Post by TheShadow on May 29, 2007 3:41:30 GMT -5
www.sacbee.com
Letting the Raiders share a new Santa Clara stadium could solve financing issues for the 49ers.
By Matthew Barrows - Bee Staff Writer
SANTA CLARA-Two high-profile NFL teams share a stadium in a part of the country where real estate costs have gone through the retractable roof.
It's happening in New York. Why can't it happen in the Bay Area?
Sure, there's a certain Felix-and-Oscar quality to a 49ers-Raiders pairing.
Could the prim, neat-as-a-pin 49ers coexist with the belly-scratching Raiders? And would the 49ers balk at the hated Raiders migrating to the South Bay, which has long been a 49ers stronghold? And how would the residents of Santa Clara, the town currently in discussions with the 49ers over a new stadium, feel about a silver-and-black invasion?
This is not to say Raiders fans are rough around the edges, but walk through the McAfee Coliseum parking lot before a game and you'll think you wandered into Sturgis. Or Burning Man. Or the yard at Pelican Bay.
But those domestic issues appear minuscule when compared to the cost of building a stadium in the Bay Area.
The price tag on the Santa Clara stadium is currently $854 million, but it seems to grow a little higher with every news conference. If the Raiders, unhappy with their current living situation, ever get around to building new digs, it could cost a billion dollars. Yes, billion with a "b." And it's hard to imagine Al Davis -- who flings lawsuits the way Simon Cowell flings insults -- getting any public assistance in the state of California.
The only area with a similar dynamic is New York, where the Jets and Giants explored going it on their own but ultimately decided to team up on a new $1 billion home in New Jersey that is scheduled to open in 2010.
One of the beauties of the New Jersey deal is that the NFL will loan each team $150 million toward the cost of the stadium -- a $300 million bonus the Raiders and 49ers also could expect if they decided to become roomies.
Who wins? The city of Santa Clara, for one.
As of now, the 49ers want the city to fork over $160 million toward the cost of the stadium. If the Raiders were to join, the city's share certainly would drop or go away altogether. The city also would get more bang for its buck considering the number of home games a year would double with the Raiders as a tenant. Hoteliers and restaurateurs would be tickled by the development.
The 49ers, too, would benefit.
As of now, the team is on the hook for any cost overruns, which are oh-so-common in the stadium-building business. It would be nice to have another party not only share some of the cost but also some of the risk.
And finally, you have the Raiders.
Once upon a time, the Raiders were one of the NFL's marquee franchises. Today they are one of the have-nots. In 2003, Forbes magazine listed them as the NFL's 21st most lucrative franchise; three years later they had dropped to 28th mainly because they have one of the worst stadium deals in the league.
The Raiders' lease at the Coliseum expires at the end of the 2010 season. They certainly should be able to work out a better deal when you consider the A's departure to Fremont -- another East Bay team heading south -- will make the Raiders the sole tenant. But only a new stadium, with lucrative sky boxes and club seats, will get Davis back into the upper echelons with the Daniel Snyders, Robert Krafts and Jerry Joneses of the world.
The 49ers insist that they have not broached the subject with their East Bay rivals. But it should be noted that should they build a new stadium in Santa Clara, it would be run by a public authority. That is, it would be up to the city -- not the 49ers -- if the Raiders came knocking.
Sure, the Raiders and 49ers make an odd couple. But if Felix Unger and Oscar Madison can live together in a tiny apartment, why can't John York and Al Davis coexist in a 68,000-seat stadium?
Letting the Raiders share a new Santa Clara stadium could solve financing issues for the 49ers.
By Matthew Barrows - Bee Staff Writer
SANTA CLARA-Two high-profile NFL teams share a stadium in a part of the country where real estate costs have gone through the retractable roof.
It's happening in New York. Why can't it happen in the Bay Area?
Sure, there's a certain Felix-and-Oscar quality to a 49ers-Raiders pairing.
Could the prim, neat-as-a-pin 49ers coexist with the belly-scratching Raiders? And would the 49ers balk at the hated Raiders migrating to the South Bay, which has long been a 49ers stronghold? And how would the residents of Santa Clara, the town currently in discussions with the 49ers over a new stadium, feel about a silver-and-black invasion?
This is not to say Raiders fans are rough around the edges, but walk through the McAfee Coliseum parking lot before a game and you'll think you wandered into Sturgis. Or Burning Man. Or the yard at Pelican Bay.
But those domestic issues appear minuscule when compared to the cost of building a stadium in the Bay Area.
The price tag on the Santa Clara stadium is currently $854 million, but it seems to grow a little higher with every news conference. If the Raiders, unhappy with their current living situation, ever get around to building new digs, it could cost a billion dollars. Yes, billion with a "b." And it's hard to imagine Al Davis -- who flings lawsuits the way Simon Cowell flings insults -- getting any public assistance in the state of California.
The only area with a similar dynamic is New York, where the Jets and Giants explored going it on their own but ultimately decided to team up on a new $1 billion home in New Jersey that is scheduled to open in 2010.
One of the beauties of the New Jersey deal is that the NFL will loan each team $150 million toward the cost of the stadium -- a $300 million bonus the Raiders and 49ers also could expect if they decided to become roomies.
Who wins? The city of Santa Clara, for one.
As of now, the 49ers want the city to fork over $160 million toward the cost of the stadium. If the Raiders were to join, the city's share certainly would drop or go away altogether. The city also would get more bang for its buck considering the number of home games a year would double with the Raiders as a tenant. Hoteliers and restaurateurs would be tickled by the development.
The 49ers, too, would benefit.
As of now, the team is on the hook for any cost overruns, which are oh-so-common in the stadium-building business. It would be nice to have another party not only share some of the cost but also some of the risk.
And finally, you have the Raiders.
Once upon a time, the Raiders were one of the NFL's marquee franchises. Today they are one of the have-nots. In 2003, Forbes magazine listed them as the NFL's 21st most lucrative franchise; three years later they had dropped to 28th mainly because they have one of the worst stadium deals in the league.
The Raiders' lease at the Coliseum expires at the end of the 2010 season. They certainly should be able to work out a better deal when you consider the A's departure to Fremont -- another East Bay team heading south -- will make the Raiders the sole tenant. But only a new stadium, with lucrative sky boxes and club seats, will get Davis back into the upper echelons with the Daniel Snyders, Robert Krafts and Jerry Joneses of the world.
The 49ers insist that they have not broached the subject with their East Bay rivals. But it should be noted that should they build a new stadium in Santa Clara, it would be run by a public authority. That is, it would be up to the city -- not the 49ers -- if the Raiders came knocking.
Sure, the Raiders and 49ers make an odd couple. But if Felix Unger and Oscar Madison can live together in a tiny apartment, why can't John York and Al Davis coexist in a 68,000-seat stadium?