They aren't gonna get much offers especially if they want to keep things as balanced as possible and it would be dumb to go to 33 just for the sake of expanding.
SAP Center lease expiring in 2025
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
They aren't gonna get much offers especially if they want to keep things as balanced as possible and it would be dumb to go to 33 just for the sake of expanding.
varsaku
Registered User
If they are expanding it will be two teams coming in together but in separate years.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 23,366
- 16,513
As crucial date looms, Sharks talks for new SAP Center lease take a turn
NHL: San Jose Sharks eye new lease agreement at SAP Center, their home since 1993
www.mercurynews.com
Things moving slowly with July 1 expiration date of current lease. "Cities move slowly". More than $100m in deferred maintenance on arena, that the Sharks are seeking some funding from San Jose city to cover. San Jose city facing $47m deficit.
Went on the CA road trip this year for the first time following the Caps. SAP Center felt extremely minor-league to me.
Still sure about that? This doesn't look good for the hockey fans in San Jose.
It sounds like the sharks want to stay and that San Jose wants to keep them there so I wouldn't be surprised that if they don't work out a full deal by July 1 that they simply sign what amounts to a one year extension on the current lease and keep talking.
But, as usual, I could be wrong.
But, as usual, I could be wrong.
State of the Sharks: State of the City Announcement | San Jose Sharks
Brodie Brazil checks in from San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan's State of the City address and the Arena Green cleanup event around the Guadalupe River.
www.nhl.com
More details from San Jose State of City speech. Deal through 2050. Arena entertainment district.
Has to he image and fear of being the mayor/city council/whatever that let a team leave
I have yet to find an economist- without a conflict of interest- who argues a sports team has an economic benefit for a city
it does to an extent when Seattle lost the NBA the nearby local businesses felt the impact of people no longer going there during game day.
That was a specific area; I am referring to the entire city economy. I have yet to see a claim that a city's economy shrank after a sports team left. In fact, it's only one case but one economist claimed Winnipeg's economy grew after the Jets left and tied it to them leaving.
Worst combined two seasons in league history. Finished 32nd two season in a row.
Zero top 3 major league teams before Sharks.
There's a reason Dionne Warwick had a hit with "Do you know the way to San Jose?" in the 1960s. San Jose (city) was an also ran in the region, after SF and Oakland. Even with rise of SJ as the center of Silicon Valley, it was not well known.
But with the Sharks and new arena, got on many music tours and more attention.
With hundreds of events annually at venue, that's a lot of folks who come to the area and may have dinners before/after events at arena. So don't say there is no financial impact to the region.
Tell that to the economists who study this stuff. I'm just going by what my interest in the subject led me to find. Tourism is one of the major arguments for people who like to argue for an economic benefit and I have yet to find any study or claim that that is in fact true.
Re: events. The city could still have concerts and such, they don't need a permanent tenant.
One trend I seem to notice is arenas are built, a sports team is anchored there and then used as a basis for drumming up pedestrian traffic for an entertainment district (as done in Nashville and Columbus and the basis for new arenas in Altanta, Ottawa, Phoenix, and others). More or less used as a foundation to a redevelopment real estate project
And a side tidbit: I've always had a soft spit for the Sharks. In fact, one of the first jerseys I ever bought was a Sharks/Link Gaetz jersey. Are you old enough to know and remember him?
If this lease deal falls through, expect Houston, Atlanta, and Phoenix to be champing at the bit.
Houston- apparently the Rckets owner doesn't want a hockey team (from what I have heard)
Phoenix- no arena to speak of
Atlsnta- no arena to speak of (unless the ownership group there changed their minds about having a hockey team)
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Tell that to the economists who study this stuff. I'm just going by what my interest in the subject led me to find. Tourism is one of the major arguments for people who like to argue for an economic benefit and I have yet to find any study or claim that that is in fact true.
Re: events. The city could still have concerts and such, they don't need a permanent tenant.
