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.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Michael Richards Violates California Hate Crimes Law - Film Here
What you're about to see is video of a direct violation of California's Hate Crimes Law. For those who don't know what the law says, this is the list of what an officer or California lawyer is to look for. Go through it, look at the video, and then draw your own conclusion. You will agree that what Seinfeld's Michael Richards did was a hate crime:
Initial review of a suspected hate crime should consider the following factors:
Is the motivation of the offender known?
Are the victim and the offender from different racial, religious, ethnic, sexual orientation, or is the victim targeted because of his or her physical or mental disability?
Were any racial, religious, ethnic, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability bias remarks made by the offender?
Were there any offensive symbols, words or acts that are known to represent a hate group or other evidence of bias against the victim's group?
Does the victim perceive the action of the offender to have been motivated by bias?
Did the incident occur on a holiday or other day of significance to the victim's group or the offender's group?
What do the demographics of the area tell you about the incident - was the victim in an area where the predominant population is dissimilar to the victim's group?
Is there no clear other motivation for the incident?
Second level of review before making the final determination of whether an incident was motivated by bias:
Is the victim a member of a targeted racial, religious, ethnic, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability group?
Has the victim or victim's group been subjected to repeat attacks of a similar nature?
Does a substantial portion of the community where the crime occurred perceive that the incident was motivated by bias?
Would the incident have taken place if the victim and offender were the same race, religion, ethnic group, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability?
The Hate Crime Law reads:
Any act of intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force directed against any person, or gamely, or their property or advocate, motivated either in whole or in part by hostility to their real or perceived race, ethnic background, religious belief, sex, age, disability, or sexual orientation, with the intention of causing fear or intimidation, or to deter the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United State of California whether or not performed under color of law.
Now, take a look at this video of Michael Richard in the act. This is the evidence we have and as a warning, it's nasty and distasateful:
Rumor: San Francisco 49ers Considering Hunters Point - SF Chronicle / Matier and Ross
This also reports that the 49ers would rather deal with Forest City than Lennar. Why?
Hunters Point could be in play for the Niners
Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross
Monday, November 20, 2006
With the 49ers' plan for a new stadium at Candlestick Point sunk in the mud, insiders at San Francisco City Hall are revisiting the idea of building at Hunters Point -- in an area that could be paved over with lots of parking.
Here's why.
Cut through all the double talk, and the 49ers' problems come down to two key points.
One: All the Niners are really interested in is a new stadium and a parking lot. Despite all the smiles and public pronouncements over the years, they are not comfortable with the mega housing and retail development deal they cut with the city and Lennar Corp. to pay for the stadium. And they don't want the multilevel parking garage at Candlestick that was going to go along with it.
And two: Their relations with Mayor Gavin Newsom haven't been great and aren't getting a lot better.
Team spokeswoman Lisa Lang said Friday that "our goal is to build a stadium -- not a small city." Trying to get the malls and 6,500 units of housing done along with a 68,000-seat stadium, all while playing in the existing Monster Park, put the team's envisioned 2012 finish date in jeopardy, she said.
Hence the Niners' decision to turn their attention to Santa Clara, where co-owner John York and his family thought building would be easy.
"They sort of have this Midwestern, suburban 1970s view of how things can get done,'' said one San Francisco official who talked with the Yorks in recent days.
"They want a new stadium," said the official, who didn't want his name used because of the ongoing talks. "They want a smooth transition from the current one to the new one. And they don't want all of this other stuff that they just don't understand.''
Unfortunately for the Yorks, the idea of leaving San Francisco also set off an avalanche of threatened lawsuits, legislative roadblocks and bad publicity. And, of course, it did nothing to endear the Niners to Newsom.
Which brings us back to Point Two.
The mayor's absence from talks with the team, and his decision to have underlings handle the negotiations, is said to have rankled the Niners' owners. Then, for some reason, York expected the mayor to turn down the temperature once the team shifted plans, according to sources who spoke with the co-owner after his meeting with Newsom last week.
Instead, the opposite happened. Newsom made it clear he would use every weapon he had -- from lawsuits to Congress -- to keep the team here.
Newsom also told York he wanted the team to spell out the specific problems with the Candlestick Point deal, be they lousy access roads, inadequate public transit or whatever else York felt was a deal-breaker.
In other words, Newsom wanted a checklist that, if dealt with, would mean the team stayed.
Since speaking with Newsom, York and his son Jed have had several meetings and phone conversations with both city officials and others close to the deal.
Recipients of the Yorks' calls, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the talks, said the Niners' concerns appear to be far greater than the fear John York expressed publicly that the stadium proposal wouldn't provide for a good "fan experience.''
Among other things, it has started to surface that if the team is to build anything at Candlestick, it would much rather do so with Forest City Enterprises -- builders of the recently opened Westfield San Francisco Centre downtown -- than with Lennar.
At the same time, city officials are looking for another way to make the general area work for the team. So, if not Candlestick, where?
One idea starting to simmer: Build the stadium across the way on the old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, an idea that was looked at earlier and rejected.
The shipyard site would require a new four-lane road. But the Niners could get all the parking they want, plus they could keep playing at Candlestick while the project was built.
At this point it's just an idea, and the mayor remains committed to seeing if the Candlestick deal can be saved. At the same time, York appears just as firmly committed to pursuing Santa Clara.
But until the whole deal sinks -- if it does -- word is going out for everyone with the city to calm down.
State Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, even had a pack of the mayor's most vocal critics -- Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin and Supervisors Chris Daly, Jake McGoldrick and Ross Mirkarimi -- in her office Friday. Later, she got Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval by phone.
The message: Hold off on the potshots at the 49ers or Newsom, at least for the time being.
Hunters Point could be in play for the Niners
Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross
Monday, November 20, 2006
With the 49ers' plan for a new stadium at Candlestick Point sunk in the mud, insiders at San Francisco City Hall are revisiting the idea of building at Hunters Point -- in an area that could be paved over with lots of parking.
Here's why.
Cut through all the double talk, and the 49ers' problems come down to two key points.
One: All the Niners are really interested in is a new stadium and a parking lot. Despite all the smiles and public pronouncements over the years, they are not comfortable with the mega housing and retail development deal they cut with the city and Lennar Corp. to pay for the stadium. And they don't want the multilevel parking garage at Candlestick that was going to go along with it.
And two: Their relations with Mayor Gavin Newsom haven't been great and aren't getting a lot better.
Team spokeswoman Lisa Lang said Friday that "our goal is to build a stadium -- not a small city." Trying to get the malls and 6,500 units of housing done along with a 68,000-seat stadium, all while playing in the existing Monster Park, put the team's envisioned 2012 finish date in jeopardy, she said.
Hence the Niners' decision to turn their attention to Santa Clara, where co-owner John York and his family thought building would be easy.
"They sort of have this Midwestern, suburban 1970s view of how things can get done,'' said one San Francisco official who talked with the Yorks in recent days.
"They want a new stadium," said the official, who didn't want his name used because of the ongoing talks. "They want a smooth transition from the current one to the new one. And they don't want all of this other stuff that they just don't understand.''
