City Council Decides to Terminate 49ers Stadium Contract for NFL Games

Originally posted by Goatie:

What are they doing with that gravel pit that used to be Candlestick Park?

Why don't they Yorks buy the land and build a new Candlestick Park and tell the council to get stuffed.

I know what stadium the fans would rather go to.

They could have bought land and built a stadium anywhere in the Bay Area but they wanted corporate welfare from the taxpayers so they bought off small town Santa Clara.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
More professional teams in all sports are building their own stadiums because cities can no longer afford the expense. Teams that own their own facility have complete control and the value of the franchise is increased. Look at the Cowboys. That stadium has increased the value of the team immensely.

The Cowboys don't own that stadium. They rent it for something like $2M per year. Only 4 teams own their stadium - Pats, Redskins, Panthers, and Dolphins.

NBA & MLB stadiums tend to be about a quarter to half the size of NFL stadiums. Those leagues also have dozens of home games and ticket sales make up a substantially larger portion of their revenue. The economics are much different.

Could the 9ers have done it on their own? Not likely unless the project was a lot smaller than Levi's. The Packers (the only NFL franchise to report earnings) avg about 40M in profit the past few years. Levi was 1.2B. That's 30 years of profit just to build the stadium. Hence teams are doing these public-private partnerships that allow them to share in revenue from other events at the venue to help offset the costs.

I'm all for NFL teams carrying more of the cost. Many of the new owners bought franchises as toys, essentially. They are immensely wealthy outside football and don't need NFL money. Let them spend their own money on their toys. But not every owner is in that situation and things aren't nearly as clear cut as some in here are making it seem.

Santa Clara agreed to a contract with the Niners. Now, they want out - sounds like sour grapes.

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Yes
It's a crime that the 49ers are being subsidized by small town like Santa Clara. Billion dollar business should be able to build their own facilities rather than work the taxpayers over for handouts.
49ers got this push through by bribing politicians that are no longer around.
If they paid their own way like the San Francisco Giants or the Golden State Warriors, they wouldn't have these headaches.

This is a serious accusation and I can't find any supporting evidence. Please provide your links.

By the way, most teams don't own their own stadiums.

I live in the Bay Area and root for the Giants and the Warriors as well as the 49ers. The Giants, Warriors and 49ers all opened stadiums in the past 20 years. The Giants and Warriors did it without taxpayer handouts.
I am not sure what kind of perspective you have from where you live but I am plugged into my local politics. There was a city manager who quit and shredded documents after the stadium opened and lots turnover of SC officials. It was shady. I am not going to dig for local articles. So if you think the stadium deal was above board and transparent that is fine with me.

The city got a raw deal. The 49ers Stadium Authority is a joke, they siphon money off by creating sponsorship side deals, they give government contracts to vendors who in return gift them stock shares...

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Yes
It's a crime that the 49ers are being subsidized by small town like Santa Clara. Billion dollar business should be able to build their own facilities rather than work the taxpayers over for handouts.
49ers got this push through by bribing politicians that are no longer around.
If they paid their own way like the San Francisco Giants or the Golden State Warriors, they wouldn't have these headaches.

This is a serious accusation and I can't find any supporting evidence. Please provide your links.

By the way, most teams don't own their own stadiums.

I live in the Bay Area and root for the Giants and the Warriors as well as the 49ers. The Giants, Warriors and 49ers all opened stadiums in the past 20 years. The Giants and Warriors did it without taxpayer handouts.
I am not sure what kind of perspective you have from where you live but I am plugged into my local politics. There was a city manager who quit and shredded documents after the stadium opened and lots turnover of SC officials. It was shady. I am not going to dig for local articles. So if you think the stadium deal was above board and transparent that is fine with me.

The city got a raw deal. The 49ers Stadium Authority is a joke, they siphon money off by creating sponsorship side deals, they give government contracts to vendors who in return gift them stock shares...

I simply asked for some support for a very serious accusation. Reminiscent of Eddie D. If you are going tomake accusations like this you must expect someone to ask for some justification.

The city got a raw deal, you say? Is it not the deal they signed up to? Why are the city exempted from the conditions they signed up to?

