IF IT COMES DOWN TO IT, WOULD YOU SHARE THE NEW STADIUM W/ THE RAIDERS ?

I don't see any problem with sharing a stadium. It really makes no sense to be against it.

[ Edited by LAFortyNinerfan on Jun 12, 2010 at 15:54:09 ]

Originally posted by cubanb:

Originally posted by Daniel2778:
i would, i dont understand what the big deal is

No! It would be a classy organization partnered with bums

Originally posted by sincalfaithful:
No! It would be a classy organization partnered with bums

YUP :

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
PHU@K NO!!!

Can you imagine having their fans and our fans in the same building during the inevitable match-ups?

This is a REEEEEEEAAAAAAALLY Bad idea.

They didn't ask the Cowturds to share their digs with the Texans did they?

This is why the stadium needs to be built in the City. Obviously it's been voted on and passed in Santa Clara. But the thing is that they don't have $500 million of the building costs, so let's get down to Brass Tax. Policy and company have more investors who DO have the money or are at least close enough that the league can't strong arm the team to get what they want. It's BS(!!!) that we're even in this position. We're one of the 3 PREMIER franchises. Those being the Cowturds, the Squealers and us. We DESERVE our own diggs. The league has MORE than enough to put into escrow for all 32 teams if they thought there was a budget shortfall or if they thought that all the stadiums needed to be replaced.

PHU@K THE KRYPT KEEPER AND THE RAITARDS!

~Ceadder

Not sure what decade you are living in, but the Niners are no longer, and have not been for some time, one of the NFL's premier franchises. I would say NYG or the Pats have replaced us in that list. The Niners get absolutely no credit for their glorious past, nor should we.

Name any other team that has FIVE Super Bowl Championships to their name?

When you have that you're still premier. Have we gone through a dry spell? Hell yes we have. No team is going to have winning decades forever. Be happy we had two. Neither the Cowturds or the Squealers can say that. And we're on the upswing of the pendulum my friend.

So yes, by your definition this team is not premier. But by the very definition, they are. Arguing otherwise is semantics imho.

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Dallas and Houston are 4 hours apart so that comparison doesn't really fly.

I do hate the Raiders but I like having them in the Bay Area if that makes sense. The Bay Area is one of two metro media markets that support two NFL teams and it makes zero sense for one metro area to spend two billion on two stadiums when they'll never be in use on the same day.

As far as the Niner-Raider match-ups, the crowd will be partisan for which-ever team is designated as the home team that day . . . it won't be a 50-50 crowd.

It does fly because Jones wanted a new Stadium back when the Texans were first coming back to the league. The league didn't ask them to pick a place in between both locations and share a stadium. You didn't see the league tell the Rams they must share Arrowhead with the Chiefs. They aren't very far from each other. Miami and Tampa? Yes I know the distance involved there.

Point is this team should have had a stadium long before now.

And dude, you're right it won't be a 50/50 crowd. We'd get overrun by the Black and Silver clown brigade.

And it makes NO sense at all to share a stadium with them. We got along fine for years without them, we've been in the league since '46 and to me this is an affront to the organization the team and the fans of this team.

~Ceadder

[ Edited by Ceadderman on Jun 13, 2010 at 02:56:32 ]

No. Yorks need to get it done without Al Davis.

Not if it is going to be in santa clara as it is.If they stay in frisco the maybe.

YES, I THINK THEY DESERVE TO DIE!

I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL!

Originally posted by TDilvr:

Originally posted by SoCal9er:
No because the stereotypical Raiders fans would tear that stadium up.

Yes these are exactly my sentiments. Though I live in MO and simply can't come to most of the home games. However, when I do get a rare opportunity to go to a home game, I'd prefer not to see Raiduhz shiat and gang insignia all over the seats, bathroom walls and stalls nor would do I think the custodial staff would much appreciate washing 9ers suck, 9ers r gay and whatever else these "clever" miscreants can come up with.