Unfortunately for the Yorks, the idea of leaving San Francisco also set off an avalanche of threatened lawsuits, legislative roadblocks and bad publicity. And, of course, it did nothing to endear the Niners to Newsom.
Which brings us back to Point Two.
The mayor's absence from talks with the team, and his decision to have underlings handle the negotiations, is said to have rankled the Niners' owners. Then, for some reason, York expected the mayor to turn down the temperature once the team shifted plans, according to sources who spoke with the co-owner after his meeting with Newsom last week.
Instead, the opposite happened. Newsom made it clear he would use every weapon he had -- from lawsuits to Congress -- to keep the team here.
Newsom also told York he wanted the team to spell out the specific problems with the Candlestick Point deal, be they lousy access roads, inadequate public transit or whatever else York felt was a deal-breaker.
In other words, Newsom wanted a checklist that, if dealt with, would mean the team stayed.
Since speaking with Newsom, York and his son Jed have had several meetings and phone conversations with both city officials and others close to the deal.
Recipients of the Yorks' calls, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the talks, said the Niners' concerns appear to be far greater than the fear John York expressed publicly that the stadium proposal wouldn't provide for a good "fan experience.''
Among other things, it has started to surface that if the team is to build anything at Candlestick, it would much rather do so with Forest City Enterprises -- builders of the recently opened Westfield San Francisco Centre downtown -- than with Lennar.
At the same time, city officials are looking for another way to make the general area work for the team. So, if not Candlestick, where?
One idea starting to simmer: Build the stadium across the way on the old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, an idea that was looked at earlier and rejected.
The shipyard site would require a new four-lane road. But the Niners could get all the parking they want, plus they could keep playing at Candlestick while the project was built.
At this point it's just an idea, and the mayor remains committed to seeing if the Candlestick deal can be saved. At the same time, York appears just as firmly committed to pursuing Santa Clara.
But until the whole deal sinks -- if it does -- word is going out for everyone with the city to calm down.
State Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, even had a pack of the mayor's most vocal critics -- Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin and Supervisors Chris Daly, Jake McGoldrick and Ross Mirkarimi -- in her office Friday. Later, she got Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval by phone.
The message: Hold off on the potshots at the 49ers or Newsom, at least for the time being.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Daniel McVicar's Vlog - Rocketboom
I met Daniel McVicar at a brunch held one day after The Vloggies, a "first-of-its-kind" awards show in San Francisco. He's an actor -- best know for "The Bold and the Beautiful" -- based in Santa Monica who's really taken to vlogging. Here's a show he did with Andrew Baron and Joanne Colan of Rocketboom. Check out his site at http://www.danielmcvicar.com , and his vlog site "Late Night Mash."
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Matt Leinart - Arizona Cardinals QB Loosing Confidence In Denny Green - Profootball Talk.com
Pro Football Talk.com has this report on Matt Leinart:
LEINART LOSES CONFIDENCE
As the Arizona Cardinals pack it in under coach Dennis Green, a source close to quarterback Matt Leinart says that the 2004 Heisman winner and the No. 10 overall pick in the draft is trying to prop up his teammates by telling them that things will get better, but he can get no positive response.
The source also believes that Leinart's swagger from losing only three games in four years at USC is evaporating.
"He is really rattled by the losing," said the source. "He is searching for a way to get [the team] to buy in to his attitude, but it's getting harder because his confidence is almost gone."
The growing concern among those close to Leinart is that he'll end up as another David Carr, the No. 1 overall pick in 2002 who has been tossed around like a Chihuahua at a Doberman convention in five seasons with the Texans.
"Lots of talent but too many sacks to realize the full potential," the source said.
In our view, it's all the more reason that the Bidwills should make a good decision about the future of the franchise, hiring a coach who can help give Leinart the confidence to be the on-field leader that this team hasn't had since the days of Jim Hart.
Dallas Cowboys Home Game Tickets for Sale
You can buy Dallas Cowboys tickets to all games with a click here:
Dallas Cowboys Tickets
Dallas Cowboys Tickets
UCLA Police Use Taser Weapon On Minority Student - Why? - Video
This is reallly hard to even listen to, but it happened. For some reason American society is allowing the creation of a law enforcement officials who go about their jobs with an over-zealous approach that indicates a contempt for the people in the community. It's as if the officers are giving punishment before the accused is actually convicted of a crime -- an act that in itself is a constitutional violation.
This happens in this terrible video:
This happens in this terrible video:
Thursday, November 16, 2006
NFL - Cowboys' Emmitt Smith Wins "Dancing With The Stars" - Video
For the second time in as many years, an NFL star has won Dancing with The Stars. Last year, it was Jerry Rice; this year Emmitt Smith's the winner.
Here's a clip of his dancing:
Here's a clip of his dancing:
ALL NFL GAMES SOLD OUT FOR 10TH CONSECUTIVE WEEK - NFL Media.com
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE
280 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017
(212) 450-2000 * FAX (212) 681-7573
WWW.NFLMedia.com
Joe Browne, Executive Vice President-Communications
Greg Aiello, Vice President-Public Relations
FOR USE AS DESIRED
11/10/06
ALL GAMES SOLD OUT FOR 10TH CONSECUTIVE WEEK
The unprecedented NFL sellout streak continues. It’s now 10 straight weeks of advance sellouts.
All games of the NFL schedule for this Sunday and Monday -- Week 10 -- have sold out in advance of the local TV blackout deadline. That means every NFL game this weekend will be televised in the home-team market for an unprecedented 10th straight week.
Every game this season has been sold out at least 72 hours in advance and televised locally. Previously, the most sellout weekends in one season was four in 2004 and 2005.
It will be the 23rd time since the NFL blackout policy took effect in 1973 that blackouts have been lifted for all games on a single weekend. The 23 times have been once in 1998; three times in 2000; once in 2001; four times in 2002 and 2005; and 10 times this season.
The NFL blackout policy states that games sold out 72 hours prior to kickoff can be televised in the home city.
280 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017
(212) 450-2000 * FAX (212) 681-7573
WWW.NFLMedia.com
Joe Browne, Executive Vice President-Communications
Greg Aiello, Vice President-Public Relations
FOR USE AS DESIRED
11/10/06
ALL GAMES SOLD OUT FOR 10TH CONSECUTIVE WEEK
The unprecedented NFL sellout streak continues. It’s now 10 straight weeks of advance sellouts.
All games of the NFL schedule for this Sunday and Monday -- Week 10 -- have sold out in advance of the local TV blackout deadline. That means every NFL game this weekend will be televised in the home-team market for an unprecedented 10th straight week.
Every game this season has been sold out at least 72 hours in advance and televised locally. Previously, the most sellout weekends in one season was four in 2004 and 2005.
It will be the 23rd time since the NFL blackout policy took effect in 1973 that blackouts have been lifted for all games on a single weekend. The 23 times have been once in 1998; three times in 2000; once in 2001; four times in 2002 and 2005; and 10 times this season.
