Santa Clarans,
One of the biggest delusions engaged in by the 49ers' Stadium Boosters is about the money.
The problem is, they won't admit to you that the money goes into the 49ers' very own cash box, and not into the accounts of our city's agencies.
The Real Stadium Facts: The Ground Lease payable to our city's General Fund is a pathetic $180,000 the first year. The rent payable to our Santa Clara Stadium Authority at this writing is a paltry $5 million against what will be a Stadium Authority operating tab of at least $20 million and possibly $30 million - every year.
Remember: NO operating overruns will ever be reimbursed by the San Francisco 49ers.
So: Where is all the money really going?
The bulk of the money to be made in fielding an NFL team - and not in a losing stadium operation - are what are known as NFL Revenues. The Term Sheet attached to Measure Jed from last June spells this out, and it draws a sharp, black line between those Revenues and the pittance that will go to us or to our Agencies.
A big part of those NFL Revenues, untouchable by us, are television royalties. To stay abreast of the dollar amounts, one can use a search engine to yield the usual pile of information - but in general, you may count on $4B to $6B per year, divided equally among the NFL owners.
Conservatively, that's over $100,000,000 to Jed York every year - for the broadcast rights alone. Consider the many other streams of NFL Revenue flowing out of a stadium - like the luxury box dough - and you have a lot of money that Santa Clara Agencies and Santa Clarans are simply not getting.
The 49ers and the NFL are extremely secretive about this. They really don't want you looking too hard at what they'll be scooping out of a stadium here.
However, just a little online searching will give you a good idea of why NFL teams make money - and why NFL stadiums don't.
All the best,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
-=0=-
ESPN - alone - Pays $63 million to each NFL team ($2B/32)http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/01/20110117/Media/Sports-Media.aspx:
Early, from 2007:
AdWeek took down their coverage of the NFL's TV money - but they published data from Barclays Capital Estimates showing that the NFL collected $4.04 BILLION from five networks in the 2010-2011 NFL season alone.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
49ers' Subsidies: Measure J - and Measure Jed
Dear Santa Clarans,
In November of 2004, voters in the Santa Clara Unified School District passed a bond measure to upgrade badly aged and seismically inadequate infrastructure at our middle and high schools. That bond measure?
Measure J.
In June of 2010, however, voters in Santa Clara voted to pay HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in subsidies to the San Francisco 49ers, all for (1) $7,000-per-year jobs *, (2) economic activity less than that of the 49ers' own Training Center and (3) losses to our city's General Fund .
That bond measure was also called Measure J, but it could not be more different from the original Measure J.
This matters because of a couple of exchanges I've had in the last several months with "49ers stadium boosters" who should know better. They persist with the utterly false claim that the 49ers are somehow putting money into the Santa Clara Unified School District. Now, while it's true that the 49ers exploited a funding crisis in our schools to get what they wanted last June, please note they're not giving a single cent to Santa Clara schools.
It's downright deceitful of "stadium boosters" to be promoting confusion between the two ballot measures above in order to advance their cause of stadium subsidies for the San Francisco 49ers.
This also matters because of the SCUSD newsletter "School Days," for fall, 2011, which a great many of you have already received. The latest letter indeed describes the true, original Measure J projects, which are upgrading Santa Clara schools by using money from the 2004 bond measure. However, by providing no context, the article in "School Days" invites anyone unfamiliar with the 2004 measure to assume that the 49ers' "J" is somehow responsible for the upgrades in SCUSD classrooms and physical plant.
It simply is not.
When you read about the 2004 Measure J and what it's accomplishing for SCUSD schools, please remember that this is our $315,000,000. We authorized it. That amount and its debt service is being paid for out of our property taxes - and not by the San Francisco 49ers.
There's a better name for the 2010 measure, though. Let's just call it "Measure Jed."
After all, Jed York is the only one benefiting from it.
Thanks for your continuing support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
-=0=-
* See footnote here .
In November of 2004, voters in the Santa Clara Unified School District passed a bond measure to upgrade badly aged and seismically inadequate infrastructure at our middle and high schools. That bond measure?
Measure J.
In June of 2010, however, voters in Santa Clara voted to pay HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in subsidies to the San Francisco 49ers, all for (1) $7,000-per-year jobs *, (2) economic activity less than that of the 49ers' own Training Center and (3) losses to our city's General Fund .
That bond measure was also called Measure J, but it could not be more different from the original Measure J.
This matters because of a couple of exchanges I've had in the last several months with "49ers stadium boosters" who should know better. They persist with the utterly false claim that the 49ers are somehow putting money into the Santa Clara Unified School District. Now, while it's true that the 49ers exploited a funding crisis in our schools to get what they wanted last June, please note they're not giving a single cent to Santa Clara schools.