No thanks!!! And Goodell can suck it. As a commish, he's been a dumbass as well as a foe of the 9ers thus far. He's probably a Packer or Cowboy fan.

That does seem like a legitimate concern. Of course it makes sense that two teams located so close together should share a stadium and save a billion. But a lot of Raider fans seem to take pride in acting like....RAIDERS. Not sure how many dollars the Raider organization would contribute to the project, but if the perception to Raider fans is that they are going to see the Raiders play in the Niners house, how much respect they will have for the place? That stadium full of pissed off, drunk Raider fans after a big beat down by the Chargers or Broncos, Good luck security.

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
PHU@K NO!!!

Can you imagine having their fans and our fans in the same building during the inevitable match-ups?

This is a REEEEEEEAAAAAAALLY Bad idea.

They didn't ask the Cowturds to share their digs with the Texans did they?

This is why the stadium needs to be built in the City. Obviously it's been voted on and passed in Santa Clara. But the thing is that they don't have $500 million of the building costs, so let's get down to Brass Tax. Policy and company have more investors who DO have the money or are at least close enough that the league can't strong arm the team to get what they want. It's BS(!!!) that we're even in this position. We're one of the 3 PREMIER franchises. Those being the Cowturds, the Squealers and us. We DESERVE our own diggs. The league has MORE than enough to put into escrow for all 32 teams if they thought there was a budget shortfall or if they thought that all the stadiums needed to be replaced.

PHU@K THE KRYPT KEEPER AND THE RAITARDS!

~Ceadder

Not sure what decade you are living in, but the Niners are no longer, and have not been for some time, one of the NFL's premier franchises. I would say NYG or the Pats have replaced us in that list. The Niners get absolutely no credit for their glorious past, nor should we.

Name any other team that has FIVE Super Bowl Championships to their name?

When you have that you're still premier. Have we gone through a dry spell? Hell yes we have. No team is going to have winning decades forever. Be happy we had two. Neither the Cowturds or the Squealers can say that. And we're on the upswing of the pendulum my friend.

So yes, by your definition this team is not premier. But by the very definition, they are. Arguing otherwise is semantics imho.

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Dallas and Houston are 4 hours apart so that comparison doesn't really fly.

I do hate the Raiders but I like having them in the Bay Area if that makes sense. The Bay Area is one of two metro media markets that support two NFL teams and it makes zero sense for one metro area to spend two billion on two stadiums when they'll never be in use on the same day.

As far as the Niner-Raider match-ups, the crowd will be partisan for which-ever team is designated as the home team that day . . . it won't be a 50-50 crowd.

It does fly because Jones wanted a new Stadium back when the Texans were first coming back to the league. The league didn't ask them to pick a place in between both locations and share a stadium. You didn't see the league tell the Rams they must share Arrowhead with the Chiefs. They aren't very far from each other. Miami and Tampa? Yes I know the distance involved there.

Point is this team should have had a stadium long before now.

And dude, you're right it won't be a 50/50 crowd. We'd get overrun by the Black and Silver clown brigade.

And it makes NO sense at all to share a stadium with them. We got along fine for years without them, we've been in the league since '46 and to me this is an affront to the organization the team and the fans of this team.

~Ceadder

Houston and St. Louis financed their stadiums without NFL assistance and the league isn't about to tell the Dallas Cowboys they have to play in Houston.

Yes we've gotten on fine without sharing with the Raiders so far, but the fact is both teams currently have run-down stadiums and it would be a ridiculous undertaking for one area to spend that much $$$ on two venues. There's not a public entity in the Bay Area that would EVER approve financing for the bulk of construction costs like other cities have done around the country and naming right revenue opportunities have dried up with the economy. This makes us beholdent to the NFL's conditions if we want their help to finance the new stadium.

LMAO at Ceadder who still thinks we are living 20 years ago, as well as SF being a better option. .....

no ... f**k raiders ...

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
PHU@K NO!!!

Can you imagine having their fans and our fans in the same building during the inevitable match-ups?

This is a REEEEEEEAAAAAAALLY Bad idea.