The NFL blackout policy states that games sold out 72 hours prior to kickoff can be televised in the home city.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Amanda Congdon Goes From Rocketboom To ABC News Now - Business Week
From Rocketboom to ABC
Video blogger Amanda Congdon is the latest "cewebrity" to jump to mainstream media; an industry is forming to help others follow her lead
by Catherine Holahan
Internet celebrity Amanda Congdon just finished broadcasting her cross-country relocation from New York to L.A. on the World Wide Web. Now she is making another move—this one from online to on air. The former host of Rocketboom, one of the most popular video blogs on the Web, with roughly 211,000 daily viewers, has a new gig as a contributor for Disney's (DIS) ABC network.
Congdon will regularly appear on the network's 24-hour digital channel ABC News Now and occasionally appear as a correspondent on the network's TV news broadcasts. She will also host a weekly video blog, or "vlog," on abcnews.com focusing on topics such as new media, politics, and the environment. "She certainly has the eyes and ears of a great many people who may have only trafficked in Internet information," says Michael Clemente, executive producer of ABC News Digital Media. "I would love to see her talking to [Illinois Senator] Barack Obama, new people with new products, and all sorts of things."
In addition, Congdon is developing a comedy for Time Warner's (TWX) HBO, which itself has plans to beef up online programming (see BusinessWeek.com, 11/2/06, "HBO's Bold Broadband Plans"). Congdon will star in the show, which will appear both online and on air in different forms. The subject matter has yet to be determined.
Talent Search
The new ABC role may make Congdon the first video blogger to make the jump to a major network. For the 25-year-old actress, the new job sounds like a dream. "What really excites me is the concept of bridging the gap between old and new media," says Congdon. "I am just so excited that these networks are open enough to let me do all these different projects."
Congdon, however, is not the first "cewebrity" to parlay fame on the Web into a real-world job. Joe Eigo, a 26-year-old martial artist and gymnast, was relatively unknown until he uploaded video clips of his acrobatic fighting style to the Internet. Since then, Eigo's clips have been downloaded millions of times and he was scouted to join Jackie Chan's stunt team. He also landed an appearance in the movie Around the World in 80 Days. Several other online video personalities have used their notoriety to sign with prominent talent agencies and further careers in comedy, media, and entertainment (see BusinessWeek.com, 10/30/06, "Don't I Know You from the Internet?").
In fact, major movie and TV studios are increasingly looking to the Web for new talent for both on- and offline projects. IQ Films and Steelyard Pictures used Yahoo's (YHOO) Jumpcut.com to conduct an online casting call for their latest movie, The Power of Few.
Agencies on the Lookout
Dina Kaplan is chief operating officer and cofounder of blip.tv, which features Congdon's AmandaAcrossAmerica blog. Kaplan says she is regularly approached by traditional media outlets that see her online vlog hosting site as a place to mine new talent. "We have had meetings with a bunch of Hollywood agencies," says Kaplan. "They see us as a farm team for them."
Talent agencies also see the Net's potential. United Talent Agency, which represents actors including Vince Vaughn, has created a Digital Media Dept. to bring online stars into traditional media. UTA counts video blogger Hosea "Ze" Frank, host of The Show with Ze Frank, and Kent Nichols, co-creator of the Ask a Ninja video blog, among its clients.
Music companies are also looking online for new talent. This month, Music Nation will start letting musicians upload music videos to its site as part of a record deal contest with Epic Records. Universal and EMI also plan to sponsor online star searches (see BusinessWeek.com, 10/30/06, "American E-Idol").
Looking to Profit Online
In many cases, traditional media companies are more interested in keeping Internet stars online than putting them on air. The idea is reaching a new and, in many cases, younger audience. "When you have conversations with traditional platforms, often the biggest interest is not to leverage whatever buzz you have online to move to a traditional platform," says Frank. "They are trying to figure out how to make this model work in the online space."
Traditional media have a big incentive to court Internet stars. Online advertising is expected to grow to $25.2 billion in 2010, consuming 8.9% of all advertising spending, says research firm eMarketer. That's up from $15.9 billion—or roughly 5.7% of total ad spending—this year.
ABC has been particularly deliberate about expanding on the Web. While other news programs, such as those at CBS (CBS) and NBC (GE), have Web simulcasts and video blogs, ABC News has a 15-minute daily newscast just for Internet audiences. Most major networks have also been moving their new programs online to create more buzz and wrap in new audiences (see BusinessWeek.com, 10/11/06, "Click Here to Catch Up on CSI"). ABC is no exception, making episodes of such shows as Lost, Grey's Anatomy, and Desperate Housewives available free online.
Awards and Advertisers
Kaplan has no qualms sharing talent such as Congdon with TV. As more people become famous for vlogs, more people are likely to begin producing better blogs to attract mainstream media attention. The better their blogs, the more audiences and advertisers will want to associate themselves with online content and brokers like blip.tv.
To help market their talent, PodTech, blip.tv, Yahoo Video, Intel (INTC), Guba, Revver, and others helped arrange the first ever "Vloggies," an Oscar-like black-tie ceremony for video bloggers. The awards were handed out on Nov. 4 in San Francisco. Winning top honors were Ask a Ninja, Frank, and the crew that develops Alive in Baghdad, a series of video blogs by Iraqis.
As vlogs have become more mainstream, advertisers have also begun taking notice. They have experimented with ads on videos shown on user-generated video site Revver. They are also working with companies such as AOL and News Corp.'s (NWS) MySpace to incorporate advertising on user-generated video sites.
The Copyright Effect
However, these deals have been slow to take off because of concerns about the kinds of content on user-generated video sites. The difficulty of filtering copyrighted material from millions of user-produced videos has also given some advertisers pause, according to Metacafe CEO Arik Czerniak. To allay those concerns, Metacafe has begun paying users for licenses and uses both human video reviewers and technology to ferret out copyrighted content. MySpace has also begun aggressively removing copyrighted content (see BusinessWeek.com, 10/31/06, "Music Downloading's New Deal").
With sites moving to make user-generated content safer for advertisers, online celebrities and their videos are likely to become even more appealing for major networks and others. That means more cewebrities could turn into genuine celebrities. "The first time I ever put a video on the Net, I didn't know it would have such a great effect," says Eigo. "Now I know it can make dreams come true."
Holahan is a writer for BusinessWeek.com in New York.
Reggie Bush Fires Mike Ornstein - Yahoo! Sports
This was something Reggie should have done a while ago. But this is just as well. Mike's -- pictured on the left in the photo -- made some money so he should not be totally negatively impacted. It's just that he could have ran a cleaner business.
Bush drops Ornstein as marketing agent
By Josh Peter and Jason Cole, Yahoo! Sports
November 12, 2006
Reggie Bush has parted ways with his marketing agent, Mike Ornstein, a controversial figure who helped Bush land about $50 million in endorsement deals before the 2005 Heisman Trophy winner even signed his rookie contract with the New Orleans Saints, Yahoo! Sports has learned.
Ornstein revealed his split with Bush when he called a New Orleans-area businessman last week and canceled a $5,000 order for 120 turkeys that Bush planned to give to Saints players and team officials for Thanksgiving, said Glenn Mistich, owner of the Gourmet Butcher Block that filled the order.
"He told me, 'Reggie and I aren't working together anymore,' " Mistich said Sunday. "I don't know what happened. I don't know if Reggie even knows about [the canceled order]."