It's downright deceitful of "stadium boosters" to be promoting confusion between the two ballot measures above in order to advance their cause of stadium subsidies for the San Francisco 49ers.
This also matters because of the SCUSD newsletter "School Days," for fall, 2011, which a great many of you have already received. The latest letter indeed describes the true, original Measure J projects, which are upgrading Santa Clara schools by using money from the 2004 bond measure. However, by providing no context, the article in "School Days" invites anyone unfamiliar with the 2004 measure to assume that the 49ers' "J" is somehow responsible for the upgrades in SCUSD classrooms and physical plant.
It simply is not.
When you read about the 2004 Measure J and what it's accomplishing for SCUSD schools, please remember that this is our $315,000,000. We authorized it. That amount and its debt service is being paid for out of our property taxes - and not by the San Francisco 49ers.
There's a better name for the 2010 measure, though. Let's just call it "Measure Jed."
After all, Jed York is the only one benefiting from it.
Thanks for your continuing support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
-=0=-
* See footnote here .
Saturday, July 2, 2011
The Truth about the 49ers' Luxury Boxes
Santa Clarans,
On the evening of June 7, we learned that our costs to subsidize the San Francisco 49ers are going to increase greatly before we even see a stadium finance plan next summer.
But the most jaw-dropping part of the evening's meeting came in one of the 49ers' own presentations before Council. The team's representatives actually claimed that their contribution to the stadium's "development" was their costs for their own luxury boxes in that stadium!
Please note from the "Stadium Term Sheet", Section 11.2b, that ALL luxury box income for NFL events goes directly to the 49ers themselves - not to any Santa Clara City Agency. Not only that: The 49ers collect even their base luxury box fees for non-NFL events as well. (You'll find exactly this language in your Sample Ballots of June 8, 2010, too - Measure J gives that luxury box dough only to the 49ers.)
This is worth noting because of the media coverage this weekend concerning the team's sale of those luxury suite leases. At the same time that the 49ers are putting $138 million into their own pockets, they're forcing the Santa Clara Stadium Authority pay the PSL* marketer's fee of $6,000,000 - with interest. See here and here, Section 7b.
What the San Francisco 49ers raked in this weekend compensates them many times over for any 'development' costs they may have spent on their luxury boxes. But that isn't news, and it doesn't help Santa Clara's Agencies to raise a single penny for the stadium subsidy itself.
The real news is how much the 49ers will taking out of the stadium - and how little will be left for Santa Clara and for Santa Clarans.
Thanks for your support,
William F. "Bill" Bailey, Treasurer,
-=0=-
*Let's call them by their correct name: They are indeed Personal Seat Licenses.
Same as they were in Oakland.
*Let's call them by their correct name: They are indeed Personal Seat Licenses.
Same as they were in Oakland.
Monday, June 27, 2011
49ers' Stadium Subsidy Ticker: Over Four Years of Secrecy - And For What?
Santa Clarans,
Imagine that your city had loads of empty hundred-acre parcels. Imagine that it's thinking about locating an arena somewhere within its city limits. Imagine that the actual location is not yet determined.
Our elected leaders would seek to reduce to a minimum the public costs of the land, but the only way they can do that is to shield the ground lease negotiations from the rampant speculation which would drive up the costs to us taxpayers.
The Ralph M. Brown Act rightly allows an elected body to take negotiations over real estate - and personnel matters and bargaining-unit negotiations - into closed session in order to get the best deal for taxpayers. No one claiming to advocate "taxpayer value" could sensibly argue otherwise.
But now I'm going to pop that balloon.
If you look at our own City Council Agenda of May 1, 2007, you will see virtually the same wording as you'd see if you looked at the Agenda of two weeks ago. ** For over four years now, we have known exactly who the participants are.
But far more important: We've always known exactly which five land parcels are involved and where they're located.
The ultimate costs of the 49ers' stadium subsidies to Santa Clara residents, then, are far more dependent upon the giveaways awarded by our City Council's "stadium boosters" than they ever will be on the base costs of the land. Our "partners" aren't even a public corporation, in fact, but are the super-secretive San Francisco 49ers.
Now, consider: At the Council meeting of June 7th, we were finally told not only that our RDA will be taking cash advances from the 49ers and paying them back at up to 8.5% interest - but that our Santa Clara Stadium Authority will now be doing the same thing. Both agencies will be paying far more money to the 49ers to service that debt than they would with any bonds they could issue. In the case of the RDA, they'll be paying for it out of your tax increment money.
In fact, the costs of the massive 49ers' stadium subsidy to Santa Clarans are about to be greatly increased.
As taxpayers, the giveaways to the San Francisco 49ers are indeed our business. However, the Closed Sessions of the Santa Clara City Council give the clearest indication that the 49ers don't want us finding out about these cost increases until it's way too late to do anything about them.
