Bring out your dead Santa Clara: They may be needed on June 8th, 2010
The off-season always brings hope in one fashion or another. Be it the upcoming draft, free agent signings, etc, that goes along with the promise of a season anew full of excitement on what is to come, with a hopeful playoff berth as a payoff for the fans who hold steadfast in their allegiance to a team that they have no real control of outside of of what they take out of their wallets and purses to contribute to the cause. A fan in Bolton Landing, NY pays for NFL Sunday Ticket, buys jerseys online, and paints his basement mancave in Silver and Black (complete with a pool table, bar, and a brand new 55" LED display) because he doesn't own season tickets, and can only attend one game in Oakland, CA once every 3 years, if he is lucky and his wife allows it. He didn't care when they were the Los Angeles Raiders. He doesn't care if they go back to being the Los Angeles Raiders. He is a homegrown Upstate New Yawker who somehow became a Raider fan. His brother? A die hard Miami Dolphin fan, who has a rival basement painted in Dolphin colors. They both make a trip to Miami (winters are harsh in Bolton Landing) to go see both of their teams play each other. They, like a lot of us 49er fans at this moment, have no control of what lies ahead for their beloved teams.
Unless you live in Santa Clara....
Despite all of the speculation of what the coaches, players, and potential additions to the team itself can bring, the cloud over the 49er's future as of this moment is a new stadium. Much debate has been had over whether it is in San Francisco, or in Santa Clara. When I lived in San Francisco, I (along with a few hundred deceased) voted for the then horrid idea of a Stadium\Shopping Mall to replace the aging, decrepit, yet beloved Candlestick Park. $100 million in bonds back in 1997 didn't mean a thing to me as long as it meant the 49ers were still in San Francisco and not in Los Angeles. I should have cared more about a Debartolo shopping mall. One of his malls pretty much ended downtown Palm Springs, CA. The total cost of the project then was speculated around less than $600 million. $600 million to host a Super Bowl in 2003? Jerry Jones spent a few months of a Military budget to host one in a few years. The 2 aforementioned brothers spend more on fan "luxuries" than they do in added taxes if they were to have a stadium built where they would be taxed for it. Of course, having a stadium near where you live to watch a football game is pretty awesome, but it still costs money, and where you place the value of how you spend your money and where is totally based on how you value the expenditure. In other words, your neighbor who is a Raider fan might not be willing to cough up the $$$ if it doesn't benefit them. If I were a Santa Clara resident who isn't a 49er fan, why trust the speculative claims of financial solvency in a new 49er stadium while looking at how the Convention Center hasn't improved that area over 13 years? The bottom line to me is, that area hasn't improved as a destination for anything, and a stadium isn't an answer. If all I have outside of dining at the Marriott is the now defunct Bennigan's, then Santa Clara still never gets it, and the 49ers can't save that.
Well, maybe...
Lisa Lang's next job should be the White House Press Secretary. She would have to fight Amy Trask for it, but Jed York's cherubic chutzpah still has to combat poll data, and Lang is doing her best to spin it. She is doing a great job at doing it, especially during these trying economic times. The Santa Clara Stadium initiative really isn't about me, or Florida Danny. It's about Santa Clara itself. What really gets me is how the York's spin this. Just 5 more miles into San Jose, where they can really get a stadium built, would mean a possible name change. The San Jose 49ers? That's what they really would be, but nobody would have the guts, especially the York's, to admit that. Now before we get into logistical issues as far as geography, just tell me how much a cab ride costs to San Jose as opposed to San Francisco if you had needed one to your hotel.
Keeping the 49ers just outside of San Jose still has the benefit of holding the San Francisco brand. The York's need that more than than they need a new stadium. It really doesn’t matter to me if they move to Santa Clara. Because that’s what it really is, a move. Just don’t sell out San Jose. The Sharks don’t need a San Francisco brand. Hell, they at least make the playoffs. Just don’t try and explain to me that San Jose is San Francisco, because I know the difference.
71 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I staunchly object.
Since the inception of this idea in the late 1990s (I think that’s when it was), I have been against it simply out of principle and a traditionalist sentiment I feel toward the San Francisco 49ers. The whole point of a team carrying a city’s brand, in my view, is to represent the city itself. This should mean that the team should play within the city’s bounds and not move to a city that is not its own.
