There are 163 users in the forums

City Council Decides to Terminate 49ers Stadium Contract for NFL Games

Shop Find 49ers gear online ⇨
  • Jiks
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 25,732
Salt Lake City 49ers has a nice ring to it.
  • mayo49
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 47,420
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by Hopper:
Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
This is all because the Santa Clara mayor and the council have a personnel grudge against the Niners. I don't think she was ever in favor of the stadium and there have been numerous disputes over the last 3 years. They better hope the Niners don't get pissed off and move because they'll be left with a big empty stadium and lost revenue.

Move where?

Hmm, San Diego has an empty stadium!

Oakland is vacant, too.
  • Kyzen
  • Member
  • Posts: 2,953
Originally posted by Jiks:
Salt Lake City 49ers has a nice ring to it.

Is it too late to share a stadium with the Raidaaaahs?

Tailgating in Vegas with hookers, drugs and all you can eat buffets would be great.
If I was a billionaire I would built the team a new stadium in SF in exchange for some ownership. Santa Clara can kick rocks.
Eddie D. is back baby!
Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Originally posted by mayo49:
Originally posted by mayo49:
What exactly does this mean?

Levi's Stadium is owned by the city of Santa Clara, California, but it's managed by the 49ers. The city says the stadium has been mismanaged, and is seeking to take management back.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/02/13/santa-clara-seeks-to-strip-49ers-of-power-to-manage-their-stadium/

The city, rather than the team, should be making money on and managing non-football events.

Looks like the city wants more than that, even needing city approval if renovations are needed for the stadium. Reminds me of the contentious relationship between the 49ers and San Fran about Candlestick improvements.

From reading the East Bay Times article, it seems that "wage theft" is being classified by the 49ers hiring a crew to do work that wasn't a city-designated crew negotiated at a particular wage. Yeah that union/non-union stuff can get ugly really fast.
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Originally posted by mayo49:
Originally posted by mayo49:
What exactly does this mean?

Levi's Stadium is owned by the city of Santa Clara, California, but it's managed by the 49ers. The city says the stadium has been mismanaged, and is seeking to take management back.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/02/13/santa-clara-seeks-to-strip-49ers-of-power-to-manage-their-stadium/

The city, rather than the team, should be making money on and managing non-football events.

Looks like the city wants more than that, even needing city approval if renovations are needed for the stadium. Reminds me of the contentious relationship between the 49ers and San Fran about Candlestick improvements.

From reading the East Bay Times article, it seems that "wage theft" is being classified by the 49ers hiring a crew to do work that wasn't a city-designated crew negotiated at a particular wage. Yeah that union/non-union stuff can get ugly really fast.

Seems fair to me.
Santa Clara owns the stadium, they paid for it. They should have rights to.approve changes to their property.
If upgrades are made to the stadium, Santa Clara will likely be on the hook for the costs of the upgrades.


The 49ers could have privately financed a stadium like the SF Giants and the GS Warriors.
the Yorks are grifters ask Eddie
Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Originally posted by mayo49:
Originally posted by mayo49:
What exactly does this mean?

Levi's Stadium is owned by the city of Santa Clara, California, but it's managed by the 49ers. The city says the stadium has been mismanaged, and is seeking to take management back.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/02/13/santa-clara-seeks-to-strip-49ers-of-power-to-manage-their-stadium/

The city, rather than the team, should be making money on and managing non-football events.

Looks like the city wants more than that, even needing city approval if renovations are needed for the stadium. Reminds me of the contentious relationship between the 49ers and San Fran about Candlestick improvements.

From reading the East Bay Times article, it seems that "wage theft" is being classified by the 49ers hiring a crew to do work that wasn't a city-designated crew negotiated at a particular wage. Yeah that union/non-union stuff can get ugly really fast.

Seems fair to me.
Santa Clara owns the stadium, they paid for it. They should have rights to.approve changes to their property.
If upgrades are made to the stadium, Santa Clara will likely be on the hook for the costs of the upgrades.

The 49ers could have privately financed a stadium like the SF Giants and the GS Warriors.

You got no argument from me there man. I agree 100%. If you want to all the benefits, own it.
  • okdkid
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 20,221
Originally posted by 16to87:
the Yorks are grifters ask Eddie

Eddie is the authority.

Welp
There's way too much at stakes for both sides in this disagreement. They will eventually work something out.
Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
There's way too much at stakes for both sides in this disagreement. They will eventually work something out.

Well it's either figure it out with the 49ers, or have a really expensive stadium that's empty most of the year.
  • mayo49
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 47,420
Originally posted by Seansf49:
Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
There's way too much at stakes for both sides in this disagreement. They will eventually work something out.

Well it's either figure it out with the 49ers, or have a really expensive stadium that's empty most of the year.

Yeah, both parties are in too deep - they'll get something done.
[ Edited by mayo49 on Feb 14, 2020 at 10:41 AM ]
If the city doesn't like the deal they currently have and agreed to, I don't see why a judge would just throw out a contract they went into of their own free will. Those that think the city should just be able to change the terms because they have a Mayor that wasn't there in the beginning miss the point. They may be pointing to a few specific instances, including one of not hiring a union crew, but that mayor has been a critic of the original agreeement since the start. You don't get to tear up contracts just because you feel like it. Although in the Bay Area "feelings" may matter more than real legal grounds in starting a law suit.
Share 49erswebzone