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
#228 ·
http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_28638165/purdy-rating-potential-outcomes-raiders-stadium-quest

I’m not normally a big fan of Purdy but this one gets it just about right. The Inglewood stadium is too nice and Kroenke’s money and will power too big to mess with for no good reason. He’s putting 2B of his own money into it and it becomes a showpiece rather than the merely OK Carson project in the middle of a toxic dump.

Raiders seem the likely choice for a second team in LA since SD has a decent offer on the table. Spanos can get 2-300 million from Kroenke’s relocations fee to help with the SD stadium.

I doubt the Raiders (or anyone else) are going to STL; the region is very poor and growth is non-existent. San Antonio is possible, but you still want to stay in the Bay Area based on the existing fan base, corporate money and economic growth. Santa Clara is only for temporary, not for more than 2 years.
 
#229 ·
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to set its docket of cases to hear for the next year sometime in October, 2015. Therefore, the case of San Jose vs. MLB will be hanging in the balance soon enough within the next few weeks. Here's an interesting article on San Jose's chances if the SCOTUS should decide to hear the case:

http://www.law360.com/articles/686149/mlb-s-antitrust-shield-likely-to-survive-san-jose-cert-bid

[Quote from article] --- The other recent development that could buoy San Jose is a speech retired Justice John Paul Stevens gave in May, calling for the court to reconsider the antitrust exemption.

"It now seems abundantly clear to me ... that it simply makes no sense to treat organized baseball differently from other professional sports under the antitrust laws," Justice Stevens said. "Nor would it be reasonable to conclude that the San Francisco Giants could not prevent the A's from moving their ball club to Oakland in 1967 but can now prevent them from moving from Oakland to San Jose."

The retired justice backed his call with his experience both working for the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee that considered MLB's antitrust status in the 1950s and his work helping the former owner of the A's move them from Kansas City to Oakland in the late 1960s.

That history, paired with Justice Stevens' antitrust expertise, may make for a compelling argument for the current court, according to Snyder.

"He made his living before he was a justice as an antitrust lawyer [and] Steven is incredibly respected in this area of law," Snyder said. "That's the best possible amicus brief ... that gave me a glimmer of hope."

Here's another article containing former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Steven's speech on baseball's anti-trust law:

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/i...l-Antitrust-Exemption?slreturn=20150822052845

Former Justice Steven's amicus brief may very well convince at least four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court to vote in favor of hearing San Jose's case against MLB.
Sounds about right.

Disregarding the b/s you hear from the many planted stories (and MLB has been heavily involved in that) very few believe the Supreme Ct. will take the case just to follow their obviously wrong precedent one more time.

The only real issue is whether they will give Congress more time by not taking the case. If they do take it, MLB quickly comes up with a solution since there is little to win and much to lose.
 
#230 ·
The city of Santa Clara makes money in the first fiscal year from their Levi's stadium:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking...ives-first-financial-accounting-levis-stadium

It seems that some of their city council members are dissatisfied with the amount of money they are getting from Levi's stadium general revenues.
LOL. Basically nobody on the council understood a word of the financial results. Probably because they stopped taking math in 5th grade. Fortunately, their typical decisions are deciding what color the street signs should be.

But they DID understand that they deserve more of a cut of the profits. What happened here was that a private organization proposed that they would do all the deal structuring, provide a world known entertainment product, sign a 40 year lease, arrange all funding, get a vote of residents through and perform every other task, and that the city would get free money. Meanwhile the city council sat with their fingers stuck in the usual places.

Now that it happened, the city thinks they are the real geniuses here and can't understand how someone stole all of the money that they really deserve.
 
#231 ·
Not a 49er or Raider fan; this is just my objective take on how things are changing.

Oakland hasn't done much more than stall on a stadium for the Raiders, hoping that things change. And change they have.

Libby Schaaf, from the OC Register: “At the meeting next week the City of Oakland will demonstrate to the league how Oakland continues to be a tremendous market for the Raiders franchise. We'll show how everything from Oakland's growing economic momentum and urban vitality to the team's die-hard regional fan base make it clear that there is no better time for a major league team to be located in, or associated with Oakland.”

