less space to accomplish the task.

Source: Yahoo

Those drag routes across the back of the end zone are sure to be exciting. Update 11/20 – Big Ten officials and the teams’ head coaches had a pow-wow and decided to disuse the east end zone shown above. Instead, both teams will drive toward the safer west end zone when on offense. Bizarre.

Over in Philly, the Eagles are doing something really cool – they’re taking their home stadium, Lincoln Financial Field, off the power grid. To achieve this, 80 wind turbines and 2,500 solar panels will be installed. As large as that is, those renewable energy sources will only provide 15% of the expected output, while a plant that burns either natural gas or biofuels will handle the rest. Still, it’s an admirable effort and something the A’s should look to duplicate – at least the wind/solar part. The Giants, of course, were the first to cover their roof with solar panels. Less than a mile east of the Diridon site, Adobe placed several wind turbines within its building complex.

Enough of the feel-good. Let’s get back to greed business.

  • AEG’s Tim Leiweke wants the citizens of the Southland to believe that a downtown LA football stadium can be built without parking. And that it’ll cost only $725 million. With a retractable roof.
  • As for possible tenants in such a stadium, the Chargers can pay a set amount each year to get out of the team’s lease at Qualcomm Stadium. The amount decreases every year for the next decade.
  • Apparently the NFL is willing to go to any length to get the Falcons out of the 18-year old Georgia Dome. The argument this time: the Dome prevents the Super Bowl from being played in “the elements” as it should. WHA?!?!?!
  • Oriole Park at Camden Yards, which is rapidly approaching its 20th year in service, is ready to undergo a series of improvements, including the removal of more than 2,000 seats, replacement of the existing seats with wider ones, and a drop in the number of luxury suites, from 72 to 50. The O’s are also changing their concessionaire from oft-criticized giant Aramark to Delaware North.
  • Perhaps emboldened by winning a public battle to get Mesa, AZ to pay for a new facility to replace HoHoKam Park, Cubs owner Tom Ricketts has his hands out for $200-300 million in TIF-financed renovations to Wrigley Field. Unlike most TIF financing structures that we’re familiar with in California, the money wouldn’t come from property taxes. Instead, funds to pay back the loans would come from a portion of the ticket taxes currently paid on tickets to Cubs games. The “amusement tax” would be frozen would be frozen at 12%, and planned raises to the tax would pay back the loans. Aside from the even more expensive tickets to come, it’s not an entirely bad idea since the Cubs are as consistent in terms of attendance as any team in baseball.
  • TD Ameritrade Park in Omaha is nearly 80% finished and on schedule for hosting the 2011 College World Series. The 24,000-seat, $128 million stadium looks like a smaller version of the redone Kauffman Stadium, which is a good thing.
  • Drayton McLane is trying to sell the Astros for $800 million, including a stake in CSN Houston.
  • According to AOL Fanhouse’s Jeff Fletcher, nothing happened this week at the November winter meetings regarding the A’s. Wait a few weeks, perhaps.
  • Speaking of being emboldened, Bryan Grunwald has an editorial at SFGate touting his 980 Deck ballpark plan. Will anyone listen?
  • The Trib comes out in favor of Victory Court, saying, “This is a great jumping off point for newly elected Mayor Jean Quan. She has to be all-in for this project and she must convince city leaders to do the same.”
  • Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson is still trying (in vain?) to get some kinda of arena deal done that would keep the Kings in town. A meeting today marks the one year anniversary of an arena task force assembled to work a complex land swap that fizzled two months ago.
  • A report commissioned by the SF Board of Supervisors estimates the cost of hosting the 2013 America’s Cup at $42 million, plus $86 million in forgone revenue caused by giving development rights to whomever fixes up Piers 30/32 for the event. Race organizers and other business interests have pledged up to $32 million to help defray the cost. In the sports world, that sounds like an incredible deal.

If there’s anything else about venues worth including, send it in.

10.20.10
by

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).

10.09.10
by

Coliseum sans Coliseum

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.

08.25.10
by

Rebecca Kaplan Sports in Oakland Chat

I was able to get to the Linden Street Brewery near JLS just a minute or two before mayoral candidate Rebecca Kaplan started her speech on sports in Oakland. Mike Davie, who is a fairly prominent Keep the A’s in Oakland figure, is volunteering on Kaplan’s campaign and introduced her. The speech lasted about 25 minutes, after which I had to leave. Here are some of the nuggets I got from it.

