Monday, November 30, 2009

49ers Stadium: The REAL costs of a $937M NFL stadium...

Dear Santa Clarans:

Here are...

A member of Santa Clara Plays Fair helped me put together the above pie chart.

Now, you've already seen the team's own sleight-of-hand : Lump the contribution of a "Santa Clara Stadium Authority" in with the team's own contribution - and then try to tell Santa Clarans that we're only paying some 'fraction' of the stadium's cost.

Sorry, but it's not true.
Not one penny of the 49ers' own money will go into the $330,400,000 contribution being made by any "Stadium Authority".

That joint-powers authority will be issuing some handsome pieces of high-risk, high-coupon paper - yes, that's more bonds - in order to raise a good deal of that money.

After that, they'll be squeezing concessionaires for deposits and selling fans some very expensive Personal Seat Licenses to raise the rest.

This is still very much
a publicly-subsidized NFL stadium - and a "stadium authority" contribution to that is anything but 'funny money'.

Thanks for all of your support - as well as for contributions like this one,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer
Santa Clara Plays Fair

Ref.: City Council - Term Sheet of June 2, 2009 - Exhibit 14

Ref.: "The $800 MILLION MYTH"

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I've been thinking about the SA today and I wonder if there are any reasonable estimates about how much money it can raise. I assume not all of the $330 million of bonds would have to be issued at once. Could it be evenly spread out over the life of the construction?

I'd think that PSL's will sell better if fans think they have an intrinsic value. Obviously in Oakland they didn't, but because of the glitz factor of a new stadium and the fact there's more $$ in Silicaon Calley than Oakland, maybe licenses will sell better.

However, a lot probably depends on how successful (or unsuccessful) the team has been in the season(s) immediately preceding the offering.

I don't thinks it's entirely fair to act as if the city will be shouldering the entire weight of the SA, but I do believe that it's an unacceptagle risk to be responsible for shortcomings.

I just want to know if there's anyway of getting an idea of what it will mean if after four years, say, the SA has raised $250 million. Does it mean that SA can pay interest w/o much difficulty during the honeymoon period of the stadium, but that the problems hit 7, 10, 12 years down the road?

I'm going to pick up "Field of Schemes" to get a better insight into funding mechanisms.