49ers Confirm Intent To Build New Stadium In Santa Clara

49ers Focusing On Building New Stadium In Santa Clara

The 49ers confirmed that they “intend to leave San Francisco for a proposed new stadium in Santa Clara” near Paramount’s Great America theme park, according to Dennis Georgatos of the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS. 49ers co-Owner John York: “We’re very focused now on Santa Clara. It will become our top priority.” However, he “did not close the door on San Francisco,” and he added that it “‘would be foolish’ not to listen if the city produced an alternative to its current plan.” York envisions construction in Santa Clara beginning by 2010, with the team playing there by 2012. The 49ers’ lease at Monster Park expires in May ’08, and a S.F. City Attorney’s Office spokesperson said that officials “are reviewing the lease with the team, as well as other possible means of legal action.” York said that resolving Candlestick Point’s “inadequate infrastructure, public transit and lack of parking could have doubled the [new] stadium’s estimated [$600-800M] cost.” York: “Candlestick Point can’t deliver the experience we wanted for our fans. ... We will go from the oldest and worst stadium in the NFL to the newest and best in the league” (SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, 11/10).

S.F. SHOCKER: S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom said York is “a very straight shooter, but in this case, respectfully, I don’t think he has been. We were just two months ago talking about rolling [a new stadium plan] out.” He added that his administration “would ‘do everything in our power to keep the San Francisco 49ers in San Francisco’ and that the move was ‘not a fait accompli.’” Newsom said that City Attorney Dennis Herrera is “investigating whether the team would be allowed to renew” their Monster Park lease while searching for a stadium site in Santa Clara. Newsom even “questioned whether the 49ers could represent themselves as a San Francisco team if they didn’t play there.” Newsom: “I’m not sure people can just take advantage of a city without being in a city” (S.F. CHRONICLE, 11/10). Michael Cohen, S.F.’s lead negotiator, said that he thought “‘great progress’ was being made on team concerns such as transportation and ‘day-of-game experience’ and thought the parties were meeting late Wednesday for a routine update” (L.A. TIMES, 11/10).

FINANCIAL DETAILS SKETCHY: In San Jose, Pollak & Patel report both the 49ers and Santa Clara agree that neither new taxes nor tapping the general fund will go toward building a stadium, but details are unknown. Santa Clara City Manager Jennifer Sparacino: “We really haven’t gotten into any financing details.” Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce President Steve Van Dorn added, “The only downside is the unknown. We don’t know how this is going to be financed.” 49ers VP/Communications Lisa Lang said that a “public partner is required” if the team wants to use the NFL’s G-3 program, which provides up to $150M toward new stadiums (SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, 11/10). But Lang added, “There are no specifics. ... We’re just at the beginning stage of that process” (SACRAMENTO BEE, 11/10). In San Jose, Ann Killion writes, “What seems to be lacking is the thing that all pie-in-the-sky stadium plans lack: a solid financing plan.” Lang said, “You need to let us worry about the cost.” But Killion writes that is a “fancy way of saying, um, ‘We don’t know.’” Credibility is “another missing piece. ... Why are we supposed to believe York that the stadium is on the right course now? What exactly is his stellar track record on this issue?” (SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, 11/10).

Newsom Hopes To Be Able To Keep 49ers In San Francisco

DOWN IN THE VALLEY: In San Jose, Mark Purdy notes with the A’s planning to move to Fremont, Northern California is “undergoing an alteration” of its pro sports landscape. By 2012, three of the six major Bay Area franchises –- the 49ers, A’s and Sharks –- “will be in the South Bay,” and the Raiders could “abandon [the area] when their lease expires in 2010” (SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, 11/10). California State Univ.-East Bay professor and Journal of Sports Economics Editor Leo Kahane said that Santa Clara “has a big upside, especially compared with Candlestick [Point].” Kahane: “Santa Clara is less densely populated, the land is flat, it has a giant parking lot associated with Great America, and it’s served by light rail.” He added that the Silicon Valley location “also puts it in good position to tap corporate sponsors” (S.F. CHRONICLE, 11/10). ESPN.com’s Mark Kreidler wrote S.F. and the Bay Area is a “tough place to do business on a massive sporting scale.” The MLB Giants failed four times on a public vote for a ballpark before privately financing the construction of AT&T Park. The move from S.F. will come at “little expense to the 49ers’ fan base, which is diverse enough geographically that a move away from San Francisco itself is not a business risk” (ESPN.com, 11/9). Stanford Univ. economist Roger Noll said, “Suburbanization of sports franchises is nothing new. It just hasn’t happened [in S.F.] until now.” But former 49ers GM Carmen Policy said, “There is no question there is an extremely strong and valuable connection between a team and a city” (S.F. CHRONICLE, 11/10).