  • She’d like to keep the A’s in town, have a rebuilt Coli be the home for both NFL franchises, bring a WNBA team to town, and attract more international soccer matches.
  • Kaplan talked up the potential of TOD developments, citing the Coliseum as a distinct site with potential. She joked about the BART bridge being a “walkway of chain link doom.”
  • She did not say it specifically, but I inferred that she would push for a A’s ballpark solution at the Coliseum, with new ancillary development around it to make it feel like a proper urban ballpark feel.
  • She did not mention any of the JLS sites. She tried to make a distinction between what she called the “Possible Dream” (something that is feasible) and the “Impossible Dream” (something that people simply keep talking about in circles). Does this mean that she’s not a shill for the JLS-area developers that want/need the ballpark to boost their ROI?

That’s what I got from it. About 50 people attended. I felt like a media person, so as much as it pained me I didn’t partake in any beer (big fan of Linden’s version of steam beer) or freshly grilled hot dogs. We’ll see if any of the other candidates hold a similar forum.

08.15.10
by

Day 5: Cowboys Stadium


On paper, the differences between Houston’s Reliant Field and Arlington’s Cowboys Stadium aren’t vast. Both have retractable roofs. Both have hundreds of luxury suites and thousands of club seats. Both are meant to act as extremely large arenas via flexible floor use plans. Yet the biggest difference can be summed up by my initial experiences in touring both. The day I visited Cowboys Stadium, I was among the last of thousands of people doing the same thing. At Reliant Field, I was the second of a grand total of two visitors for the 2 PM tour, before I stopped the tour guide to allow three latecomers in at the last moment.

Reliant Stadium is not inferior from a technical standpoint. It even has one major winning feature over Cowboys Stadium, in that it has actual grass, as opposed to the new generation of artificial turf that has been taking hold in many other NFL stadia. However, the public is well past the point of novelty wearing off for Reliant Stadium, which when coupled with a lack of tradition that comes with an expansion franchise, makes it difficult to capture the public’s imagination. Cowboys Stadium has the Ring of Honor, the big star at midfield, and a roof design that mimics the old hole-in-the-roof at now demolished Texas Stadium. Not only does it share the team’s legacy, it has taken that legacy and made it its own, the same way New Yankee Stadium has for Yankee fans. Who knows what would’ve happened had Reliant Stadium been built for a Houston Oilers team instead?

Much has been made of the opulence Jerry Jones has lavished on his new stadium. In all honesty, there’s no better word for it. Everything a fan can see or touch is high quality, often polished to a mirror finish. Sure, the center-hung video board is ginormous, but what about the thousands of other flat panels throughout? So much leather, wood, and metal trim, you’d think you were in a 1/4-mile long Maybach? Polished concrete floors everywhere? As impressive as Reliant Stadium was almost a decade ago, it looks absolutely spartan in comparison.

Getting there

Again, this is a major sore spot. There are always warnings about the traffic around Arlington when a Cowboys home game is being played, which made me reluctant to get there just prior to game time. In addition, this was a preseason affair, making it about as exciting as watching paint dry. Worst of all, parking near the stadium can cost up to $75! As I started thinking about how I was going to do this without killing myself for a parking pass, I wondered why I bought a ticket in the first place. I realized that it would be best if I missed most of the first half, then drove there to watch the second. I went to a bar and relaxed for a bit, then headed on over to the stadium. The plan worked out perfectly as one of the lots had no attendants at halftime, allowing me to sneak in and get a pretty close parking spot. Somehow I managed to go to two sporting events in Arlington without paying for parking for either one. At least for Cowboys games, the City of Arlington is supposed to receive a whopping $7 per car, to help offset its $300 million investment. To that I say: Marine Layer 2, Arlington 0.

Ticketing

The cheapest seat in the place is $75, way up in the upper deck corners. These are among the only seats which don’t require a PSL. I didn’t even want to spend that much, so I got a “Party Pass” ticket, which is essentially a $29 glorified SRO ticket. The Cowboys have the ability to sell more than 30,000 of these things per game, bringing the stadium capacity to over 100,000.

It’s a good thing I took a tour the previous day, as it allowed me to find some good places to camp out. Unfortunately, all of the places on my list were already packed. Looking around the seating bowl, I noticed that there was already a steady exodus by those who wanted the beat the traffic and didn’t care much for 4th string guys battling it out over the 53rd roster spot, so I quickly headed to the upper deck to see if I could get a prime spot there. I was easily able to get a good seat on the 35-yard line, and by the 4th I was at midfield. The Camatic seats whose virtues I had extolled last year were sturdy and comfortable, and the rail mounting system is just genius.

