SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Bay Area Sports Centre

151K views 454 replies 60 participants last post by  pesto 
#1 ·
Could anyone share answers with me for the following:

Since Santa Clara is no done deal and since SF is still most interested in keeping the Niners in town, why have only the southern bay portions of the city (Hunters Pt, Candlestick Pt) been consdiered for a new stadium?

What about other sites, such as:

• China Basin, across the bridge from the ball park. Land is more expensive there and development is, of course, underway with UCSF. But could this be a possible stadium site? Could some of the Giants' lots be replaced with parking ramps and open up space for the 49ers with both teams sharing parking? With the public transportation (BART, Muni, Caltrain, ferries) this site would afford, you would have far few drivers...thus be more able to accomodate those that want to tail gate (a 49er issue).

• Treasure Island: the city wants a dramatic redevelopment of the site. Why not a stadium as part of the mix. The real negative here, of course, is Bay Bridge traffic and the merging on and off of YB. But let's consider that there are only 8 home games for NFL teams (plus a few exhibitions) and those games mainly occur on Sunday, when rush hour traffic is not an issue. If that were the only blocking point, I am sure that ways could be found to filter SF-YB-TI or EB-YB-TI traffic on those rare number of dates. Obviously bus service and ferry service (from the Ferry Bldg, Sausalito, Jack London Sq, etc.) could also get fans to the island.

• Kezar, back to the roots: all right, the worst suggestion of all. Nobody wants to see GGP covered with concrete. On the other hand, a significant part of the footprint is in place already with the existing stadium. And this fringe part of the park is less sylvan than its interior. Traffic issues, both public and private, would remain a huge issue...but again, this is on a Sunday and the time folks would be going to the game is not a heavy travel period.

I'm sure fault could be found with any or all of the above, what perhaps SF does have to think outside of the box on this one...especially if the box is a narrow one on the s.e. shore of the city.
 
See less See more
#291 ·
Video news story from the local CBS affiliate:

A’s Executives Tour Potential Waterfront Ballpark Site

Mayor Libby Schaaf and city leaders have long encouraged the A’s to build a stadium at the site.

The challenge is the lack of public transit and the amount of money needed to clean up the site. Right now, it’s an active part of the port.

Sources say Fisher brought along his own engineers to evaluate the site and the potential costs.
If transit is a major sticking point, I've mentioned this before, it would seem possible to build an infill station along the elevated BART tracks, perhaps between MLK Jr. Way & Market Street. From there it would just be a few blocks walk to the new ballpark. Granted the station would be located next to the interstate which isn't the most ideal location for a rail station, but the walk shed still looks reasonable for some TOD (I see parking lots to the north where both a drive-thru KFC and McDonald's exist). Plus an infill station there would provide a somewhat closer connection to the western half of the Jack London Square neighborhood. Maybe Oakland officials would be more willing to help fund an infill rail station since it could benefit city residents as opposed to simply helping fund stadium construction which I think they've repeatedly wanted to avoid. It's certainly possible to build an infill station along active rail tracks. We did it here in DC with the elevated NoMa station and Alexandria is about to do it with the Potomac Yards infill station as well.
 
#292 · (Edited)
Here's why I don't believe the Raiders will move to Las Vegas:

Poll Shows Opposition to Raiders’ Vegas Proposal

http://footballstadiumdigest.com/2016/07/poll-shows-opposition-to-raiders-vegas-proposal/


OK, so we are now agreed that Zennie62 and eastbayexpress (the local dope and sex advertising rag in Berkeley) are not the NY Times and Manchester Guardian? :lol:

That puts us back where I started: Oakland would be a perfectly good location for the Raiders if they would kick in some money. But so far the only ones talking money and stadium are LV and LA. It's hard to say more until they set forth a plan.

You note that Adelson is worth 28B; Wynn is worth say, 3B after his divorce; probably another couple of billion from other potential investors. The NFL has billions to throw-around and seat licenses, naming rights, etc., are worth say, 500M. The new Nevada tax is on hotel guest and diverts no funds from existing uses. And you don't think this can come together in LV? With the potential of say, 150k new visitors annually spending (losing), say, 2000 each? That's 300M of new spending every year.

Off subject, but your discussion of payments of gameday revenues to Kroenke is new to me. Could you detail this? In any event, until now I haven't heard anyone doubt that the team has higher income and higher value in LA than in Oakland. Davis was infuriated when he got 3rd shot at LA and had to wait for another year of stalling from Oakland.
 
#293 · (Edited)
Stan Kroenke is not going to allow the Chargers or the Raiders to play in his new stadium for free. In fact, being the cold-blooded character that he is, he'll bleed every last dollar from the aforementioned prospective sub-tenants.

