Tom Nalen's $25,000 fine angers teammates
By Tom Kensler
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated:11/22/2006 11:34:03 PM MST
News that veteran center Tom Nalen had been fined $25,000 by the NFL for an attempted cut block drew about the same reaction in the Broncos' locker room as that Sunday night loss to the San Diego Chargers.
Shock. Bewilderment. And a chorus of anger.
"I can't believe it; it doesn't seem fair," Broncos tight end Stephen Alexander said Wednesday before the team flew to Kansas City for tonight's game against the Chiefs.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed Wednesday that Nalen was fined $25,000 for attempting to cut block an opponent and Chargers defensive tackle Igor Olshansky had been fined $10,000 for clubbing.
Nalen's agent, Brad Blank, said he appealed the fine immediately upon hearing of the suspension Wednesday. The appeal process could take a few months. Blank had no further comment.
With 35 seconds remaining, Broncos quarterback Jake Plummer spiked the ball to stop the clock. Usually there is not much time for contact initiated by either side, but Nalen dived at Ol- shansky's lower legs. The San Diego defensive tackle retaliated by hammering his fist on Nalen's helmet.
"I had surgery four weeks ago," Olshansky told San Diego reporters Wednesday. "Mentally, it affects you when you have surgery on your knee during the season and you have to play with pain and all that other stuff. It's bad enough I have to deal with that and now a guy is trying to dive on my knee, and it's not a football play."
The Broncos have game film showing Olshansky getting physical on several plays previously, including punching offensive linemen and grabbing running back Damien Nash by the face mask. Nalen is expected to argue the fine levied against him was excessive.
Earlier this month, Oakland's Tyler Brayton was fined $25,000 for kneeing Seattle's Jerramy Stevens in the groin. Stevens was fined $15,000 for initiating the fight. This time, the initiator, Nalen, was fined much more than the player who struck back.
Also, Nalen likely will argue that he didn't know the play was going to be a clock killer. Alexander was on the line, three players away from Nalen, when Plummer took the snap from center. Alexander said he couldn't blame Nalen for attempting to execute a block.
"On that (spike) play, there is an option to throw the ball," Alexander said. "It's hard for Tommy to know if the ball is going to be thrown or spiked or whatever.
"I'd hope that the fine will be rescinded or at least talked about (in the NFL office). I don't fault Tommy for what he did."
Olshansky cost the Chargers 15 yards when he was penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct and kicked out of the game.
Alexander differentiated Nalen's action from what Brayton did.
"The difference is, what Tommy did was a legal play," Alexander said. "It was right there on national TV that the other guy (Olshansky) took two swings and hit Tommy with one of them. That was completely uncalled for. To just get a $10,000 (fine) for that? To me, that's just a little strange."
"What Tommy did isn't close to what (Brayton) did," Broncos cornerback Darrent Williams said. "And they get the same fine? That's ridiculous."
Denver offensive linemen have been fined in past years. The team has become sensitive to criticism from those who accuse the Broncos' line of blocking illegally.
"I hope anything that happened in the past didn't enter into this," Alexander said. "The NFL says it takes things on a case-by-case basis."
George Foster, the designated spokesman for the offensive line, declined comment on the advice of Nalen.
Injury report
Running backs Tatum Bell (turf toe injuries) and Mike Bell (thigh) were upgraded Wednesday from questionable to probable, as were defensive end Kenard Lang (knee) and wide receivers Rod Smith (ankle) and Brandon Marshall (ankle).
"I'm just sore, like after every other game," Mike Bell said. "I'll be ready."
Tatum Bell was not active for Sunday's game against San Diego. He has been bothered by turf injuries to both big toes for a month.
"It will be good to have Tatum back in there," Mike Bell said. "He has that big-play ability, that breakaway speed that we need."
Guard Cooper Carlisle (back) and Williams (shoulder) remained listed as questionable. Carlisle was the only player previously listed as questionable who did not participate in all drills Wednesday.
Williams, who returned an interception 31 yards for a touchdown in the third quarter against the Chargers, intends to play.
"You'd really like to have more days to heal up," Williams said of the short week. I just have to suck it up and give it a go."
Staff writer Bill Williamson contributed to this report.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Chiefs down Broncos 19-10; Jake Plummer Loses Starting Job To Jay Cutler - Denver Post
NFL Network just annouced that Plummer will not start the December 3rd game against Seattle, rookie Jay Cutler will.
Chiefs down Broncos 19-10
Denver loses second game in five days
By Mike Klis
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated:11/23/2006 09:37:01 PM MST
Kansas City, Mo. - For starters, Jake Plummer had benchwarmer burned into his consciousness.
Go get 'em, Jake. Win one for the clipboard and the baseball cap. Oh, and by the way. Mind holding for those Jason Elam extra points?
Prior to the Broncos' 19-10 loss to the Kansas City Chiefs here Thanksgiving night before a raucous, overflow Arrowhead Stadium crowd and a not-so nationally televised audience, speculation was rampant that win or lose, Good Jake or Bad Jake, Plummer was starting his last game as Broncos quarterback.
The conjecture was hardly surprising given Plummer's erratic play this season and the talent of his apparent successor, rookie Jay Cutler.
A bit baffling, however, was why such speculation was allowed to bump into certainty before such a crucial divisional game. The furor of the inevitable quarterback switch may have initially affected both the quarterback, who was shaky until a 3-minute drive near the end of the first half, and the team, which didn't exactly come out punching the Chiefs in their chinstraps.
Is this the end for Plummer as the Broncos' starting quarterback? If so, he bowed out giving his all, although competitive fire was never his problem. He completed 25 of 39 passes for 216 yards and a touchdown. He also threw an interception and a few other wayward passes, but considering the immense pressure that came with rumors of his demise, Plummer can head to the bench with his eyes up and his chin firm.
This game will not soon be forgotten for many reasons, beginning with how many people never saw it. This was the first game ever telecast by the NFL Network, much to the dismay of the roughly 60 percent of U.S. homes that don't, or can't, subscribe to the station.
What the majority of the nation missed was the Chiefs and Broncos converging into an AFC wild-card tie with identical 7-4 records. They failed to bear witness to not one, not two, but three defensive penalties that erased third-down stops and allowed the Chiefs to continue drives that led to 10 points.
They did not see Larry Johnson, Kansas City's superb running back, tick down minutes upon minutes, yards after yards until he finished with a 157.
And more than half the country may have missed Plummer's final start. Or they may have missed no such thing.
What no one, not even those with fancy satellite systems, saw was a Plummer surrender. He finished the first half leading the Broncos from his own 18 (yes, Denver's special teams remain abysmal) to the Chiefs' 12, from where Elam punched in a 31-yard field goal.
It was 13-3 Chiefs just inside the second half, when Plummer took advantage of a huge break and led the Broncos on a 64-yard touchdown drive. Attempting a pass down the right seam to Javon Walker, who seemingly failed to turn in time, Plummer was intercepted by Chiefs cornerback Patrick Surtain. The return went deep into Broncos' territory, but on the far side of the field, ex-Bronco Lenny Walls was flagged for illegal contact.
Given a new set of downs, Plummer made his best pass of the night, connecting with David Kircus on a hitch-and-go for a 36-yard gain. Eventually, the Broncos had first-and-goal from the 1, where they split out tight ends Nate Jackson to the right and Stephen Alexander to the left.
Plummer floated a fade to Alexander, who caught it falling back for a touchdown.
The Broncos were now down, 13-10, and Plummer was not playing like a dead man scrambling. The Chiefs marched back with Johnson, who the Broncos struggled to stop but managed to somewhat contain until their drives stalled for field goals.
Plummer had no such running attack to play-action off, and he also had no game-winning comeback that he apparently could have used to keep his job.
Up next for the Broncos is an answer from coach Mike Shanahan. The question: Who is the team's starting quarterback for its next game Dec. 3 against Seattle.
Staff writer Mike Klis can be reached at 303-954-1055 or mklis@denverpost.com.
Chiefs down Broncos 19-10
Denver loses second game in five days
By Mike Klis
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated:11/23/2006 09:37:01 PM MST
Kansas City, Mo. - For starters, Jake Plummer had benchwarmer burned into his consciousness.