Heroner will be bringing no stadium plans. But the NFL is all about making money and STL and SD are small and seriously flawed markets. STL is stagnant and has shrunk to about half its former population. SD is doing fine economically but normally has more fans for the visiting team in the stadium than for the Chargers.

By contrast Oakland not only has loyal fans from all over the state, it has strong economic and population growth, both in the city itself and all over East Bay. Plus there is no other football team north of Santa Clara, so they are the default choice for about 2/3 of the Bay Area.

And to add to the perfect storm, the 49ers have imploded on every level: offense and defense, in the press, in the front office and even nationally, where York and Baalke has come to mean short-sighted, self-centered and backstabbing. They can't even get grass to grow right.

It is a moment of unusual possibilities for Marc Davis and the team to widen their base in NorCal. And the league has to be concerned that a move to LA leaves only the staggering 49ers in a metro area of 9M, with lots of money.

You never know.
 
#233 ·
Oakland not only has loyal fans from all over the state, it has strong economic and population growth, both in the city itself and all over East Bay. Plus there is no other football team north of Santa Clara, so they are the default choice for about 2/3 of the Bay Area.

And to add to the perfect storm, the 49ers have imploded on every level: offense and defense, in the press, in the front office and even nationally, where York and Baalke has come to mean short-sighted, self-centered and backstabbing. They can't even get grass to grow right.
It's an extraordinary feeling to agree with you so strongly, but I do. It's a fact: One can get to Raiders games from downtown San Francisco in minutes by BART. It takes hours to get to 49ers games. I certainly feel the Raiders are now more the "San Francisco" team than the 49ers no matter what the Santa Clara organization chooses to call itself. And I think with proper marketing, future generations of San Franciscans could grow up seeing things that way too.

Where we may not agree is on how short-sighted and foolish was a move so far from the city whose name they insisted on clinging to, but what's done is done. They are now the "Santa Clara 49ers" for better of worse. Any bets on how long that lasts before they decide to pack up for greener (bigger, more supportive, with a larger population) pastures? In reality, for now they are a "small market" team.
 
#232 ·
Commentary: Oakland Should Build Raiders New Stadium In Exchange For Stake In Team
November 3, 2015 9:34 AM | KCBS News Anchor Stan Bunger offers his unique sports analysis.

Here it is: Oakland and Alameda County should do what Raiders owner Mark Davis wants. They should build him a new stadium. But in return, they get a piece of the team.

Am I nuts? Are the people investing in all those startup “unicorns” nuts? Last time I looked, Uber was valued at more than $50 billion, and it hasn’t made a nickel in profit.

Before you completely dismiss the idea, let’s look at some numbers.
Experts conservatively estimate an NFL franchise provides an average return of over $100 million a year. That’s factoring in operating income plus the crazy appreciation rate. In other words, it’s like owning a rental house that’s both cash-flow-positive AND in an area of skyrocketing values. You make money every year, and you make a whole lot of money when you sell.

The die is already cast on NFL revenue. Without putting a single butt in a single seat, every team receives over $225 million a year in network TV revenue, and that number is going nowhere but up.
Taxpayers are still paying to retire the debt on that project (and paying to cover an annual operating loss at the Coliseum). Back then, NFL per-team TV revenue was on the order of $3 million a year. Now, it’s roughly 75 times that. Just think where East Bay taxpayers would sit now if they’d told Davis, “We’ll build Mount Davis, but we want 5 percent of each year’s TV money.” That would be $11 million this year.

It should be clear to all that the days of building a stadium so a billionaire sports team owner can use it to get wealthier are over. It should also be clear that a pro sports franchise is a sort of community asset.

So why not make it an ACTUAL asset?
 
