Post by TheShadow on Aug 27, 2011 2:57:59 GMT -5
www.mercurynews.com
By Tim Kawakami Mercury News Columnist
Sometimes, especially recently, it seems Raiders CEO Amy Trask is the only powerful person working to keep the idea of a Raiders-49ers shared stadium alive.
She has logic working for her, because it's sensible to finance and fill a stadium with a two-team partnership when you're looking at a $1 billion overall outlay.
More to the point, unless they work with the 49ers, there simply does not seem to be any obvious way the Raiders can get a new stadium in the Bay Area.
But Trask's efforts have not generated traction, so far, and the violent events surrounding the Raiders-49ers exhibition game last Saturday at Candlestick Park have only served to highlight the complications.
Getting her boss Al Davis, the Yorks, their separate fan bases, the NFL, the financiers and the municipalities of either Santa Clara or Oakland all on board simultaneously was always going to be a thorny prospect.
Now, after last Saturday's mayhem -- presumed to partly involve 49ers fans vs. Raiders fans -- it seems like a pipe dream, though, publicly, both teams maintain that the dual-stadium concept remains under discussion.
"We're going to continue to have a good working relationship with the Raiders," Jed York told me this week. "Nothing is off the table.
"And our focus is on Santa Clara."
I asked Trask specifically if the fan violence last Saturday -- and the 49ers' move to postpone the annual series -- made the shared-stadium issue trickier to solve.
"Nothing in that regard has changed," Trask said. "We continue to maintain an open mind with respect to the possibility of sharing a stadium."
How far have the negotiations gone between the teams?
"We have ongoing discussions with the 49ers," Trask said. "We discuss the stadium situation fairly regularly. I would characterize them as discussions, not negotiations ...
"The 49ers are very focused on Santa Clara, as you know, and we are keeping an open mind, as you know. I've shared our views about the site in Oakland. It's a terrific site."
The reality is that time is running out for the shared-stadium talk.
The 49ers are feeling more confident about their ability to fund the Santa Clara stadium on their own (we'll see about that), and any development to move a team to Los Angeles could affect everything.
If you look at this closely, there are five key constituencies who must sign off on a 49ers-Raiders shared stadium, and after last Saturday, there were indications that four of them might be edging away from the idea.
Who's left to push for this? The constituencies:
The York family, which could use the extra hundreds of millions the Raiders might bring to the project ($150 million in NFL loans and whatever Davis would ante up).
But it sounds clear that the 49ers want the Raiders to get onboard fully with the Santa Clara project as 50-50 partners, or else the 49ers will attempt to do this on their own.
After last Saturday, it's likely that the 49ers don't want the Raiders involved unless they're fully invested; the 49ers don't want the Raiders as casual tenants.
Davis, who has not committed to even a general concept with the 49ers and is unlikely to agree to taking on 50 percent of the financing, which would put the Raiders into debt.
I asked Trask if the Raiders would consider joining the deal as a 50-50 partner in Santa Clara.
"The answer to that is we are discussing a wide range of possibilities and options with respect to the stadium solution," Trask said.
The NFL, which has been pushing the 49ers to include the Raiders in the deal -- the way the Jets and Giants partnered to build the new stadium outside New York.
But the league power brokers understand that Davis hasn't fully engaged in the discussions and can be a handful -- for instance, he's the only owner to vote against approving the framework for the CBA agreement.
After last Saturday, can the NFL hold back loan money if the 49ers won't cut a deal with the Raiders ... when Davis isn't close to saying what it'd take to cut a deal?
City politicians, who may not embrace the unilateral inclusion of the Raiders into any deal.
Santa Clara voters approved a two-team concept in last June's vote, but the politicians could certainly raise issues after last Saturday.
And Trask, who did everything she could -- and spoke to every media outlet possible -- to douse the marauding perception of Raiders fans.
She's right, and she's being logical; the Raiders need options, if they're ever going to get a new stadium, and sharing one with the 49ers is the best one currently in play.
One terrible night didn't change that logic. But the events of last Saturday have turned up the dynamics.