Go get 'em, Jake. Win one for the clipboard and the baseball cap. Oh, and by the way. Mind holding for those Jason Elam extra points?
Prior to the Broncos' 19-10 loss to the Kansas City Chiefs here Thanksgiving night before a raucous, overflow Arrowhead Stadium crowd and a not-so nationally televised audience, speculation was rampant that win or lose, Good Jake or Bad Jake, Plummer was starting his last game as Broncos quarterback.
The conjecture was hardly surprising given Plummer's erratic play this season and the talent of his apparent successor, rookie Jay Cutler.
A bit baffling, however, was why such speculation was allowed to bump into certainty before such a crucial divisional game. The furor of the inevitable quarterback switch may have initially affected both the quarterback, who was shaky until a 3-minute drive near the end of the first half, and the team, which didn't exactly come out punching the Chiefs in their chinstraps.
Is this the end for Plummer as the Broncos' starting quarterback? If so, he bowed out giving his all, although competitive fire was never his problem. He completed 25 of 39 passes for 216 yards and a touchdown. He also threw an interception and a few other wayward passes, but considering the immense pressure that came with rumors of his demise, Plummer can head to the bench with his eyes up and his chin firm.
This game will not soon be forgotten for many reasons, beginning with how many people never saw it. This was the first game ever telecast by the NFL Network, much to the dismay of the roughly 60 percent of U.S. homes that don't, or can't, subscribe to the station.
What the majority of the nation missed was the Chiefs and Broncos converging into an AFC wild-card tie with identical 7-4 records. They failed to bear witness to not one, not two, but three defensive penalties that erased third-down stops and allowed the Chiefs to continue drives that led to 10 points.
They did not see Larry Johnson, Kansas City's superb running back, tick down minutes upon minutes, yards after yards until he finished with a 157.
And more than half the country may have missed Plummer's final start. Or they may have missed no such thing.
What no one, not even those with fancy satellite systems, saw was a Plummer surrender. He finished the first half leading the Broncos from his own 18 (yes, Denver's special teams remain abysmal) to the Chiefs' 12, from where Elam punched in a 31-yard field goal.
It was 13-3 Chiefs just inside the second half, when Plummer took advantage of a huge break and led the Broncos on a 64-yard touchdown drive. Attempting a pass down the right seam to Javon Walker, who seemingly failed to turn in time, Plummer was intercepted by Chiefs cornerback Patrick Surtain. The return went deep into Broncos' territory, but on the far side of the field, ex-Bronco Lenny Walls was flagged for illegal contact.
Given a new set of downs, Plummer made his best pass of the night, connecting with David Kircus on a hitch-and-go for a 36-yard gain. Eventually, the Broncos had first-and-goal from the 1, where they split out tight ends Nate Jackson to the right and Stephen Alexander to the left.
Plummer floated a fade to Alexander, who caught it falling back for a touchdown.
The Broncos were now down, 13-10, and Plummer was not playing like a dead man scrambling. The Chiefs marched back with Johnson, who the Broncos struggled to stop but managed to somewhat contain until their drives stalled for field goals.
Plummer had no such running attack to play-action off, and he also had no game-winning comeback that he apparently could have used to keep his job.
Up next for the Broncos is an answer from coach Mike Shanahan. The question: Who is the team's starting quarterback for its next game Dec. 3 against Seattle.
Staff writer Mike Klis can be reached at 303-954-1055 or mklis@denverpost.com.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
Thanks for reading NFL Business Blog. We're getting close to the playoffs. Stick with us!
Season's Greetings!
Season's Greetings!
Warren Sapp: Fans Of Eagles, Other Opponents, Tampered With His Food - AP
Warren Sapp insists food was tampered with on road trips
Associated Press
ALAMEDA, Calif. -- Warren Sapp is a very picky eater.
The Oakland Raiders' defensive tackle refuses to eat out on team trips for fear of getting sick, and he's not talking about the rare case of food poisoning.
Sapp insisted Wednesday his food was tampered with during his nine-year tenure in Tampa Bay from 1995-2003.
"You get your food poisoned," Sapp said at Raiders headquarters. "They don't want you out there on Sunday. You don't think about it. It just got crazy."
He pointed specifically to three incidents: Before the NFC Championship Game in Philadelphia at the end of the 2002 season, which the Bucs won en route to the Super Bowl title; before a divisional playoff game at Green Bay in January 1998; and at New Orleans, where the Bucs played a game during the 1998 season.
"I know it's real, especially in Philly, come on," said Sapp, long an unpopular figure in the NFL for his play and his mouth.
Sapp's comments caught Raiders coach Art Shell by surprise.
"That's the first I ever heard of it," said Shell, who spent five years working for the NFL before the Raiders hired him again in February. "Even being in the league office, I never heard that. That's scary."
Although San Diego Chargers receiver Keenan McCardell said he didn't know of any specific incidents of food poisoning involving Sapp, he understands Sapp's concerns.
"I know what Warren's talking about," said McCardell, teammates with Sapp for his final two seasons in Tampa Bay. "If you were Warren, a lot of people may target you. ... When I was in Jacksonville, Tom [Coughlin] said, 'Don't eat anything outside of what we're served as a team.'"
During his time with Tampa Bay, Sapp even went so far as to book two hotel rooms -- one under an alias -- so he could order room service and not worry about his food.
Sapp, who turns 34 next month, said he requested bottles of water with the cap still on.
"You have to, though," Sapp said of being cautious. "It's either that or feel bad."
For example, Sapp said that about a month after the Bucs won the Super Bowl, he and a friend traveled from Philadelphia to New York to watch Michael Jordan in his retirement tour at Madison Square Garden. First, they had dinner in Philadelphia, trading plates at the restaurant after their orders came. Then, Sapp said, his friend repeatedly threw up all the way to New York.
Sapp, who joined the Raiders before the 2004 season, said he has not had food poisoning after leaving Tampa Bay.
"I've been good out here on the West Coast," he said. "I guess they're more liberal out here."
Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press
New England Patriots' StubHub Lawsuit Stupid; Stubhub Is Not A Brokerage
The New England Patriots' recently announced lawsuit against StubHub is downright stupid. If you don't know about it, the Pats claim that StubHub causes fans to sell tickets over face value. That's the focus of the suit.
It's also wrong, and proves how little an East Coast firm like the Pats understand not just what StubHub.com does, but the nature of the Internet-based secondary ticket market.
StubHub is a medium through which to sell tickets at any price. The fan sets the price, not the company. Thus the tickets can -- and are -- set at below face value levels. The Boston Globe report found tickets that were higher than face, but didn't even bother to look at tickets that are priced at just $70, and there are a lot of them. Moreover, a ticket for a great seat can be found at a low or below face price if the buyer looks around.
StubHub is the wrong legal target and this lawsuit will not hold up in court. indeed, the Patriots have to explain why the Atlanta Falcons, Chicago Bears, San Francisco Giants, and other organizations have set up special programs with StubHub, and they have not.
This started because some Bostonian was less than savvy in his or her ticket purchases. They didn't have to spend over $800 on a ticket -- but they did. StubHub didn't put the ticket there, the seller did.
Going after a ticket reseller is not the answer. Going after a ticket broker is. StubHub is not a ticket broker. It's a reseller and that can be at any price.
It's also wrong, and proves how little an East Coast firm like the Pats understand not just what StubHub.com does, but the nature of the Internet-based secondary ticket market.
StubHub is a medium through which to sell tickets at any price. The fan sets the price, not the company. Thus the tickets can -- and are -- set at below face value levels. The Boston Globe report found tickets that were higher than face, but didn't even bother to look at tickets that are priced at just $70, and there are a lot of them. Moreover, a ticket for a great seat can be found at a low or below face price if the buyer looks around.
StubHub is the wrong legal target and this lawsuit will not hold up in court. indeed, the Patriots have to explain why the Atlanta Falcons, Chicago Bears, San Francisco Giants, and other organizations have set up special programs with StubHub, and they have not.
This started because some Bostonian was less than savvy in his or her ticket purchases. They didn't have to spend over $800 on a ticket -- but they did. StubHub didn't put the ticket there, the seller did.
