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

Originally posted by English:

In what way are the team not acting fairly or honestly? This is a simple matter. Are the team breaching the contract or not? I don't know. People seem very keen to state that they are, but if they are then they are going to be hung out to dry by a court.

Before addressing this let me first make clear that I'm a lifelong 49ers fan and I honestly couldn't care less about the city of Santa Clara (truly).

With that out of the way, for 2018 you have two options. You either believe that in 2018 all of the concerts and non-NFL sporting events held at Levi's collectively led to:

(a) 33 thousand dollars total in net income.
(b) the 49ers were stealing or misappropriating money from the non-NFL related activities net income to avoid giving the city of Santa Clara their fair share of the negotiated net income. This is the definition of embezzlement.

From one of the current lawsuits, it sounds like they were very likely charging all NFL related expenses against the non-NFL related net income, in violation of their contract, and as a way to artificially deflate the net income that would be split (i.e. option "B").

Still though, if you want to believe option "A" this sounds like gross mismanagement, and it's not surprising to me the city would want to take it over. From reporting scenario "B" sounds much more likely, however.

In turn, in 2019 when Santa Clara refused to change the initial contract, the 49ers certainly seemed like they used their position as managers of the stadium to punish the city for wanting to remain true to the initial agreement. There was 750K in projected net income for 2019, and when Santa Clara refused to change the initial contract, the team's response to was to drop that 750K to zero.

I can both be 9ers fans and truly not give a crap about Santa Clara while also still not believing for a second that the team is acting honestly or fairly.

Stealing, embezzlement, fraud etc are big words and huge allegations.

A corporate contract of the magnitude of the one between Council and one of the 49er entities would be an extremely complex document.

The basics of any contract is that there must be agreement, consideration flowing from each side to the other (ie I promise to do X and you promise to pay me, or I promise to do X and you promise to do Y) and the intent to enter into legally binding promises (the terms).

So by complexity it will mean that there will be a myriad of terms with many of the terms dependant on the performance of contingent terms by the other contracting party.

Essentially it will be as easy to figure out as a complex electrical circuit system like on the Space Shuttle.

What generally occurs in complex contractual disputes is that one or the other party has a simplistic notion of what the other party is meant to perform but it turns out the reality of their simplistic notion is far more complex and based on performance of other terms or performance indicators in the contract.

As I have not seen the contact, nor could I be bothered reading it if I had and wasn't getting paid for it, I cannot do more then generalise who might be complying with the terms of the contract or not.

However, I would imagine that there will be forensic accountants getting involved from both sides and competing experts and their reports will end up before the courts or a mediator and their will be a truck load of lawyers analysing the complex wiring diagram of the contract.

This will play out for a few years to come and for us punters on the outside it will be a little too simplistic to say who is right or wrong as the devil will be in the detail and that will have to viewed under a legal microscope.

I wish I was either the 49ers or the Council's law firm. I would be rich.

I"ll sue.

Originally posted by English:

I don't see any mention of embezzlement, per the other poster. And from your post, it is simple. Are the team's actions permitted by the contract as signed by the city? Because if they are, it is not a question of protecting the taxpayer from the team. It is a question of the individuals within the city authority who signed the contract. But the contract stands.

In what way are the team not acting fairly or honestly? This is a simple matter. Are the team breaching the contract or not? I don't know. People seem very keen to state that they are, but if they are then they are going to be hung out to dry by a court.

Side deals
Not reporting revenue accurately
Not honoring their end of the bargain on sharing profits
Asking for rent reduction
Handing out city contracts to vendors and profiting off of those vendors

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by English:
I don't see any mention of embezzlement, per the other poster. And from your post, it is simple. Are the team's actions permitted by the contract as signed by the city? Because if they are, it is not a question of protecting the taxpayer from the team. It is a question of the individuals within the city authority who signed the contract. But the contract stands.

In what way are the team not acting fairly or honestly? This is a simple matter. Are the team breaching the contract or not? I don't know. People seem very keen to state that they are, but if they are then they are going to be hung out to dry by a court.

Side deals
Not reporting revenue accurately
Not honoring their end of the bargain on sharing profits
Asking for rent reduction
Handing out city contracts to vendors and profiting off of those vendors

That may be what some people are alleging on behalf of the Council but have you seen the documents and/or accounting reports to back it up? Or are you just making hearsay assertions based on what somebody else said?

If the later you really just don't know where the truth lies.

Originally posted by Goatie:

That may be what some people are alleging on behalf of the Council but have you seen the documents and/or accounting reports to back it up? Or are you just making hearsay assertions based on what somebody else said?

If the later you really just don't know where the truth lies.

You're creating a false dichotomy in which someone has either seen a full forsenic analysis of something or they must throw up their hands and have no opinion at all.

If that is the evidentiary standard of opionating we have to essentially disallow every opinion on every topic in this forum.


