Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:41 AM | Contributed by Jason Hammond
Does Santa Clara's City Council agree to take the project forward, potentially to a citizen ballot in late 2008? Or does the city close the book on the project, leaving the 49ers to grapple with San Francisco? The month of December should provide an answer, and there appears to be a core of support on the council to move on to the next phase — when the city would try to negotiate a deal with the 49ers and send it to voters. Cedar Fair's position on using the parking lot at California's Great America has not changed.
Read more from The San Mateo County Times.
I am certain Cedar Fair did their homework. Its really a treat for the visitors to have so many events to do in one spot. Think...49ers games let out, thousands go to CGA before and after the game. Not many cities can co-market/package together.
Denver can, Anaheim, Tampa, and maybe DC. Quite a days outing.
Current teams looking to move are...
The Florida Marlins
The New Orlenes Saints
The Seattle Supersonics
why are they looking to move? because the venues they play in are older then dirt, or they share them with other teams. (IE the Marlins and Dolphins, or the Jets and Giants), but sadly the public wants to keep the team, but doesn't want to pay extra taxes to fund a new facility to keep them in the city, reality says you can not keep a team with out of date facilities, but some people have tried...
Cleveland refused to upgrade The Browns facilities because of the cost, The browns moved to Baltimore (As the Ravens) with a new funded place to play, won a super bowl BTW. Baltimore wisened up really quick to get an NFL team back into the city, because they lost A TON of money, because 3 years before the Browns moved to Baltimore, The Baltimore Colts moved to Indianapolis for the same reason the browns move to Baltimore.
Baltimore refused to give the colts a new place to play because of costs to the tax-payers, but once they saw how much they lost in city revenue without an NFL team, they were quick to buy up the next one that came up for grabs, and not make that mistake twice.
Similar situations would be..
Houston Texans/Tennessee Titans
Charleote Hornets/New Orlenes Jazz
Utah Jazz/New Orlenes Hornets
The soon to be Seattle Supersonics into the Oklahoma City Supersonics
New York Dodgers/LA Dodgers
All this sports talk, what does it have to do with parks and coasters?
It means a smart city is not going to lose an NFL franchise (with 4 super bowl trophies) for a theme park. No matter how bad the team is, a park is not worth the revenue that 8 NFL games give you over a year. An NFL team give year round revenue from mechendise, and during game weeks more boost in 1 weekend from taxes from food, hotels, parking, and game tickets, to the city is close to 100 million. A theme park or golf course can not even come close to that.
If it's true that a city makes 800 million each NFL season, there's absolutely no reason to float bonds, or get state or federal funds to build stadiums. Stadiums would pay for themselves before the season ends. Even 100 million per season is a pretty high return.
Besides, even if the 49ers build in Santa Clara, they are still technically "moving" out of San Francisco, because Frisco gets none of the revenue from tickets, merchandising, etc. For 100 million a week, don't you think SF would do everything it could to keep the team? Santa Clara wouldn't even be an option.
On the other hand, the Atlanta Business Chronicle claims a 250 million annual impact just for Wild Adventures.
However since amusement parks don't have luxury boxes... ;)
You must be logged in to post