NFL asks 49ers & Raiders to look into dual-use stadium
I'm not much of a Star Wars fans, but I have seen all the movies and enjoyed seeing Anakin Skywalker turn into Darth Vader. Upon hearing news that the NFL is urging the 49ers and Raiders to look into sharing a stadium, the first thing I thought of was Jed York working with Al Davis:
I'm sorry, but it was almost too easy to make that comparison.
Now I realize a) other Raiders officials would likely be involved and b) Al Davis could very well be dead by the time the stadium is done. Actually, Al Davis appears like he'll live forever so maybe he'll still be kicking by the time the deal is done. Either way, the thought of them working together is rather intriguing.
The economy is in the tank, and a new football stadium is going to be a pricey proposition. At last check, a 49ers stadium in Santa Clara would run at least $916 million, but probably even more. Obviously the economy is in the tank, but making matters even more difficult is that the NFL ran out of money in their G3 stadium fund. We can tank the Giants, Jets and Chiefs for that.
Given the Raiders own struggles in getting a new stadium, it certainly makes some sense to work something out together. Particularly since the Giants and Jets have been able to make it work. The Giants-Jets new stadium will cost $1.6 billion and the only significant additional construction cost is a second home-team locker room. I don't know enough about labor and constructions costs between the New York area and the Bay Area so I can't really assess the numbers being thrown around. If the 49ers can get a stadium done for roughly a billion dollars and the only major addition would be a second locker room, I can't imagine a number insanely higher. Maybe $1.2B or $1.3B? That's all speculation on my part.
The downside of sharing a stadium? Well, assuming he's still alive during this whole process, Al Davis is not exactly the greatest partner in the world. He's sued everybody from the city of Oakland to the NFL (more than once). In one lawsuit he claimed the NFL diluted his trademark by allowing the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to have a pirate logo and letting the Bucs and Carolina Panthers use similar colors. Is this a guy you want to work with?
Raiders President Amy Trask attempted to clear up the misconceptions:
"There seems to be a perception, fostered in large part by the media, that the 49ers and the Raiders have an adversarial business relationship and that perception is wrong," said Amy Trask, the Raiders chief executive. "We enjoy working on league business matters with the 49ers and our two organizations have a shared respect for one another."
I think my issue is just with Al Davis individually, given some of his past actions. However, I do think cooler heads would prevail and a deal could be taken care of. The upside to a shared stadium is keeping the team's in the Bay Area and, of course, more cash. A shared-stadium means more home games, which in turn means personal seat licenses for BOTH teams, greatly increased ticket revenue and the chance for greater advertising in terms of naming rights and general stadium ads.
Whether you hate the Raiders or are indifferent about the Raiders, good business is good business. And I actually think this is a great business idea in theory and in practice (see Jets/Giants). As long as Jed York doesn't end up succumbing to the forces of evil, let's make it happen.
0 recs |
22 comments
|
Comments
The baseball fan in me says "Hell yes"
But that’s just because I want the Raiders to GTFO of Oakland and let the A’s have the Coliseum back.
At the same time, it does seem like it’s not a bad idea, using the Giants/Jets as an example.
by mikev on Jan 26, 2009 8:10 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
916 Billion?!?
I hope that is a typo, I thought prices in the bay area were off the charts, but I never thought I would see the day of a possible trillion dollar stadium!
by A9ninersfan on Jan 26, 2009 8:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
dang
episodes I, II, and III are so bad.
Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis
by wjackalope on Jan 26, 2009 8:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
episode I blew
but II was okay, and I thought III was pretty awesome.
>_>
by shlecko on Jan 26, 2009 11:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
economically, football stadiums are awful deals since they only play 10 games a year. i’d support a joint stadium because of that. i just worry about the location being too far away from both fan bases. could it be at treasure island, in the middle of the bay?
by tenjay on Jan 26, 2009 9:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
There is one more problem...
Where will this shared stadium be built? I doubt San Francisco since it is obvious that the people running the city only want to give the 49ers bio hazard sites or places way down in the ghetto (sometimes both). So does that mean the stadium will be in Oakland? I’m sorry but I’m going across the bay, too much time, too much money. So where will this stadium be built? How about fantasy land because I doubt they will agree on playing in either team’s city.
Next year will be our year! (copyright 2003*, been used each of last five years)
by StrictlyFootball on Jan 26, 2009 10:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Correction*
I’m sorry but I’m not* going across the bay, too much time, too much money.
Next year will be our year! (copyright 2003*, been used each of last five years)
by StrictlyFootball on Jan 26, 2009 10:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Santa Clara
It sounds like Santa Clara as both Oakland and SF have trains that go down there.
by Fooch on Jan 26, 2009 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have no interest in seeing my tax dollars go towards a stadium...