You’re probably asking, “Why’d you go to the upper deck?” Well, ever since I had seen the initial sketches for Cowboys Stadium, I wanted to see how bad the upper deck seats would be, and whether the video board could make up for it. Some of you may be purists who prefer to just watch to live action and would consider the video board a distraction. I was in that camp before. Now I’m convinced that the upper deck is actually a very good experience.

The seats themselves are higher than the upper deck at Mt. Davis due to the inclusion of two additional suite levels. The view, however, feels very similar. Just as in most new NFL stadia, the upper deck is a view way down. For someone with poor vision, it could be very unsatisfactory. For me it was just fine. I could also switch to the video board, which was at eye level with the upper deck. The hardest thing was reconciling the live action with the video, which was obviously shot at a different angle. Once I got past that, it was easy to switch back and forth.

Still, the video board can be a distraction. I was constantly bombarded by messages in between plays, and constant cutaways to the cheerleaders didn’t make it any easier to take my eyes off the screen. The sound system is incredibly loud. It appeared that canned noise was being piped in when a “Make Noise” message was displayed. The whole package can be assault on the senses. The experience reminded me of a phase I went through playing sports video games ten years ago. I’d often have a game on in the background while I played a fake game on a PC.

Concessions

I won’t devote much time to the food or beverages here, as I didn’t buy any of those. Needless to say, Miller Lite is a charter sponsor, so you know what to expect in terms of beer variety. The video wall in the above picture is exactly how I’d like to see all concession stands progress in the future. Video and graphics are fully customizable, with multiple displays available for showing the game, statistics, ads, and so forth.

Circulation

For a venue that requires a journey of five flights of stairs to get from the main level to the upper level, it’s not bad. That’s especially the case if you’re in the end zone area, where each landing facing the field provides a unique view. The landings are large enough that fans often lean on the railings and watch from there. It’s an interesting contrast in that American stadia are trying to incorporate more and more standing room areas, whereas their European brethren are going away from standing “terraces” and building so-called “all-seater” venues. Ramps and escalators are in place, but not prominently featured. Concourses are as much as 65 feet wide, not counting the large end zone plazas.

If Cowboys Stadium reminds me of anything, it’s an airport terminal. The outside is fritted glass and transparent glass. The inside is concrete, cinder block, and displays. I expected more images of the team’s history to flood the concourses. Instead, it’s almost a blank canvas, with only the occasional colorful sign to provide contrast. Perhaps Jones is keeping that open for even more commercialization opportunities. Even the Ring of Honor is subdued with its silver background. Its predecessor in Texas Stadium was a more pronounced blue.

Other observations

  • The tour starts at the Pro Shop (team store), where you go up to the second level, only to descend multiple confusing staircases in order to gain access to the field.
  • Jones has indicated that he wants to hold events as diverse as future World Cup games and a US Olympic swimming event. He’s already had the NBA All Star Game and a 50,000-spectator Manny Pacquiao fight, so why not?
  • It’ll be interesting to see what happens if Cowboys Stadium gets to host some World Cup games. Would they use a tray system like the one used at Reliant Field, or previously used at Giants Stadium for the 1994 WC? I suspect that the artificial surface, which has plenty of seams and uneven spots, may not be sufficient.
  • The Press Box is split into two parts, sandwiching a set of suites. This puts the press in the corners, which is unusual to say the least.

Wrap-up

It’s impossible not to be blown away by the monumental excess on display at Cowboys Stadium. Like Staples Center a decade ago, this is the trendsetter, even as the New Meadowlands Stadium gets ready to open. Cowboys Stadium is the class of the league, and Al Davis must have been green with envy as he surveyed its expanses. It’s a phenomenon that’s only really possible in football-mad Texas, with a bombastic owner like Jerry Jones. The 49ers stadium is already awash in ways to cut costs, and that will only deepen over time if/when it gets built. As for just purely watching a game? Lambeau Field is still the big winner, hands down.

07.21.10
by

More whining + CFL building boom, who knew?

With newspapers laying off employees left and right and slimming down the old broadsheet, you’d think that precious inches wouldn’t be wasted on, well, no new news.