#236 ·
http://www.mercurynews.com/sharks/ci_29082559/sharks-fans-explain-why-their-tickets-have-gone


Seems the S.J. Mercury News is noticing the large numbers of empty seats at the Shark Tank as I've noticed so far this season. Shark management better wake up and pay attention lest we end up like the feeble Oakland A's franchise.
Once the Golden Warriors new arena opens, I wonder whether the Sharks organization might begin looking into relocating up to SF rather than remain in SJ?
 
#240 ·
Super Bowl 50 Committee Asks San Francisco To Take Down Muni Wires
BY JACK MORSE IN NEWS ON NOV 12, 2015 11:10 AM

The bundle of joy that is Super Bowl 50 has found yet another way to mess with your commute. Not content to take over Justin Herman Plaza and a chunk of the Embarcadero in the name of a Fan Village — sweeping any and all homeless under the rug in the process — the Super Bowl 50 Committee has plans to remove the unsightly overhead Muni wires along Market Street. That this could potentially disrupt bus lines and streetcar traffic for weeks before and after the event appears to be of little concern.

While the Super Bowl itself is set to take place at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, the Fan Village will be right here in San Francisco. With street closures from January 30 to Game Day on February 7, 2016, that section of the city will effectively be shut down for 8 days . . . .

In conversation with The Examiner, Supervisor Jane Kim confirmed the Super Bowl 50 Committee's desire to pull down Muni wires . . . .

Unnamed sources confirmed with the Examiner that any wire removal would probably cost a “seven-figure number” and necessitate “lots of overtime” to do correctly.

However, the removal is not set in stone. Dan Weaver, a member of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s Citizen Advisory Council, told the Examiner that the item is on the agenda for the December 3 meeting of the council.

The meeting, which takes place on Thursday, December 3 at 5:30 p.m., will be held in the 7th floor SFMTA offices at One South Van Ness Avenue. If you can't attend in person, but wish to make your voice heard, you can always email the committee.

Perhaps the committee's plan should come as no surprise — after all, in looking back at the Fan Village renderings, all Muni wires are conspicuously absent.

http://sfist.com/2015/11/12/super_bowl_50_committee_requesting.php

Thank G*d I won't be in town in February but I wish somebody would tell these people to take a hike in the name of all the people who just want to be able to live in peace in their city while this sporting event happens in another one.
 
#244 ·
Rams and Chargers to Inglewood seems to be the dream solution for the NFL but (I believe) Spanos is afraid he can't afford the stadium investment, the relocation fee and the PSL and suites competition against a team that is much more popular in LA. So there is still a good chance for the Raiders to grab the second spot in LA.

If not, they will stick it out in Oakland rather than moving to STL or Levi's. The STL offer is for the team to kick in 450M (including NFL funding the Raiders have to pay back) and not get the PSL's. Not much of an offer.
 
#245 ·
NFL could help develop Oakland Raiders stadium
Contra Costa Times
by Matthew Artz
POSTED: 12/07/2015 12:24:48 PM PST| UPDATED: ABOUT 3 HOURS AGO


In a move that could help solve the Los Angeles relocation puzzle, a top NFL executive said Monday the league is open to helping develop a new stadium for the Raiders near O. Co Coliseum.

While an Oakland stadium plan likely couldn't come together before a new Dec. 30 league-imposed deadline for cities at risk of losing their teams to Los Angeles, the NFL's continued push for a deal in Oakland is seen as a hopeful sign that it might keep the team in place for now despite Oakland offering relatively little in terms of public subsidies.
Oakland could still run out of time on its bid to keep the Raiders.

Schaaf acknowledged that the city won't be able to have a final stadium-financing plan by the league's Dec. 30 deadline. A vote by NFL owners at their Jan. 12-13 meeting in favor of the Carson stadium would likely spell the end for the Raiders in Oakland, but a delay or a vote in favor of the Inglewood project could buy more time for the city to strike a deal.

In the past month, Schaaf has said she was open to using the proceeds from development rights around a new stadium -- potentially worth more than $100 million -- to help build the stadium. She also has said she would consider having the city issue bonds to help pay for the facility but only if they were secured by a private party rather than the city's general fund.
 