They didn't ask the Cowturds to share their digs with the Texans did they?

This is why the stadium needs to be built in the City. Obviously it's been voted on and passed in Santa Clara. But the thing is that they don't have $500 million of the building costs, so let's get down to Brass Tax. Policy and company have more investors who DO have the money or are at least close enough that the league can't strong arm the team to get what they want. It's BS(!!!) that we're even in this position. We're one of the 3 PREMIER franchises. Those being the Cowturds, the Squealers and us. We DESERVE our own diggs. The league has MORE than enough to put into escrow for all 32 teams if they thought there was a budget shortfall or if they thought that all the stadiums needed to be replaced.

PHU@K THE KRYPT KEEPER AND THE RAITARDS!

~Ceadder

Not sure what decade you are living in, but the Niners are no longer, and have not been for some time, one of the NFL's premier franchises. I would say NYG or the Pats have replaced us in that list. The Niners get absolutely no credit for their glorious past, nor should we.

Name any other team that has FIVE Super Bowl Championships to their name?

When you have that you're still premier. Have we gone through a dry spell? Hell yes we have. No team is going to have winning decades forever. Be happy we had two. Neither the Cowturds or the Squealers can say that. And we're on the upswing of the pendulum my friend.

So yes, by your definition this team is not premier. But by the very definition, they are. Arguing otherwise is semantics imho.

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Dallas and Houston are 4 hours apart so that comparison doesn't really fly.

I do hate the Raiders but I like having them in the Bay Area if that makes sense. The Bay Area is one of two metro media markets that support two NFL teams and it makes zero sense for one metro area to spend two billion on two stadiums when they'll never be in use on the same day.

As far as the Niner-Raider match-ups, the crowd will be partisan for which-ever team is designated as the home team that day . . . it won't be a 50-50 crowd.

It does fly because Jones wanted a new Stadium back when the Texans were first coming back to the league. The league didn't ask them to pick a place in between both locations and share a stadium. You didn't see the league tell the Rams they must share Arrowhead with the Chiefs. They aren't very far from each other. Miami and Tampa? Yes I know the distance involved there.

Point is this team should have had a stadium long before now.

And dude, you're right it won't be a 50/50 crowd. We'd get overrun by the Black and Silver clown brigade.

And it makes NO sense at all to share a stadium with them. We got along fine for years without them, we've been in the league since '46 and to me this is an affront to the organization the team and the fans of this team.

~Ceadder

Houston and St. Louis financed their stadiums without NFL assistance and the league isn't about to tell the Dallas Cowboys they have to play in Houston.

Yes we've gotten on fine without sharing with the Raiders so far, but the fact is both teams currently have run-down stadiums and it would be a ridiculous undertaking for one area to spend that much $$$ on two venues. There's not a public entity in the Bay Area that would EVER approve financing for the bulk of construction costs like other cities have done around the country and naming right revenue opportunities have dried up with the economy. This makes us beholdent to the NFL's conditions if we want their help to finance the new stadium.

Sorry Mate, that's according to you. Neither team has had their own digs built from scratch since Kezar for the 9ers. In any case teams that reside in the same city do it all the time and seem to find an area to build in quite easily.

It's BS that you use the "waste of money" excuse. The NFL is only trying to get out of being a major contributer. Because if Davis WERE to join in then the amount they have to contribute is a paltry sum. They didn't have any issues helping the Ravens. Didn't have any prolems helping the Cowboys and all the other teams. They don't seem to have any problems loaning money to them. But our team its' like Goodell and the League seem to like stickin it to us every chance they get. PHU@K THAT!

I'd sooner step out on a BUSY SF International runway and try to shag incoming planes with a ball glove than have this crap go down. It's BS.

~Ceadder

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
PHU@K NO!!!

Can you imagine having their fans and our fans in the same building during the inevitable match-ups?

This is a REEEEEEEAAAAAAALLY Bad idea.

They didn't ask the Cowturds to share their digs with the Texans did they?

