Skip to content

Super Bowl Advisory Committee backs Santa Clara stadium

The proponents of a proposed stadium plan in Santa Clara, California have a new feather in their cap.

The NFL Super Bowl Advisory Committee has notified the 49ers that it “supports the plan to build a new stadium in Santa Clara and will support and encourage a Super Bowl bid for a game to be played in the proposed new stadium.”

Voters in Santa Clara will choose to accept or reject the stadium plan on June 8, and this news can be used in support of the measure.

The statement isn’t a promise to hold a future Super Bowl, but it’s pretty close. 

New stadiums in Houston, Indianapolis, Detroit, and Dallas all were awarded Super Bowls for the first time after building new stadiums.  Super Bowl XIX was played in the Bay Area at Stanford Stadium.

Permalink 31 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, San Francisco 49ers, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
31 Responses to “Super Bowl Advisory Committee backs Santa Clara stadium”
  1. Scott says: Apr 29, 2010 5:47 PM

    Wait…this isn’t a Big Ben story?

  2. Scott says: Apr 29, 2010 5:48 PM

    Wait…this isn’t a Big Ben story?

  3. Ilovefoolsball says: Apr 29, 2010 5:48 PM

    yeah that’s just what California and San Fran need, to blow more money!

  4. Sportnman says: Apr 29, 2010 5:50 PM

    Ok L.A., TIME TO STEP UP!

  5. JSpicoli says: Apr 29, 2010 5:51 PM

    Fat chance

  6. this class sucks says: Apr 29, 2010 5:53 PM

    I live in SF so that would mean extra travel time for me to get to the home games but a Super Bowl being held there would be pretty awesome.

  7. Hooby says: Apr 29, 2010 5:56 PM

    waste of money…we still havent found a team for LA, yet they have a nice new stadium that i havent heard a single word about for the superbowl. odds are itll get rejected.

  8. dannymac17 says: Apr 29, 2010 6:00 PM

    Why arent they backing Roski? or the AEG group?
    Remember where the original “Super Bowl” was held.
    Bring it back to LA

  9. aram42287 says: Apr 29, 2010 6:00 PM

    Niners Suck!!! Cardinals Win the west esay!!! better luck next year Niners!!!

  10. City_Native says: Apr 29, 2010 6:01 PM

    This news and other stats this week that the ballot measure is favored to pass by a good margin by likely voters.
    Any response Raider fans?
    You guys have been chirpin’ over this subject for awhile?
    Can you say Los Angeles Raiders?

  11. Sonoco says: Apr 29, 2010 6:19 PM

    aram42287 says:
    April 29, 2010 6:00 PM
    Niners Suck!!! Cardinals Win the west esay!!! better luck next year Niners!!!
    *********************************
    Yeah . . . OK . . . because you handled the Niners so well with Warner on the roster last year. Nice take.
    On the subject of the post, just this week it was reported that polling of likely voters favors passing the stadium measure by about 15 points with 40 days to go until the vote . . . this should widen the margin.

  12. Brewster says: Apr 29, 2010 6:20 PM

    Now that’s a surprise. the NFL hustling yet another cash strapped municipality, in the state of California no less, to get local assistance to build yet another stadium with taxpayer funds.
    Here’s what the good Commissioner Goodell had to say to Miami after last year’s Super Bowl in Miami might be subject to heavy rains:
    “the Dolphins have proposed adding a roof that would cover fans as part of stadium improvements that could cost $250 million or more in public funds. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell says the upgrades are needed if South Florida is to remain competitive in bidding for future Super Bowls.”
    In the Santa Clara situation:
    Under the proposal, $114 million in public support would be provided. The 49ers would contribute $493 million, an amount much higher than the portions shouldered in recent years by teams like the Colts ($100 million), the Cardinals ($143 million), and the Broncos ($143 million). The remaining $330 million would come from the stadium authority, which will raise the money via Personal Seat Licenses, concessions, and naming rights.
    The good voters of Santa Clara county should remember how well that “stadium authority” concept worked out for the voters in nearby Alameda county when they lured the Raiders back to Oakland. The PSL’s weren’t sold as projected and the taxpayers are/were still paying off the deal
    almost 10 years later.
    A $330M potential taxpayer liability in a down economy, you gotta sell a lot of PSL’s, popcorn & beer and find a corporate sucker to give you $100M or so for naming rights. Good luck with that.
    Just say no, and vote no.

  13. Profanity in ALL CAPS says: Apr 29, 2010 6:21 PM

    yeah, that’s what califonria needs… A NEW FOOTBALL STADIUM! no, they have no other problems, just lack of an LA pro football team. the lack of a pro football team must be why their state is about to go bankrupt

  14. Dasmol says: Apr 29, 2010 6:24 PM

    @City_Native says:
    “Any response Raider fans? You guys have been chirpin’ over this subject for awhile?
    Can you say Los Angeles Raiders?”
    Sure they can. But don’t ask them to spell it.