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
I live in the Bay Area and root for the Giants and the Warriors as well as the 49ers. The Giants, Warriors and 49ers all opened stadiums in the past 20 years. The Giants and Warriors did it without taxpayer handouts.
I am not sure what kind of perspective you have from where you live but I am plugged into my local politics. There was a city manager who quit and shredded documents after the stadium opened and lots turnover of SC officials. It was shady. I am not going to dig for local articles. So if you think the stadium deal was above board and transparent that is fine with me.

The city got a raw deal. The 49ers Stadium Authority is a joke, they siphon money off by creating sponsorship side deals, they give government contracts to vendors who in return gift them stock shares...

I grew up in the Sunnyvale area and lived in Brentwood for about 7 years before moving to Eugene, OR. Each area has it's own problems but one thing seems to be consistent. People on the city and county boards are usually not very good when it comes to negotiations. I've seen it happen with infrastructure issues like computer systems and housing/office deals. Stadiums would fall into that group. It seems like every place I have lived, the city or county always comes up short on these deals. Sometimes they don't get the revenue that was projected. Maybe the upkeep costs more than they thought.

The problem with these councils is that they are usually made up of well meaning people that aren't really experienced at big time negotiations. They are too anxious to make a big splash and show that they got something done and they often get taken to the cleaners. It's like when someone buys that new car and fails to read the fine print. Eventually they realize they are paying way more than they thought.

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Yes
It's a crime that the 49ers are being subsidized by small town like Santa Clara. Billion dollar business should be able to build their own facilities rather than work the taxpayers over for handouts.
49ers got this push through by bribing politicians that are no longer around.
If they paid their own way like the San Francisco Giants or the Golden State Warriors, they wouldn't have these headaches.

This is a serious accusation and I can't find any supporting evidence. Please provide your links.

By the way, most teams don't own their own stadiums.

I live in the Bay Area and root for the Giants and the Warriors as well as the 49ers. The Giants, Warriors and 49ers all opened stadiums in the past 20 years. The Giants and Warriors did it without taxpayer handouts.
I am not sure what kind of perspective you have from where you live but I am plugged into my local politics. There was a city manager who quit and shredded documents after the stadium opened and lots turnover of SC officials. It was shady. I am not going to dig for local articles. So if you think the stadium deal was above board and transparent that is fine with me.

The city got a raw deal. The 49ers Stadium Authority is a joke, they siphon money off by creating sponsorship side deals, they give government contracts to vendors who in return gift them stock shares...

I simply asked for some support for a very serious accusation. Reminiscent of Eddie D. If you are going tomake accusations like this you must expect someone to ask for some justification.

The city got a raw deal, you say? Is it not the deal they signed up to? Why are the city exempted from the conditions they signed up to?

"They" being former politicians and city employees?

It is a raw deal regardless.

And are the 49ers living up to their end of the bargain when they seek side deals and dole out government contracts in exchange for shares in the companies?

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

I live in the Bay Area and root for the Giants and the Warriors as well as the 49ers. The Giants, Warriors and 49ers all opened stadiums in the past 20 years. The Giants and Warriors did it without taxpayer handouts.
I am not sure what kind of perspective you have from where you live but I am plugged into my local politics. There was a city manager who quit and shredded documents after the stadium opened and lots turnover of SC officials. It was shady. I am not going to dig for local articles. So if you think the stadium deal was above board and transparent that is fine with me.

The city got a raw deal. The 49ers Stadium Authority is a joke, they siphon money off by creating sponsorship side deals, they give government contracts to vendors who in return gift them stock shares...

I grew up in the Sunnyvale area and lived in Brentwood for about 7 years before moving to Eugene, OR. Each area has it's own problems but one thing seems to be consistent. People on the city and county boards are usually not very good when it comes to negotiations. I've seen it happen with infrastructure issues like computer systems and housing/office deals. Stadiums would fall into that group. It seems like every place I have lived, the city or county always comes up short on these deals. Sometimes they don't get the revenue that was projected. Maybe the upkeep costs more than they thought.

The problem with these councils is that they are usually made up of well meaning people that aren't really experienced at big time negotiations. They are too anxious to make a big splash and show that they got something done and they often get taken to the cleaners. It's like when someone buys that new car and fails to read the fine print. Eventually they realize they are paying way more than they thought.