Going after a ticket reseller is not the answer. Going after a ticket broker is. StubHub is not a ticket broker. It's a reseller and that can be at any price.
New England Patriots Sue StubHub - Boston Globe
Ticketmaster sells "scalped" New England Patriots tickets, but Pats don't sue them. Want to know why? Click here!
Patriots sue ticket reseller in effort to fight scalping
By Keith Reed, Globe Staff | November 23, 2006
The New England Patriots have filed suit against one of the nation's largest ticket resellers, StubHub Inc., saying the company encourages fans to flout the state antiscalping law and the team's prohibition against reselling Patriots tickets for a profit by facilitating the sale of tickets on its website, StubHub.com.
The suit, filed Tuesday in Suffolk Superior Court, also names as defendants two Bridgewater residents who allegedly resold season tickets on StubHub after the tickets had been revoked by the team, and 50 other unnamed Patriots season ticket holders who, the team says, illegally resold their tickets on StubHub.
By suing StubHub and the other defendants, the Patriots are taking on the resellers -- and their own fans -- to stop scalping. The team seeks an award of three times the revenue StubHub and the other defendants brought in through the online sales, plus an injunction against further resales of Patriots tickets on the StubHub website .
The lawsuit also could play a major role in the efforts of some lawmakers to revisit the state's antiscalping law in the spring.
"It appears that the current law is obviously not working," said state Representative Michael Morrissey, a Democrat from Quincy. "I applaud the actions of the Patriots, but the question is, how does that stop the guy on the corner from reselling the ticket? They'd never know about it if the person didn't list the ticket on StubHub."
Ticket resales have boomed in recent years as the Internet has made it easier to bring buyers and sellers together. Industry sources estimate annual sales of $4 billion to $10 billion in the resale market, with giants such as StubHub, eBay, Craigslist, RazorGator, and Ticket Liquidator and a host of smaller agencies and websites reselling millions of tickets.
With so much money at stake, professional sports teams and companies that once shunned the shadowy world of ticket scalping now want a piece of the action. Ticketmaster, a company that collected $950 million in fees last year selling tickets to concerts, stage shows, and sporting events, is trying to make millions more reselling those same tickets. Major League Baseball has gotten into the resale business with the website Tickets.com. The four major professional teams in the Boston area all provide or will soon offer a resale service for season ticket holders online.
Many states are doing away with their antiscalping laws, prodded by teams and corporations eager to get a piece of the resale market. Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina have scrapped or relaxed many of their regulations this year; Illinois and New York did the same last year.
But scalping is still illegal in Massachusetts , though the law is rarely enforced. The law doesn't prohibit ticket purchases above face value, but it requires anyone in the business of reselling tickets in Massachusetts to obtain a license from the Department of Public Safety and limits markups to $2 above face value, plus certain service charges.
Last night, however, several dozen tickets to the Patriots' home game on Sunday against the Chicago Bears were listed on StubHub.com. Lower sideline seats with a face value of $125 were being offered for $754; upper-level sideline seats, face value $59, were for sale at $205.
In an e-mailed statement, StubHub said last night it could not comment on the suit because it had not yet been served with it. But the company said it has already struck partnership deals with other NFL teams, and it said it has sufficient protections in place to prevent fraud and abuse.
"StubHub is a champion for the rights of fans to be able to gain access to tickets for events they want to see and a platform to sell the tickets they cannot use," the statement said. "Every individual is subject to our user agreement which obligates them to abide by their local and state regulations with respect to ticket resale," the statement read.
Daniel Goldberg, the attorney representing the Patriots, acknowledged that there are many other ways fans and scalpers resell tickets, but he said StubHub as a particularly troublesome offender that encourages ticket holders to resell, often at inflated prices and without warning buyers that the tickets they purchase may not be honored by the club.
"If you're encouraging people to list their tickets for sale, if you're doing that knowing that these tickets have an expressed prohibition against reselling and they're not telling them what the risks are, I think that's an issue," he said.
All sales of Patriots tickets originate with the team, though they can also be bought legally through Ticketmaster, a company that has a deal with the National Football League. Beyond that, the Patriots prohibit resale of any of tickets except through a website it controls, which allows those on the waiting list for season tickets to buy them from existing season-ticket holders at face value.
The Patriots can revoke a fan's season tickets if he or she resells them, or for unruly conduct during the game. When that happens, the bar code on the ticket is deactivated for the rest of the season . Those tickets are supposed to be returned to the Patriots, but in some instances they end up on StubHub without any warning that the purchaser -- who often pays hundreds of dollars above face value -- won't be allowed into the game.
That problem, the Patriots argue, is worsened by a guarantee from StubHub that if tickets turn out to be fraudulent, the website will find alternate accommodations for the buyer.
"Our experience is that as the listings on StubHub have increased, so also have the number of people who show up at the stadium with invalid tickets," Goldberg said.
The Patriots say two defendants , Steven McGrath and Carol McGrath of Bridgewater, sold invalid season tickets through StubHub. A woman who answered a phone listed to Carol McGrath in Bridgewater declined to comment on the lawsuit .
Dorchester resident Colman Herman, who has sued ticket brokers in the past, applauded the Patriots' action against StubHub. "All they have to do is go after one and really whack 'em, and that'll be it," he said.
Patriots sue ticket reseller in effort to fight scalping
By Keith Reed, Globe Staff | November 23, 2006
The New England Patriots have filed suit against one of the nation's largest ticket resellers, StubHub Inc., saying the company encourages fans to flout the state antiscalping law and the team's prohibition against reselling Patriots tickets for a profit by facilitating the sale of tickets on its website, StubHub.com.
The suit, filed Tuesday in Suffolk Superior Court, also names as defendants two Bridgewater residents who allegedly resold season tickets on StubHub after the tickets had been revoked by the team, and 50 other unnamed Patriots season ticket holders who, the team says, illegally resold their tickets on StubHub.
By suing StubHub and the other defendants, the Patriots are taking on the resellers -- and their own fans -- to stop scalping. The team seeks an award of three times the revenue StubHub and the other defendants brought in through the online sales, plus an injunction against further resales of Patriots tickets on the StubHub website .
The lawsuit also could play a major role in the efforts of some lawmakers to revisit the state's antiscalping law in the spring.
"It appears that the current law is obviously not working," said state Representative Michael Morrissey, a Democrat from Quincy. "I applaud the actions of the Patriots, but the question is, how does that stop the guy on the corner from reselling the ticket? They'd never know about it if the person didn't list the ticket on StubHub."
Ticket resales have boomed in recent years as the Internet has made it easier to bring buyers and sellers together. Industry sources estimate annual sales of $4 billion to $10 billion in the resale market, with giants such as StubHub, eBay, Craigslist, RazorGator, and Ticket Liquidator and a host of smaller agencies and websites reselling millions of tickets.
With so much money at stake, professional sports teams and companies that once shunned the shadowy world of ticket scalping now want a piece of the action. Ticketmaster, a company that collected $950 million in fees last year selling tickets to concerts, stage shows, and sporting events, is trying to make millions more reselling those same tickets. Major League Baseball has gotten into the resale business with the website Tickets.com. The four major professional teams in the Boston area all provide or will soon offer a resale service for season ticket holders online.
Many states are doing away with their antiscalping laws, prodded by teams and corporations eager to get a piece of the resale market. Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina have scrapped or relaxed many of their regulations this year; Illinois and New York did the same last year.
But scalping is still illegal in Massachusetts , though the law is rarely enforced. The law doesn't prohibit ticket purchases above face value, but it requires anyone in the business of reselling tickets in Massachusetts to obtain a license from the Department of Public Safety and limits markups to $2 above face value, plus certain service charges.
Last night, however, several dozen tickets to the Patriots' home game on Sunday against the Chicago Bears were listed on StubHub.com. Lower sideline seats with a face value of $125 were being offered for $754; upper-level sideline seats, face value $59, were for sale at $205.
In an e-mailed statement, StubHub said last night it could not comment on the suit because it had not yet been served with it. But the company said it has already struck partnership deals with other NFL teams, and it said it has sufficient protections in place to prevent fraud and abuse.
