Rumors: Slummin with the 9ers?
And you thought it couldn't get any worse? Rumors are swirling around a supposed conversation between 49ers owner John York and the Raiders regarding a joint tenancy deal that would have both teams playing in a new stadium in Santa Clara by 2012. After years of failure, the 49ers are looking for any answer to their stadium woes. So shacking up with Al Davis could be the only option available to them.
Seems that they can't fund a stadium on their own, nor does it appear that the 49er brain trust has the brains to figure out any other creative financing options to land a new home.
So in case it wasn’t already obvious, let me tell you why this is a bad idea for the Raiders:
1) Money. Part of the luxury of calling a stadium your home is the right to generate capital by doing things like selling advertising. Advertising within a stadium is a very lucrative business. Sharing a stadium means sharing this type of revenue (unless the two sides can figure out how swap in their own advertising for home games).
2) More Money. The naming rights to a stadium alone are worth millions of dollars. The Raiders cashed in handsomely with the Network Associates deal, because they had some leverage in the revenue share for the deal. The A’s also cashed in, but the A’s also play 81 regular season games there + playoffs.
3) Even More Money. Ancillary revenues that are derived from things like concessions are a cash cow for any professional sports team. Having two different vendors managing concessions seems like a bad way to generate top dollar for your concessions.
4) These are the 49ers we’re talking about. John York would prefer to see the Raiders based 400 miles south in order to prevent empty seats from popping up all over his stadium. Even the faithful gave up on them two season ago, which forced San Francisco to launch a ridiculous ad campaign challenging the faithfulness of their fans. So, given York’s true desire, how do you go into business with the guy?
5) Prestige. One of the things that Al Davis covets the most is prestige. Having to share a stadium with his biggest rival in the NFL (forget Denver and Kansas City) isn’t something the big guy is going to pony up to anytime soon.
Seems that they can't fund a stadium on their own, nor does it appear that the 49er brain trust has the brains to figure out any other creative financing options to land a new home.
So in case it wasn’t already obvious, let me tell you why this is a bad idea for the Raiders:
1) Money. Part of the luxury of calling a stadium your home is the right to generate capital by doing things like selling advertising. Advertising within a stadium is a very lucrative business. Sharing a stadium means sharing this type of revenue (unless the two sides can figure out how swap in their own advertising for home games).
2) More Money. The naming rights to a stadium alone are worth millions of dollars. The Raiders cashed in handsomely with the Network Associates deal, because they had some leverage in the revenue share for the deal. The A’s also cashed in, but the A’s also play 81 regular season games there + playoffs.
3) Even More Money. Ancillary revenues that are derived from things like concessions are a cash cow for any professional sports team. Having two different vendors managing concessions seems like a bad way to generate top dollar for your concessions.
4) These are the 49ers we’re talking about. John York would prefer to see the Raiders based 400 miles south in order to prevent empty seats from popping up all over his stadium. Even the faithful gave up on them two season ago, which forced San Francisco to launch a ridiculous ad campaign challenging the faithfulness of their fans. So, given York’s true desire, how do you go into business with the guy?
5) Prestige. One of the things that Al Davis covets the most is prestige. Having to share a stadium with his biggest rival in the NFL (forget Denver and Kansas City) isn’t something the big guy is going to pony up to anytime soon.
posted by Mike at
8:48 PM
4 Comments:
On the $$ side of the ledger, it would probably make sense however; I can't imagine Mr. Davis sharing anything with anybody.
The lease at THE HOT expires in 2011 and I'm certain that Mr. Davis is looking at ALL posible scenarios.
It would be rough to not be the OAKLAND RAIDERS but, Oakland hasn't been that good to the Raiders.
Pigs will fly before Al shacks up with Yorkie the whining poodle.
Prior to the lease expiring, I would expect an agreement to be reached which would renovate the Coliseum and extend the deal for another 10 years. The Raiders are in a good situation now that the A's have found another stadium.
I agree EP, but mainly based on the fact that Al wouldn't share a stadium in the Hollywood park deal, and the assumption he still wouldn't want the Raiders to share a marquee with anyone else.
Dollars-wise, however, it does make sense if both teams are looking to build their own stadium. The money saved in building and finance costs far exceeds the revenue lost from having to split naming rights. Indeed, naming rights are more valuable if you can increase the number of events at the site. While you may not get double the value, it would certainly be worth more with two teams in a single site.
Concession-wise, there are no dollars lost, since the stadium would be empty on away games. However, with more games at the site, you may be able to reduce your cost per game, which in turn increases your revenue.
And I don't think that Al cares one bit about the whiner ownership. The johnny-come-lately, penny-pinching, know-nothing-about-football owner is more likely disregarded by Al than loathed by him. I'd put Spanos or Bowlen ahead of him, but I think if Al has a rival with anyone it is the league office, more so than any of his peers.
Stickum, the point I was trying to make, albeit poorly, was that any team that has to share a concessionaire will probably lose out in the long term, because it's impractical to think that the two parties would have sep entities running their concessions. Does that create less bargaining power when negotiating these contracts? Possibly. It also gives one contractee less power to demand a specific level of quality, rev share, etc. if the contractor can easily fall back on the other contractee.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home