It's two, two, two stories in one:

<a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/columns/ci_9445045" target="_blank">http://www.mercurynews.com/columns/ci_9445045</a>

(Registration or <a href="http://www.bugmenot.com" target="_blank">http://www.bugmenot.com</a> may be required)

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->.... <b>Quid pro coaster?</b><i> </i> Consider this scenario and see if you can tell whom IA is talking about:

1) Longtime Santa Clara tenant approaches city with a construction project. 2) Neighbor of longtime tenant raises objections to project, saying it will cause undue harm. 3) City encourages longtime tenant and tenant's neighbor to work it out. 4) Talks start - and an alternative site for the project is proposed - but they eventually hit a snag. Sound familiar? If you guessed one of those parties is Cedar Fair, Great America's Ohio-based owner, kudos. But you probably didn't guess the other (hint: It ain't the San Francisco 49ers).

No, in this case, Cedar Fair is the tenant looking to push through a project - a 111-foot tall wooden roller coaster that needed a zoning variance - and Prudential Real Estate is the neighbor crying foul.

<b>Tim Tosta</b>, one of the lawyers working for Prudential, noticed the eerie similarities to Cedar Fair's ongoing contretemps with the 49ers, who want to build a stadium next to the theme park.

"I find a peculiar irony in their adamance about this project and their reluctance about the 49ers," he said.

But there may be a more direct link between the two debates. Last week, Santa Clara's planning commission voted 5-1 for the height exemption (35 feet is usually the maximum). They said Prudential's concerns about noise were unfounded. Adding a new attraction boosts the overall value of the park, and that's been something of a hot topic in recent months. Cedar Fair and the 49ers have been discussing a sale of the park as one way to move the $916 million stadium project forward.

And given the looming stadium issues, some have questioned the city's decision to green-light the exemption for the coaster. Is this a chit the city might have used to nudge Cedar Fair along on the stadium deal?...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

And in answer to that question last quoted...if the city had used that chit, a lawsuit might have been the result...do the words arbitrary and capricious come to mind?

Deal reached with Cedar Fair. Suit to be dropped. Park lease to be extended. Concessions in rent part of deal. Stadium to be built in overflow lot. All subject to city approval, expected next Tuesday, and, presumably, the stadium deal actually happening:

http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_19692990

Yes, indeed, this is an interesting deal.

The story reveals Cedar Fair has not hit the $56 million revenue figure in five years at Great America. Analysts take note. The revenue cap to trigger additional rent payments will rise from $56 million to $64 million sometime after 2020. Future rent payments will be reduced as well.

Not reveled by the story (see Interpreter's link above) is the revenue destination of parking fees during NFL games. Will the parking revenues accrue to Cedar Fair or to the 49ers? If Cedar Fair looses the parking revenues the other concessions in the deal may not be sufficient to cover the parking revenue losses.

The story hints that Cedar Fair will not be the recipient of the parking revenues when it reports "City leaders say the lost revenue will be a worthwhile exchange for the parking rights, noting they'll make money from the parking..."

Requiring Cedar Fair to make only a modest $10 million capital improvement at Great America seems a bit odd. Considering the coaster The Interpreter also reports on Cedar Fair will be well on the road to satisfying this requirement. Considering the rides Cedar Fair has removed from the park it is not clear why the threshold of investment is so low.

Developments will no doubt be interesting!

The first post, and then proposed wooden coaster, were both more than three years ago. Plans have since changed. What was once again may be. Or not.

More:

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2012/01/4774_49ers_santa_cla.html

City Approves Parking Deal:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/01/11/state/n052411S38.DTL

49'rs Run May Propel Stadium Deal:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/story/2012-01-22/49ers-playoff-run-builds-momentum-for-new-stadium/52749578/1

Everybody loves a winner! Linking to another thread, I'll be the one pushing for a construction tour as this gets built.

Stadium takes another step toward construction with a loan from the NFL. Chief Strategy Officer (who helped drive the stadium financing deals) added to 49ers ownership.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post?id=58607

I'm assuming once the move is complete they'll be changing their name to the Santa Clara 49ers. Let's just hope that they don't end up like the Angels did (I don't know why it was necessary to have "Los Angeles" in their name if they couldn't drop the "Anaheim" part for legal reasons).

From what I understand, they'll still call themselves the San Francisco 49ers.

Just like the New York Jets, who actually play in New Jersey... a completely different state than the city in their name.

^ As well as the super bowl champs the giants, They actually share the stadium with the Jets.

Anyone remember Al Davis & Irwindale?

They would have stayed the L.A. Raiders.

Not to mention, much of the allure of the NFL (including apparel) is focused on marketing. Imagine trying to sell: seats, apparel, TV contracts, and selling the name Santa Clara (from San Francisco) as being the same product.

Good luck with that project!

See also:

Six Flags:

Great America (Chicago). Actually Gurnee.

St. Louis. Actually Eureka.

Over Georgia (Atlanta). Actually Austell.

Cedar Fair:

Kings Island (Cincinnati). Actually Mason.

Kings Dominion (Richmond). Actually Doswell.

The list goes on and on.

Cincinnati Premium Outlets- Monroe, OH

I am sure the 49ers will keep the San Francisco name.

It will be roughly 38 miles from Candlestick Park (current Stadium) to their new stadium. This will more than likely make it the furthest stadium from it's naming city, however, most fans will be willing to travel 38 miles in order to keep the name, chances are they won't change.

Just for reference.

Metlife Stadium at the Meadowlands is 12 miles from New York City and Sunlife Stadium (Dolphins) is roughly 14 miles from downtown Miami. Those are two of the only football stadiums I can think of that aren't downtown.

^^^ And Six Flags Ohio in Cleveland / SeaWorld Ohio in Cleveland.

What a shock those visitors must have been in in the era before MapQuest when it was forty minutes worth of driving through fields and little villages to get to the parks.

The L.A. Rams played in Anaheim, The Cowboys play in arlington. Clevelanders remember when The Coliseum existed in the middle of nowhere, wtih nothing around and being billed as convineniently located.

^ Richfield Colusium located between Cleveland & Akron. What a PAIN!

Ralph Wilson Stadium to Buffalo is just under 20 miles.

Arrowhead Stadium to Kansas City is 8 miles.

Gillette Stadium to Boston is 20 miles (you would be surprised how many people ask where the city of "New England" is at for the Patriots)

Reliant Stadium to Houston is 9 miles.

Etc. Etc......

I think renaming the 49ers would make as much sense as the Pontiac Lions would have during the Silverdome years or the Arlington Cowboys would today.

Santa Clara is part of the San Francisco "Bay Area", so the name still works.

2014:

http://blog.sfgate.com/49ers/2012/02/11/49ers-set-2014-target-date-to-play-in-santa-clara/