Since there isn’t any news, scribes are forced to get comments from Lew Wolff and Jorge Leon/Doug Boxer, who have have a nicely adversarial relationship. This time, Chronicle baseball writer John Shea and Merc columnist Bruce Newman take stabs at the issue. I had warned you good readers a couple of weeks ago that we were heading into a quiet period. Too bad that’s not stopping the media. If anything substantive happens before August 3, I’ll be shocked.

Well, here’s one rumor that’s a good likelihood: Expect that August 3rd vote to move a ballpark initiative forward. As much as San Jose is whining about the commish and his panel, they’re not going to risk losing all momentum by trying to wait MLB out in vain.

….

Up in the Great White North, various CFL cities are in the process of replacing their oft-utillitarian stadia with updated or new venues. Whether they’re talking amenities in Calgary and Edmonton or new digs in Regina and Winnipeg, it sure looks like the CFL is undergoing a cycle of building similar to that seen with the four major sports leagues. While stadia in large markets (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver) have usually been domes, the smaller markets typically had outdoor, 30-35,000 seat venues with minimal creature comforts. (Keep in mind that this is a sport with a $4 million salary cap.) Most of these upgrades look either partly or entirely government-funded, which doesn’t look so great.

Quick sidebar: Years ago I went on a series of business trips to Calgary. One of my contacts there was a guy who was also a high school football head coach. Curious about this, I asked which rules the team played by, Canadian or American. He laughed and replied, “American.”

7/21 10:30 AM – You might like ESPN SportsTravel’s article on the farthest seats in baseball. With distances! And pictures!

06.10.10
by

Let’s play a game of word replacement

Several Measure J postmortem articles have been flying around the internets over the last 24 hours. The tone of the newest article by SFGate’s John Wildermuth may have the most foreshadowing, since in five months we may be seeing déjà vu. Incredulous? Take a look at the following paragraphs:

But Mayor Gavin Newsom and other supporters of a proposed San Francisco home for the 49ers said the election was the expected triumph of the team’s $4 million-plus campaign effort, arguing that, in the mayor’s words, “the stadium plan is built on shaky economic ground.”

The city, meanwhile, is moving ahead with plans for a 69,000-seat stadium as part of the Hunters Point Shipyard redevelopment project but will hedge its bet with alternative plans to put housing and commercial development on the site if the 49ers flee to the South Bay.

“When the Santa Clara plan falls apart, San Francisco stands ready to welcome its 49ers home,” Newsom said. “But we will not wait forever.”

Now let’s take out the proper names.

But Mayor ___ and other supporters of a proposed ___ home for the ___ said the election was the expected triumph of the team’s $__ million-plus campaign effort, arguing that, in the mayor’s words, “the stadium plan is built on shaky economic ground.”

The city, meanwhile, is moving ahead with plans for a __-seat stadium as part of the ___ redevelopment project but will hedge its bet with alternative plans to put housing and commercial development on the site if the ___ flee to the South Bay.

“When the ___ plan falls apart, ___ stands ready to welcome its ___ home,” ___ said. “But we will not wait forever.”

See, SF and Oakland? You aren’t so different after all.

06.09.10
by

Measure J passes, what’s next?

Update 3:45 PM: The Trib’s Chris Metinko covers prospects for a Raiders move to Santa Clara. For now, the Raiders are dealing solely with Oakland/Alameda County. If you want to read into the situation, you can gather that the Raiders are – at least until their lease expires – in the catbird seat. They don’t have to commit to anyone for some time to come. Best of all, if the 49ers and Santa Clara come up short into terms of fundraising goals, the Raiders’ contribution could come in and salvage the project. However, you can bet that the Raiders will use that leverage to extract the very best deal possible. Only the NFL could make the Raiders come to the table sooner than they’d like.

Also: the 49ers have launched a new stadium website. It has a bunch of dead links and nothing but Flash-based content right now (sorry iPad users). It’s safe to assume that more content will be added in the coming months.

Today the world is a little different. The 49ers now have a stadium site, an approved EIR, and the approval of Santa Clara voters to build a stadium next their practice facility and Great America. On Gary Radnich’s radio show today, he and reporter Dan Dibley are having a lively debate about stadium options. Dibley pretty much nailed the sentiment on the skeptical side when he said that the NFL will not give the lion’s share of funding ($490 million) to a single team’s stadium. If the NFL holds the purse strings (which is not quite a given because of the ongoing CBA talks), it makes little sense for the league to throw $1 billion combined at two teams. The practical path is for Roger Goodell to urge the Raiders to move to Santa Clara along with the Niners. It would make the revenue projections much more reasonable.