I think on the political side, most people are oblivious or are taking a dismissive attitude toward the probability that political forces in San Francisco itself may be pressuring the 49ers into moving to Santa Clara. Afterall, the neo-communists who comprise the left wing majority in San Francisco tend to feel a need to do away with everything traditional or conservative. It just so happens that football is a very conservative sport. So really, it would not surprise me if pure politics was the case.
For the sake of the 49ers legacy and the emotional investments by the team and the fans in Candlestick Park for the course of…forever, they ought to stay in Candlestick Park. If anything, they can simply make renovations to the stadium and rebuild parts of it if need be. But by all means, don’t give our team away to the east bay and tell us it’s fine just because it still carries the San Francisco brand.
While they’re at it, they can fix the saturation and the stripe on the pants of the uniform. They make it look ugly.
geography
While it’d be nice to see the 49ers stay in San Francisco, they wouldn’t be remotely the first, and definitely not the last, to be located outside the city limits of their name-sake. Every sport has examples of team’s named for a city in which they no longer reside. As long as they stay in the Bay Area and keep the name San Francisco 49ers, I can live with that.
by David Fucillo on Mar 3, 2010 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
Candlestick
Does anyone know why they can’t just tear down the current stadium and build a brand new one in the same exact spot? The team could play at Stanford in the meantime. No fancy mall is necessary, just build a darn stadium. Is parking an issue? What is it that makes this seemingly basic plan not a consideration?
John York himself wouldn't go for it...
Dr. John York himself said that he didn’t want a “parking structure” going up on the same parcel as a stadium.
Never mind that he’s got 84 acres at the ’Stick – and only 17 acres in Santa Clara.
Another reason: When Newsom told York, “no dough, sorry!” – the 49ers turned their sights southward to a city foolish enough to pay hundreds of millions for nothing more than bragging rights.
Unfortunately, city leaders here in Santa Clara, were the ones to fall for it.
Rgds,
Bill Bailey, SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
All I kept hearing from Newsom was that the city did pass some sort of measure to finance the Niners new stadium in SF, and that he (Newsom) keeps claiming the Yorks want nothing to do with SF anymore and want to move.
"Alex Smith doesn't inspire the Offensive Line to play well." - Random Troll on Post-Game Thread
by Hoopers Judge on Mar 3, 2010 4:48 PM PST up reply actions
San Francisco did what it was supposed to do: Elections, June of 2008....
In June, 2008, San Franciscans did everything that they were supposed to do – they voted YES 62% on Measure G and they voted NO 63% on Measure F.
Yes on G, No on F cleared the way for Lennar’s development of Hunters Point.
Why wouldn’t the 49ers go for it? Because Newsom wouldn’t hand them $100 million bucks.
So, Lennar comes back and says, “WE’LL give you $100 million, and we’ll lease you back the land under an NFL stadium in Hunters Point for ONE DOLLAR A YEAR.”
…and the 49ers STILL wouldn’t go for it.
Why? Two reasons:
1. Because the 49ers still believe that they can sucker Santa Clarans into paying $114,000,000 for the same money-losing proposition.
2. Because Dr. John York is “not in the stadium business” (his own words) — NFL stadiums don’t make money – Only NFL teams make money.
Blaming Newson for your troubles 24/7 is a really appealing rant. But it’s only half of the truth.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 5:28 PM PST up reply actions
Candlestick is a traffic nightmare and the city has no plans to fix the traffic issue in the area. That’s the main concern the Yorks have consistently cited with Candlestick.
That’s simply because San Francisco is a populated city, though. That should be seen as a good thing on the business-end, considering what else they could establish along the highway 101, where there is a hell of a whole lot of space.
One freeway to access the stadium and no public transportation options is the absolute dark ages. Every new stadium built these days makes sure its accessible from multiple freeways and has at least one good public transportation option. The Kings won’t even build a 17k capacity basketball arena unless those two criteria are met.
I can understand that point, but if that’s really the case, why not try to establish somewhere in the China Basin area? There’s some serious development going on down there, and it isn’t too far away from the Fisherman’s Wharf area either.
The teams perceives the spot like China’s Basin area. Their customers don’t want to travel to Candlestick because of the traffic nightmare, that the issue. The same problem persists in the Hunters Point location. Makes no sense to base your business in a location your customers don’t want to travel or would not travel.