#246 ·
S.F. supervisors OK Warriors arena for Mission Bay
By J.K. Dineen
Updated 11:09 pm, Tuesday, December 8, 2015

The Golden State Warriors’ three-year campaign to bring professional basketball back to San Francisco reached its final political milestone Tuesday night, as the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to support the construction of an 18,500-seat, $1 billion arena in Mission Bay.

After five hours of testimony about the arena’s impact on traffic, parking and the UCSF Hospital at Mission Bay, the supervisors found that plans for beefed-up public transit and a nimble fleet of traffic control officers could handle the thousands of basketball fans flooding the neighborhood for games.

While the board approval sealed the political deal, the fight will likely move to the courts. The Mission Bay Alliance — an organization made up of UCSF donors and former board members — has said it will file a lawsuit to block the arena.

The board certified the arena’s environmental impact report after rejecting an appeal by the alliance. It also established a Mission Bay transportation fund that will be dedicated to paying for $55 million in transit infrastructure, including four new light-rail vehicles, upgraded Muni power, new signals and signage and an expanded T-Third line platform next to the arena and UCSF. That vote was 9-1, with Supervisor John Avalos voting against . . . .

In a statement, Mayor Ed Lee, who has characterized bringing the Warriors to San Francisco as his “legacy project,” called the vote “a huge win for San Francisco” . . . .

Warriors President Rick Welts said the team approached the approvals process “the same way our team” approaches its work . . . .

Given that the alliance has been promising to sue since the organization was formed six months ago, the Warriors fully expect that the final games will be played out in court.

“We cannot be cowed by threats of lawsuits no matter how loud they may be made,” said Whitman Manley, an attorney for the Warriors.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-supervisors-OK-Warriors-arena-for-Mission-Bay-6685450.php
 
#247 ·
Great news for the Bay Area. Presumably the NFL will help the Raiders build a new stadium in Oakland, which makes sense financially for the NFL since the Bay Area's economy is crazy good. Probably a much better ROI for the NFL by partnering with the Raiders on a new stadium than partnering with either the Rams in St. Louis or the Chargers in San Diego.

I wonder if Oakland can manage to keep the A's as well?
 
#248 ·
As I said in the SJ thread...
whoa whoa whoa WHOA! You clearly misunderstood what just went down today.

Other owners gave Spanos right of first refusal to secondary status in Inglewood. He is VERY skeptical of Kroenke's terms and now he officially has $100M extra to build in his current home, plus some offer from SD still standing. Oakland offered the Raiders NOTHING, and now Davis has the option to be tenant in Inglewood if Spanos declines. Not only that, but Davis has San Antonio AND St Louis (if not San Diego too) as leverage against Oakland, which we all know will offer NO FREE MONEY to build a new stadium. The Raiders are good as gone and the A's will have the Coliseum site.
 
#249 ·
It's looking like the odds are against Oakland moving to L.A. Most of the recent articles point to the NFL front office favoring a Rams/Chargers partnership with a new stadium in Inglewood.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-relocation-20160112-story.html



I like the glass dome & screening over the top of the entire stadium -- a feature that the 49ers should have incorporated in Levi's stadium
Not glass and not a dome. It is a canopy supported by columns; there are NO walls to the stadium.

The covering is EFTE a light, translucent plastic about 1/10th the weight of glass. It is being used so that the stadium can be available for Final Fours, award ceremonies and other events requiring covers.

Features are quite remarkable as well.
 
#250 ·
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_29380109/oakland-ready-make-concessions-raiders-land-and-parking

OAKLAND -- In what could be the first step toward keeping the Raiders in Oakland long term, Mayor Libby Schaaf said Wednesday she is open to leasing the team land at a "favorable" price and sacrificing development opportunities to preserve parking spaces for tailgaters.

The Raiders will have extra incentive to look closely at the city's new approach. As part of a compromise that will bring the Rams back to Los Angeles next season, the NFL is offering to boost its financial support for a new stadium in Oakland from $200 to $300 million.