Here's the reason the voters of Las Vegas will never vote in favor of giving the self-serving billionaire Sheldon Adelman $750 million to build a new stadium-- because he's a greedy bastard.

http://deadspin.com/raiders-stadium-backers-tell-las-vegas-give-us-750-mi-1785792123
The fee to be paid by the Bolts/Raiders has already been negotiated (more correctly, dictated) by the NFL and was very moderate. Rams CEO Demoff has also added that they welcome the Raiders since it means more money for everybody and especially for the extensive food, casino, hotel, developments around the stadium.

It's not so much the voters in LV; it's the legislature. You could be right but there is so much money here that it would be surprising if they can't make it work somehow. It's likely the stadium will be the centerpiece of other development in the area, so a lot of people are incented to make it happen.

In any event, Oakland just flat doesn't have an offer on the table yet after 10 years of "trying". Davis is on record saying he is going to LV if the deal is approved and he would already be in LA if the NFL hadn't given the Bolts a one-year priority.

Side note: you seem to think of business people (Kroenke, Adelson, Davis, others apparently) as being disreputable, dishonest, etc. Certainly true for many who deal with governments because the politicos have their own agendas. But what could be more open than this? The NFL and Sands Corporation are making a proposal to LV that they can take, leave or negotiate. Completely public; vetted with all levels of politicians and voters all over the state.

As for "my way or the highway" that's standard practice when dealing with cartels. See every team in every major professional sport. If you don't like the best deal they offer, you just refuse it and it's over.
 
#294 ·
it certainly would be exciting to keep the raiders in oakland. if the city and teams could get their acts together, the bay area could potentially have 3 different sports venues under construction at the same time. as exciting as that could be, i don't see it happening. the raiders have too many outs and davis doesn't seem committed to the city or the fanbase anymore. he's more interested in the payoff of increased team value by moving to a larger or his own market. if one of the LA or vegas deals falls through, expect san antonio to jump back in the mix.

if the giants can fund their own stadium in soma, the niners in santa clara, and the warriors in mission bay, there's no reason the raiders and a's can't pony up their own cash to build in oakland. the investments have shown they pay off in terms of growth in team value. but for some reason the owners balk when they can't get public funds. the public has no place in supporting billionaire sports team owners. the city of oakland has much more important things to spend money on than a billion dollar stadium that gets used 15-20 times a year.
 
#296 ·
SAN JOSE SELECTED TO HOST 2018 PRUDENTIAL U.S. FIGURE SKATING CHAMPIONSHIPS

(8/29/16) - U.S. Figure Skating announced the selection of San Jose, California, as the host city for the 2018 Prudential U.S. Figure Skating Championships, Dec. 29, 2017-Jan. 7, 2018. The 2018 U.S. Championships will serve as the final qualifying event prior to selecting and announcing the U.S. Olympic Figure Skating Team that will represent Team USA at the 2018 Olympic Winter Games. Competition and practice will be held at SAP Center at San Jose and Sharks Ice at San Jose.

The annual event, held since 1914, is the nation's most prestigious figure skating event, with past champions including Michelle Kwan, Kristi Yamaguchi, Brian Boitano and Scott Hamilton. Champions will be crowned in 20 events in ladies, men's, pairs and ice dance at the championship, junior, novice, intermediate and juvenile levels of the U.S. Figure Skating competitive structure. Championship-level competition will be Jan. 4-7, while juvenile-junior athletes will compete Dec. 30-Jan. 4.

"U.S. Figure Skating is excited to return to San Jose for the 2018 Prudential U.S. Figure Skating Championships," U.S. Figure Skating President Sam Auxier said. "The Bay Area is steeped in figure skating tradition with some of the sport's legends calling the area home. I'm confident that with their support and that of the community, the excitement of the 2018 U.S. Championships will create a dynamic environment, especially for those competing to earn a spot on the 2018 U.S. Olympic Team."
 
#297 ·

This is about the 5th iteration of this ploy. Anyone remember Forest City, Saudi princes, Floyd Kephart, some LA VC's?

The NFL has already come down hard on Oakland for delaying and for bringing in 3rd parties whose financial interests have to be met. And Davis has repeatedly said that he is not selling any part of his team and the NFL backed him on that by giving him a sweetheart deal in LA if Oakland doesn't provide funds and SD does provide for the Bolts.

The 90 days that Lott's backers and Alameda officials talk to each other should be entertaining, I'm guessing that the next real news is the SD vote, which may determine whether LA is still available.
 