A second source who spoke on the condition of anonymity said Bush had fired Ornstein.
Ornstein hung up the phone when a reporter identified himself, and he did not return a subsequent phone message. Bush declined to comment after the Saints' game against the Steelers in Pittsburgh.
In addition to losing his marquee client, Ornstein recently was subpoenaed by the U.S. Attorney's office to answer questions before a grand jury in Ohio. Ornstein received the summons on the opening week of the season, when New Orleans played at Cleveland on Sept. 10.
Four sources confirmed that Ornstein received the subpoena, and one said Ornstein was served in clear view of several witnesses. The subpoena is said to be related to Ornstein receiving Super Bowl tickets from the Cleveland Browns several years ago in exchange for the use of cars.
Ornstein was convicted – along with two others – of defrauding the NFL while he was a league employee in 1995.
In September, a Yahoo! Sports investigation showed that Bush and his family appear to have accepted improper cash and benefits from Ornstein, in potential violation of NCAA rules. The Pacific-10 Conference and NCAA are investigating the matter.
Ornstein was instrumental in helping Bush amass a fortune in endorsements and ingratiate himself to a New Orleans community still reeling from the effects of Hurricane Katrina.
Negotiating on Bush's behalf, Ornstein secured deals with adidas, Pepsi and Hummer. He also hooked up with Subway and EA Sports video games in an unprecedented windfall for an NFL rookie. The deals were signed well before Bush agreed to a contract with the Saints that included a $26-million guaranteed bonus.
Ornstein also played a prominent role in helping Bush carve out a favorable image in New Orleans. Following the April 28 NFL draft, Bush and his sponsors donated more than $50,000 to Holy Rosary Academy to help keep the special-needs school operational, funded an $86,000 installation of a new playing surface at a stadium used by many of the area's high school football programs and arranged for Hummer to donate a dozen of its vehicles to the police department in a city adjacent to New Orleans.
Bush's charitable efforts also have included partnering with the international hunger relief organization Feed The Children, the NFL Players Association and Urban Impact Ministries to help deliver food and toiletries to needy families in New Orleans.
Y! Sports NFL writer Charles Robinson also contributed to this report
No Bay Area Olympics; No Bay Area Super Bowl - Anatomy Of A Loser Region
Yesterday, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that the effort to bring the 2016 Olympics to San Francisco was over. As the head of the Oakland Super Bowl XVIV Bidding Committee, which from 1999 to 2001 worked to bring the Super Bowl to Oakland, I hated to witness that event. I thought San Francisco had its best chance yet to land the Olympic Games because it had a large set of people who seemed to be equally committeed to doing it.
The SF 2012 Olympic effort was the largely the story of the work and energy of one person, Anne Cribbs, whereas this time the heavy lifting was spread out more to others. In the case of Oakland's Super Bowl that effort was totally the story of my work and enthusiasm. But in all three cases, one element of Bay Area society came forward again and again: the selfish action of one key player, perfectly timed to wreck the chances of winning. What makes the Bay Area a great place to live is also that which keeps it from really growing as a society: the insistance of individuals that they "do their thing" and sometimes at the expense of everyone else.
In the matter of the Oakland Super Bowl, it was Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown who threw the monkey wrench into our bid effort by not following our specific instructions and by not totally endorsing the effort, even as his city manager, Robert Bobb, was Oakland's executive pushing for the Super Bowl, and I was the point person. It wasn't the Oakland Raiders, who were very supportive behind the scenes and of me.
But in the Super Bowl-Oakland effort, it wasn't just Jerry, but also the San Francisco Chronicle, who's op-ed page editor John Diaz first supported, and then for terrible and tempermental reasons didn't back our effort. If we had both elements in place, everything else would have worked and the 2005 Super Bowl would have been here, and not in Jacksonville. We had a terrific plan.
In the case of the first Olympics effort, Anne had almost all of the elements in place, except a clear financial package. That was the fault of the State of California and other municipalities, which didn't really want to fiscally back the effort. Anne also didn't have all of the key players behind her that were in place for the 2016 project. Many people did not think she would get as far as she did, and so kind of sat back and watched but never helped -- then they were surprised when she got as far as she did.
That was exactly what happened in my case with Oakland's Super Bowl Bid. Oakland City Councilmember Jane Brunner once told me "You know, we were all surprised and didnt think you would get as far as you did." But there were a lot of people who thought that, and I had to ignore them. Even Ralph Barbieri of KNBR, who promissed to have me on his radio show to talk about the Oakland Super Bowl Bid, but never followed up on his promise. In fact, KNBR as a whole seemed almost hostile to the idea and for no reason other than they knew they could damage the effort.
It seems in the Bay Area for any one person that wants to do something, there's several who don't want it to succeed because either it's not there idea or doens't benefit them. The same elements of behavior that cause more than one new Bay Area resident to complain that "friends here are not really friends but acquaintences" or that they only have friends via the work place are the same factors that work to prevent the area from joining together to draw large scale sports events, and even seem to be hampering the timely construction of the East Side Of The Bay Bridge.
One may ask if this is the case, how did we land the 1984 Super Bowl, where the 49ers beat the Miami Dolphins 38 - 19? During that time, the way the NFL selected Super Bowl Host Cities was completely different than it is today. First, there was no official set of guidelines. Second, there were no contracts, everything was done via handshake. Thus, it was easy for then-San Francisco Mayor Diane Feinstein to go to then-NFL Commissioner the Late Pete Rozelle, and work a deal to bring the Super Bowl to the San Francisco Bay Area, where it was played at Stanford. The entire San Francisco bid book was just 20 pages.
By contrast, bidding for the Super Bowl today is a massive effort, where there are over 25 contract sets that must be distributed to almost 1,000 different people and organizations -- and signed, and returned to the bid organization. That alone is a huge undertaking which takes over a year to do. I know because we did it. That's on top of negotiations to use faciltiies, political issues, and so on. That's a lot to do and it requires community coorperation.
With the exception of contracts, the San Francisco Olympics Bid has the same complex set of elements and people. All it takes is one person or organization to decide it doesn't want to do something, and the entire work of many people is trashed. Here, the San Francisco 49ers played the role of "heavy" and all of this was John York's fault. He could have handled all of this in a behind-the-scenes way, but he's acting like he's angry with someone over something. Moreover, I'll bet the issue he's upset about not only could have been handled without involving the media, it was a misunderstanding to begin with.
Look, it wasn't just the configuration of the proposed stadium -- he could have worked that out -- I'll bet it was someone talking to him in a way he didn't like, and so he decided to pull and go to the media. In other words he dropped a bomb on someone, and the person may have been Gavin Newsom and Kofi Bonner of Lennar. My instincts and information tell me this, and I'm seldom wrong in this matter.
Regardless of the details, other cities have faced similar problems of politics, from Atlanta to Miami, Houston and Jackonville -- all cities have landed Super Bowls. In other words, individuals worked out their problems behind the scenes and maintained the progress of the bid effort. Butn in the Bay Area, when individuals are unhappy with the smallest matter, they tend to work to destroy things for everyone else.