This is why the stadium needs to be built in the City. Obviously it's been voted on and passed in Santa Clara. But the thing is that they don't have $500 million of the building costs, so let's get down to Brass Tax. Policy and company have more investors who DO have the money or are at least close enough that the league can't strong arm the team to get what they want. It's BS(!!!) that we're even in this position. We're one of the 3 PREMIER franchises. Those being the Cowturds, the Squealers and us. We DESERVE our own diggs. The league has MORE than enough to put into escrow for all 32 teams if they thought there was a budget shortfall or if they thought that all the stadiums needed to be replaced.

PHU@K THE KRYPT KEEPER AND THE RAITARDS!

~Ceadder

Not sure what decade you are living in, but the Niners are no longer, and have not been for some time, one of the NFL's premier franchises. I would say NYG or the Pats have replaced us in that list. The Niners get absolutely no credit for their glorious past, nor should we.

Name any other team that has FIVE Super Bowl Championships to their name?

When you have that you're still premier. Have we gone through a dry spell? Hell yes we have. No team is going to have winning decades forever. Be happy we had two. Neither the Cowturds or the Squealers can say that. And we're on the upswing of the pendulum my friend.

So yes, by your definition this team is not premier. But by the very definition, they are. Arguing otherwise is semantics imho.

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Dallas and Houston are 4 hours apart so that comparison doesn't really fly.

I do hate the Raiders but I like having them in the Bay Area if that makes sense. The Bay Area is one of two metro media markets that support two NFL teams and it makes zero sense for one metro area to spend two billion on two stadiums when they'll never be in use on the same day.

As far as the Niner-Raider match-ups, the crowd will be partisan for which-ever team is designated as the home team that day . . . it won't be a 50-50 crowd.

It does fly because Jones wanted a new Stadium back when the Texans were first coming back to the league. The league didn't ask them to pick a place in between both locations and share a stadium. You didn't see the league tell the Rams they must share Arrowhead with the Chiefs. They aren't very far from each other. Miami and Tampa? Yes I know the distance involved there.

Point is this team should have had a stadium long before now.

And dude, you're right it won't be a 50/50 crowd. We'd get overrun by the Black and Silver clown brigade.

And it makes NO sense at all to share a stadium with them. We got along fine for years without them, we've been in the league since '46 and to me this is an affront to the organization the team and the fans of this team.

~Ceadder

Houston and St. Louis financed their stadiums without NFL assistance and the league isn't about to tell the Dallas Cowboys they have to play in Houston.

Yes we've gotten on fine without sharing with the Raiders so far, but the fact is both teams currently have run-down stadiums and it would be a ridiculous undertaking for one area to spend that much $$$ on two venues. There's not a public entity in the Bay Area that would EVER approve financing for the bulk of construction costs like other cities have done around the country and naming right revenue opportunities have dried up with the economy. This makes us beholdent to the NFL's conditions if we want their help to finance the new stadium.

Sorry Mate, that's according to you. Neither team has had their own digs built from scratch since Kezar for the 9ers. In any case teams that reside in the same city do it all the time and seem to find an area to build in quite easily.

It's BS that you use the "waste of money" excuse. The NFL is only trying to get out of being a major contributer. Because if Davis WERE to join in then the amount they have to contribute is a paltry sum. They didn't have any issues helping the Ravens. Didn't have any prolems helping the Cowboys and all the other teams. They don't seem to have any problems loaning money to them. But our team its' like Goodell and the League seem to like stickin it to us every chance they get. PHU@K THAT!

I'd sooner step out on a BUSY SF International runway and try to shag incoming planes with a ball glove than have this crap go down. It's BS.

~Ceadder

Where do you live, Ceadder?

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
PHU@K NO!!!

Can you imagine having their fans and our fans in the same building during the inevitable match-ups?

This is a REEEEEEEAAAAAAALLY Bad idea.

They didn't ask the Cowturds to share their digs with the Texans did they?