#298 ·
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2016/09/15/las-vegas-raiders-funding-vote.html



And I'm sure the Vegas billionaire casino owners will grease the pockets of their state legislators to make sure the plan is approved. The big question is, will the NFL owners approve this move with a 75% majority vote and also tack on a $200 million to $300 million franchise relocation fee to move to Vegas.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/r...egas-is-now-just-one-step-away-from-approval/
there's still several things to work out before this is a done deal. the nfl has concerns about casino owners also owning teams due to the conflict of interest with their sports books, it's too close for comfort. also, stan kroenke just paid 550MM to relocate the rams to LA and the NHL just sold an expansion franchise to the vegas market for 500MM. i'd expect any relocation fee to be closer to those numbers than 2-300MM. that 500MM number is too rich for mark davis, and he'd have to give up more share to get his new partners to pay up which seems to be the last thing this control freak wants to do.
 
#299 ·
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2016/09/15/las-vegas-raiders-funding-vote.html

And I'm sure the Vegas billionaire casino owners will grease the pockets of their state legislators to make sure the plan is approved. The big question is, will the NFL owners approve this move with a 75% majority vote and also tack on a $200 million to $300 million franchise relocation fee to move to Vegas.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/r...egas-is-now-just-one-step-away-from-approval/
I know haters gotta hate, but you really should try to read for content not buzz words. This is such a sweetheart deal for LV and Nevada that there never was a chance that it wouldn't be approved.

Again: Davis and Adelson are GIVING a public authority over 1 billion dollars to build a stadium that they will have no financial interest in. Davis may get a good rental deal (not unusual in pro sports) but Adleson gets no direct benefit.

From day 1 there has been ZERO opposition from any politico who had any idea what the deal was. Ditto for the unions, other hotels (including the MGM and Wynn groups who are Adleson's chief rivals), small businesses and the public at large. UNLV is all in. They are talking about perennial top 25 football teams forever and their alumni are pledging tons of new money if this happens.

Every analysis has shown additional tourism and pay-back on the investment. The only discussion has been how quickly it turns into a plus for the city: the short-term or the very short-term.

Adleson pointed this out repeatedly and said "no, I'm not going to give more just so you can feed your political contributors with phony jobs at inflated wages, give out contracts at huge profits, etc. If you don't like the deal, then vote against it."

It passed unanimously. NOBODY opposed. City, governor, legislature, US Senator, all support it. The governor noted that LV has to be on top of the newest developments in tourism and this gives them the ability to do so.
 
#300 ·
Oakland needs to cut the b/s and come up with money if they want to keep the team. The problems with this article:

It doesn’t note that Goodell (and every other NFL spokesman) has said that involving the interests of a third party funder or developer is a non-starter since the NFL is not looking for more mouths to feed. They want a deal between the team and the city.

Similarly, the NFL has repeatedly said that they are not interested in bringing in new investors in the team. Neither is Davis.

The NFL has said that the desire of an owner to move will be given great weight, particularly when he has been trying to find a solution for an extended period of time with no cooperation from local authorities. The NFL Sr. VP on relocations gave Oakland a scathing review last year about their lack of interest in a new stadium in spite of having the worst stadium in the league.

And, of course, the NFL has already gone through all the formal requirements of a move last year since the Raiders were so desperate to get to LA that they teamed up for a stadium on a toxic dump and were angered when they didn’t get it. So there are no contracts, leases, PR issues or similar hoops to jump through. Those are taken care of.
 
#301 ·
las vegas raiders new partner = sheldon adelson
los angeles raiders new partner/landlord = stan kroenke
oakland raiders new parnter = ronnie lot group

no matter where they move, mark davis is going to have a new partner. he doesn't have the capital to make anything happen on his own without huge public subsidy. oakland, and every other municipality in the country, has more important things to spend their money on than subsidizing a multi-billion dollar sports league. the nfl has to be on board with a new partner, or the raiders are doomed to play in the coliseum for eternity.
 
#305 ·
Just to add some context:

Sfgate and eastbaytimes are VERY poor sources for objective sports news; they are local rags.

Goodell has said the NFL wants to keep a team in the East Bay if a workable plan is proposed there; but nothing close to a plan has surfaced. In any event, Santa Clara is not East Bay.

Davis last year actually committed to moving to LA and was angry when he was turned down. Now, the NFL is committed to giving the Raiders the second spot in LA if the Chargers don't take it.

Conversely, neither York nor Davis have expressed interest in having the Raiders in Santa Clara (nor St. Louis, nor San Antonio).

This leaves LV and LA as the live options at the moment. If the Chargers lose the vote in SD they may move to LA or they may continue negotiations, which could give Davis a chance to get to Inglewood. He would happily take it.

Adelson is probably referring to the NFL when he complains about tough negotiating. This is no doubt legitimate since the NFL is a cartel and is used to getting its way. But there is so much money to be made in LV that it's hard to see the parties not finding a way to get it done.

If Davis moves to LV he adds a billion of value; if he moves to LA, much more. In Santa Clara he has permanent problems with his landlord and the local populace. So staying in Oakland or moving to Santa Clara are not impossible; it's just that they are very poor and very unlikely choices compared to LV or LA.
 
