Wolff Considering Temporary Bay Area Ballpark Royal Caribbean Against PortMiami MLS Stadium City Of St. Paul Approves Downtown Ballpark One Daytona Scores Another $20M Grant UK To Ink Long-Term Rupp Arena Lease Questions Arise On Soldier Field Expansion 49ers Set Low Prices For Stadium Debut Triple-A Bees Ink Naming-Rights Deal Facility Notes Chicago Exploring Soldier Field Expansion
Upcoming Conferences and Events
SBD/Issue 64/Facilities & Venues
Ed Roski Considers 49ers, Raiders Candidates For L.A. Stadium
Published December 14, 2009
|Roski Names 49ers, Raiders Among Seven
Teams That Could Move Into Industry Stadium
NOT FIT TO BE TOGETHER: In S.F., Ray Ratto wrote the NFL's "powers that be ... still think the 49ers and Raiders should share a new stadium," which is the "perfect solution if you know nothing about the two teams, the Bay Area or the fan bases." There are "reasons why the shared stadium is a good idea, but all of them are money-related," and the reasons "why it won't happen are more powerful." Neither team "wants to be perceived as the tenant of the other, and the location of the stadium would do exactly that." Also, neither team "wants to have the stadium farther from its fan base, which is why Santa Clara works to the 49ers' benefit but not to the Raiders," and "anywhere in the East Bay works to the Raiders' benefit but not the 49ers." Ratto noted Raiders' ownership situation also will be "in flux sooner rather than later," and new Raiders investors "may want to look toward Los Angeles at some future date." The Raiders "in their private moments" also "want the 49ers to lose the election, get angry at being scorned and look at Los Angeles, and the 49ers want the Raiders to leave for L.A. now" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 12/13).
EXPLAINING NEED FOR PUBLIC MONEY: Chargers Special Counsel Mark Fabiani wrote a letter to the editor in the SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE in response to his comments Thursday that a downtown San Diego stadium would require public funding. Fabiani wrote it is "important for people to understand that a stadium downtown would require a funding plan very different from the plan they've been hearing about for the past several years." The downtown San Diego site currently being considered is "just over 10 acres -- making it the smallest stadium site" in the NFL -- and as a result, the site will "accommodate, at most, the stadium, without any opportunity for the related development to help pay for the stadium." For that reason, the "successful development of a stadium at the downtown site will require sources of funding other than what might come from a related development, in addition to a $250-300[M] investment by the Chargers and the NFL." But Fabiani wrote it "would be a mistake for anyone to cast this as a debate between taxpayer money vs. no taxpayer money," as taxpayer money is "going to be spent no matter what." Those who "say they are in favor of the status quo -- those who say that the Chargers should simply stay in Qualcomm Stadium and play out their lease through the year 2020 -- are in fact advocating the spending of more than $300[M] in taxpayer money between now and then just to keep the aging stadium operating" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 12/12).