This is why the stadium needs to be built in the City. Obviously it's been voted on and passed in Santa Clara. But the thing is that they don't have $500 million of the building costs, so let's get down to Brass Tax. Policy and company have more investors who DO have the money or are at least close enough that the league can't strong arm the team to get what they want. It's BS(!!!) that we're even in this position. We're one of the 3 PREMIER franchises. Those being the Cowturds, the Squealers and us. We DESERVE our own diggs. The league has MORE than enough to put into escrow for all 32 teams if they thought there was a budget shortfall or if they thought that all the stadiums needed to be replaced.

PHU@K THE KRYPT KEEPER AND THE RAITARDS!

~Ceadder

Not sure what decade you are living in, but the Niners are no longer, and have not been for some time, one of the NFL's premier franchises. I would say NYG or the Pats have replaced us in that list. The Niners get absolutely no credit for their glorious past, nor should we.

Name any other team that has FIVE Super Bowl Championships to their name?

When you have that you're still premier. Have we gone through a dry spell? Hell yes we have. No team is going to have winning decades forever. Be happy we had two. Neither the Cowturds or the Squealers can say that. And we're on the upswing of the pendulum my friend.

So yes, by your definition this team is not premier. But by the very definition, they are. Arguing otherwise is semantics imho.

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Dallas and Houston are 4 hours apart so that comparison doesn't really fly.

I do hate the Raiders but I like having them in the Bay Area if that makes sense. The Bay Area is one of two metro media markets that support two NFL teams and it makes zero sense for one metro area to spend two billion on two stadiums when they'll never be in use on the same day.

As far as the Niner-Raider match-ups, the crowd will be partisan for which-ever team is designated as the home team that day . . . it won't be a 50-50 crowd.

It does fly because Jones wanted a new Stadium back when the Texans were first coming back to the league. The league didn't ask them to pick a place in between both locations and share a stadium. You didn't see the league tell the Rams they must share Arrowhead with the Chiefs. They aren't very far from each other. Miami and Tampa? Yes I know the distance involved there.

Point is this team should have had a stadium long before now.

And dude, you're right it won't be a 50/50 crowd. We'd get overrun by the Black and Silver clown brigade.

And it makes NO sense at all to share a stadium with them. We got along fine for years without them, we've been in the league since '46 and to me this is an affront to the organization the team and the fans of this team.

~Ceadder

Houston and St. Louis financed their stadiums without NFL assistance and the league isn't about to tell the Dallas Cowboys they have to play in Houston.

Yes we've gotten on fine without sharing with the Raiders so far, but the fact is both teams currently have run-down stadiums and it would be a ridiculous undertaking for one area to spend that much $$$ on two venues. There's not a public entity in the Bay Area that would EVER approve financing for the bulk of construction costs like other cities have done around the country and naming right revenue opportunities have dried up with the economy. This makes us beholdent to the NFL's conditions if we want their help to finance the new stadium.

Sorry Mate, that's according to you. Neither team has had their own digs built from scratch since Kezar for the 9ers. In any case teams that reside in the same city do it all the time and seem to find an area to build in quite easily.

It's BS that you use the "waste of money" excuse. The NFL is only trying to get out of being a major contributer. Because if Davis WERE to join in then the amount they have to contribute is a paltry sum. They didn't have any issues helping the Ravens. Didn't have any prolems helping the Cowboys and all the other teams. They don't seem to have any problems loaning money to them. But our team its' like Goodell and the League seem to like stickin it to us every chance they get. PHU@K THAT!

I'd sooner step out on a BUSY SF International runway and try to shag incoming planes with a ball glove than have this crap go down. It's BS.

~Ceadder

I don't give a s**t about the NFL's money . . . let them throw around all the money they want on what they want. Assuming the NFL contributes to a two team stadium, their funding should be proportionate with previous G3 stadium fund contributions . . . x2

And who does it all the time . . . . what other two team markets are there? One . . . New York . . . where they will be sharing a new stadium.

The waste I'm talking about is the tax and treasure coming from Bay Area coffers that would be required for two new stadiums as opposed to one.