#306 ·
This is slightly off-topic, but I was just going through some of my recent issues of Sports Illustrated and came across this article about the San Jose Bees baseball team. They were an unaffiliated independent team in the California league, and were a precursor to the San Jose Giants. They even imported 5 players from the Japanese league! I had never heard of this before, so it made for a fascinating read.

The Bad News Bees:
Weirdest. Team Ever. Drug users, has-beens and never-weres on 1986 San Jose Bees


http://www.si.com/mlb/2016/09/16/bad-news-bees-san-jose-mike-norris-steve-howe

 
#310 ·
This is poorly written but ends up pretty accurate. The Chargers are looking like accepting the LA goldmine and Davis is filing with the NFL to move to LV next month. The only question seems to be whether he gets 24 votes.

I would guess they do since Oakland has not yet come up with anything that an NFL owner would consider acceptable (remember that last year the NFL determined that Davis had bargained in good faith and Oakland had not made an acceptable offer as of that time).

Likewise, the A's will stay if they get a good enough deal; otherwise it's short-term leases until they can move to another city.
 
#311 ·
CBS Sports: NFL prepared to make its case for keeping the Raiders in Oakland

The league office continues to maintain strong support for keeping the Raiders in Oakland and will extol the merits of that market at an upcoming NFL meeting in Dallas, leagues sources said. While Mark Davis is unrelenting about wanting to move the team to Las Vegas, sources said he will face opposition to do so.

Whether Davis has the 24 votes necessary to secure a move from the Bay Area is a matter of debate, but it is not uncommon for the league to covertly cajole owners -- especially those who have recently benefited from stadium or Super Bowl votes on their behalf -- on matters such as these, and there is a passionate sentiment within Park Avenue that Oakland is a superior market to Las Vegas. Of course, Oakland does not have a stadium deal yet that rivals what Davis could receive in Nevada.

Eric Grubman, who heads these matters for the league, will update owners on the specifics of the latest developments with a potential stadium deal in Oakland. Several ownership sources indicated they expect the NFL to do what it can to can to slow play any move to Vegas, while Davis is intent on filing relocation papers and bringing the matter to a vote as soon as possible.
 
#312 ·
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...avis/95381628/

Grubman talks about Monday's meeting with Lott and reports what the commentators had already said: this proposal is not going anywhere with Davis, the NFL or the other owners. No team is interested; the outside developer is a problem; same deal as found inadequate last year.

My guess is that this opens the way for a decision at this week's meeting that Plan A is the Raiders going to LV, but with nothing released pending a definitive agreement between LV and Davis which the NFL finds acceptable.
 
#313 ·
http://www.wsj.com/articles/upset-of...ers-1483019635

What a turn-around! Mark Davis has turned into a canny strategist and deal maker who is making everyone around him richer. The league, Kraft and others think LV and the Raiders are in good hands with him in charge. Pretty impressive given that report is per the Wall Street Journal who has seen a few skilled deal makers in the past.

Sounds pretty much like a done deal given the lack of a proposal from Oakland and the NFL's apparent buy-in.
 
#316 ·
#318 ·
What makes the situation in San Diego any better than Oakland? Doesn't appear the majority of tax payers in either city have a willingness to pay for a new stadium. So the Raiders would still be stuck figuring out a new stadium plan. Plus the media market is larger and the population more affluent in the Bay Area than San Diego (not that San Diego is minuscule or poor). On top of that, wouldn't the Raiders have to pay a relocation fee if they leave the Bay Area, even if they remain in CA?
 
#319 ·
it's time for davis to come back to the negotiating table in oakland. he and the league are on record saying he doesn't want to deal with outside funding like the lot group, yet they were willing to deal with adelson and goldman in vegas? the city of oakland has also stated in the past that they're willing to foot the bill for infrastructure upgrades at the coliseum site to the tune of 325MM. instead, mark davis is acting like a spoiled child that has had everything handed to him. from my understanding, the 500MM he has to contribute is in the form of loans from the league and goldman. he wants some fairy godfather to plop down nearly a billion dollars towards a new stadium that he doesn't have to pay rent or share revenue or give up a portion of the team for. that just doesn't happen in the world of california sport stadiums anymore.

moving the team from oakland/bay area makes absolutely zero financial sense. nowhere he goes will have the population or disposable income of the bay area. not to mention there's a pretty new stadium 35 miles down 880 that was built as a 2 team venue. a lot more raider fans will travel that 35 miles than the 20k he was expecting per game in vegas. rather than waste a billion dollars in oakland, he needs to take 100MM to replace the seats and upgrade signage at levi's and learn to share like the jets and giants and the rams and chargers.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top