If the secret, Closed Sessions of our City Council and our Agencies are in fact merely being held to conceal the increasing indebtedness of our Santa Clara Stadium Authority from us taxpayers, then they have no place in the All-American City.
Santa Clarans who contacted City Hall before the June 14th Council Meeting were entirely right to do so. Thank you all for speaking up.
In fact, the Councilman who went completely off-Agenda on June 14th in order to criticize your correspondence may have revealed a bit more about this entire process than he intended.
In fact, the Councilman who went completely off-Agenda on June 14th in order to criticize your correspondence may have revealed a bit more about this entire process than he intended.
Please. Stay informed on the 49ers' stadium subsidy.
Demand more.
Thanks for your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
-=0=-
Annotated Brown Act - brochure from 2003. Dated, perhaps - but then again, something like the Brown Act probably shouldn't change much anyway.
** I mentioned the June 14th meeting on purpose - because it was "Not Held." When we count up the number of Closed Sessions, we specifically exclude dates such as June 14th. We count only the meetings that were actually held. June 14th doesn't count.
May 10th, May 24th and June 7th, however, do count. The total of secret, Closed Session Council/Agency meetings is indeed 91 as of this evening. Really.
May 10th, May 24th and June 7th, however, do count. The total of secret, Closed Session Council/Agency meetings is indeed 91 as of this evening. Really.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
49ers' Stadium Subsidies: Putting the Stadium Authority's $1.5M in Perspective
Dear Santa Clarans,
Press coverage in today's Mercury News put quite a bit of ink on what the City Council would be paying itself to sit on the Santa Clara Stadium Authority. However, that may not be the big story.
The additional $1,440 bucks a year per Councilmember works out to thirty bucks each for 48 meetings - the critical portions of which are likely to be held in secret Closed Session, thereby concealing the true functioning of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority from Santa Clarans. We should be far angrier about that than about the dollar amount.
Let's set a few more decimal points:
The increased stipend to City Councilmembers should be noted, of course, as well as the cut they took earlier this season - but the costs of subsidizing the San Francisco 49ers are about to balloon for far different reasons.
That's the real news.
Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair
-=0=-
Press coverage in today's Mercury News put quite a bit of ink on what the City Council would be paying itself to sit on the Santa Clara Stadium Authority. However, that may not be the big story.
The additional $1,440 bucks a year per Councilmember works out to thirty bucks each for 48 meetings - the critical portions of which are likely to be held in secret Closed Session, thereby concealing the true functioning of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority from Santa Clarans. We should be far angrier about that than about the dollar amount.
Let's set a few more decimal points:
- From the June 7th City Council meeting, we learned that Santa Clara's subsidy of the San Francisco 49ers' stadium is now likely to be far more than the $444,000,000 we were originally led to believe.
- Not one but two city agencies, the Stadium Authority as well as the Redevelopment Agency, will now be on the hook for high-interest cash advances from the 49ers themselves. Can't issue your own bonds at 5.75%? No sweat - borrow the dough from the 49ers at up to 8.5%. The 49ers can use that cash flow to pay for the construction cost overruns they promised us they'd cover out of their own pockets.
- Take the $950,000 that the Stadium Authority will pay to lawyers and accountants in the coming fiscal year, and add it to the $2,800,000 in RDA money that our city has already spent. It's likely that we'll blow four million on those costs before a single shovel breaks ground. That's tax increment money, by the way - property taxes essentially unremitted.
- The $550,000 for City Staff can be added to the $612K in staff expenses we know of so far. That latter amount is only a partial accounting, so we can probably count on those expenses easily exceeding $1.2 million.
The increased stipend to City Councilmembers should be noted, of course, as well as the cut they took earlier this season - but the costs of subsidizing the San Francisco 49ers are about to balloon for far different reasons.
That's the real news.
Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair
-=0=-
Sunday, June 5, 2011
49ers' Stadium Subsidy Ticker: Secret Meetings and RDA Cash , Too!
Dear Santa Clarans,
In late April of 2007, the San Francisco 49ers demanded that our City Council sign the "Confidentiality Agreement" with the team. This agreement forced our Council and Agencies to take certain dealings with the 49ers into Closed Session, out of the view of Santa Clara residents. The Closed Sessions are indicated, but not detailed, in the "Action Summaries" here.
Also, over roughly that same interval, the Redevelopment Agency has paid RDA cash to consultants on everything from the Feasibility Study to the Term Sheet - and now for the Disposition and Development Agreement, or DDA. A summary of those payments and to whom they have been made is here.
Santa Clara Plays Fair continues to track both the count of the secret Council/49er meetings, and the cash paid for "Stadium Studies." As of this date:
90: The number of secret, Closed Sessions that our City Council has held with the San Francisco 49ers and Cedar Fair since 5/1/2007.
