Where Do You Want The Niner Stadium?

Originally posted by area49:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by area49:
I'd love for it to be built in SF or, failing that, SC or Brisbane. But I really don't see it happening. I think we're going to be one of the two teams that moves to Los Angeles.

Call it a hunch.

Cos LA has such a good record of supporting their football teams. Like the LA Raiders. Whatever happened to them? And the LA Rams. Don't see them around so much.

The Raiders never planned on staying in LA and the Rams' owner was always planning on moving them to St. Louis. Even when the Rams (and I think the Raiders) were there, there games almost always sold out.

This is different. They've got a billionaire willing to pay for the stadium and the people there are just dying for an NFL team. Arnold even wants to put two there. Add to that the slim chances of the SC bill getting passed and it all starts to point towards LA.

Sorry but your first paragraph is simply incorrect. One team at a time:

Rams: you say that the owner was always planning on moving them to St Louis. Um, they were in LA from 1946 to 1994. Always planning? And just to mention, the first relocation attempt was to Baltimore, so you can scarcely say she was always planning on moving to St Louis.

The Raiders "never planned on staying in LA." So Al started lawsuits right and left for what reason? I suspect you are arguing with the benefit of hindsight.

So, with the Rans in place For nearly 50 years and the Raiders for twelve, I am afraid that your argument that both teams were merely fleeting visitors fails.

So why did they both leave? And why has the second biggest city in the US, if I recall correctly, failed to attract replacements to date? I have seen various explanations.

But taking the team from San Francisco, one of the most storied franchises, when there are various teams keen to leave their current
location would be bizarre. Jacksonville, Buffalo, Minnesota, San Diego and Oakland (again) are far higher up the rumour mill.

It is all a part of the fight to get a new stadium. What franchise hasn't threatened to leave in order to get the deal they want?

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by area49:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by area49:
I'd love for it to be built in SF or, failing that, SC or Brisbane. But I really don't see it happening. I think we're going to be one of the two teams that moves to Los Angeles.

Call it a hunch.

Cos LA has such a good record of supporting their football teams. Like the LA Raiders. Whatever happened to them? And the LA Rams. Don't see them around so much.

The Raiders never planned on staying in LA and the Rams' owner was always planning on moving them to St. Louis. Even when the Rams (and I think the Raiders) were there, there games almost always sold out.

This is different. They've got a billionaire willing to pay for the stadium and the people there are just dying for an NFL team. Arnold even wants to put two there. Add to that the slim chances of the SC bill getting passed and it all starts to point towards LA.

Sorry but your first paragraph is simply incorrect. One team at a time:

Rams: you say that the owner was always planning on moving them to St Louis. Um, they were in LA from 1946 to 1994. Always planning? And just to mention, the first relocation attempt was to Baltimore, so you can scarcely say she was always planning on moving to St Louis.

The Raiders "never planned on staying in LA." So Al started lawsuits right and left for what reason? I suspect you are arguing with the benefit of hindsight.

So, with the Rans in place For nearly 50 years and the Raiders for twelve, I am afraid that your argument that both teams were merely fleeting visitors fails.

So why did they both leave? And why has the second biggest city in the US, if I recall correctly, failed to attract replacements to date? I have seen various explanations.

But taking the team from San Francisco, one of the most storied franchises, when there are various teams keen to leave their current
location would be bizarre. Jacksonville, Buffalo, Minnesota, San Diego and Oakland (again) are far higher up the rumour mill.

It is all a part of the fight to get a new stadium. What franchise hasn't threatened to leave in order to get the deal they want?

Frontierre wanted to move the team to St. Louis but she wasn't given total control of the team until the late seventies. She finally got her wish in the early nineties, but IIRC she wanted to do it because she was a St. Louis native.

As for the "storied franchise" argument, look what happened to the Browns under Art Modell.

Originally posted by area49:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by area49:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by area49:
I'd love for it to be built in SF or, failing that, SC or Brisbane. But I really don't see it happening. I think we're going to be one of the two teams that moves to Los Angeles.

Call it a hunch.

Cos LA has such a good record of supporting their football teams. Like the LA Raiders. Whatever happened to them? And the LA Rams. Don't see them around so much.

The Raiders never planned on staying in LA and the Rams' owner was always planning on moving them to St. Louis. Even when the Rams (and I think the Raiders) were there, there games almost always sold out.

This is different. They've got a billionaire willing to pay for the stadium and the people there are just dying for an NFL team. Arnold even wants to put two there. Add to that the slim chances of the SC bill getting passed and it all starts to point towards LA.

Sorry but your first paragraph is simply incorrect. One team at a time:

Rams: you say that the owner was always planning on moving them to St Louis. Um, they were in LA from 1946 to 1994. Always planning? And just to mention, the first relocation attempt was to Baltimore, so you can scarcely say she was always planning on moving to St Louis.

The Raiders "never planned on staying in LA." So Al started lawsuits right and left for what reason? I suspect you are arguing with the benefit of hindsight.