The 49ers have already basically copped to some of this by filing the requisite paperwork when they were in violation of the law, and the net income they've been reporting looks fishy as hell too.

Is that perfect information? Of course not. But within the limited scope of available information it is completely valid to interpret that information critically (even if you're a fan of the team).

People are acting like it's out of bounds to even evoke the words fraud and embezzlement when they're literally in the middle of multiple lawsuits for fraud and embezzlement. Sure, maybe they win those lawsuits, but it's out of bounds to derive opinions from the available information and to talk about them?

So that explains why they rose the ticket prices.... sneaky lil f**kers

Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:

Originally posted by Goatie:

That may be what some people are alleging on behalf of the Council but have you seen the documents and/or accounting reports to back it up? Or are you just making hearsay assertions based on what somebody else said?

If the later you really just don't know where the truth lies.

You're creating a false dichotomy in which someone has either seen a full forsenic analysis of something or they must throw up their hands and have no opinion at all.

If that is the evidentiary standard of opionating we have to essentially disallow every opinion on every topic in this forum.


The 49ers have already basically copped to some of this by filing the requisite paperwork when they were in violation of the law, and the net income they've been reporting looks fishy as hell too.

Is that perfect information? Of course not. But within the limited scope of available information it is completely valid to interpret that information critically (even if you're a fan of the team).

People are acting like it's out of bounds to even evoke the words fraud and embezzlement when they're literally in the middle of multiple lawsuits for fraud and embezzlement. Sure, maybe they win those lawsuits, but it's out of bounds to derive opinions from the available information and to talk about them?

This
Well said

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Side deals
Not reporting revenue accurately
Not honoring their end of the bargain on sharing profits
Asking for rent reduction
Handing out city contracts to vendors and profiting off of those vendors

Don't forget illegal shed building.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:

Originally posted by Goatie:
That may be what some people are alleging on behalf of the Council but have you seen the documents and/or accounting reports to back it up? Or are you just making hearsay assertions based on what somebody else said?

If the later you really just don't know where the truth lies.

You're creating a false dichotomy in which someone has either seen a full forsenic analysis of something or they must throw up their hands and have no opinion at all.

If that is the evidentiary standard of opionating we have to essentially disallow every opinion on every topic in this forum.

The 49ers have already basically copped to some of this by filing the requisite paperwork when they were in violation of the law, and the net income they've been reporting looks fishy as hell too.

Is that perfect information? Of course not. But within the limited scope of available information it is completely valid to interpret that information critically (even if you're a fan of the team).

People are acting like it's out of bounds to even evoke the words fraud and embezzlement when they're literally in the middle of multiple lawsuits for fraud and embezzlement. Sure, maybe they win those lawsuits, but it's out of bounds to derive opinions from the available information and to talk about them?

This
Well said

Lol Neither of you know a thing but fling around allegations like you know.

You don't. That's the truth.

Originally posted by Goatie:

Lol Neither of you know a thing but fling around allegations like you know.

You don't. That's the truth.

This isn't a court of law. I live in the South Bay Area. I know what is being alleged and can form an opinion on the accusations and comment on them.

You live in Australia and just started following the team a few years ago because of the footie player.

NFL's Royalty ownership believe in Divine Right of Kings when it comes to their Fiefdoms. Pay for your own Stadium and do whatever you wish. Most of the franchises use false representation, such as the SF 49ers, really Santa Clara, NY Giants and Jets really New Jersey. Get real and pay your way NFL, the product is getting watered down each year.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by Goatie:
Lol Neither of you know a thing but fling around allegations like you know.

You don't. That's the truth.

This isn't a court of law. I live in the South Bay Area. I know what is being alleged and can form an opinion on the accusations and comment on them.

You live in Australia and just started following the team a few years ago because of the footie player.

So because you live in the South Bay Area and I live in Australia you assert the hearsay gossip you hear is true.

Your logic is unpersuasive Woo.

Originally posted by Goatie:

Lol Neither of you know a thing but fling around allegations like you know.

You don't. That's the truth.

Which parts of the reporting do you find convincing or unconvincing?

Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:

Originally posted by Goatie:
Lol Neither of you know a thing but fling around allegations like you know.

You don't. That's the truth.

Which parts of the reporting do you find convincing or unconvincing?

None of it. Each side will have journalists in their pocket. I will wait for the court result after careful consideration by a court of all of the admissible evidence. Journalists are notoriously lousy and reporting this type of complex corporate dispute accurately and reliably. First question? Did the journalist who wrote the article read the entire contract or series of contracts and the second questions is did the journalist have the capacity to understand the contract/s? Third, did they get to see all of the potential evidence that will be presented to the court including expert reports and forensic accountant reports from all sides? Answer NO.

All the journalists are doing is amplifying each sides allegations. Their opinions are not worth a dime.