This happens again and again and again. I've never seen a part of a country where people are so jealous and critical of each other for the smallest and dumbest of reasons. It's that dynamic which makes poor friendships here and the same one that consistently wrecks efforts to bring Super Bowls and Olympics to our region. Some in the San Francisco Bay Area think that because our land is pretty anyone should want to come here. That's not always true. We Bay Area residents have got to put our collective narcissisum aside if we expect to improve our society, let alone land the Super Bowl and the Olympics.
Monday Night Football - Carolina Panthers 24, Tampa Bay Bucs 10
Second-half surge lifts Panthers, 24-10
NFL.com wire reports
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (Nov. 13, 2006) -- After a 15-day layover to stew about their fourth-quarter meltdown against Dallas, the Carolina Panthers came out so flat on offense that the crowd booed them off the field at halftime.
Steve Smith was feeling sick, Keyshawn Johnson fumbled, Jake Delhomme threw an interception and punter Jason Baker was awfully busy the rest of the time.
In the second half, the bumbling Tampa Bay Buccaneers bailed them out.
Delhomme threw a 4-yard touchdown pass to Johnson for the go-ahead score in the third quarter and Julius Peppers had three sacks and recovered a fumble as the Panthers beat the Buccaneers 24-10 to end a two-game losing streak.
Smith was seen repeatedly vomiting into a garbage can on the sidelines, once after a long catch early in the second half. But he stayed in the game, catching eight passes for 149 yards, including a 36-yard touchdown late in the fourth quarter that sealed it.
"My little girl was sick," Smith said, "and so, she's a daddy's girl, kissing on me and so -- I got the flu. What happens in the house just goes around the parents."
Smith said he fought through the wooziness, because "this is how I feed my family."
Rookie quarterback Bruce Gradkowski threw two interceptions and lost a fumble for the Buccaneers (2-7), who committed turnovers on four of five possessions in the second and third quarters to blow a 7-0 halftime lead in their third straight loss.
"I'm just sick about the outcome of the game," Bucs coach Jon Gruden said. "Carolina is a good football team. We turned the ball over and missed some opportunities to make some big plays."
The Panthers, who had said they couldn't wait to play again after being outscored 25-0 in the final quarter against the Cowboys, managed only three first downs and 98 yards in the first half. Their drives in that half went: punt, fumble, punt, punt, punt, interception.
"The first half we didn't run it well enough, we didn't throw it well enough," Delhomme said. "It was an embarrassment in the first half. Second half we answered. The defense forced turnovers and we made more plays. We did enough things to win in the second half."
Fans, upset with the play-calling and the Panthers inability to run, showed their displeasure early and saved the loudest boos as the Panthers walked off the field at halftime with only three first downs against a team missing three defensive starters to injury, including Simeon Rice.
Despite feeling ill, Steve Smith had eight catches for 149 yards and touchdown.
Carolina scored on four of their first six drives in the second half -- but then, the Buccaneers made it easy for the Panthers to come back. Gradkowski's third turnover of the game, a fumble forced by Chris Draft and recovered by Peppers, gave Carolina the ball at the Tampa Bay 44.
Delhomme then found Smith for a 21-yard catch-and-run, setting up Delhomme's 4-yard TD pass to Johnson. It gave Carolina its first lead, 10-7 midway through the third quarter.
Carnell "Cadillac" Williams, held to 44 yards on 15 carries, fumbled on the next possession and Mike Minter recovered at the Tampa Bay 16. Four plays later Brad Hoover's 5-yard touchdown run put Carolina up 17-7.
"I got careless with the ball," Williams said. "I think my turnover created momentum for Carolina."
It marked the eighth time in nine games the Panthers held the lead going into the fourth quarter, unlike on three previous occasions, the Panthers held on with Peppers, who took over the league lead with 11 sacks, making life difficult for Gradkowski.
Coming into the game with only one interception in 186 pass attempts, an NFL record for most attempts without two picks, Gradkowski struggled with his accuracy. He overthrew open Joey Galloway for what would have been a touchdown in the first quarter.
"I have to go out there and not try to do to much," said Gradkowski, who became the starter when Chris Simms suffered a ruptured spleen in the first meeting with Carolina. "I feel like I was competing. Sometimes you just try to do too much."
Gradkowski later underthrew two passes near the end zone, resulting in interceptions for Ken Lucas and Shaun Williams. He even bounced a pass off Peppers' helmet and Gruden started screaming at him in the first half.
"I think the first series, we had Galloway wide open. You've got to make those plays," Gruden said. "Then we had (Michael) Clayton at the end of the half and we didn't make that play. It's a turnover. We fumbled the ball in successive series to start the second half. That's a big reason why we lost."
Gradkowski, who was 17 of 32 for 173 yards, did take advantage when Ronde Barber ripped the ball away from the ex-Buccaneer Johnson near midfield late in the first quarter. Five plays later Gradkowski tossed a 10-yard touchdown pass to Ike Hilliard.
That was enough to take a halftime lead on the Panthers. The boos started early when offensive coordinator Dan Henning called for a running play on third-and-11 and DeShaun Foster gained only five yards.
By the end, everyone in Carolina -- even Smith -- was feeling better with the win.
"It means in the second half of the season," Smith said, "we're 1-0."
NFL.com wire reports
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (Nov. 13, 2006) -- After a 15-day layover to stew about their fourth-quarter meltdown against Dallas, the Carolina Panthers came out so flat on offense that the crowd booed them off the field at halftime.
Steve Smith was feeling sick, Keyshawn Johnson fumbled, Jake Delhomme threw an interception and punter Jason Baker was awfully busy the rest of the time.
In the second half, the bumbling Tampa Bay Buccaneers bailed them out.
Delhomme threw a 4-yard touchdown pass to Johnson for the go-ahead score in the third quarter and Julius Peppers had three sacks and recovered a fumble as the Panthers beat the Buccaneers 24-10 to end a two-game losing streak.
Smith was seen repeatedly vomiting into a garbage can on the sidelines, once after a long catch early in the second half. But he stayed in the game, catching eight passes for 149 yards, including a 36-yard touchdown late in the fourth quarter that sealed it.
"My little girl was sick," Smith said, "and so, she's a daddy's girl, kissing on me and so -- I got the flu. What happens in the house just goes around the parents."
Smith said he fought through the wooziness, because "this is how I feed my family."
Rookie quarterback Bruce Gradkowski threw two interceptions and lost a fumble for the Buccaneers (2-7), who committed turnovers on four of five possessions in the second and third quarters to blow a 7-0 halftime lead in their third straight loss.
"I'm just sick about the outcome of the game," Bucs coach Jon Gruden said. "Carolina is a good football team. We turned the ball over and missed some opportunities to make some big plays."
The Panthers, who had said they couldn't wait to play again after being outscored 25-0 in the final quarter against the Cowboys, managed only three first downs and 98 yards in the first half. Their drives in that half went: punt, fumble, punt, punt, punt, interception.
"The first half we didn't run it well enough, we didn't throw it well enough," Delhomme said. "It was an embarrassment in the first half. Second half we answered. The defense forced turnovers and we made more plays. We did enough things to win in the second half."
Fans, upset with the play-calling and the Panthers inability to run, showed their displeasure early and saved the loudest boos as the Panthers walked off the field at halftime with only three first downs against a team missing three defensive starters to injury, including Simeon Rice.