Yorks Delusion Is laughable And Pathetic
John and Jed York are a couple of the biggest idiot owners in the history of sports..The little idiot Jed is running around like a chicken with his head cut off, doing everything he can to alienate the SF fans..First he is going to Santa Clara, then when that fails he is going to Oakland to share a stadium with All Davis, right..Whats next Jed, moving to Santa Rosa, how about Cloverdale or Windsor..
We real 49er fans hate your guts..Go back to Ohio and screw up a team there..SELL THE 49ERS, WE HATE YOU AND YOUR OLD GOAT FATHER..YOU HAVE MADE OUR FRANCHISE A LAUGHINGSTOCK AND YOU HAVE ZERO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE DOING..
Not this one.
Apparently your definition of a “real 49er fan” is anyone who will agree with you. Look around you many, many, many “real 49er fans” believe that you are seriously confused.
Agreed
I’m pretty sure I’m a “real 49er fan” and I don’t hate their guts, not to mention that there’s plenty of other owners in professional sports doing a poorer job. Seems to me 49ers management is doing their best job to get a stadium in the area without resorting to the “do it or we’ll move” line constantly, which alone makes them more reasonable then other owners.
plenty of other owners in professional sports doing a poorer job.
cough*****Malcom Glazer*****cough
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Mar 3, 2010 11:11 AM PST up reply actions
Sorry about the strike through
plenty of other owners in professional sports doing a poorer job.
cough*****Malcom Glazer*****cough
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Mar 3, 2010 6:52 PM PST up reply actions
He simply feels passionate about the 49ers and its residence (or stadium’s residence) in San Francisco. Like him, I really could not care less whether or not it alienates the neo-communists in the city who think the 49ers should take a hike and the rough conservative sport of football should be taken elsewhere.
Lol, I wouldn’t doubt if they tried to connect the 49ers’ success to the “unjustified” war in Iraq, where the poor, innocent Hussein regime didn’t possess weapons of mass destruction even if all his neighbors did.
Anger
You seem to have a lot of rage over this. Did John York kick your dog at some point?
by David Fucillo on Mar 3, 2010 4:16 PM PST up reply actions
A lousy deal for Santa Clara - and for the fans...
“The bottom line to me is, that area hasn’t improved as a destination for anything, and a stadium isn’t an answer. If all I have outside of dining at the Marriott is the now defunct Bennigan’s, then Santa Clara still never gets it, and the 49ers can’t save that.”
We’re actually more of a destination that you think – but the problem with a Santa Clara stadium goes a lot deeper than where to get a burger and fries:
The EIR itself revealed what we already knew: Every car jam-packing its way into Santa Clara on any game day will be jam-packing it out WITHIN TWO HOURS after the game lets out. No time to do much in our city if you’re steaming in a traffic jam on Great America Parkway. Also, get ready for $20-$25 parking fees — maybe even worse. You’re sure not going to be thinking of local cuisine if you’ve blown a hundred bucks inside a stadium already.
Also, this is what you’ll get if you plunk a 14-acre stadium on a 17-acre site in Santa Clara: No more room for any other development, no stadium parking and no tailgating. You’ll be gumming cold franks in a dark parking garage even if you do get to Santa Clara early enough.
The Stadium Gang is already dangling “Super Bowl” in front of our noses. With 2,600 hotel rooms in the area? I don’t think so.
The NFL has simply priced itself out of the market of every American city. From our city – of 117,000 residents – the 49ers continue to demand an outrageous public subsidy of $444 MILLION just so that they can scoop all the NFL money out of it every year. That $444M? It’s the sum of the $114M the 49ers are demanding up front, plus the $330M they expect us to raise for them.
After that: The stadium “deal” rips off our City’s General Fund for $67,000,000.
Santa Clara stadium? It’s delusional, fiscally irresponsible, and bad for our city.
On June 8th: Please vote “NO” on the Stadium Subsidy.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 10:44 AM PST reply actions
Nah.
I’ll vote yes.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Mar 3, 2010 11:13 AM PST up reply actions
$444M
Can you break down what that $330M expected to be raised will be used for?
by David Fucillo on Mar 3, 2010 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
I think he's refering to the bond
The 114 million is from the development fund. It’s money that’s already in the budget, so it’s not a new tax. The bond also won’t be paid by SC and there’s safety measures in place that insure the city won’t be on the hook for any overages. The bottom line is that no new tax will be made to help pay for the sadium except for the hotel tax, so unless people in SC are staying in a hotel in their own city, they won’t have to pay anything for the new stadium.