"StubHub is a champion for the rights of fans to be able to gain access to tickets for events they want to see and a platform to sell the tickets they cannot use," the statement said. "Every individual is subject to our user agreement which obligates them to abide by their local and state regulations with respect to ticket resale," the statement read.
Daniel Goldberg, the attorney representing the Patriots, acknowledged that there are many other ways fans and scalpers resell tickets, but he said StubHub as a particularly troublesome offender that encourages ticket holders to resell, often at inflated prices and without warning buyers that the tickets they purchase may not be honored by the club.
"If you're encouraging people to list their tickets for sale, if you're doing that knowing that these tickets have an expressed prohibition against reselling and they're not telling them what the risks are, I think that's an issue," he said.
All sales of Patriots tickets originate with the team, though they can also be bought legally through Ticketmaster, a company that has a deal with the National Football League. Beyond that, the Patriots prohibit resale of any of tickets except through a website it controls, which allows those on the waiting list for season tickets to buy them from existing season-ticket holders at face value.
The Patriots can revoke a fan's season tickets if he or she resells them, or for unruly conduct during the game. When that happens, the bar code on the ticket is deactivated for the rest of the season . Those tickets are supposed to be returned to the Patriots, but in some instances they end up on StubHub without any warning that the purchaser -- who often pays hundreds of dollars above face value -- won't be allowed into the game.
That problem, the Patriots argue, is worsened by a guarantee from StubHub that if tickets turn out to be fraudulent, the website will find alternate accommodations for the buyer.
"Our experience is that as the listings on StubHub have increased, so also have the number of people who show up at the stadium with invalid tickets," Goldberg said.
The Patriots say two defendants , Steven McGrath and Carol McGrath of Bridgewater, sold invalid season tickets through StubHub. A woman who answered a phone listed to Carol McGrath in Bridgewater declined to comment on the lawsuit .
Dorchester resident Colman Herman, who has sued ticket brokers in the past, applauded the Patriots' action against StubHub. "All they have to do is go after one and really whack 'em, and that'll be it," he said.
Field Position Conversations: Wil Mara, Author of "The Draft" - 11/21/2006
Field Position Conversations: Wil Mara 11/21/2006
Bill Chachkes sits down with Wil Mara, author of over 75 books, to talk about his latest release The Draft.
They discuss the many colorful characters, interesting plot lines, and portraits of some of the NFL’s most intriguing myths and realities.
The Draft touches on the worlds of the players, the front-office personnel, player agents, players and even the world of moles and spies. Mara describes the book as a story written for anyone who loves football. Chachkes describes it as riveting.
In this installment of the Field Position Converstations series, Chachkes and Mara talk not only about the book, but about some of the experiences in Mara’s life that inspired some of the plot lines.
I did this interview about 11 days ago, but we wanted to save it as a treat to all of our football fans for Thanksgiving
You can listen to this by clicking on the link on the front page of this blog
Bill
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Philadelphia Eagles Put Donovan McNabb On Injured Reserve - NFL Network
McNabb placed on IR; QB Jacobs signed
NFL.com wire reports
PHILADELPHIA (Nov. 21, 2006) -- The Philadelphia Eagles placed Donovan McNabb on injured reserve, ending the five-time Pro Bowl quarterback's season early for the third time in five years.
McNabb tore the anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee in the team's 31-13 loss to Tennessee, and is expected to have surgery within a month. He's expected to be sidelined for at least eight months.
Linebacker Torrance Daniels was promoted from the practice squad to take McNabb's roster spot. Quarterback Omar Jacobs was signed to the practice squad.
A fifth-round pick by Pittsburgh earlier this year, Jacobs spent a week on the Steelers' practice squad before he was released in September. Jacobs twice received All-Mid American Conference honors at Bowling Green, and finished his career as the school's all-time leader in touchdown passes with 71. He completed 523 of 811 passes for 6,938 yards and only 11 interceptions.
Daniels originally signed as a rookie free agent with the Eagles and has spent the entire season on the practice squad. He was a four-year starter for Harding University in Arkansas, and recorded 74 tackles, 4 1/2 sacks and four forced fumbles his senior season.
McNabb, who turns 30 on Nov. 25, was having one of the best statistical seasons of his eight-year career. He finished with 2,647 yards passing, 18 TDs, six interceptions and a passer rating of 95.5.
McNabb had surgery for a sports hernia and missed the final seven games last season when Philadelphia finished 6-10 a year after going to the Super Bowl. McNabb also sat out the final six regular-season games in 2002 before returning for the playoffs.
The Eagles hoped McNabb would have surgery this week, but went to see renowned orthopedist Dr. James Andrews in Birmingham, Ala., and it was determined he had too much swelling in his knee to operate this soon.
Either Jeff Garcia or A.J. Feeley will start in McNabb's place for the Eagles (5-5) against Indianapolis.
NFL.com wire reports
PHILADELPHIA (Nov. 21, 2006) -- The Philadelphia Eagles placed Donovan McNabb on injured reserve, ending the five-time Pro Bowl quarterback's season early for the third time in five years.
McNabb tore the anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee in the team's 31-13 loss to Tennessee, and is expected to have surgery within a month. He's expected to be sidelined for at least eight months.
Linebacker Torrance Daniels was promoted from the practice squad to take McNabb's roster spot. Quarterback Omar Jacobs was signed to the practice squad.
A fifth-round pick by Pittsburgh earlier this year, Jacobs spent a week on the Steelers' practice squad before he was released in September. Jacobs twice received All-Mid American Conference honors at Bowling Green, and finished his career as the school's all-time leader in touchdown passes with 71. He completed 523 of 811 passes for 6,938 yards and only 11 interceptions.
Daniels originally signed as a rookie free agent with the Eagles and has spent the entire season on the practice squad. He was a four-year starter for Harding University in Arkansas, and recorded 74 tackles, 4 1/2 sacks and four forced fumbles his senior season.
McNabb, who turns 30 on Nov. 25, was having one of the best statistical seasons of his eight-year career. He finished with 2,647 yards passing, 18 TDs, six interceptions and a passer rating of 95.5.
McNabb had surgery for a sports hernia and missed the final seven games last season when Philadelphia finished 6-10 a year after going to the Super Bowl. McNabb also sat out the final six regular-season games in 2002 before returning for the playoffs.
The Eagles hoped McNabb would have surgery this week, but went to see renowned orthopedist Dr. James Andrews in Birmingham, Ala., and it was determined he had too much swelling in his knee to operate this soon.
Either Jeff Garcia or A.J. Feeley will start in McNabb's place for the Eagles (5-5) against Indianapolis.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
NFL Network's Hardball Cable Costs Cause Viewing Audience Shortage - AP
Cable Operators Balking at NFL Network
By SETH SUTEL, AP Business Writer
Tuesday, November 21, 2006 04 27 PM
(11-21) 16:27 PST New York (AP) --
On Thanksgiving, the NFL will air the first of eight live pro football games on its own network. But it won't be available to many viewers across the country because the league hasn't reached carriage agreements with several major cable operators.
The eight games — beginning with Thursday's matchup of the Denver Broncos and the Kansas City Chiefs — will be available on local broadcasters, satellite TV and a number of other cable systems that do carry the NFL Network. But that totals only about 40 million of the nation's 111.4 million households with TVs.
Most notable among the cable companies that haven't reached deals with the National Football League are No. 2 operator Time Warner Cable, which is a unit of the media conglomerate Time Warner Inc.; Cablevision Systems Corp., a New York-area provider; and Charter Communications Inc. Time Warner, for its part, says it's highly unlikely a deal will be reached in time for the first game.
Comcast Corp., the largest cable company in the country, has carried the network for two years, but as part of a digital package ordered by only about 7 million out of its 24 million subscribers. Time Warner says it's balking at a demand from NFL that the network be carried on the most widely available basic service lineup.
The issue is cost. Spokesman Mark Harrad says Time Warner would have to pay $140 million a year to provide the channel to all 13.5 million of its subscribers in 33 states, placing it in the top five most expensive cable networks. He said the company would prefer to carry the network as part of a premium service — not at the rate of 70 cents per customer per month the network is reportedly seeking.