So, with the Rans in place For nearly 50 years and the Raiders for twelve, I am afraid that your argument that both teams were merely fleeting visitors fails.

So why did they both leave? And why has the second biggest city in the US, if I recall correctly, failed to attract replacements to date? I have seen various explanations.

But taking the team from San Francisco, one of the most storied franchises, when there are various teams keen to leave their current
location would be bizarre. Jacksonville, Buffalo, Minnesota, San Diego and Oakland (again) are far higher up the rumour mill.

It is all a part of the fight to get a new stadium. What franchise hasn't threatened to leave in order to get the deal they want?

Frontierre wanted to move the team to St. Louis but she wasn't given total control of the team until the late seventies. She finally got her wish in the early nineties, but IIRC she wanted to do it because she was a St. Louis native.

As for the "storied franchise" argument, look what happened to the Browns under Art Modell.

Both teams left because they couldn't get new stadiums built. Yes Frontierre was a St. Louis native, but she threatened to move the team if they couldn't get a new Stadium. The same thing happened with Davis and the Raiders. Davis also just happens to be one of those litigation happy owners also.

I'm sure if someone took the time to look up Al Davis on Google they would come across press clippings that support both these issues. The Rams issues on the other hand may not be as prevalent, even in Google.

~Ceadder

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by FILTHpigskin:

Originally posted by SacTownNiner88:
Sactown, CA

+1

A guaranteed sellout every game!

Yeah right, sac can't even sellout a kings playoff game

What are you talking about? Up until the economy took a dive and attendance went down everywhere Sacramento held the longest sellout record in the NBA, spanning well over a decade. That was going on during A LOT of bad basketball in one of the NBA's worst arena's.

the economy didn't stop the warrior fans from showing up

they didn't show up to begin with

How about the Presidio?

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by area49:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by area49:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by area49:
I'd love for it to be built in SF or, failing that, SC or Brisbane. But I really don't see it happening. I think we're going to be one of the two teams that moves to Los Angeles.

Call it a hunch.

Cos LA has such a good record of supporting their football teams. Like the LA Raiders. Whatever happened to them? And the LA Rams. Don't see them around so much.

The Raiders never planned on staying in LA and the Rams' owner was always planning on moving them to St. Louis. Even when the Rams (and I think the Raiders) were there, there games almost always sold out.

This is different. They've got a billionaire willing to pay for the stadium and the people there are just dying for an NFL team. Arnold even wants to put two there. Add to that the slim chances of the SC bill getting passed and it all starts to point towards LA.

Sorry but your first paragraph is simply incorrect. One team at a time:

Rams: you say that the owner was always planning on moving them to St Louis. Um, they were in LA from 1946 to 1994. Always planning? And just to mention, the first relocation attempt was to Baltimore, so you can scarcely say she was always planning on moving to St Louis.

The Raiders "never planned on staying in LA." So Al started lawsuits right and left for what reason? I suspect you are arguing with the benefit of hindsight.

So, with the Rans in place For nearly 50 years and the Raiders for twelve, I am afraid that your argument that both teams were merely fleeting visitors fails.

So why did they both leave? And why has the second biggest city in the US, if I recall correctly, failed to attract replacements to date? I have seen various explanations.

But taking the team from San Francisco, one of the most storied franchises, when there are various teams keen to leave their current
location would be bizarre. Jacksonville, Buffalo, Minnesota, San Diego and Oakland (again) are far higher up the rumour mill.

It is all a part of the fight to get a new stadium. What franchise hasn't threatened to leave in order to get the deal they want?

Frontierre wanted to move the team to St. Louis but she wasn't given total control of the team until the late seventies. She finally got her wish in the early nineties, but IIRC she wanted to do it because she was a St. Louis native.

As for the "storied franchise" argument, look what happened to the Browns under Art Modell.

Both teams left because they couldn't get new stadiums built. Yes Frontierre was a St. Louis native, but she threatened to move the team if they couldn't get a new Stadium. The same thing happened with Davis and the Raiders. Davis also just happens to be one of those litigation happy owners also.

I'm sure if someone took the time to look up Al Davis on Google they would come across press clippings that support both these issues. The Rams issues on the other hand may not be as prevalent, even in Google.

~Ceadder

In any case, the point remains that the 49ers are looking for a home, Los Angeles is looking for a team, and no city in the Bay Area wants to give the 49ers a stadium. It seems like the stars are aligned for a move to Tinseltown.

I'm just saying it seems like an inevitability. Right now it seems impossible, but here's how I see it happening. Santa Clara rejects the stadium in June, thus throwing the 49ers into panic mode. We reject the Hunter's Point proposal and the Oakland idea falls through. At that moment, sometime during the summer, Roski and company make the pitch to us to move to Los Angeles. The Yorks, desperate to find a home, decide to go with it.

Candlestick Point. Leave the stadium at the 'sticks