There's nothing Trask can do about that, except to keep working. Credit to her for that. It only gets tougher from here.
By Tim Kawakami Mercury News Columnist
Sometimes, especially recently, it seems Raiders CEO Amy Trask is the only powerful person working to keep the idea of a Raiders-49ers shared stadium alive.
She has logic working for her, because it's sensible to finance and fill a stadium with a two-team partnership when you're looking at a $1 billion overall outlay.
More to the point, unless they work with the 49ers, there simply does not seem to be any obvious way the Raiders can get a new stadium in the Bay Area.
But Trask's efforts have not generated traction, so far, and the violent events surrounding the Raiders-49ers exhibition game last Saturday at Candlestick Park have only served to highlight the complications.
Getting her boss Al Davis, the Yorks, their separate fan bases, the NFL, the financiers and the municipalities of either Santa Clara or Oakland all on board simultaneously was always going to be a thorny prospect.
Now, after last Saturday's mayhem -- presumed to partly involve 49ers fans vs. Raiders fans -- it seems like a pipe dream, though, publicly, both teams maintain that the dual-stadium concept remains under discussion.
"We're going to continue to have a good working relationship with the Raiders," Jed York told me this week. "Nothing is off the table.
"And our focus is on Santa Clara."
I asked Trask specifically if the fan violence last Saturday -- and the 49ers' move to postpone the annual series -- made the shared-stadium issue trickier to solve.
"Nothing in that regard has changed," Trask said. "We continue to maintain an open mind with respect to the possibility of sharing a stadium."
How far have the negotiations gone between the teams?
"We have ongoing discussions with the 49ers," Trask said. "We discuss the stadium situation fairly regularly. I would characterize them as discussions, not negotiations ...
"The 49ers are very focused on Santa Clara, as you know, and we are keeping an open mind, as you know. I've shared our views about the site in Oakland. It's a terrific site."
The reality is that time is running out for the shared-stadium talk.
The 49ers are feeling more confident about their ability to fund the Santa Clara stadium on their own (we'll see about that), and any development to move a team to Los Angeles could affect everything.
If you look at this closely, there are five key constituencies who must sign off on a 49ers-Raiders shared stadium, and after last Saturday, there were indications that four of them might be edging away from the idea.
Who's left to push for this? The constituencies:
The York family, which could use the extra hundreds of millions the Raiders might bring to the project ($150 million in NFL loans and whatever Davis would ante up).
But it sounds clear that the 49ers want the Raiders to get onboard fully with the Santa Clara project as 50-50 partners, or else the 49ers will attempt to do this on their own.
After last Saturday, it's likely that the 49ers don't want the Raiders involved unless they're fully invested; the 49ers don't want the Raiders as casual tenants.
Davis, who has not committed to even a general concept with the 49ers and is unlikely to agree to taking on 50 percent of the financing, which would put the Raiders into debt.
I asked Trask if the Raiders would consider joining the deal as a 50-50 partner in Santa Clara.
"The answer to that is we are discussing a wide range of possibilities and options with respect to the stadium solution," Trask said.
The NFL, which has been pushing the 49ers to include the Raiders in the deal -- the way the Jets and Giants partnered to build the new stadium outside New York.
But the league power brokers understand that Davis hasn't fully engaged in the discussions and can be a handful -- for instance, he's the only owner to vote against approving the framework for the CBA agreement.
After last Saturday, can the NFL hold back loan money if the 49ers won't cut a deal with the Raiders ... when Davis isn't close to saying what it'd take to cut a deal?
City politicians, who may not embrace the unilateral inclusion of the Raiders into any deal.
Santa Clara voters approved a two-team concept in last June's vote, but the politicians could certainly raise issues after last Saturday.
And Trask, who did everything she could -- and spoke to every media outlet possible -- to douse the marauding perception of Raiders fans.
She's right, and she's being logical; the Raiders need options, if they're ever going to get a new stadium, and sharing one with the 49ers is the best one currently in play.
One terrible night didn't change that logic. But the events of last Saturday have turned up the dynamics.
There's nothing Trask can do about that, except to keep working. Credit to her for that. It only gets tougher from here.