"If we put all expensive sports programming on the standard tier of service, that would increase our rates to all of our customers, even those who didn't particularly care about football or these games," said Harrad.
NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky counters that a number of other cable companies as well as the two main satellite providers are "happily" carrying the network, which is jointly owned by the league's 32 team owners.
"It's the most valuable programming a cable company can offer, and a cable company not carrying live NFL games is like a grocery store not carrying milk," Palansky said.
The NFL already makes a bundle from broadcasting agreements, money that is shared equally by all team owners. General Electric Co.'s NBC started broadcasting Sunday night games this year under a six-year, $600 million per year deal with the league, while Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN is paying $1.1 billion per year for Monday night football over eight years. Last year the NFL reached six-year, $8 billion extensions with Fox and CBS for Sunday afternoon games.
NFL team owners are betting their own network will offer other opportunities for building revenue in the future, including streaming programming over the Internet, through Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes and cell phones, Palansky said.
Palansky declined to release financial data for the network, including its revenues and losses to date, but the NFL said at the time of its launch three years ago that it expected to have $100 million in startup costs.
About two-thirds of the NFL network's 40 million households come from satellite TV subscribers who get either the Dish network from EchoStar Communications Corp. or DirecTV from The DirecTV Group Inc. By contrast, Disney's ESPN network is available in 92 million homes.
Until now, however, the network hasn't carried any NFL games live. Instead, it ran other football-related programming like news, interviews, game highlights and replays, plus games from NFL Europe.
The NFL is hoping that the appeal of the live games, which are scheduled for Thursdays and Saturdays, will help expand the network's audience. Bryant Gumbel and Cris Collinsworth will be the game announcers.
John Mansell, senior analyst at Kagan Research, a media research and analysis firm, says the dispute between the NFL and the cable companies is about "positioning, and money."
"Cable operators love the NFL, but they want to carry it on a digital tier, where they can use it as a destination for sports programming," Mansell said. "If it's going to be expensive, they want to receive compensation for it" from customers who pay premium fees.
The cable companies are in a tough spot on this dispute. If hard-core fans can't see the games they want, the complaints could start pouring in — something Time Warner says hasn't happened yet. On the other hand, no one's going to like it if the cable companies pass along the costs by raising rates.
Comcast, meanwhile, is being sued by the NFL Network after trying to switch over newly acquired cable systems to the arrangement already in place for existing subscribers.
Comcast executive vice president David Cohen said in a statement that the NFL is trying to "force cable companies to charge many consumers for programming they don't want. Sports programming fees are out of control in general and the NFL programming is very expensive."
Harrad of Time Warner says that cable companies may have already lost the most die-hard NFL fans years ago anyway when the NFL created a major package of games called NFL Sunday Ticket and sold it exclusively to DirecTV, which is controlled by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
The full package costs $249 per year for access to up to 14 out-of-market regular season games every Sunday. In November of 2004, DirecTV announced a five-year, $3.5 billion agreement with the NFL to extend and expand their exclusive rights to carry NFL Sunday Ticket through the 2010 season.
In the end, it remains to be seen whether either side will blink. Time Warner says it doesn't expect a resolution prior to the first game. Meantime, the NFL Network's Web site is encouraging fans to request their cable operators carry the network.
Sports programmers and cable operators have clashed before, industry analysts note, as the costs for carrying sports continues to climb. Mansell notes that compromises are usually reached, however, and if there is a dispute, it's unusual for it to last beyond one year.
In the meantime, says Howard Horowitz of Horowitz Associates Inc., a market research and consulting firm: "the consumer will usually be asked by each side to blame the other side."
By SETH SUTEL, AP Business Writer
Tuesday, November 21, 2006 04 27 PM
(11-21) 16:27 PST New York (AP) --
On Thanksgiving, the NFL will air the first of eight live pro football games on its own network. But it won't be available to many viewers across the country because the league hasn't reached carriage agreements with several major cable operators.
The eight games — beginning with Thursday's matchup of the Denver Broncos and the Kansas City Chiefs — will be available on local broadcasters, satellite TV and a number of other cable systems that do carry the NFL Network. But that totals only about 40 million of the nation's 111.4 million households with TVs.
Most notable among the cable companies that haven't reached deals with the National Football League are No. 2 operator Time Warner Cable, which is a unit of the media conglomerate Time Warner Inc.; Cablevision Systems Corp., a New York-area provider; and Charter Communications Inc. Time Warner, for its part, says it's highly unlikely a deal will be reached in time for the first game.
Comcast Corp., the largest cable company in the country, has carried the network for two years, but as part of a digital package ordered by only about 7 million out of its 24 million subscribers. Time Warner says it's balking at a demand from NFL that the network be carried on the most widely available basic service lineup.
The issue is cost. Spokesman Mark Harrad says Time Warner would have to pay $140 million a year to provide the channel to all 13.5 million of its subscribers in 33 states, placing it in the top five most expensive cable networks. He said the company would prefer to carry the network as part of a premium service — not at the rate of 70 cents per customer per month the network is reportedly seeking.
"If we put all expensive sports programming on the standard tier of service, that would increase our rates to all of our customers, even those who didn't particularly care about football or these games," said Harrad.
NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky counters that a number of other cable companies as well as the two main satellite providers are "happily" carrying the network, which is jointly owned by the league's 32 team owners.
"It's the most valuable programming a cable company can offer, and a cable company not carrying live NFL games is like a grocery store not carrying milk," Palansky said.
The NFL already makes a bundle from broadcasting agreements, money that is shared equally by all team owners. General Electric Co.'s NBC started broadcasting Sunday night games this year under a six-year, $600 million per year deal with the league, while Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN is paying $1.1 billion per year for Monday night football over eight years. Last year the NFL reached six-year, $8 billion extensions with Fox and CBS for Sunday afternoon games.
NFL team owners are betting their own network will offer other opportunities for building revenue in the future, including streaming programming over the Internet, through Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes and cell phones, Palansky said.
Palansky declined to release financial data for the network, including its revenues and losses to date, but the NFL said at the time of its launch three years ago that it expected to have $100 million in startup costs.
About two-thirds of the NFL network's 40 million households come from satellite TV subscribers who get either the Dish network from EchoStar Communications Corp. or DirecTV from The DirecTV Group Inc. By contrast, Disney's ESPN network is available in 92 million homes.
Until now, however, the network hasn't carried any NFL games live. Instead, it ran other football-related programming like news, interviews, game highlights and replays, plus games from NFL Europe.
The NFL is hoping that the appeal of the live games, which are scheduled for Thursdays and Saturdays, will help expand the network's audience. Bryant Gumbel and Cris Collinsworth will be the game announcers.
John Mansell, senior analyst at Kagan Research, a media research and analysis firm, says the dispute between the NFL and the cable companies is about "positioning, and money."
"Cable operators love the NFL, but they want to carry it on a digital tier, where they can use it as a destination for sports programming," Mansell said. "If it's going to be expensive, they want to receive compensation for it" from customers who pay premium fees.
The cable companies are in a tough spot on this dispute. If hard-core fans can't see the games they want, the complaints could start pouring in — something Time Warner says hasn't happened yet. On the other hand, no one's going to like it if the cable companies pass along the costs by raising rates.
Comcast, meanwhile, is being sued by the NFL Network after trying to switch over newly acquired cable systems to the arrangement already in place for existing subscribers.
Comcast executive vice president David Cohen said in a statement that the NFL is trying to "force cable companies to charge many consumers for programming they don't want. Sports programming fees are out of control in general and the NFL programming is very expensive."
Harrad of Time Warner says that cable companies may have already lost the most die-hard NFL fans years ago anyway when the NFL created a major package of games called NFL Sunday Ticket and sold it exclusively to DirecTV, which is controlled by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
The full package costs $249 per year for access to up to 14 out-of-market regular season games every Sunday. In November of 2004, DirecTV announced a five-year, $3.5 billion agreement with the NFL to extend and expand their exclusive rights to carry NFL Sunday Ticket through the 2010 season.
