Trouble in Paradise
- Thread starter Sports Hernia
- Start date
TreeRon
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2017
- Messages
- 1,612
- Reaction score
- 9
Did they tear down Candlestick to soon ? Back to Kezar Stadium ? What's Santa Clara going to do with that Stadium w/o the 49ers?
Could they play at Berekely, San Jose or Palo Alto?
Could they play at Berekely, San Jose or Palo Alto?
chris98251
Well-known member
They can still play, they can't manage it from what I am reading, the 49ers don't get revenue from the Stadium nor can dictate what happens from other events or get revenue streams from them either.
They basically now have a lease with no say in operations outside of what the NFL dictates the County to provide to allow the 49ers to play there or portions of the gate from the teams attendance.
Maybe they should look at a three way in L.A. now
They basically now have a lease with no say in operations outside of what the NFL dictates the County to provide to allow the 49ers to play there or portions of the gate from the teams attendance.
Maybe they should look at a three way in L.A. now
OP
OP
Sports Hernia
Well-known member
Mt Davis is available as the Raiders are in Vegas next season. :stirthepot:TreeRon":2kknfttv said:
chris98251
Well-known member
Sports Hernia":1mbr2c35 said:
Thought it was the Davis Slough actually based on reports.
OP
OP
Sports Hernia
Well-known member
chris98251":2aclj0kd said:
The Davis Sewerworks.
Ask the Mariners that had the sewage backing up into the visitors clubhouse one time.
Cyrus12
Well-known member
Relocate them to Toronto.
SantaClaraHawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2015
- Messages
- 15,007
- Reaction score
- 3,088
This saber-rattling between city of Santa Clara and the 49ers has gone on since Levi's was built.
I doubt anything changes.
I doubt anything changes.
SantaClaraHawk":2wzaqltg said:
Yeah...I dunno whats up with the city, but they have been a pain in the a$$ from the start.
Its essentially a group of people who didn't want the stadium there who then got elected and are straight up griefing the 49ers non-stop.
Its ludicrous.
If the team actually stopped playing games there, the stadium authority would be unable to pay back the loans to build the stadium, and the city would go bankrupt.
Its just a negotiating ploy...and its tiresome.
Santa Clara is getting a complete overhaul of its downtown in the form of a 9 BILLION dollar project across the street from Levis, and it NEVER happens if that stadium isn't built.
The politicians there are far, FAR more interested in getting their names in the paper than to actually do whats right.
The team can’t actually stop playing games in Levi without breaching their contract, which I believe has something like 34 years left on it.Marvin49":z43cyy54 said:
What is the right thing to do in this situation? The city audited the Niners and believe they are circumventing their contract for their own gain. If that is true, then they are literally defrauding tax payers. I doubt the politicians are just trying to gain notoriety. It’s far more likely they are going to the press because that’s the only place their side of the story can be heard.
SantaClaraHawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2015
- Messages
- 15,007
- Reaction score
- 3,088
knownone":37hh3vrn said:
I don't really "side" with either side here. I think it's clear that the actors on both sides can't see the forest for the trees anymore, focusing instead on monumental levels of political drama that few residents or fans care for.
For example, here's how the 49ers reacted:
"We should all be troubled that this vote comes clearly as an act of retaliation after it became public that the 49ers would join civil rights leaders to defeat Measure C.
"Generations of Americans have fought against the long, dark history of intimidation tactics that have marginalized communities from reaping the full rights afforded to them in our democracy. Now more than ever, we will not be intimidated and Santa Clara will not be intimidated in our fight to defeat the anti-democratic Measure C."
Measure C is local district elections. The 49ers would like to see Santa Clara City Council shaken up. There is no need to bring in race-tinged rhetoric.
Source:
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/s ... s/2233524/
knownone":1m0rxzcu said:
The problem here is that even if that were so, I don't trust anyone in the City for their word.
Why?
They took away the 49ers rights to run non-nfl games based on the fact that they said they ran it poorly and didn't book enough shows, etc, and that the stadium should be making more money.
However, if you ask the actual acts, like say the Rolling Stones, they will tell you that the reason those acts aren't playing there is because of rules that are far too restrictive.
Managers with the band said they may not perform again at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara because of strict regulations that made things complicated for the group.
Band managers wrote a letter to the 49ers after their August concert saying it is one of the most difficult places to play.
Overly restrictive rules make the stadium “no longer worth the effort to play there,” according to John Morrison, site promoter and production manager for the band’s No Filter 2019 tour.
The Stones’ team said they like the stadium itself and were grateful that the 10 p.m. curfew was moved back to 11 p.m. for the Sunday night show. But they said Santa Clara’s regulations for things like feeding areas for
the band, stage set-up and pyrotechnics — which had to be cancelled — were “restrictive” and “dysfunctional.”
Stones fan and Boston native Ken Russo said the city should work with the stadium better.
“There’s permits obviously, but they have to work with the stadium if they want the big names to come,” Russo said.
Thats the city, not the team.
IE, its like, "we want you to live my these specific rules and I don't care if those rules prevent you from booking shows, its your fault you aren't booking the shows".
To be honest, I really don't care about the whole thing all that much. Why? The City NEEDS the team to play in that stadium. It just wants control. It is looking for any way possible to rip control away. In the end though, they need each other, so I'm not all that concerned.