On Tuesday, Davis said he had no message for Schaaf. "She knows what it's going to take to get something done," he said, referencing his demand that the Raiders control the full Coliseum site. [Unquote]

Given the $500 million to $600 million relocation fee charged by the NFL, I believe there is very little likelihood that Mark Davis will move away from Oakland anytime soon unless he relinquishes majority control of the Raiders ownership. If the Raiders stay in Oakland at the highly attractive coliseum site then it will cause the Oakland A's to start looking around at another site in the Bay Area. This will give the A's leverage to get permission from MLB to move to a more lucrative location in the Bay Area.
Remember, it's all about money---follow the money! This is exactly why the ownership group of the NFL chose the Rams to move to Inglewood.

Regarding a possible move to San Antonio, CBS Sports Analyst Amy Trask (former Raider's executive) says that a Raider's move to San Antonio would be opposed by Jerry Jones (Cowboys) & Bob McNair (Houston Texans owner) as it would cut into their markets in Texas. With their considerable influence in the NFL ownership group, it's assumed they would be able to get the minimum 9 votes to block the Raiders moving to San Antonio. As far as a move to San Diego, other sports analysts say it is highly unlikely the NFL would support a Raiders move to that city as it would conflict with the two new NFL teams trying to establish themselves in the L.A. market. For the time being, the NFL wants to limit the SOCAL market to only 2 teams, thus leaving San Diego out of the picture.
The word is that the Bolts move in with Kroenke but I wouldn't assume that it is a certainty. I agree that SA, STL and SD are only remote possibilities for the Raiders. But Davis is quite wary since Oakland has always been long on talk and short on cooperation.

Like Spanos, Davis was left mostly with mediocre choices.
 
#251 ·
I stand corrected. But notice that Stan Kroenke refers to the cover over the entire venue as a "roof". Not that anyone here in the bay area cares since this is all about an L.A. team.

About ETFE: http://architecture.about.com/od/construction/g/ETFE.htm
According to this article, ETFE weighs about 1/100th the weight of glass.
One of the disadvantages of ETFE is: ETFE transmits more sound than glass, and can be too noisy for some places. This could pose a problem since it is directly over the landing approach to LAX. The use of real glass would suppress noise much more than this material but be much more expensive.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2015/03/inglewood_nfl_stadium_billboard_roof.php

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-inglewood-20150322-column.html

One thing I don't like about this stadium is that it will have artificial turf. There have been numerous studies done about artificial turf causing a lot more injuries to players vs. natural grass.

Also, since this stadium is under the direct approach to LAX, the stadium itself will have to dig deep underground to meet the height restrictions imposed by the FAA. Apparently, the Kroenke organization is going to have to do a lot of negotiating with the FAA before this development gets built.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/FAA-Questions-Inglewood-Stadium-Plans-365228301.html
The architect (HKS) said it was 1/10th but not important.

Agree with preferring natural turf and no roof. But the intent is to be able to host Final Fours and other events requiring a covering. And the aesthetics of the place are just incredible.

The FAA has called the talks a "formality". The stadium is going to be embedded in any event since they want it to be shorter on the side that flows into plazas, lakes, parks, retail and housing. Didn't want to stick out in a walkable urban development.
 
#252 ·
OK. In any event I would have favored natural turf and a clear opening to the sky.

The FAA issue has been described as routine but that's all I can say.

In any event, the Rams will be playing there and it looks like the Chargers or Raiders will join them. Davis was clearly disappointed that he has to give the Chargers a year to think about it however. He called himself as finishing 3rd in the contest to get to LA.

Here's a summary if anyone is interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZn4nIVDN1U

The architect presentation begins at about 2:00.
 
#253 ·
Regarding the natural turf, the specs on the ETFE material says the following;
Exceptional Light Transmission – ETFE films can be highly transparent (from 90% to 95%) and allow for the passing of UVs which are responsible for the promotion of photosynthesis thus facilitating plant growth.

If these specs are accurate then they should be able to grow natural grass instead of using turf since the ETFE is highly transparent and allows for the promotion of photosynthesis needed for plant growth.