  15. Henchman #24 says: Apr 29, 2010 6:35 PM

    @Dasmol says:
    “Sure they can. But don’t ask them to spell it.”
    And don’t ask them to support the team. They did a GREAT job with their last two!

  16. BEAR-A-HOLIC says: Apr 29, 2010 6:38 PM

    PUSSIES !!!! Super Bowl has to be played in nice weather or a dome??? Come on and play it like MEN…in snow and ice like the old days, give it to CHICAGO !

  17. raidertg says: Apr 29, 2010 6:39 PM

    @City_Native
    The Raiders just extented there contract for 5 years to Oakland. So they will be going no where just like this statuim in S.C. enjoy watch the LA Whinners.

  18. Bordner says: Apr 29, 2010 6:59 PM

    When they do play the Super Bowl in LA again, it will mark the first time that it’s been played in the Vikings home stadium since ’93 – right?

  19. CJV123 says: Apr 29, 2010 7:15 PM

    Do any of the people voting in the referendum honestly believe they will get a ticket to any SB there? Isn’t this like poor people voting for Republicans- you vote then must enjoy the fruits of it vicariously?

  20. .Vox Veritas. says: Apr 29, 2010 7:21 PM

    “This news and other stats this week that the ballot measure is favored to pass by a good margin by likely voters.”
    Heard that in 1997. In fact the measure passed in 1997.
    Still no new stadium.

  21. City_Native says: Apr 29, 2010 7:38 PM

    @Raidertg
    Your team is as bad as your spelling. If the initiative is going to pass….how will they be the LA Whiners?
    One thing I do envy about Raider fans is how united they are. No other fan base dresses the same way for each game like Raider fans. I mean, last year they had 40,000 people come dressed as empty seats…that is impressive!
    Go Niners!

  22. The Real Shuxion says: Apr 29, 2010 8:06 PM

    # raidertg says: April 29, 2010 6:39 PM
    @City_Native
    The Raiders just extented there contract for 5 years to Oakland. So they will be going no where just like this statuim in S.C. enjoy watch the LA Whinners.
    —————————————————–
    What’s a statium?

  23. dannymac17 says: Apr 29, 2010 8:18 PM

    sounds like a bunch of hating by people from north Dakota and bum fug Egypt.
    LA is a wonderful place, do not be unpleasant because you couldn’t afford to live here, we have enough that do that already.

  24. Dogsweat says: Apr 29, 2010 8:18 PM

    L.A. 49ers sounds nice.
    The stage is already set.
    Failed stadium issue in June.
    Team will have no other opition then to move to Illegal land.
    The “”SF”” To “””LA”” logo would look much better.

  25. Dolphin Fan says: Apr 29, 2010 8:44 PM

    Detroit hosted in 1982 at the Silver Dome and Houston hosted in 1974 at Rice Stadium

  26. RickS4o8 says: Apr 29, 2010 9:08 PM

    i really doubt that the NFL or the state of California could give one rat’s ass about starting a franchise in LA. didn’t LA already have its shot at TWO NFL franchises and what cities did those teams end up in? and all the niner haters are just talking because they see a raising team to jump in the mix, compared to these “good teams” that always choke in the playoffs.

  27. PatPatriotRules says: Apr 29, 2010 9:19 PM

    Candy asses Wont ever put a superbowl in a cold weather city outdoors……So Chicago….us here in NE….etc…will never see it

  28. desertsteeler says: Apr 29, 2010 9:40 PM

    I suppose it’s time to remind the NFL that there is a boycott on California for banning gay marriage.

  29. Franchise says: Apr 29, 2010 9:51 PM

    dannymac17 says:
    LA is a wonderful place, do not be unpleasant because you couldn’t afford to live here, we have enough that do that already.
    It has nothing to do with being able to afford to live there, and LA is pleasant, but I wouldn’t be caught dead living there (and I was raised there too).
    LA couldnt support a pro football team how many times? Just because you build a stadium doesnt give you the right to demand a team.
    Just ask Kansas City how their new arena is, still sitting vacant without a pro franchise (other than a lacrosse team).

  30. RaiderhateR4Life says: Apr 29, 2010 11:54 PM

    Raidertg– you made a typo there, you accidently put an “h” in winners…

  31. snnyjcbs says: Apr 30, 2010 2:12 AM

    That should get it to pass lol. The plan does not have a chance to pass using any public money. CA is bankrupt and cannot keep schools open, do you really think they care about a new3 ball park.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!