Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
5. They need to sell those personal seat licenses to pay back the city
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 01:50 PM
Apr 2012

Last edited Wed Apr 18, 2012, 03:14 PM - Edit history (1)

If the money from PSLs, naming rights, and suites doesn't add up to $450 million (plus interest) over three years, then Santa Clara could be left holding a very large bag. That PSL sales are going well so far is certainly good news, but there's still a bunch of uncertainty — in particular, the naming-rights market has been all over the place of late — and it's Santa Clara that's taking the risk on this, not the 49ers.

In short, we're still back where we were in December: This could turn out to be one of the best stadium deals for a city ever ... or it could turn out to be a bait-and-switch in which taxpayers get stuck with a multi-million-dollar tab that they never voted for. There's really no way of saying until we see whether all those new revenue streams turn up. And even if things work out, that doesn't mean that the public gave up nothing to the 49ers in this deal — after all, risk has a monetary value, too, even if no one can agree what it is.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2012/03/4859_santa_clara_49e_6.html

It could actually end up a decent deal for the city so the legislative their aren't the terrible negotiators you see in DC & Miami. But they need to sell those PSLs and those tickets. Unfortunately this stadium along with "Jerry World" raises the bar which will increase the need for other teams to build stadiums like them in order to compete.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Sports»The new 49ers stadium: no...»Reply #5