One trend I seem to notice is arenas are built, a sports team is anchored there and then used as a basis for drumming up pedestrian traffic for an entertainment district (as done in Nashville and Columbus and the basis for new arenas in Altanta, Ottawa, Phoenix, and others). More or less used as a foundation to a redevelopment real estate project
And a side tidbit: I've always had a soft spit for the Sharks. In fact, one of the first jerseys I ever bought was a Sharks/Link Gaetz jersey. Are you old enough to know and remember him?
The economic and non-economic benefits arenas/stadiums do provide are connected to things like civic pride and attractiveness of the city to bringing in new residents and businesses. You can quantify some of that to a certain level, but never completely.
Economists, being economists, don’t like to acknowledge things that can’t be completely quantified. But city officials, and by extension the residents who vote them into office, clearly don’t see this the same way.
Economists also tend to believe that money spent should bring more money in, but that’s simply not the way government services work. Not everything is going to be a net positive. Cities need to keep their budgets in line in order to keep providing services, but not every single thing they do needs to result in surplus. Even if arenas truly don’t, the calculation has been made by politicians that it’s ok take a deficit on them if necessary.
Last edited:
I hear this argument a lot but as you stated I have never come across any proof of it. Do people without pro sports teams feel any less civic pride that citizens of cities with pro sports teams?
Is having a pro sports team really a factor in attracting people and businesses compared to school quality, crime rate, cost of living, tax rate, etc?
One group is rational the other emotional.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Maybe one group is rational and the other emotional, but one of those things isn't inherently better than the other. The proof you're looking for doesn't fully exist because perception is too subjective to accurately quantify in a research study. There are just too many factors to incorporate. People have tried at times, but many of those studies have concluded that it's too difficult to do well.
I also don't agree that economists are entirely rational about this topic. Ties into what I edited in as you were responding to my last post. "Economists also tend to believe that money spent should bring more money in, but that’s simply not the way government services work. Not everything is going to be a net positive. Cities need to keep their budgets in line in order to be able to keep providing services, but not every single thing they do needs to result in surplus. Even if arenas truly don’t, the calculation has been made by politicians that it’s ok take a deficit on them if necessary." That's because it's something their constituents want their city to have. It's arts & culture spending, and that spending pretty much always runs a deficit on paper. Major museums get big subsidies and favorable lease terms all the time from their cities, but few bat an eye at that.
Yes, having a pro sports team really is a factor in attracting people/businesses like all of those other things. Is it as big of a factor? Maybe not, but it's still contained in the overall perception of a city.
Do cities need to do a better job negotiating these deals? Probably, yes. Not just in dollars spent, but access to the facility as needed. Is it off-putting when a billionaire who doesn't ABSOLUTELY need it asks for government assistance? Absolutely it is. There's no doubt about that, but I don't think it negates the value in a city having a financial stake in such a major piece of its identity.
Never mind the Sharks consistantly sold out SAP when they were competitive. Did you ask ChatGPT for your answer?
To your point, one has to look at both revenue and expenses to the city. I remember when SF hosted the Americas Cup (sailing). The high end of the estimated to be huge - and it may have been when considering the benefit to local businesses - but the city lost ~$10M if memory serves.Tell that to the economists who study this stuff. I'm just going by what my interest in the subject led me to find. Tourism is one of the major arguments for people who like to argue for an economic benefit and I have yet to find any study or claim that that is in fact true.
Re: events. The city could still have concerts and such, they don't need a permanent tenant.
One trend I seem to notice is arenas are built, a sports team is anchored there and then used as a basis for drumming up pedestrian traffic for an entertainment district (as done in Nashville and Columbus and the basis for new arenas in Altanta, Ottawa, Phoenix, and others). More or less used as a foundation to a redevelopment real estate project
And a side tidbit: I've always had a soft spit for the Sharks. In fact, one of the first jerseys I ever bought was a Sharks/Link Gaetz jersey. Are you old enough to know and remember him?