In the end, it remains to be seen whether either side will blink. Time Warner says it doesn't expect a resolution prior to the first game. Meantime, the NFL Network's Web site is encouraging fans to request their cable operators carry the network.
Sports programmers and cable operators have clashed before, industry analysts note, as the costs for carrying sports continues to climb. Mansell notes that compromises are usually reached, however, and if there is a dispute, it's unusual for it to last beyond one year.
In the meantime, says Howard Horowitz of Horowitz Associates Inc., a market research and consulting firm: "the consumer will usually be asked by each side to blame the other side."
49ers York And SF Mayor Newsom And Stadium Problem - Cecilia M. Vega For SF Chronicle
This is a very good and detailed explaination of the behavior of the principal actors in the 49ers Stadium deal.
Why talks on 49ers stadium fell apart
City and team misunderstood each other's positions
Cecilia M. Vega, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
The same faces gathered in the same room at San Francisco City Hall, just as they had done every week for almost a year, to come up with a proposal for a new 49ers stadium.
The conversation Oct. 30 centered on when to show the world exactly what a stadium, retail and housing development at Candlestick Point costing $1.4 billion to $2 billion would look like and the best time to put the project on the ballot and ask voters to approve it.
What most if not all of the people in that room didn't know -- not the city officials, not the real estate developers brought on board by the 49ers, possibly not even 49ers representatives themselves -- was that the meeting would be their last.
Nine days later, the team announced that plans for a new San Francisco stadium were off. The 49ers were moving to Santa Clara.
Exactly how the talks fell apart remains as much a mystery to fans as to many of those involved.
But in interviews with sources close to the talks and others who know the people involved, two themes emerged.
The two people pivotal to the talks -- Mayor Gavin Newsom and 49ers co-owner John York, men with strikingly different personalities -- never formed the kind of relationship that breeds success.
York, at times, felt blindsided by the mayor's public pronouncements and snubbed by his failure to return phone calls.
Newsom's team and developers working with the 49ers found York obsessed with minor details at the expense of the big picture and inexperienced when it came to overseeing a high-stakes deal.
Beyond that, the interviews suggest that the two sides mis-communicated and misunderstood each other's position in the talks. The result was that when city officials thought they were on the verge of an agreement, the 49ers were becoming exasperated with a process they found tedious and politicized.
"We were completely taken aback," Newsom said the day after learning the team planned to leave San Francisco.
"We were baffled and surprised that they were baffled and surprised," 49ers spokeswoman Lisa Lang said last week.
City leaders still hope that the team will stay and that a plan to build a stadium in San Francisco can be salvaged. A Board of Supervisors hearing to explore the proposal for Candlestick is slated for today in City Hall.
The effort to rebuild the aging city-owned stadium at Candlestick Point is more than a decade old. In 1997, city voters backed a $100 million bond issue for a stadium-mall, but that project never came to fruition.
After years of false starts and turmoil within the family that owns the 49ers, the push for a new stadium gained momentum last fall. Eleven months ago, a coalition of city officials, the development company Lennar Corp. and the 49ers began weekly meetings to try to hammer out a plan.
But problems emerged early.
In April, The Chronicle broke a story that San Francisco officials had been lobbying Sacramento to pass state legislation that would allow a judge to decide whether the team and city could -- without returning to the ballot -- proceed with a stadium plan different from the one voters approved in 1997.
The mayor reacted by saying he never had any intention of denying voters a say on a new stadium -- a statement that stunned the 49ers, who already had fought and narrowly won a multimillion-dollar campaign and had no intention of going through another one.
Making matters worse, team co-owner York first learned that the 49ers would have to go before the voters again by reading about it in the newspaper, rather than hearing it from city officials.
"The assumption was that we would not have to go back before the voters," Lang said. "That was certainly a big surprise to read about that in the paper."
Another person in the talks said the mayor's response certainly frustrated the team, but the 49ers never gave any indication it was a deal-breaker.
"That got them miffed," said the source, who like many involved asked to remain anonymous so as not to disrupt future discussions. "But it wasn't the end of the world."
Though neither York nor Newsom was present, representatives from the mayor's office, the 49ers and Lennar continued meeting nearly every week.
Economic and political pressures were mounting.
The 49ers play in the oldest unremodeled stadium in the NFL, according to York. The team, desperate for a venue comparable to those generating much more money for other franchises, has set 2012 as its deadline to play in a new stadium.
In 2004, Newsom set next year as his deadline to have a new stadium in the works.
"I'm not going to wait until the last year of the 49ers' lease to start something," he told The Chronicle, referring to the agreement under which the team plays at Candlestick, which expires in 2008.
Newsom also had political reasons for wanting a deal with the 49ers before next year. He will be up for re-election, and having the stadium proposal settled, as well as a plan to bring thousands of new housing units and retail establishments to the impoverished Candlestick area, would be a campaign boost.
By July, everything seemed in order. The 49ers went public with their preliminary plans for a new San Francisco stadium to test the climate among voters and fans.
Team officials excitedly showed computer renderings of what the 68,000-seat arena would look like.
Still, Lang, the 49ers spokeswoman, cautioned at the time that if the proposal fell through in San Francisco, Santa Clara was the backup.
At the same time, Newsom was pushing ahead to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to San Francisco and to hold the Opening and Closing ceremonies at the new 49ers stadium.
By September, a partnership was in the works between the team and the committee working to bring the Olympics to town to make hosting the Games at Candlestick possible.
But during a City Hall meeting Sept. 11, Lang said the team's chief financial officer explicitly told city officials and developers that the 49ers had major reservations about the project, particularly when it came to a proposed parking structure, which the team felt would have cost fans too much time to get in and out of and would have inhibited the age-old ritual of pregame tailgating.
And by Sept. 14, York had sent a letter to Newsom saying the city should not base the centerpiece of its Olympic plans on a stadium project that had not been finalized.
The mayor and his team appear to have not taken the warning seriously, some sources say. But representatives for York also continued to show up for City Hall meetings, signaling that everything was on track, others contend. City officials said that by Sept. 18, the team had even agreed to work further on parking challenges in the proposal.
"Yes, issues came up," a city official said. "But that's the nature of the development process. Issues come up, and you solve them."
The miscommunication trickled down to the most basic issues -- like whether the two sides were even really engaged in negotiations all along.
The 49ers now say they believed their participation in the talks, even as recently as the meeting Oct. 30, was simply about wading through the details of a complex real estate venture to see what worked best for the team. To them, the city and developers were jumping the gun.
"It was not a negotiation," Lang insisted, saying there was no signed agreement or contract between the parties. "We were in the midst of a long feasibility study."
Many in the talks on behalf of the city and developer Lennar Corp. found that assertion puzzling, given the amount of time spent on detailed discussions.
"What is this, the twilight zone?" one asked, rhetorically.
Versions vary about what happened behind closed doors.
"The tone of the meetings all the way along was pretty excited," one source said, meaning many involved in the talks thought that they were movingly along smoothly and that all parties were content.
"There were meetings when people were yelling at each other," another source said.
Adding to the confusion was city officials' insistence on having tight control over the meetings and on Washington-style secrecy, according to those involved in the talks. They often insisted that communication be spoken, rather than written, in case the media requested copies under government open-records laws.
When some documents were generated reflecting the direction of the discussions, they couldn't be removed from City Hall, sources said.
The resistance to put anything down in black and white could have contributed to a perception by the 49ers that doing business in San Francisco is a difficult, sometimes tedious, process.
It wasn't just economic and political issues associated with the project that made the talks complicated. The people who had the final say on each side were complicated, too.
York and Newsom couldn't have more opposite personalities or more different approaches to the business deal. York was so concerned with details that he reportedly reviewed carpet samples. Newsom was so removed from the project that sources said he failed to return important phone calls, an assertion the mayor denies.
York and his wife, Denise DeBartolo York, took control of the franchise in 2000 after a bitter, public battle with Denise's brother, Eddie DeBartolo Jr.
Many who know John York, a pathologist by trade, say he is not skilled enough in business to manage a $600 million-$800 million stadium proposal -- much less hundreds of millions of dollars worth more of housing and retail construction.
"He drags his feet along and can't decide on details," said one person involved in the negotiations.