Don't trust this guy. He lies.
Sorry, but no...
NO, the $114M is not in the RDA budget at all. And it’s made up of other contributions – like a $20,000,000 handout from our electric utility.
Running the RDA into the ground by making it sell stadium bond makes sure that the RDA won’t be able to do anything BUT the stadium. For like, forever. Definitely not worth it, considering the lousy returns an NFL stadium gives our city.
The “no new taxes” is a throwaway line. Completely worthless. It’s being sprayed all over the walls in an attempt to hide from Santa Clarans the $67,000,000 loss to the General Fund.
And that GF loss is just like a tax increase. Sorry, but it is.
Read those City Agenda Reports, friends. They’re important, and lot more accurate than the 49ers’ team propaganda we’ve been getting.
As for “safety measures,” don’t believe everything the 49ers are telling you. In fact, the Term Sheet does NOT protect the “stadium authority” from operating cost overruns.
Rgds,
Bill Bailey, SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
Spending the $67,000,000 in Santa Clara General Fund is not raising taxes, it’s spending the tax money.
We're LOSING it - not 'spending' it.
We LOSE the $67,000,000 – because your stadium subsidy took it away.
That’s $67,000,000 LESS that we have for:
Police Protection
Fire Safety
Paramedic Rescue
Librarians, and the books on those shelves….
….all for a football game??
Not a fair trade. Losing that 67 mil is the same as a tax increase.
Nice try, though.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 2:56 PM PST up reply actions
Twisting the word spending → to losing → to tax increases in order to frame your argument in the best light works on adults too emotionally tied to the issue or those who skipped out on too many government classes but please don’t bring your hack political spin to this blog if you want an intelligent discussion.
If you’d rather have Santa Clara spend the money on Police Protection, Fire Safety, Paramedic Rescue, etc. than it’s fine but make that argument instead of twisting the other party’s. You want to tell me how much the city of Santa Clara officials and the 49ers are lying but you start your case with your own calculated deception.
Also, if you really think stopping a stadium proposal is going to stop your local government from blowing it’s money you don’t know much about the nature of government. The 1st rule of government is they are always going to spend all the money and will do so unwisely. I’m sure there are 500 unread government/political books written by political insiders, lifetime government workers and PhD’s with Government degrees sitting in the Santa Clara library which we will tell you that.
Looking at your own plan the city cannot spend an additional $67,000,000 on police, fire fighters, paramedics because the city will either have too many workers or paying those workers way too much, either way those unions would love the opportunity. Not to mention there is someone else just like you who would screaming how it’s a piss poor way to spend government money.
If you are one those who oppose all government plans and spending than good luck with that political venture. You might as well swim out to the middle of the delta and hold all the water back with your arms.
If you don’t want to waste your city’s money on a stadium it’s fine, but that money is going to be wasted on something, it’s a guarantee.
We DO lose $67,000,000...and the City's own reports PROVE that.
That’s a long way to get around to admitting that you have no proof for any of your claims. Why not let the City’s own reports speak for themselves? Go to:
http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49ers-Term-Sheet-Presentation.pdf
Page down to Slide #48
See?
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 5:32 PM PST up reply actions
You spend $67,000,000
Spend /= Lose
My wife spends $500 on shoes. My perception is I just lost $500 dollars but it’s not reality.
Sure, you're out the $500. If you can't see that...
She spent $500 on a vanity purchase.
And yes, your household is OUT $500. It IS the reality.
Even if it weren’t – That doesn’t mean that Santa Clara’s taxpayers should be doing it.
What you just described is the attitude that’s put California in the hole it’s in – telling people that their losses are only a “perception.”
Sorry. No Sale.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 5:39 PM PST up reply actions
What put California in the hole was getting $1 back for every $2.50 tax payers have given the federal government. Couple that with the political gerrymandering by both parties that has disabled the state government from addressing any issue.
The choice for Santa Clara is to spend it’s money on a football stadium or something else. There is no lose.
The Stadium is the LOSE....
What you describe is EXACTLY the stupid thinking behind the stadium subsidy – spending out $114M, not including interest, to get back a stinking $8M in ground rent – and that over 40 years.
Your subsidized stadium is the LOSE.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 10:00 PM PST up reply actions
When the 49ers tell us, maybe they'll tell you...