Excellent points. Santa Clara is a very small city.

This is why the Rams left St. Louis and the Chargers left SD. The Raiders leaving Oakland as well, I guess. All had old, poor quality stadiums but the taxpayers or their elected representatives refused to subsidize the NFL franchise owners by using taxpayer money to build new stadiums to play in the cities.

NFL franchise owners have been playing this blackmail game for a lot of decades. I, for one, am on the side of the taxpayers and I'm glad that the list of cities with which to threaten is growing mighty small. NFL franchise owners are among the very richest men in the country. They should not be entitled to corporate welfare.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

"They" being former politicians and city employees?

It is a raw deal regardless.

And are the 49ers living up to their end of the bargain when they seek side deals and dole out government contracts in exchange for shares in the companies?

Are such actions allowed by the contract or not?

As to your first paragraph, yes obviously. Who else would have the authority? Public sector contracts are like that.

The original deal is Santa Cara would finance the stadium, the 49ers would operate it for all events, and they would split the profits.

The 49ers claimed that in 2018, from all of the concerts, college football games, etc that their net revenue (to be split with the city) was 33K. It's just a lie.

In 2019, when the city refused to lift the curfew that the 49ers agreed to in the initial agreement, the 49ers claimed that the net revenue for the year magically dropped down from 750K to 0.

The 49ers are deeply, deeply full of crap and not honoring their contractual agreements. The city wants to run these events because the 49ers are clearly embezzling money from them.

Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:
The original deal is Santa Cara would finance the stadium, the 49ers would operate it for all events, and they would split the profits.

The 49ers claimed that in 2018, from all of the concerts, college football games, etc that their net revenue (to be split with the city) was 33K. It's just a lie.

In 2019, when the city refused to lift the curfew that the 49ers agreed to in the initial agreement, the 49ers claimed that the net revenue for the year magically dropped down from 750K to 0.

The 49ers are deeply, deeply full of crap and not honoring their contractual agreements. The city wants to run these events because the 49ers are clearly embezzling money from them.

thats hilarious, you really cant expect jed to be honest. i dont think santa clara should operate the stadium even though they only invested around 100 mil into the project

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

"They" being former politicians and city employees?

It is a raw deal regardless.

And are the 49ers living up to their end of the bargain when they seek side deals and dole out government contracts in exchange for shares in the companies?

Are such actions allowed by the contract or not?

As to your first paragraph, yes obviously. Who else would have the authority? Public sector contracts are like that.

Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:

The original deal is Santa Cara would finance the stadium, the 49ers would operate it for all events, and they would split the profits.

The 49ers claimed that in 2018, from all of the concerts, college football games, etc that their net revenue (to be split with the city) was 33K. It's just a lie.

In 2019, when the city refused to lift the curfew that the 49ers agreed to in the initial agreement, the 49ers claimed that the net revenue for the year magically dropped down from 750K to 0.

The 49ers are deeply, deeply full of crap and not honoring their contractual agreements. The city wants to run these events because the 49ers are clearly embezzling money from them.

Embezzling? You faithful seem very keen to make very serious accusations against your own team. I think if there were any truth in these accusations the city would have made them public.

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

"They" being former politicians and city employees?

It is a raw deal regardless.

And are the 49ers living up to their end of the bargain when they seek side deals and dole out government contracts in exchange for shares in the companies?

Are such actions allowed by the contract or not?

As to your first paragraph, yes obviously. Who else would have the authority? Public sector contracts are like that.

Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:

The original deal is Santa Cara would finance the stadium, the 49ers would operate it for all events, and they would split the profits.

The 49ers claimed that in 2018, from all of the concerts, college football games, etc that their net revenue (to be split with the city) was 33K. It's just a lie.

In 2019, when the city refused to lift the curfew that the 49ers agreed to in the initial agreement, the 49ers claimed that the net revenue for the year magically dropped down from 750K to 0.

The 49ers are deeply, deeply full of crap and not honoring their contractual agreements. The city wants to run these events because the 49ers are clearly embezzling money from them.

Embezzling? You faithful seem very keen to make very serious accusations against your own team. I think if there were any truth in these accusations the city would have made them public.