Instead of being engaged in the larger issues in the deal, York busied himself with fabric samples for seats and carpet swatches for luxury boxes, the source said.
"He was a pathologist. He studied how people died," the source said. "The trouble is, this was a live stadium development, and John's too deathly afraid to make a mistake."
York may have been the lead decisionmaker for the team outside of City Hall, but he wasn't present regularly during the discussions. His 25-year-old son, Jed; the team's chief financial officer, Larry MacNeil; and Lang, the team's vice president of communications, were. And insiders said the 49ers group lacked the real estate and political experience necessary to understand the complicated deal.
But many also blamed Newsom for not reaching out enough to the Yorks over the course of the talks.
The mayor did not return several calls York made in the spring to address concerns he had with the proposal, sources involved in the talks said. Eventually Newsom assigned his chief of staff, Steve Kawa, to sit in on all the meetings and be a point man in meetings with York.
"John has a lot of respect for Kawa," a person involved in the talks said, "but he would have liked to continue to have connections with the mayor."
The relationships -- or lack thereof -- may have further damaged an already troubled deal.
"He should have made sure it was rolling along properly, schmoozing with John some," said another source who knows both men.
Newsom, however, said he did have "plenty of dinners and dozens of phone calls" over the years with York. But there were no dinners as the deal progressed this year, others countered.
"I gotta run a city," Newsom said. "I can't give up all my time and say I'm going to spend it with you. I'm not going to spend all my time giving up on everything else."
The talks -- carried out by surrogates -- persisted right up until the last meeting Oct. 30.
Those involved debated whether to place the new stadium proposal on the ballot in June or in March, the month before the city would learn whether it was a possible contender in the 2016 Olympic Games.
The thought was that if voters approved a new stadium measure, it would practically secure San Francisco's chances of being picked by U.S. Olympic officials to host the games.
To Newsom's staffers and the developers in the room that day, the talk was a sign they were close to finishing this long-anticipated project. To the representatives from the 49ers, though, it was yet another meeting in a long series of discussions that seemed headed down the wrong path.
One person on hand said there was no mention of the 49ers' intention to leave town that day.
"I left that meeting," the source said, "like a kid going to a Christmas party. I'm thinking this is about to finally happen."
Others said they also left the meeting feeling that a public announcement about the proposed stadium at Candlestick was imminent.
The location to unveil the plan had already been selected -- the impoverished Bayview community that stood to gain the most from the new development. The press release was ready to go.
Then, on Nov. 8, York phoned Newsom to deliver the news the 49ers were headed to Santa Clara; the call ended abruptly. The next day the team held a news conference and made the announcement official.
Since that announcement, elected officials at City Hall and from San Francisco in the state Legislature and Congress have threatened legal and legislative action to keep the 49ers in the city in which they were founded.
Newsom and York, or his son, Jed, have on three occasions sat down face to face -- a departure from the meetings of underlings that had been routine for months.
On Monday, there was no sign that progress had been made in persuading the team's owners to reconsider.
Jed York sent an e-mail to undisclosed recipients noting that he had received a death threat after the announcement of the 49ers' plan to leave the city.
"Keeping the 49ers in the Bay Area is essential," he wrote. "We have looked at many sites, but the one in Santa Clara is the best option to date."
Why talks on 49ers stadium fell apart
City and team misunderstood each other's positions
Cecilia M. Vega, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
The same faces gathered in the same room at San Francisco City Hall, just as they had done every week for almost a year, to come up with a proposal for a new 49ers stadium.
The conversation Oct. 30 centered on when to show the world exactly what a stadium, retail and housing development at Candlestick Point costing $1.4 billion to $2 billion would look like and the best time to put the project on the ballot and ask voters to approve it.
What most if not all of the people in that room didn't know -- not the city officials, not the real estate developers brought on board by the 49ers, possibly not even 49ers representatives themselves -- was that the meeting would be their last.
Nine days later, the team announced that plans for a new San Francisco stadium were off. The 49ers were moving to Santa Clara.
Exactly how the talks fell apart remains as much a mystery to fans as to many of those involved.
But in interviews with sources close to the talks and others who know the people involved, two themes emerged.
The two people pivotal to the talks -- Mayor Gavin Newsom and 49ers co-owner John York, men with strikingly different personalities -- never formed the kind of relationship that breeds success.
York, at times, felt blindsided by the mayor's public pronouncements and snubbed by his failure to return phone calls.
Newsom's team and developers working with the 49ers found York obsessed with minor details at the expense of the big picture and inexperienced when it came to overseeing a high-stakes deal.
Beyond that, the interviews suggest that the two sides mis-communicated and misunderstood each other's position in the talks. The result was that when city officials thought they were on the verge of an agreement, the 49ers were becoming exasperated with a process they found tedious and politicized.
"We were completely taken aback," Newsom said the day after learning the team planned to leave San Francisco.
"We were baffled and surprised that they were baffled and surprised," 49ers spokeswoman Lisa Lang said last week.
City leaders still hope that the team will stay and that a plan to build a stadium in San Francisco can be salvaged. A Board of Supervisors hearing to explore the proposal for Candlestick is slated for today in City Hall.
The effort to rebuild the aging city-owned stadium at Candlestick Point is more than a decade old. In 1997, city voters backed a $100 million bond issue for a stadium-mall, but that project never came to fruition.
After years of false starts and turmoil within the family that owns the 49ers, the push for a new stadium gained momentum last fall. Eleven months ago, a coalition of city officials, the development company Lennar Corp. and the 49ers began weekly meetings to try to hammer out a plan.
But problems emerged early.
In April, The Chronicle broke a story that San Francisco officials had been lobbying Sacramento to pass state legislation that would allow a judge to decide whether the team and city could -- without returning to the ballot -- proceed with a stadium plan different from the one voters approved in 1997.
The mayor reacted by saying he never had any intention of denying voters a say on a new stadium -- a statement that stunned the 49ers, who already had fought and narrowly won a multimillion-dollar campaign and had no intention of going through another one.
Making matters worse, team co-owner York first learned that the 49ers would have to go before the voters again by reading about it in the newspaper, rather than hearing it from city officials.
"The assumption was that we would not have to go back before the voters," Lang said. "That was certainly a big surprise to read about that in the paper."
Another person in the talks said the mayor's response certainly frustrated the team, but the 49ers never gave any indication it was a deal-breaker.
"That got them miffed," said the source, who like many involved asked to remain anonymous so as not to disrupt future discussions. "But it wasn't the end of the world."
Though neither York nor Newsom was present, representatives from the mayor's office, the 49ers and Lennar continued meeting nearly every week.
Economic and political pressures were mounting.
The 49ers play in the oldest unremodeled stadium in the NFL, according to York. The team, desperate for a venue comparable to those generating much more money for other franchises, has set 2012 as its deadline to play in a new stadium.
In 2004, Newsom set next year as his deadline to have a new stadium in the works.
"I'm not going to wait until the last year of the 49ers' lease to start something," he told The Chronicle, referring to the agreement under which the team plays at Candlestick, which expires in 2008.
Newsom also had political reasons for wanting a deal with the 49ers before next year. He will be up for re-election, and having the stadium proposal settled, as well as a plan to bring thousands of new housing units and retail establishments to the impoverished Candlestick area, would be a campaign boost.
By July, everything seemed in order. The 49ers went public with their preliminary plans for a new San Francisco stadium to test the climate among voters and fans.
Team officials excitedly showed computer renderings of what the 68,000-seat arena would look like.
Still, Lang, the 49ers spokeswoman, cautioned at the time that if the proposal fell through in San Francisco, Santa Clara was the backup.
At the same time, Newsom was pushing ahead to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to San Francisco and to hold the Opening and Closing ceremonies at the new 49ers stadium.
By September, a partnership was in the works between the team and the committee working to bring the Olympics to town to make hosting the Games at Candlestick possible.
But during a City Hall meeting Sept. 11, Lang said the team's chief financial officer explicitly told city officials and developers that the 49ers had major reservations about the project, particularly when it came to a proposed parking structure, which the team felt would have cost fans too much time to get in and out of and would have inhibited the age-old ritual of pregame tailgating.