L.A. NOT AN OPTION: In S.F., Nancy Gay writes fans can “discount any notion that the 49ers’ decision to build in Santa Clara is some power play to move the franchise eventually” to L.A. NFL VP/PR Greg Aiello: “The team’s announcement speaks for itself. ... This has nothing to do with [L.A.]” (S.F. CHRONICLE, 11/10). York added that the club “would look elsewhere in the Bay Area if the Santa Clara site does not pan out.” York said, “We have never considered L.A.” (S.F. CHRONICLE, 11/10).

POLITICS, IT’S ALL POLITICS: ESPN’s Chris Mortensen said of the 49ers’ potential move, “It’s the shame of California politics. It’s the reason we don’t have a team in (L.A.) and there’s nothing promising happening there. (The Chargers are) looking around for a place to play as well.” Mortensen called it “a blow for the team and for the NFL that the team would not be located somewhere in (S.F.) It’s a problem all the sporting teams have had there in trying to get money in some fashion to help build new stadiums” (“SportsCenter,” 11/9). In Sacramento, Marcos Breton writes that in California, “anti-tax laws never intended to target sports teams have created massive uncertainty amid signature state sports franchises. The repercussions from safeguards against opportunistic owners have been going off like bombs across a sporting landscape known for championships and stability” (SAC. BEE, 11/10).

REAX: In S.F., Ray Ratto writes, “The city was never quite sure what the 49ers wanted, stadium-wise, because the 49ers have never known what they’ve wanted. ... Their argument stands so poorly, and their presentation was so myopic, circular and vague ... that you have to suspect ulterior motives” (S.F. CHRONICLE, 11/10). A S.F. CHRONICLE editorial states the 49ers “seemed to have been on the right track in developing a plan for Candlestick Point with a housing-retail complex and potential use” in the 2016 Olympics. While it “might make sense” for the 49ers and Raiders to “combine on a venue that could host 20 regular-season games and be on the Super Bowl rotation,” York and Raiders Owner Al Davis “would sooner move to the Moon than work together for mutual and regional benefit” (S.F. CHRONICLE, 11/10). However, in Oakland, Monte Poole writes, “This is less about abandoning a city than fleeing a stadium easily the worst in the NFL, fully aware that any new stadium on the same site will inherit most of the old problems –- at almost twice the cost. Put simply, the Yorks stand to get more for their money in Santa Clara” (OAKLAND TRIBUNE, 11/10).

Breakdown In Stadium Talks Could Be Death Knell For S.F.’s Olympic Bid

MAJOR BLOW TO OLYMPIC HOPES: NBCSPORTS.com’s Alan Abrahamson reported members of the S.F. delegation hoping to bid on the 2016 Olympics were “blindsided” by the 49ers’ announcement that they “had abandoned plans for a new stadium in the city.” The bid group, which would have used the new stadium for Opening and Closing ceremonies, is “weighing all options, including withdrawing.” S.F. 2016 Dir of Communications Jaime Rupert: “Certainly we are going to look at any and all options” (NBCSPORTS.com, 11/9). S.F. 2016 Managing Dir Scott Givens said, “We are absolutely shocked. We were caught absolutely without warning, with no ability to express any options to the USOC. To have York treat all of us like this is quite unfortunate. We’ll see if this is recoverable in the eyes of the USOC. ... We need to regroup” (S.F. CHRONICLE, 11/10).