As of 12/12/07 – the last time the 49ers agreed to let our City Staff tell us the truth about the “stadium authority” – it was $185M in bonds, with another $145M in some kind of partner front money.
In three years: No one has been willing to break down that $330,000,000 to tell Santa Clarans what that Agency is going to have to raise to subsidize the 49ers.
Sorry, but your subsidized stadium is a loser. For Santa Clara, especially.
Rgds,
Bill Bailey, SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 12:18 PM PST up reply actions
What is with all the “your stadium” BS. Your posts almost seem like your blaming us for what our team is attempting to do. Also you keep talking as if the Niners are forcing something on Santa Clara. Guess what, the residents still have to vote on it. If it doesn’t pass the Niners will move on.
"Alex Smith doesn't inspire the Offensive Line to play well." - Random Troll on Post-Game Thread
by Hoopers Judge on Mar 3, 2010 4:56 PM PST up reply actions
You asked, I answered.
Sorry, I can’t change the City’s own Agenda Reports, nor the truth about what your subsidized stadium really does to our city.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 5:33 PM PST up reply actions
Question
Why is your mayor apparently in favor of the deal if it rips you of so much money?
waiting to get response slamming mayor***
Who knows?
I couldn’t care less why. The City’s own documents prove that she’s simply wrong on the issue, so I guess you’ll just have to ask her.
Rgds,
Bill Bailey, SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
I don't get this whole, represent SF thing.
I’m a 49er fan, not a SF fan.
I don’t care about the city and I’m sure plenty of 49er fans that live outside of SF don’t care about that city either.
The Giants, Jets, Cowboys and Bills don’t play in the city they “represent”.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
I lived in Santa Clara for 18 years
But I live in Utah now. I’m still a 49er fan and want them to stay in the area. I agree, I don’t care if they’re actually in SF or not, but I do want them to keep the name. I also don’t understand why people are so upset about the move as long as they’re still in the same area.
Don't trust this guy. He lies.
Hell the Jets and Giants don’t even play in the same state they represent. I don’t care if the Niners stay in SF itself as long as they stay in the Bay Area (except Oakland).
"Alex Smith doesn't inspire the Offensive Line to play well." - Random Troll on Post-Game Thread
by Hoopers Judge on Mar 3, 2010 4:58 PM PST up reply actions
LOL
Yeah, I don’t like Oakland.
The name just sounds dirty.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Mar 3, 2010 6:55 PM PST up reply actions
Seems like it would benefit both the City of San Francisco
and the 49ers for the Niners to remain in SF. If people really start thinking, I am pretty sure that the traffic and parking issues around Candlestick could be improved, if not resolved (e.g., shuttle busses, new roads/ramps for better traffic routing). The team could play elsewhere, maybe Stanford, like someone mentioned, until the new stadium at Candlestick is ready.
Alaska is a state, dammit! Can I get a Niner game on TV up here?
Where ever the stadium gets built for the 9ers
I’m hopeful it’s in the Bay Area with the same name.
Even better if it ends up with several transit options like they did with the SF Giants ballpark. Bart is close enough, Muni goes there, Can take a Ferry. The local business’s appear to thrive on game day with people hanging out before and after the games.
Proof that for baseball there it can be done right for the area. Are there similar successful access and area improvement setups for football stadiums?
NFL Owners can afford it, believe me...
“Proof that for baseball there it can be done right for the area. Are there similar successful access and area improvement setups for football stadiums?”
MLB Ballparks will always have different financing schemes from what NFL Owners continually demand for their stadiums.
But NFL teams really can afford to do it themselves – the Giants and the Jets just built Meadowlands entirely with private dough (2 X $650M) and an NFL contribution ($300M).
If they can do that: Then the 49ers can do their own stadium for $600M less than the Giants and Jets had to spend. And they can do it with their own dough.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 3:06 PM PST reply actions
49ers have one of the smallest cash flows of all NFL teams
Last time I liked it was about $215-220 mllion, much of which is tied up in player and coach salary. Tell me again where they’re going to come up with the big money to build a new stadium?
Yes Drew K, Tim Tebow will probably get picked in the first round.
Now the truth comes out...
If you’re admitting that they can’t afford it – why are you asking ME to pay for it?
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 5:35 PM PST up reply actions
Because you can.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Mar 3, 2010 6:56 PM PST up reply actions
Exactly why the State and the Country are in the shape we're in...
Spoken like someone not from around here.