$2,800,000: The total of RDA cash spent on 49ers consultants since 4/3/2007.
We'll publish this ticker periodically to keep Santa Clarans informed of the costs of the 49ers' stadium subsidy - both in dollars and in transparency.
Best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair
-=0=-
In late April of 2007, the San Francisco 49ers demanded that our City Council sign the "Confidentiality Agreement" with the team. This agreement forced our Council and Agencies to take certain dealings with the 49ers into Closed Session, out of the view of Santa Clara residents. The Closed Sessions are indicated, but not detailed, in the "Action Summaries" here.
Also, over roughly that same interval, the Redevelopment Agency has paid RDA cash to consultants on everything from the Feasibility Study to the Term Sheet - and now for the Disposition and Development Agreement, or DDA. A summary of those payments and to whom they have been made is here.
Santa Clara Plays Fair continues to track both the count of the secret Council/49er meetings, and the cash paid for "Stadium Studies." As of this date:
90: The number of secret, Closed Sessions that our City Council has held with the San Francisco 49ers and Cedar Fair since 5/1/2007.
$2,800,000: The total of RDA cash spent on 49ers consultants since 4/3/2007.
We'll publish this ticker periodically to keep Santa Clarans informed of the costs of the 49ers' stadium subsidy - both in dollars and in transparency.
Best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair
-=0=-
Sunday, May 15, 2011
The 49ers' Subsidies and the Two-Team Myth
The rash claim over two NFL teams in Santa Clara appears to be making the rounds in our city yet again.
The myth: "We're getting two NFL teams in Santa Clara."
Busted: Santa Clarans, you will get two NFL teams in Santa Clara ONLY if Jed York says you do.
Please remember that if you voted for Measure J last June, you handed the right of sublease to any second NFL team strictly to Jed York himself. NO Santa Clara Agency, and not one single elected official in our city, has the power to contract with any second NFL team. Only the 49ers and their goods-marketing brigades will be allowed to do that. Even if they do: The 49ers - and not our Santa Clara Stadium Authority - collect the lion's share of the money from that sublease.
The proof is in Section 16.1 of the Term Sheet.
You will find that the 49ers front office desperately needs to blame their own stadium financing problems on the NFL players they just locked out. However, that's just not going to work: For two years running, the NFL Commissioner himself has made quite clear that any NFL contribution to a Bay Area stadium will be to ONE Bay Area stadium, and not to two of them. As the San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders are in the bottom six of revenue producers in the NFL (see here), the other thirty millionaire owners are probably not very sympathetic to the Yorks - and certainly not to Al Davis. Putting the league off on this issue is another example of the 49ers' front office shooting themselves in the foot.
But in a broader sense, the "stadium boosters" - on and off of the City Council dais - might want to be real careful with their wildly inaccurate claims about any second team in Santa Clara.
They might finally be asked: "If you really think you're getting TWO NFL Millionaires in our city...
"...why are you demanding that Santa Clarans pay $444,000,000 to subsidize those TWO NFL Millionaires when the two of them together could obviously afford to build and operate their own stadium with NO public subsidy?"
Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasure,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
-=0=-
Why the 49ers' Term Sheet rips us off
The myth: "We're getting two NFL teams in Santa Clara."
Busted: Santa Clarans, you will get two NFL teams in Santa Clara ONLY if Jed York says you do.
Please remember that if you voted for Measure J last June, you handed the right of sublease to any second NFL team strictly to Jed York himself. NO Santa Clara Agency, and not one single elected official in our city, has the power to contract with any second NFL team. Only the 49ers and their goods-marketing brigades will be allowed to do that. Even if they do: The 49ers - and not our Santa Clara Stadium Authority - collect the lion's share of the money from that sublease.
The proof is in Section 16.1 of the Term Sheet.
You will find that the 49ers front office desperately needs to blame their own stadium financing problems on the NFL players they just locked out. However, that's just not going to work: For two years running, the NFL Commissioner himself has made quite clear that any NFL contribution to a Bay Area stadium will be to ONE Bay Area stadium, and not to two of them. As the San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders are in the bottom six of revenue producers in the NFL (see here), the other thirty millionaire owners are probably not very sympathetic to the Yorks - and certainly not to Al Davis. Putting the league off on this issue is another example of the 49ers' front office shooting themselves in the foot.
But in a broader sense, the "stadium boosters" - on and off of the City Council dais - might want to be real careful with their wildly inaccurate claims about any second team in Santa Clara.
They might finally be asked: "If you really think you're getting TWO NFL Millionaires in our city...
"...why are you demanding that Santa Clarans pay $444,000,000 to subsidize those TWO NFL Millionaires when the two of them together could obviously afford to build and operate their own stadium with NO public subsidy?"
Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasure,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
-=0=-
Why the 49ers' Term Sheet rips us off
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