Despite feeling ill, Steve Smith had eight catches for 149 yards and touchdown.
Carolina scored on four of their first six drives in the second half -- but then, the Buccaneers made it easy for the Panthers to come back. Gradkowski's third turnover of the game, a fumble forced by Chris Draft and recovered by Peppers, gave Carolina the ball at the Tampa Bay 44.
Delhomme then found Smith for a 21-yard catch-and-run, setting up Delhomme's 4-yard TD pass to Johnson. It gave Carolina its first lead, 10-7 midway through the third quarter.
Carnell "Cadillac" Williams, held to 44 yards on 15 carries, fumbled on the next possession and Mike Minter recovered at the Tampa Bay 16. Four plays later Brad Hoover's 5-yard touchdown run put Carolina up 17-7.
"I got careless with the ball," Williams said. "I think my turnover created momentum for Carolina."
It marked the eighth time in nine games the Panthers held the lead going into the fourth quarter, unlike on three previous occasions, the Panthers held on with Peppers, who took over the league lead with 11 sacks, making life difficult for Gradkowski.
Coming into the game with only one interception in 186 pass attempts, an NFL record for most attempts without two picks, Gradkowski struggled with his accuracy. He overthrew open Joey Galloway for what would have been a touchdown in the first quarter.
"I have to go out there and not try to do to much," said Gradkowski, who became the starter when Chris Simms suffered a ruptured spleen in the first meeting with Carolina. "I feel like I was competing. Sometimes you just try to do too much."
Gradkowski later underthrew two passes near the end zone, resulting in interceptions for Ken Lucas and Shaun Williams. He even bounced a pass off Peppers' helmet and Gruden started screaming at him in the first half.
"I think the first series, we had Galloway wide open. You've got to make those plays," Gruden said. "Then we had (Michael) Clayton at the end of the half and we didn't make that play. It's a turnover. We fumbled the ball in successive series to start the second half. That's a big reason why we lost."
Gradkowski, who was 17 of 32 for 173 yards, did take advantage when Ronde Barber ripped the ball away from the ex-Buccaneer Johnson near midfield late in the first quarter. Five plays later Gradkowski tossed a 10-yard touchdown pass to Ike Hilliard.
That was enough to take a halftime lead on the Panthers. The boos started early when offensive coordinator Dan Henning called for a running play on third-and-11 and DeShaun Foster gained only five yards.
By the end, everyone in Carolina -- even Smith -- was feeling better with the win.
"It means in the second half of the season," Smith said, "we're 1-0."
Tom Walsh - Vince Carlucci Reports Andrew Walter Unhappy With Raiders Deep Passing Obsession
It's right here in black and white and from Vince Carlucci's column in NFL.com:
"The Oakland Raiders insisting on having quarterback Andrew Walter take deep drops on his throws against Denver's strong defense on the way to a 17-13 loss to the Broncos. Walter sounded off to reporters after the game that he was unhappy that pass plays continue to have him taking five- and seven-step drops, which makes him an easy target for pass rushers, and that the Raiders' offense is too predictable. The Broncos sacked him three times and pounded him repeatedly, which had plenty to do with the fact the Raiders gained only 77 yards and three first downs in the second half after producing 167 yards and 10 first downs in the first two quarters. Walter also lost two fumbles on a day when the Raiders seemed too quick to abandon their running game, which only added to Walter's problems. I'm never in favor of finger-pointing by a player or a coach, although it should be noted that Walter said he had gone to Raiders offensive coordinator Tom Walsh "numerous times" with plays he would rather run. Walter's preference is to throw more short passes -- such as swing and flat routes -- that he can get out of his hand quickly."
It's clear to many that Tom Walsh's offense does not work at all. It's to the point that the Raiders are two teams - a great defense, hampered by one of the worst offenses in league history.
I tried to tell everyone in pre-season, but they didn't listen.
"The Oakland Raiders insisting on having quarterback Andrew Walter take deep drops on his throws against Denver's strong defense on the way to a 17-13 loss to the Broncos. Walter sounded off to reporters after the game that he was unhappy that pass plays continue to have him taking five- and seven-step drops, which makes him an easy target for pass rushers, and that the Raiders' offense is too predictable. The Broncos sacked him three times and pounded him repeatedly, which had plenty to do with the fact the Raiders gained only 77 yards and three first downs in the second half after producing 167 yards and 10 first downs in the first two quarters. Walter also lost two fumbles on a day when the Raiders seemed too quick to abandon their running game, which only added to Walter's problems. I'm never in favor of finger-pointing by a player or a coach, although it should be noted that Walter said he had gone to Raiders offensive coordinator Tom Walsh "numerous times" with plays he would rather run. Walter's preference is to throw more short passes -- such as swing and flat routes -- that he can get out of his hand quickly."
It's clear to many that Tom Walsh's offense does not work at all. It's to the point that the Raiders are two teams - a great defense, hampered by one of the worst offenses in league history.
I tried to tell everyone in pre-season, but they didn't listen.
SF 49ERS Owner John York - Video On Olympics Bid
San Francisco 49ers owner John York explains that he made it clear to SF Mayor Gavin Newsom not to base the region's Olympic Bid on their stadium. If that's the case, the 49ers should not have made a presentation to the SF Chamber of Commerce with the idea that the stadium would be part of the Olympics Bid.
John's really pissed off a lot of people. Oh and KNBR's Ralph Barberi's totally wrong about this matter -- the Olympics are important to the region and the 49ers screwed up.
Monday, November 13, 2006
James Bond "Casino Royale" Behind The Scenes Video
I found this cool video of behind the scenes work for Casino Royale on YouTube. In it you see the human side of Bond, as Daniel Craig takes a moment to comment on the progress of the movie, and give some quick qips.
James Bond "Casino Royale" Trailer Video - BBC Gives Rave Review Of New Bond
I just found this article by the BBC which is a review of the new movie Casino Royale, the 21st movie in the James Bond series, which has seen each actor, save for two (George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton) go on to super stardom, or in the case of Pierce Brosnan, solidify his super star status.
Paul Arendt, the review writer, reports that Craig is not just a good Bond, he's a great Bond. We'll all know starting this Friday, November 17th.
The new bond is Daniel Craig -- and he's blond. This minor difference does nothing to diminish the quality of Bond or the film, according to the BCC. Here's the review, and the movie preview below:
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Santa Clara Politicians Wreck Bay Area Olympic Bid For 49ers Dream
When I was a City Planning graduate student at Cal Berkeley, I was first introduced to the concept of "regionalism" where one city's economic development policies are shaped to benefit not just its municipal jurisdiction, but the region it's within.
It came as no surprise to me that this concept was discussed in the backdrop of the San Francisco Bay Area of which UC Berkeley is a major part. There are nine closely linked counties here and cities that are at times in the same county and find themselves competing for the same resources.
Like sports teams.