And by Sept. 14, York had sent a letter to Newsom saying the city should not base the centerpiece of its Olympic plans on a stadium project that had not been finalized.
The mayor and his team appear to have not taken the warning seriously, some sources say. But representatives for York also continued to show up for City Hall meetings, signaling that everything was on track, others contend. City officials said that by Sept. 18, the team had even agreed to work further on parking challenges in the proposal.
"Yes, issues came up," a city official said. "But that's the nature of the development process. Issues come up, and you solve them."
The miscommunication trickled down to the most basic issues -- like whether the two sides were even really engaged in negotiations all along.
The 49ers now say they believed their participation in the talks, even as recently as the meeting Oct. 30, was simply about wading through the details of a complex real estate venture to see what worked best for the team. To them, the city and developers were jumping the gun.
"It was not a negotiation," Lang insisted, saying there was no signed agreement or contract between the parties. "We were in the midst of a long feasibility study."
Many in the talks on behalf of the city and developer Lennar Corp. found that assertion puzzling, given the amount of time spent on detailed discussions.
"What is this, the twilight zone?" one asked, rhetorically.
Versions vary about what happened behind closed doors.
"The tone of the meetings all the way along was pretty excited," one source said, meaning many involved in the talks thought that they were movingly along smoothly and that all parties were content.
"There were meetings when people were yelling at each other," another source said.
Adding to the confusion was city officials' insistence on having tight control over the meetings and on Washington-style secrecy, according to those involved in the talks. They often insisted that communication be spoken, rather than written, in case the media requested copies under government open-records laws.
When some documents were generated reflecting the direction of the discussions, they couldn't be removed from City Hall, sources said.
The resistance to put anything down in black and white could have contributed to a perception by the 49ers that doing business in San Francisco is a difficult, sometimes tedious, process.
It wasn't just economic and political issues associated with the project that made the talks complicated. The people who had the final say on each side were complicated, too.
York and Newsom couldn't have more opposite personalities or more different approaches to the business deal. York was so concerned with details that he reportedly reviewed carpet samples. Newsom was so removed from the project that sources said he failed to return important phone calls, an assertion the mayor denies.
York and his wife, Denise DeBartolo York, took control of the franchise in 2000 after a bitter, public battle with Denise's brother, Eddie DeBartolo Jr.
Many who know John York, a pathologist by trade, say he is not skilled enough in business to manage a $600 million-$800 million stadium proposal -- much less hundreds of millions of dollars worth more of housing and retail construction.
"He drags his feet along and can't decide on details," said one person involved in the negotiations.
Instead of being engaged in the larger issues in the deal, York busied himself with fabric samples for seats and carpet swatches for luxury boxes, the source said.
"He was a pathologist. He studied how people died," the source said. "The trouble is, this was a live stadium development, and John's too deathly afraid to make a mistake."
York may have been the lead decisionmaker for the team outside of City Hall, but he wasn't present regularly during the discussions. His 25-year-old son, Jed; the team's chief financial officer, Larry MacNeil; and Lang, the team's vice president of communications, were. And insiders said the 49ers group lacked the real estate and political experience necessary to understand the complicated deal.
But many also blamed Newsom for not reaching out enough to the Yorks over the course of the talks.
The mayor did not return several calls York made in the spring to address concerns he had with the proposal, sources involved in the talks said. Eventually Newsom assigned his chief of staff, Steve Kawa, to sit in on all the meetings and be a point man in meetings with York.
"John has a lot of respect for Kawa," a person involved in the talks said, "but he would have liked to continue to have connections with the mayor."
The relationships -- or lack thereof -- may have further damaged an already troubled deal.
"He should have made sure it was rolling along properly, schmoozing with John some," said another source who knows both men.
Newsom, however, said he did have "plenty of dinners and dozens of phone calls" over the years with York. But there were no dinners as the deal progressed this year, others countered.
"I gotta run a city," Newsom said. "I can't give up all my time and say I'm going to spend it with you. I'm not going to spend all my time giving up on everything else."
The talks -- carried out by surrogates -- persisted right up until the last meeting Oct. 30.
Those involved debated whether to place the new stadium proposal on the ballot in June or in March, the month before the city would learn whether it was a possible contender in the 2016 Olympic Games.
The thought was that if voters approved a new stadium measure, it would practically secure San Francisco's chances of being picked by U.S. Olympic officials to host the games.
To Newsom's staffers and the developers in the room that day, the talk was a sign they were close to finishing this long-anticipated project. To the representatives from the 49ers, though, it was yet another meeting in a long series of discussions that seemed headed down the wrong path.
One person on hand said there was no mention of the 49ers' intention to leave town that day.
"I left that meeting," the source said, "like a kid going to a Christmas party. I'm thinking this is about to finally happen."
Others said they also left the meeting feeling that a public announcement about the proposed stadium at Candlestick was imminent.
The location to unveil the plan had already been selected -- the impoverished Bayview community that stood to gain the most from the new development. The press release was ready to go.
Then, on Nov. 8, York phoned Newsom to deliver the news the 49ers were headed to Santa Clara; the call ended abruptly. The next day the team held a news conference and made the announcement official.
Since that announcement, elected officials at City Hall and from San Francisco in the state Legislature and Congress have threatened legal and legislative action to keep the 49ers in the city in which they were founded.
Newsom and York, or his son, Jed, have on three occasions sat down face to face -- a departure from the meetings of underlings that had been routine for months.
On Monday, there was no sign that progress had been made in persuading the team's owners to reconsider.
Jed York sent an e-mail to undisclosed recipients noting that he had received a death threat after the announcement of the 49ers' plan to leave the city.
"Keeping the 49ers in the Bay Area is essential," he wrote. "We have looked at many sites, but the one in Santa Clara is the best option to date."
Tucker Carlson - White's Only Scholarship? Just Say Tucker, That's Stupid
I've got Tucker Carlson's show on - the one called The Situation -- and he's actually supporting the idea of a White's only scholarship at Boston U!
Well, not really.
His point is that having such a program shows how stupid race-based programs are. Or do they? I think they show just how selfish and myopic people who come up with this ideas -- or support them -- are. I feel terrible that I have to remind people like Tucker (who's show I actually enjoy) that the reason we have minority-based programs is because the people they are intended for are -- minority.
Get it? Hello?
These programs exist because of numerous examples of discrimination in the White community that runs in the common scholarship programs. This is an age-old way to get over that problem. If the people who don't like these programs want to do something, they should embrace diversity.
Tucker and people who agree with him don't want to embrace diversity. Well, then they should not complain about the continued existence of race-based scholarships.
OH! I noticed they don't complain about sex-based programs. I guess that's because they benefit White women. Wow, now that's racist.
This society is becoming a weird mix of racist people -- regardless of color -- and those of us sitting right in the middle.
Without our own TV show.
Yet...
S.O.G. (Same Old New York Giants)
The New York Giants have sunk to a new low with their 26-10 Loss to the Jacksonville last night. As I sat there watching i continued to be amazed at how porus the giants defense was, how horrid the offense was. This was a chance to heal some wounds opened by The Chicago Bears in last week's game.
I know from the first few moments of the game that it would be a long night. I could see losing to the Bears, who could be one of the teams playing in Miami In Super Bowl XLI(or 41 for those who not read Roman) but Jacksonville? a team that was headed to the outhouse instead of the big house until a few weeks ago?
Could it have been Head Coach Jack Del Rio's Rebook-made suit with the fancy newfangled snaps? More likely it was Tiki Barber's season low 27 yards rushing, or QB Eli Manning's 2 Interceptions. In any case, the New York Giants are in Deep Trouble, and sinking fast.
I know from the first few moments of the game that it would be a long night. I could see losing to the Bears, who could be one of the teams playing in Miami In Super Bowl XLI(or 41 for those who not read Roman) but Jacksonville? a team that was headed to the outhouse instead of the big house until a few weeks ago?
Could it have been Head Coach Jack Del Rio's Rebook-made suit with the fancy newfangled snaps? More likely it was Tiki Barber's season low 27 yards rushing, or QB Eli Manning's 2 Interceptions. In any case, the New York Giants are in Deep Trouble, and sinking fast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)