NO, we can’t.
And if you still don’t understand why not, there’s not a lot I can do. The kind of thinking you just displayed is why we’re in the hole both in Sac and in Washington.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 10:02 PM PST up reply actions
The current economic "crisis" is an incredibly complex issue.
There is more to it than just overspending.
As an Econ major, I know what I’m talking about. I’m just trying to annoy you though.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Mar 5, 2010 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
The current economic crisis was caused by just that kind of thinking.
You’re welcome to make it as complex as you wish.
The Stadium Ripoff is not that hard to understand – if you stay on the subject.
How about telling us why this is good for Santa Clara?
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 6, 2010 12:19 AM PST up reply actions
All the NFL’s general stadium funds where eaten up by the Giants/Jets stadium, that’s why the NFL can’t contribute anything to the Niners stadium.
"Alex Smith doesn't inspire the Offensive Line to play well." - Random Troll on Post-Game Thread
by Hoopers Judge on Mar 3, 2010 5:00 PM PST up reply actions
Tough.
If it’s important enough to protect that old “NFL brand” – they’ll find the money.
If Jerry Jones can build New Cowboys and charge $90 for a pizza – believe me, the League can afford it.
But Santa Clara should not be paying one cent to subsidize the Yorks’ folly.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 5:36 PM PST up reply actions
Well said.
;)
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Mar 3, 2010 6:56 PM PST up reply actions
Not much said....
Looks like my vote cancels your vote.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 10:03 PM PST up reply actions
I have a lot of family and we are all voting yes so those votes beat your vote
Regards,
49erEmpire, Die-Hard 49er fan
by 49erEmpire on Mar 3, 2010 10:31 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Sure you do...
Uh-huh.
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 10:42 PM PST up reply actions
are you serious?
my extended family and I all live in Santa Clara, are all 49er fans, and are all voting yes whether you like it or not
by 49erEmpire on Mar 3, 2010 10:52 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
You'll excuse me if I don't believe you...
Instead of wasting our time with this “Nyah, nyah” stuff – use the real numbers and tell me why your subsidized stadium is “good” for my city.
Playground games just don’t cut it when you’re talking about $114,000,000 of my city’s money.
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 10:58 PM PST up reply actions
Calm down there
Playground games just don’t cut it when you’re talking about $114,000,000 of my city’s money.
. . . it’s Santa Clara’s money
That's why it is my money...
Exactly why I care where it goes. That IS my money.
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 11:02 PM PST up reply actions
No it's not.
You can leave the city if you don’t like how it’s being run.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Mar 5, 2010 12:27 PM PST up reply actions
Yes. It IS my money.
“You can leave the city if you don’t like how it’s being run.”
Pretty arrogant attitude, don’t you think? Simply because you favor irresponsible ripoffs of public money certainly doesn’t mean that the the next guy’s supposed to move out.
And yes: It IS my money.
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 6, 2010 12:17 AM PST up reply actions
so tell me
what are you going to do if this gets enough votes and they decide to build the stadium in “my city”?
by 49erEmpire on Mar 3, 2010 11:05 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Game over...
…If we’re actually foolish enough to blow that kind of public money on a football stadium – there’s not a lot of hope for us as a city, now, is there?
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 3, 2010 11:08 PM PST up reply actions
How about if the city of Santa Clara worked out a deal
Where they would get a percentage of all profits generated by 49ers merchandise, concessions, gate, etc., until they get paid back, or at least get paid a satisfactory amount?
Alaska is a state, dammit! Can I get a Niner game on TV up here?
NFL teams NEVER do deals like that.
Unfortunately, it’s never going to happen – In that rigged card game we call “NFL Stadium Poker,” the teams never – but NEVER – give up NFL event, concessions, royalty or branded merchandise money.
Best way to see how the 49ers have shielded those hundreds of millions of dollars from the City of Santa Clara is to read the so-called “Term Sheet” of last June 2. It’s a completely one-sided “agreement,” benefitting only the team:
http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49ers-20090601-Exhibit-5.pdf
How about if the Yorks and the 49ers agreed to pay for their own stadium themselves – instead of ripping off Santa Clara taxpayers, homeowners and ratepayers?
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
=0=
by Santa Clara Plays Fair on Mar 8, 2010 1:06 AM PST up reply actions

by 





