The 49ers aren't behaving fairly or honestly, Santa Clara has a responsibility to look out for their taxpayers and that is what they are doing.


https://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/santa-clara-city-council-measure-c-fight-15053799.php



Rooting for a team has nothing to do with supporting the organization screwing over the taxpayers. They could have financed it themselves with their own bank loans and avoided the risk of having the city re-evaluate their deal.

We broke the story that 49ers exec and Stadium Manager Jim Mercurio looks like he has a serious conflict of interest.

He makes decisions about stadium vendors and one of them is VenueNext. The company is a "sports and entertainment technology integrator." Mercurio bought or received between $10,001 – $100,000 of stock in VenueNext.

We only know this because Mercurio is the Stadium Manager. So he is legally required to fill out a California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 700. It's the form that lists financial interests so the public knows if a decision maker has a conflict of interest when doing the public's business.

After our story ran, an inside source gave us some more info. We learned that 49ers CEO Jed York is also the Chairman of the Board of VenueNext. We confirmed it by checking out the company's website:



York doesn't have to fill out Form 700. So we don't know how much stock he has as the Chairman. Our source didn't know either. But our source says he was "instrumental in cutting the deal" between Levi's Stadium and VenueNext.

https://santaclaranews.org/2019/05/07/jed-york-is-chair-of-board-of-levis-stadium-vendor-another-conflict-of-interest/

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

"They" being former politicians and city employees?

It is a raw deal regardless.

And are the 49ers living up to their end of the bargain when they seek side deals and dole out government contracts in exchange for shares in the companies?

Are such actions allowed by the contract or not?

As to your first paragraph, yes obviously. Who else would have the authority? Public sector contracts are like that.

Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:

The original deal is Santa Cara would finance the stadium, the 49ers would operate it for all events, and they would split the profits.

The 49ers claimed that in 2018, from all of the concerts, college football games, etc that their net revenue (to be split with the city) was 33K. It's just a lie.

In 2019, when the city refused to lift the curfew that the 49ers agreed to in the initial agreement, the 49ers claimed that the net revenue for the year magically dropped down from 750K to 0.

The 49ers are deeply, deeply full of crap and not honoring their contractual agreements. The city wants to run these events because the 49ers are clearly embezzling money from them.

Embezzling? You faithful seem very keen to make very serious accusations against your own team. I think if there were any truth in these accusations the city would have made them public.

The 49ers aren't behaving fairly or honestly, Santa Clara has a responsibility to look out for their taxpayers and that is what they are doing.


https://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/santa-clara-city-council-measure-c-fight-15053799.php



Rooting for a team has nothing to do with supporting the organization screwing over the taxpayers. They could have financed it themselves with their own bank loans and avoided the risk of having the city re-evaluate their deal.

We broke the story that 49ers exec and Stadium Manager Jim Mercurio looks like he has a serious conflict of interest.

He makes decisions about stadium vendors and one of them is VenueNext. The company is a "sports and entertainment technology integrator." Mercurio bought or received between $10,001 – $100,000 of stock in VenueNext.

We only know this because Mercurio is the Stadium Manager. So he is legally required to fill out a California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 700. It's the form that lists financial interests so the public knows if a decision maker has a conflict of interest when doing the public's business.

After our story ran, an inside source gave us some more info. We learned that 49ers CEO Jed York is also the Chairman of the Board of VenueNext. We confirmed it by checking out the company's website:



York doesn't have to fill out Form 700. So we don't know how much stock he has as the Chairman. Our source didn't know either. But our source says he was "instrumental in cutting the deal" between Levi's Stadium and VenueNext.

https://santaclaranews.org/2019/05/07/jed-york-is-chair-of-board-of-levis-stadium-vendor-another-conflict-of-interest/

I don't see any mention of embezzlement, per the other poster. And from your post, it is simple. Are the team's actions permitted by the contract as signed by the city? Because if they are, it is not a question of protecting the taxpayer from the team. It is a question of the individuals within the city authority who signed the contract. But the contract stands.

In what way are the team not acting fairly or honestly? This is a simple matter. Are the team breaching the contract or not? I don't know. People seem very keen to state that they are, but if they are then they are going to be hung out to dry by a court.