Sports teams are more than just economic impacts, they're an expression of the culture of a city. Game day is a great time to see friends, relatives, and your doctor, and all at the stadium. When sports teams leave, a part of the city goes with them. This would be true for the 49ers. But it's also true when a region's cities work together to draw a sports team or event. This is what has happened with the San Francisco Bay Area Olympic Bid. Over the last decade, this effort has been a model of regional coorperation. A kind of unwritten contract. A contract that's about to be broken by Santa Clara's elected officials, led by Mayor Pat Mahan (pictured).
In one fell swoop, Santa Clara's not only threatened to damage San Francisco's culture, but trash the Bay Area's chances to land the Olympics. In the case of the Olympics, Santa Clara and Santa Clara County would have enjoyed overflow use of their hotels, so they would be an economic gainer -- but so would San Francisco and Oakland.
In the case of the 49ers, Santa Clara also gains if they move there, but it's at the expense of the Bay Area. That's not a good tradeoff, and it's for that reason Santa Clara should teminate its pursuit of the 49ers.
Santa Clara's argument is that it's the best choice for the team to build a new stadium in. But with an organization that has as much history and social impact as the 49ers, that's not true from a holistic standpoint. Indeed, look at the bad feelings that have already been generated. That's not going to go away and can effect everything from State politics to the direction of Federal dollars to the needs of Santa Clara. So when you add it all up -- politics and negative economic impact on San Francisco, as well as the loss of the good international will generated by the very act of bidding for the Olympics, let alone getting the Olympics -- Santa Clara's being a real selfish meany of a municipality.
The best solution is for Santa Clara to be a uniter and not a divider. The best action is for Santa Clara's Mayor to say to 49ers Owner John York "You know. You should really sit and work things out with San Francisco and that Olympics Bid and if things aren't workable, then have Mayor Newsom call us and say so. This way, we'll have a clear go-ahead."
That's a great example of regionalism. Santa Clara, be a Bay Area team player.
Senator Diane Feinstein Brings SF 49ers Owner John York In To Talk With Mayor Newsom - SF Gate
Thank God for Senator Feinstein! Now you're about to see how sports and politics intersect. 49ers Owner John York's about to learn the basic rule of corporate institutions: when you inherit control of a business institution, you share it with the community impacted by it.
John -- in his "I'll take my marbles and run" actions -- forgot this. He's about to learn a lesson. Plus, he's threatened to wreck an Olympics Bid that San Francisco and the Bay Area region has worked on for almost ten years, and was the front runner amoung US cities. John's move was a terrible development, and it's matched only by Santa Clara County's unwillingness to be a team player.
More on that in another post.
49ers agree to talk to S.F. on stadium
Feinstein, Pelosi pressure team's owner to reopen decision on Santa Clara move
Cecilia M. Vega, John Coté, Chronicle Staff Writers
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Negotiations to keep the 49ers in San Francisco will officially resume next week after two of California's most powerful politicians intervened, officials on both sides of the talks told The Chronicle.
Two days after the team abruptly announced its plans to move to Santa Clara, Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Friday gathered Mayor Gavin Newsom, his chief of staff and 49ers co-owner John York and his son, Jed, in her San Francisco office for a morning meeting.
House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi also phoned John York and left him a message expressing her disappointment and telling him it is "unacceptable for the 49ers to leave San Francisco," according to an aide.
Though the team agreed to resume talks with San Francisco, it also will continue negotiating with Santa Clara to build a new stadium there.
The new development, however, left Newsom feeling like "nothing's changed."
"No new expectations have been raised," he said after the meeting in Feinstein's office.
While on Thursday the mayor angrily denounced the team's decision to move to the South Bay and vowed that the city would explore legal options to keep the Niners from leaving, on Friday he referred to the meeting as "great," "nice" and "not supposed to be made public."
"It was good to get together right away before letting a month go by and then more animus is created," Newsom said. "That was the spirit of the meeting, to say, 'Let's just get together and let's try and tone it down,' but at the same time to be resolved that we don't want the team to leave, but it's not an at-all-costs strategy."
Lisa Lang, spokeswoman for the 49ers, confirmed that the team would be pursuing dual discussions with the two cities.
"The doors definitely are not closed in San Francisco, and we are continuing to talk to the city to see what we can work out," she said.
City leaders in San Francisco and Santa Clara had expressed shock at the team's plans to trade in Candlestick Point for the South Bay.
But the potential move also worried San Francisco's representatives in Washington, as well as in Sacramento. Assemblyman Mark Leno on Friday announced a plan to introduce legislation that would ban any professional sports franchise that is not headquartered or does not play games in San Francisco from using the city's name, unless the Board of Supervisors and mayor specifically authorizes it.
"It's his proposition. It's his team. He gets to do with it as he chooses," Leno said of John York. "But he can't take our name."
The team informed San Francisco officials late Wednesday that they intended to drop plans for a stadium and retail housing complex at Candlestick Point and instead move the proposed development to a parking lot near Great America amusement park in Santa Clara. The 49ers have been trying to rebuild the stadium at Candlestick Point for nearly 10 years.
Infrastructure was the 49ers' largest concern, York said during a news conference announcing the move. York cited the high cost of building a huge parking garage and of bringing public transit to Candlestick Point, saying it would have doubled the $600 million to $800 million stadium price tag. He also expressed concern that a parking garage would have killed the tradition of tailgating before football games.
As San Francisco officials shuddered at the thought of losing a coveted NFL franchise -- one founded in the city 60 years ago -- officials in Santa Clara welcomed the possibility of gaining one, and on Friday remained convinced that their city was the team's first choice for building a new stadium.
"They're moving ahead with Santa Clara, but I think they're going to listen to San Francisco," Santa Clara Vice Mayor Kevin Moore said after learning from a 49ers team official about the meeting in Feinstein's office. "I think we're in the top spot now."
Moore said he was even more confident Friday than he was earlier in the week about the team calling Santa Clara home.
He pointed to the $765 million in transportation and parking infrastructure costs projected for the proposed development at Candlestick Point and to the logistical hassles of building on a peninsula with an existing stadium in place.
"I've had great moments at Candlestick Park, but it doesn't make sense anymore," said Moore, an avid 49ers fan. "I know that Candlestick Point is not the best place for fan entertainment, and the numbers are crazy, just crazy."
Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan was diplomatic about the possible move.
"Anything the two of our cities can do to keep the 49ers in the Bay Area is great," Mahan said. "That's the most important thing to me, to make sure the 49ers have an appropriate home in the greater San Francisco Bay Area, so that there will always be a San Francisco 49ers."
She maintained, though, that the Santa Clara site wouldn't have parking or traffic-congestion problems and would be a better fit for fans than the Candlestick Point proposal.
"The 49ers are going to make their decision on what's best for the fans and what's best for the team," Mahan said Friday. "As long as they're staying in the Bay Area, that's what's most important to me."
York told reporters a day earlier that, "it would be foolish to just slam the door," if San Francisco officials approached the team for further talks, but he said the focus was on Santa Clara.
With that in mind, Newsom said he was heading cautiously into the resumed talks with the team.
"We're not going to be in the middle of being played against each other," he told reporters Friday. "That will not happen."
The San Francisco project's potential demise also dealt a blow to the city's hope to land the 2016 Olympic Games. The United States Olympic Committee is scheduled to make a decision on whether it will recommend a U.S. city -- either San Francisco, Los Angeles or Chicago -- by the end of the year. Whether the city has a stadium that can accommodate the Games' Opening and Closing ceremonies is central to the committee's decision.