The problem IMO is this Mayor and this City Council who were not in place when the stadium was agreed upon and built. There is a political agenda here and its really ugly.
SantaClaraHawk":mt0pamvg said:
Of course I'm biased, but I think the city is just ridiculous here.
I do agree that they are ramping up too much on both sides and less hyperbole would be great, but the city is just grandstanding. I'm not gonna say the team is blameless, but this is all really pushed by stadium opponents who got elected and now are just pushing that same agenda even though they lost.
They seem to want to simply make this the issue they can campaign on and make mountains out of molehills and IMO, completely separated from reality.
I suppose some of this is the fault of choosing such a small town to host the stadium. SC has one of the sweetest deals for a stadium in all of the NFL, but that doesn't matter to them. They need a bone to chew on and setup as a straw man. They are going to be getting a 9 BILLION dollar project across the street from Levis full of restaurants, hotels, condensed living, etc that would never happen without the stadium, but they still rage against the machine.
Its all just stupid.
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
What will happen is that running non-football events might change hands (the city will just hire that out to an independent contractor -- they're small and don't have the capacity to do it), and both parties (probably through arbitration) will agree to third party accounting for those events.
Agreed with Sports Hernia that this is after years of saber rattling from both sides.
I'm a 9ers fans, but on several counts if the reporting is true I will be very, very surprised if the 49ers haven't been defrauding the city.
Some of the details (again, if true), are just too damning to come to any other conclusion.
I don't mean that definitively and will likely never know because this will end up in settlement, but that's where I sit right now.
Agreed with Sports Hernia that this is after years of saber rattling from both sides.
I'm a 9ers fans, but on several counts if the reporting is true I will be very, very surprised if the 49ers haven't been defrauding the city.
Some of the details (again, if true), are just too damning to come to any other conclusion.
I don't mean that definitively and will likely never know because this will end up in settlement, but that's where I sit right now.
Popeyejones":svg08gfb said:
You may be right, as I've stated before I have a real hard time trusting anything the city says.
I remember a few years ago there was a huge hubbub about the 49ers "promise" to build a new Soccer Field. The offer was made by the 49ers in an effort to resolve an issue, but in the end the original issue that was a source of contention was resolved by a bargain between the team and the city and that final bargain didn't include the Soccer Field.
Well, all of the sudden, girls soccer teams are boycotting the 49ers and standing with picket signs outside the team complex saying the the 49ers never lived up to the "promise" that the city didn't include in the deal.
Its just semantics...and the city had no problem letting that fire burn.
Bottom Line, I don't trust the city because I've seen on several occasions that they make stuff up and make mountains out of molehills all to make political points.
That in itself doesn't make the 49ers innocent. It just means it'll take alot more than the city saying so for me to buy it.
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
^^^ Yeah, the soccer field thing was insane. 100% agreed on that.
I think one of the big things that's happening is that compared to other stadium deals from prior eras, this one is just a lot more tenuous and with more moving parts, as the 49ers were extracting public financing at a time when that had almost entirely fallen out of favor.
The stadium isn't so much publicly financed as the City of Santa Clara assumed the financial risk of the loan to finance it.
That was all going very well for the first couple years as the two sides fought over what were essentially posturing dumb things.
As those dumb posturing fights intensified it *does seem* like the 49ers have brought the financial splits into the equation too. This, I suspect, is about the dumb fights spilling over from things like relocating soccer fields to the fight over lifting the curfew or not, which it seems like the 49ers might have taken the nuclear option on.
Part of this is also just the challenge of relocating to a small city, where fights over trivial things like the Great America parking lot really are big public issues. :lol:
In all honesty Jed should have just taken out his loans and put Levi's where it had been architecturally designed to be located in Candlestick.
What's unfortunate for him is this all went down in the window between when the NFL was trying to rely on local governments to pay their bills for them and when they realized that wasn't feasible anymore, and the NFL had to chip in more on securing loans for new stadiums (which the builds since Levi's have all benefited from).
I think one of the big things that's happening is that compared to other stadium deals from prior eras, this one is just a lot more tenuous and with more moving parts, as the 49ers were extracting public financing at a time when that had almost entirely fallen out of favor.
The stadium isn't so much publicly financed as the City of Santa Clara assumed the financial risk of the loan to finance it.
That was all going very well for the first couple years as the two sides fought over what were essentially posturing dumb things.
As those dumb posturing fights intensified it *does seem* like the 49ers have brought the financial splits into the equation too. This, I suspect, is about the dumb fights spilling over from things like relocating soccer fields to the fight over lifting the curfew or not, which it seems like the 49ers might have taken the nuclear option on.
Part of this is also just the challenge of relocating to a small city, where fights over trivial things like the Great America parking lot really are big public issues. :lol:
In all honesty Jed should have just taken out his loans and put Levi's where it had been architecturally designed to be located in Candlestick.
What's unfortunate for him is this all went down in the window between when the NFL was trying to rely on local governments to pay their bills for them and when they realized that wasn't feasible anymore, and the NFL had to chip in more on securing loans for new stadiums (which the builds since Levi's have all benefited from).
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
^^^^100%