One thing I’m curious about is if the NFL forces the issue, how will it determine revenue sharing for the second team? While the term sheet is written to make it appear that the Niners are taking the risk, in reality it’s the Stadium Authority that will have the most risk of revenue shortfalls.

ARTICLE 16. SECOND TEAM

Section 16.1 Second Team. 49ers Stadium Company will have the right to enter into a sublease with a second NFL team (“Second Team”), on terms and conditions consistent with and subject to the Stadium Lease to allow the Second Team to play its home games in the Stadium, subject to the following conditions:

(a) Repayment of Upfront Investment. Prior to the date that the Second Team plays its first home game in the Stadium, the Agency will receive an amount equal to the Agency Upfront Investment, which, as provided in Section 7.4 above, is estimated under current economic conditions to be approximately Twenty-Eight Million Dollars ($28,000,000).

(b) Repayment of Advance. 49ers Stadium Company will pay to the City or Agency prior to the date that the Second Team plays its first home game in the Stadium an amount equal to all the tax increment previously paid to 49ers Stadium Company as payment on the principal amount of the 49ers Agency Advance.

(c) Forgiveness of 49ers Agency Advance. From and after the date the Second Team plays its first home game in the Stadium, 49ers Stadium Company will have no further right to receive tax increment and will forgive all principal and interest of any outstanding 49ers Agency Advance.

(d) Additional Fixed Ground Rent. Commencing in the first year the Second Team plays its home games at the Stadium, the Stadium Authority will pay to the City, as additional Fixed Ground Rent (“Second Team Fixed Ground Rent”), One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per year. Beginning in the eleventh year of Second Team occupancy, the Second Team Fixed Ground Rent will equal One Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,100,000) per year, and such amount will, provided the Second Team continues to play its home games at the Stadium, increase One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) every five (5) years thereafter during the initial term of the Stadium Lease. For each extension of the Ground Lease, the Second Team Fixed Ground Rent payment will increase by Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000) for the term of the extension. As Second Team Fixed Ground Rent will be included in Fixed Ground Rent, such amount will be taken into account in calculating Reimbursable Expenses as provided in Section 12.1(i) above, and a portion thereof will be credited against Performance-Based Rent as provided in Section 4.3(b)(i) above.

(e) Reimbursement of Developer Fees. 49ers Stadium Company will reimburse the Agency for the share of development fees paid by the Agency to the City’s enterprise funds as of a result of the construction of the Stadium as provided in Section 6.4 above, estimated to be approximately One Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,700,000).

(f) Capital Costs. 49ers Stadium Company will be responsible for all additional capital costs and additional Reimbursable Expenses required to accommodate a Second Team, except that the Capital Expenditure Reserve may be used to the extent consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan. There would be no additional investment required by the City or Agency.

(g) Additional Capital Expenditure Reserve Deposit. As provided in Section 14.1(c) above, each year that a Second Team plays its home games in the Stadium, the Stadium Authority will fund, as an additional Stadium Operating Expense, the Second Team Capital Reserve Deposit in the initial amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000), escalated at the rate of three percent (3%) per year thereafter.

From this, we can see that both the 49ers and the Stadium Authority (by extension the City) have incredible incentive to lure the Raiders south. But as usual in the lead up, we have no idea what the actual revenues to the either team would be. What would the Raiders’ lease look like? Surely the 49ers, in getting the deal done, would win a controlling share of revenue. How attractive would the lesser share be for the Raiders? There has to be a sliding scale from which the Raiders would view a stadium-sharing situation in Santa Clara, and it’s expected that there’s a threshold that they wouldn’t cross, lest it be a bad deal for them. That’s where it would make sense that the NFL steps in to make the whole thing square for both teams. If history’s a guide, the Giants and Jets have a 50-50 split at the new Meadowlands stadium to open this fall, and the negotiations were particularly contentious. I would be surprised if Al Davis took being a tenant to a 30-year-old landlord easily. Then again, he doesn’t have many choices, does he?

06.04.10
by

Obligatory Pre-Election 49ers Coverage

Not much new commentary here from me, I think we’ve already covered the Niners with sufficient depth. Our past posts on the Santa Clara Stadium situation:

More analysis comes from all over the place.