Re: The FAA concerns:

According to the NBC L.A. news reporter, the FAA says the stadium structure may have an adverse effect on the FAA's radar system for
navigating takeoffs and landings. The reporter states the building is much too tall and must be shortened considerably and that the the stadium must be reshaped and that the building must use more radiation absorbent materials. These are not small issues--especially the height issue. This means that they will have to dig much deeper underground to reduce the overall height of the stadium which could lead to other issues depending on the water table level in that area. These issues could add $millions to the overall cost of construction which probably wouldn't be a problem for Stan Kroenke.
http://www.dailybreeze.com/sports/20160117/faa-issues-with-inglewood-stadium-proposal-evaporated

Since you seem to be interested in FAA procedures, this may be of interest. In brief the FAA and private experts believe that the stadium height is a non-issue. This is consistent with their comments when the routine preliminary questions were asked.
 
#255 ·
What Warriors arena deal says about S.F.'s brand
Jan 28, 2016, 7:17am PST
Ron Leuty
Reporter, San Francisco Business Times

. . . in lining up an expected nine-figure deal with New York-based megabank JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) as the naming rights sponsor for the Warriors' planned arena in San Francisco's Mission Bay neighborhood, the franchise chose to go blue chip, not Bay Area.

"Chase Center" — as the $1 billion arena is expected to be called if the Warriors can dunk over an environmental challenge to start construction — is as San Francisco as a coney dog and Donald Trump.

Provincial? Sure. But Warriors co-owner Joe Lacob has spoken passionately about how local ownership means everything to a franchise. Lacob, a partner at venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, was intimately involved with turning the franchise from a cellar dweller to a champion, on and off the basketball court.
Naming rights may be different — and in a way that doesn't work in the Bay Area's favor.

Hot, new brands — even (or maybe especially) ones with "unicorn" valuations of $1 billion or more — carry risks that established companies typically do not bring to the table, said Rich Campbell, a professor of marketing at Sonoma State University who tracks sports marketing.

"Chase isn't the kind of company that that's going to happen to. It's a blue-chip company," Campbell said. "You take a risk with a less-mature company: Will they be around 20 years from now?"

There was some speculation the Warriors would ink a naming rights deal with San Francisco's Uber Technologies — the team's potential Mission Bay neighbor and the poster child of Bay Area-based "disruptive" companies with the biggest horn among the unicorns. And then there's Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG), Facebook Inc. (NASDAQ: FB), Salesforce (NYSE: CRM), from which the team is buying the arena site, and other tech companies whose names on a high-profile structure would highlight the backbone of the Bay Area's booming economy.
But David Cush, CEO of Burlingame-based airline Virgin America (NASDAQ: VA), said sports facility naming rights deals are "too pricey for us."

"If you can afford it, it's a good bargain — especially this arena, which will be used 300 nights a year," Cush told my colleague Mark Calvey before he addressed entrepreneurs and tech employees Wednesday night at the NASDAQ Entrepreneurial Center in San Francisco. "But it's just a little bit outside of our price range."

Besides, Campbell said, he's not sure the Warriors would be interested in pursuing a trending company for such a high-profile, long-term deal.

"Remember during the dot-com boom several buildings had names associated with dot-coms and Enron, and those companies go belly up or renege and then you have to sell it again," Campbell said.

At the same time, with a deal expected to top the $200 million Barclays Bank shelled out for the Brooklyn Nets' home, JPMorgan Chase may be buying at the height of the Warriors' popularity while hoping to execute a long-term commercial and investment strategy in the Bay Area . . . .

"Chase sees California as a great market over the next 20 years. This is certainly a signal that they would like to develop one," Campbell said. "I see it more as a future play in California. They're ponying up to get their name on the premium new building in California."

By announcing a naming rights deal at least three years before the team expects to move into the 18,064-seat arena — and after two delays for the development — the Warriors, too, could be borrowing off today's success to finance the arena.

"They may not be the premium product (in 10 years), but they are right now," Campbell said.

JPMorgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon was seen sitting courtside with Lacob during Wednesday night's Warriors game in Oakland against the Dallas Mavericks. The Warriors won, running their season record to 42-4 . . . .

JPMorgan Chase's deal with the Warriors could signal a challenge to San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE: WFC) and highlight the decrescendo of Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) as a local banking brand of force. BofA, of course, was a bank that prided itself in bankrolling San Francisco's rebuild after the 1906 earthquake, but its 1998 "merger of equals" with Charlotte, N.C.-based NationsBank was anything but, with the BofA name and most of its top jobs disintegrating into the megabank ether.

Bank of America, by the way, has its name on the home field of the National Football League's Carolina Panthers, who play Feb. 7 in Super Bowl 50 at Levi's Stadium.

It is possible that JPM is the "big, big, big, big financial institution" that Lacob told me in October is financing the Warriors' San Francisco development. (He did say at the time, however, that the financier is not a bank) . . . .
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...28&u=kgyD14TZJI3FvbdA37c/luRxObP&t=1454007755
 
#256 ·
Sheldon Adelson is the disruptor in such a plan. Davis could have been blocked from other markets by not having financing approved, but now he's buddying up to a guy worth 2.5 Kroenkes, but who is building a stadium regardless and doesn't have his own NFL franchise. If Mark gets fed up enough, he will do as his dad did and move to LV to spite everyone else. If the league doesn't want a lawsuit (they have no MLB antitrust exemption) or a big wrench in their schedule, they will swallow it and move on. Seems a lot smarter than some drawn-out game of attrition, and a lot less petty.
 
#258 ·
Possible but not likely. The NFL would have to do a complete turnaround on its position regarding LV and gambling.

Could happen, but much more likely that Davis would grab the LA spot if the Chargers work out something in SD. That would be a dream come true: nominal rent, a built-in fan base and playing in the premier football stadium in the world.
 
#257 · (Edited)
According to Bleacher Report writer, Jason Cole, who was interviewed this afternoon on KNBR, the NFL wants to get rid of Mark Davis as the owner of the Raiders by having him sell the team to the likes of Larry Ellison --who has previously expressed an interest in buying the team. Apparently, the NFL feels that Larry Ellison has the interest and the moola to build a new stadium in Oakland. Jason Cole says the NFL just wants to get rid of Mark Davis and will not go out of its way in helping him build a new stadium in Oakland. The league is just letting Mark Davis hang out to dry so that he will have no options except to eventually sell the team to a true billionaire like Larry Ellison.
Sounds far-fetched. Larry was also supposed to by the Grizzlies, the Warriors, the Kings and half a dozen other professional teams from baseball to soccer.

Jason Cole, btw, also said that the Bolts/Raiders in Carson was a prohibitive favorite for getting the LA market.
 
#259 ·
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...raiders-san-antonio-las-vegas-nfl-schaaf.html

Heroner basically tells the Raiders that Oakland is still not giving any money but look at that lovely land over there.

Legitimately the land has gone up in value as Oakland benefits from the SF spillover. But that didn't keep Davis from fighting hard for LA and it seems doubtful he would stay long if he gets his chance there or in LV.
 
#260 ·
Lowell Cohn a longtime sports writer for the S.F. Chronicle and now a sports writer for the Santa Rosa Press Democrat makes a keen observation about the Super Bowl and the treatment received by the South Bay (San Jose & Santa Clara). Kind of makes you hate the NFL league office for setting the whole affair up the way they did.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/sports/5185643-181/lowell-cohn-south-bay-gets?artslide=0
This argument has been going on for the last many Super Bowls. NY vs NJ, Phoneix vs Mesa, Dallas vs Arlington. Kind of embarrassing IMO.

Big NFL stadiums these days are located in the suburbs with lots of land. If San Jose or the South Bay wanted the naming rights for the Super Bowl, they should have pushed harder. If there is another one, which I don't think there will be for a while, I fully support San Jose to take the head roll and be the sponsor.
 
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