First off, I think it's safe to say the 49ers won't have some extended name reflecting their move to Santa Clara, as we've seen with the Anaheim-based Angels.
A week from Tuesday, the voters of Santa Clara will head to the polls to vote o Measure J, which is an initial approval for a 49ers stadium in Santa Clara next to the Great America amusement park. As we get closer and closer to the vote, opinions on the subject are coming from across the country. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell conducted an interview with CSN Bay Area supporting the stadium project (not exactly shocking). The NFL's G3 fund is completely depleted, which allowed the commish an opportunity to mention the labor talks and how the NFL is trying to get the players to buy into some kind of revenue sharing scheme that would help with stadium issues (investing in the sports as Goodell put it).
In general, polls are favoring passage of the 49ers stadium measure. A poll this past week indicates 56% of likely voters indicated they were certain to vote yes on Measure J. Any poll has to be taken with a grain of salt, but this still has to give the 49ers some sense of confidence. Of course, even passage of the measure does not guarantee a stadium will be built. After all, there is a lot of money to be rustled up before anything can happen. Given that issue, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom has a certain air of confidence about him that the team has a good chance of ending up at a Hunters Point stadium in the future.
"They'll pass it and have a lot of press conferences calling it 'a historic day' and that the 49ers 'are proud to stay in the Bay Area,' " Newsom told The Chronicle's editorial board this week.
"Then a year will become two and perhaps three" as Santa Clara and the 49ers try to put together a financing plan and get the approvals and agreements San Francisco already has lined up for a stadium in the Hunters Point Shipyard redevelopment area.
Whether you agree with Newsom or not, there is some truth to what he says about the financing and approvals. I think a yes vote is a huge step in the right direction, but significant hurdles will still remain.
And given that, should I really be surprised that Tim Kawakami is writing about the LA option? This comes around the same time as Matt Maiocco's own post that the 49ers would never move to LA. Kawakami points out Jed York's comments about the Browns moving to Baltimore. I suppose there is an implied threat in there, but I would like to think the NFL would want to do whatever it takes to keep the 49ers in San Francisco. I realize the Browns are an historical franchise, but have they won 5 Super Bowls? Maybe it's some naivete on my part.
In reality anything is possible when it comes to the business of sports. However, with the stadium vote happening in 10 days, I'd prefer to take it one day at a time. Before Hunters Point, Oakland, LA, or whatever becomes an issue, the June 8 stadium vote has to happen. Talk to me about those other options after that.