Scott Givens, managing director of the bid group San Francisco 2016, hailed Feinstein's involvement in the negotiations as a positive step, but hinted that the damage to the city's Olympic bid may not be reversible.
"That dug a big hole for us to get out of. The Niners dealt a big blow by the manner they did this," Givens said.
Givens said San Francisco 2016 will decide by Monday whether to continue or pull the plug on the Olympic bid.
"We can't let this linger for too long," he said. "If we can come up with a viable option the USOC deems appropriate, we should proceed with great haste.''
Still, exactly what future discussions between San Francisco officials and the 49ers will entail and whether city leaders can succeed in keeping the team at the bargaining table remain to be seen.
"I'm as resolved as everyone else to try to keep the team here," Newsom said. "But not at all costs. We're not going to sell our soul ... this city is not going to mortgage its future for billionaires. We don't do that."
John -- in his "I'll take my marbles and run" actions -- forgot this. He's about to learn a lesson. Plus, he's threatened to wreck an Olympics Bid that San Francisco and the Bay Area region has worked on for almost ten years, and was the front runner amoung US cities. John's move was a terrible development, and it's matched only by Santa Clara County's unwillingness to be a team player.
More on that in another post.
49ers agree to talk to S.F. on stadium
Feinstein, Pelosi pressure team's owner to reopen decision on Santa Clara move
Cecilia M. Vega, John Coté, Chronicle Staff Writers
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Negotiations to keep the 49ers in San Francisco will officially resume next week after two of California's most powerful politicians intervened, officials on both sides of the talks told The Chronicle.
Two days after the team abruptly announced its plans to move to Santa Clara, Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Friday gathered Mayor Gavin Newsom, his chief of staff and 49ers co-owner John York and his son, Jed, in her San Francisco office for a morning meeting.
House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi also phoned John York and left him a message expressing her disappointment and telling him it is "unacceptable for the 49ers to leave San Francisco," according to an aide.
Though the team agreed to resume talks with San Francisco, it also will continue negotiating with Santa Clara to build a new stadium there.
The new development, however, left Newsom feeling like "nothing's changed."
"No new expectations have been raised," he said after the meeting in Feinstein's office.
While on Thursday the mayor angrily denounced the team's decision to move to the South Bay and vowed that the city would explore legal options to keep the Niners from leaving, on Friday he referred to the meeting as "great," "nice" and "not supposed to be made public."
"It was good to get together right away before letting a month go by and then more animus is created," Newsom said. "That was the spirit of the meeting, to say, 'Let's just get together and let's try and tone it down,' but at the same time to be resolved that we don't want the team to leave, but it's not an at-all-costs strategy."
Lisa Lang, spokeswoman for the 49ers, confirmed that the team would be pursuing dual discussions with the two cities.
"The doors definitely are not closed in San Francisco, and we are continuing to talk to the city to see what we can work out," she said.
City leaders in San Francisco and Santa Clara had expressed shock at the team's plans to trade in Candlestick Point for the South Bay.
But the potential move also worried San Francisco's representatives in Washington, as well as in Sacramento. Assemblyman Mark Leno on Friday announced a plan to introduce legislation that would ban any professional sports franchise that is not headquartered or does not play games in San Francisco from using the city's name, unless the Board of Supervisors and mayor specifically authorizes it.
"It's his proposition. It's his team. He gets to do with it as he chooses," Leno said of John York. "But he can't take our name."
The team informed San Francisco officials late Wednesday that they intended to drop plans for a stadium and retail housing complex at Candlestick Point and instead move the proposed development to a parking lot near Great America amusement park in Santa Clara. The 49ers have been trying to rebuild the stadium at Candlestick Point for nearly 10 years.
Infrastructure was the 49ers' largest concern, York said during a news conference announcing the move. York cited the high cost of building a huge parking garage and of bringing public transit to Candlestick Point, saying it would have doubled the $600 million to $800 million stadium price tag. He also expressed concern that a parking garage would have killed the tradition of tailgating before football games.
As San Francisco officials shuddered at the thought of losing a coveted NFL franchise -- one founded in the city 60 years ago -- officials in Santa Clara welcomed the possibility of gaining one, and on Friday remained convinced that their city was the team's first choice for building a new stadium.
"They're moving ahead with Santa Clara, but I think they're going to listen to San Francisco," Santa Clara Vice Mayor Kevin Moore said after learning from a 49ers team official about the meeting in Feinstein's office. "I think we're in the top spot now."
Moore said he was even more confident Friday than he was earlier in the week about the team calling Santa Clara home.
He pointed to the $765 million in transportation and parking infrastructure costs projected for the proposed development at Candlestick Point and to the logistical hassles of building on a peninsula with an existing stadium in place.
"I've had great moments at Candlestick Park, but it doesn't make sense anymore," said Moore, an avid 49ers fan. "I know that Candlestick Point is not the best place for fan entertainment, and the numbers are crazy, just crazy."
Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan was diplomatic about the possible move.
"Anything the two of our cities can do to keep the 49ers in the Bay Area is great," Mahan said. "That's the most important thing to me, to make sure the 49ers have an appropriate home in the greater San Francisco Bay Area, so that there will always be a San Francisco 49ers."
She maintained, though, that the Santa Clara site wouldn't have parking or traffic-congestion problems and would be a better fit for fans than the Candlestick Point proposal.
"The 49ers are going to make their decision on what's best for the fans and what's best for the team," Mahan said Friday. "As long as they're staying in the Bay Area, that's what's most important to me."
York told reporters a day earlier that, "it would be foolish to just slam the door," if San Francisco officials approached the team for further talks, but he said the focus was on Santa Clara.
With that in mind, Newsom said he was heading cautiously into the resumed talks with the team.
"We're not going to be in the middle of being played against each other," he told reporters Friday. "That will not happen."
The San Francisco project's potential demise also dealt a blow to the city's hope to land the 2016 Olympic Games. The United States Olympic Committee is scheduled to make a decision on whether it will recommend a U.S. city -- either San Francisco, Los Angeles or Chicago -- by the end of the year. Whether the city has a stadium that can accommodate the Games' Opening and Closing ceremonies is central to the committee's decision.
Scott Givens, managing director of the bid group San Francisco 2016, hailed Feinstein's involvement in the negotiations as a positive step, but hinted that the damage to the city's Olympic bid may not be reversible.
"That dug a big hole for us to get out of. The Niners dealt a big blow by the manner they did this," Givens said.
Givens said San Francisco 2016 will decide by Monday whether to continue or pull the plug on the Olympic bid.
"We can't let this linger for too long," he said. "If we can come up with a viable option the USOC deems appropriate, we should proceed with great haste.''
Still, exactly what future discussions between San Francisco officials and the 49ers will entail and whether city leaders can succeed in keeping the team at the bargaining table remain to be seen.
"I'm as resolved as everyone else to try to keep the team here," Newsom said. "But not at all costs. We're not going to sell our soul ... this city is not going to mortgage its future for billionaires. We don't do that."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)