…nor do I feel SF has any responsibility to give land to the team for a stadium other than Candlestick or Hunter’s Point. The Niners had their chances to buy land near the Giants ballpark and declined. Their problem.
A dual use stadium would be perfectly fine to me – it’d be probably the only way I would be OK with the team leaving San Francisco. It could (in fact it would) mean a Super Bowl too, which would be fun.
by Bitter Fan on Jan 26, 2009 11:07 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
How about in 2000 when the voters...
in SF approved a new stadium and the 49ers were trying to get something done, but the city wouldn’t do anything and took that money that was supposed to be for a new stadium and put it towards increasing their own salaries and refurbishing city hall, among other things
Next year will be our year! (copyright 2003*, been used each of last five years)
by StrictlyFootball on Jan 26, 2009 11:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The 49ers...
never got the development going (for one thing, the vote was in 1996, and a key reason nothing ever happened was soon after the vote the stuff hit the fan with Eddie and riverboat casinos). That money is still waiting to be used, but the Niners won’t be able to build a practice field for $100 million in the city.
Also that vote BARELY passed during the glory years with Eddie owning the team and accusations of voter fraud were everywhere. Certainly there were more than enough disputed votes to cancel out the difference between the yes and no camp.
The problem is it’s clear by this point that the 49ers if they are to get public assistance will want or need much more than $100 million, which means Prop B is useless. And then that means a losing franchise with widely unpopular ownership will be trying to win a PR battle that Eddie freakin’ DeBartolo and a still-new Lombardi trophy only won by the skin of their teeth.
by Bitter Fan on Jan 26, 2009 12:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fiscally logical
but it can’t be done until Al Davis departs the scene. If this were “The Sopranos” Al’s white jumpsuit would have a big red spot on it, but since it isn’t I suspect that this was maybe the NFL trying to nudge the jurisdictions up here to get off the dime.
I just don’t see it. Maybe the best thing would be a total overhaul of Candlestick and maybe finagling the state to widen in access roads.
For me it doesn’t matter. I haven’t been able to afford going to a game for decades now.
by Bob On The Coast on Jan 26, 2009 11:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
cost
Good call on the cost. I can’t really afford it. But also, I actually prefer watching football on tv (as I’m sure many folks do). It’s entertaining to be at games, particularly when the team is playing well, but I take in so much more on tv (even when the announcers are bad).
by Fooch on Jan 26, 2009 12:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There are..
..relatively affordable 49er tickets ($59 today is probably cheaper than $45 or whatever it was back in the mid 90s). And you can even get them relatively easily.
It’s just in the mid 90s you were seeing a 12-14 win team, and today you’re seeing a 6-8 win team..
by Bitter Fan on Jan 26, 2009 12:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Even that
I’m retired on a thin pension. If I wasn’t living with my girlfriend I couldn’t even afford to live in the Bay Area. I last saw a Niner game in person when the Gold Rush was the defensive line, not the cheerleaders (look it up). However, I do play the lotto, so anything’s possible in the future.
Getting back to Al Davis and building a joint stadium over his dead body, I was thinking maybe they could maybe put him in the end zone, like Jimmy Hoffa.
by Bob On The Coast on Jan 26, 2009 7:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ask Obama and Pelosi for the $
isn’t the federal government about to spend a TRILLION DOLLARS for construction projects? Of course, that won’t stimulate the economy, but if they’re going to do it, then the politicians in the bay area should take their cut. Nancy Pelosi, a very powerful politician, can just insert an earmark into the spending bill that squeezes a billion dollars for a new 49er stadium somewhere.
People around here don’t seem to have a problem with the Feds spending that type of money on other boondoggles, so why not bring some of it back to the Bay and just give it to the 49ers for a stadium?
Lott's Prayer: Almost as many words as the Lord's Prayer, but the Lord wouldn't recognize any of them.
by Nosetackle Supreme on Jan 26, 2009 12:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Why not just give ME a million bucks?
Shit, I need it a hell of a lot more than the politicians do.
by mikev on Jan 26, 2009 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to get too political
but in a classic depression, and that’s what this looks like, any federal spending money that reaches the community will help the economy. The money would probably be better spent on lots of other things, like installing solar panels on everyone’s houses.
Me, I’d be happy getting a few hundred bucks more a month on my pension, or the federal government subsidizing Niner tickets and beer money. I promise to drink domestic.
by Bob On The Coast on Jan 26, 2009 7:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Both franchises seem to be dieing at the vine because of outdated stadiums. Both need a cash influx and a makeover in fan experience. The two New York teams share a stadium without issue and I believe the stadium is in New Jersey and not New York. Overall this idea is progressive which is something that the bay area tends to like.
P.S. Al Davis cannot live in the basement and York can’t count nickels at the Coke machine.
by bignerd on Feb 6, 2009 2:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 
























