There are 391 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

How did San Francisco lose the 49ers

Oh,slight digression - Personally, I don't care if they rename the team - as long as they stay the "49ers."
I blame Gavin anytwosome Newsom
A number of reason...many of which people have already detailed.

1) Money: The City of SF essentially wanted something for nothing. They wanted others to foot the entire bill. They even went so far as to BLAME the 49ers for their failed Olympic bid because the 49ers decided not to build them a free stadium. SC didn't kick that much in either, but they were a much easier entity to deal with than SF. In addition, they COURTED the 49ers instead of sitting back and expecting the team to come to them the way SF did. Someone cited what happened to the Giants. Well the city was REWARDED for it's behavior because the Giants got that stadium built anyway entirely with prigate money. I think they expected the 49ers to eventually cave, but numbers just didn't add up.

2) Parking: Building on the original Candlestick site would create the necessity for the worlds largest parking garage. It would also have put fans in a construction zone for the better part of a decade.

3) Naval Shipyard: The pictures above were "Plan B"...to move the stadium over to the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. It would have been beautiful, but there are MAJOR issues with that site. First, it's surrounded on 3 sides by water. Second, it currently has ZERO freeway access and would require a bridge be built over a small body of water. Who was going to pay for all that? The price of the infrastructure alone might have been more than the cost of the stadium. Third, as an old Naval Shipyard it was what is referred to as a Superfund site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund

Not a garbage dump....a TOXIC WASTE SITE. The government was cleaning it up, but yeah...not a good place to put a stadium.

4) Traffic: The site in SC is built for large events. Great America, Convention Center....that was the point of the site. Large 6 lane roads and 3 freeways. Light and Heavy rail. Just makes more sense.



I blame ALOT of it on the failure of peple in SF to see the big picture. I remember when the first stadium vote came up. All I saw on TV from people was "why should we spend money on a stadium when we have bigger needs for the city". Short sighted. The stadium brings money IN to the city. A new stadium would have brought SUPER BOWLS to SF and that would be even more money coming into the city (at the time 400 mil was the estimate).

People don't understand the difference between an expenditure and an investment. As it is, the City is going to lose alot of money that flowed into it from Candlestick. Alot of that money funded the park service, etc. Now it's gone. Who do they have to blame? Themselves.
[ Edited by Marvin49 on Apr 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM ]
Well going back to the DeBartolo gambling riverboat deal in the 90's which blew up the 100 Million dollar financing that was on the table really muddied the waters.

Bill Walsh's last move to the 49ers was Terry Dona-puke.......BILL WHY WHY DID YOU DO THAT TO US?

Under Terry Dona-puke the 49ers were set back 5 to 7 years......TERRIBLE PLANNING, TERRIBLE DRAFTING.

During this time the 49ers really went into a hole.......the 49ers had absolutely had no clout at this time.

York comes into the ownership, and rubs Bill Walsh the wrong way, the team, the structure, the players, EVERYTHING. HE IS A PILE!!!!! He doesn't know what he is doing and HE FIGHTS WITH GAVIN NEWSOME.

GAVIN NEWSOME couldn't give a crap about the 49ers or football, WHAT A JOKE!!!!

Nolan is named coach, and they rebuild the structure of the team.

Jed York is named owner.

Jed names Dingle-berry coach......AND DRIVES THE TEAM INTO THE GROUND BUT......it makes it possible to GET JIM HARBAUGH

The city doesn't believe the Niners so called bluffs, but I don't think the 49ers ever thought of staying in the city when they could get closer to Silicon Valley.

THE MOVE IS MADE!!!!!!!

The SF fans are SCREWED!!!!!!

But we will have a NEW STADIUM!!!!! HURRAY!
Easy question: SF Politcians and red tape. I don't blame the team one bit after the BS the city pulled
[ Edited by kronik on Apr 22, 2013 at 9:40 AM ]
Originally posted by pdizo916:
What exactly happened between the niners and the city of san francisco? I knew that the team tried to work with the city for at least ten years but no progress was made. I'm curious as to what happened? Was it politics, greed, stupidity, a failed leadership by the mayors of San Francisco? Did San Fran offer up free land like they did the Warriors? Was freeway access the problem? Besides bayview, where else was the proposed stadium suppose to be built? I was thinking right across the street from att where ucsf extension campus is being built.

Could anyone give an explanation on what caused the rift between the niners and the city?

I think you just answered your own question.
Originally posted by LasVegasWally:
There are a lot of reasons that added up.

After YEARS & YEARS of rope-a-dope the 49ers gave up and went to greener pastures.

VERY smart move on their part. VERY, VERY stupid for the city of SF. They lost a bundle.

In NYC the same crap happend w/super taxes etc so the Giants got a GREAT deal from NJ and moved there. Think of all the mullah they lost!

Not very foward think by so-called elite cities.

Good comparison of the Giants moving to NJ.
Originally posted by Marvin49:
A number of reason...many of which people have already detailed.

1) Money: The City of SF essentially wanted something for nothing. They wanted others to foot the entire bill. They even went so far as to BLAME the 49ers for their failed Olympic bid because the 49ers decided not to build them a free stadium. SC didn't kick that much in either, but they were a much easier entity to deal with than SF. In addition, they COURTED the 49ers instead of sitting back and expecting the team to come to them the way SF did. Someone cited what happened to the Giants. Well the city was REWARDED for it's behavior because the Giants got that stadium built anyway entirely with prigate money. I think they expected the 49ers to eventually cave, but numbers just didn't add up.

2) Parking: Building on the original Candlestick site would create the necessity for the worlds largest parking garage. It would also have put fans in a construction zone for the better part of a decade.

3) Naval Shipyard: The pictures above were "Plan B"...to move the stadium over to the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. It would have been beautiful, but there are MAJOR issues with that site. First, it's surrounded on 3 sides by water. Second, it currently has ZERO freeway access and would require a bridge be built over a small body of water. Who was going to pay for all that? The price of the infrastructure alone might have been more than the cost of the stadium. Third, as an old Naval Shipyard it was what is referred to as a Superfund site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund

Not a garbage dump....a TOXIC WASTE SITE. The government was cleaning it up, but yeah...not a good place to put a stadium.

4) Traffic: The site in SC is built for large events. Great America, Convention Center....that was the point of the site. Large 6 lane roads and 3 freeways. Light and Heavy rail. Just makes more sense.



I blame ALOT of it on the failure of peple in SF to see the big picture. I remember when the first stadium vote came up. All I saw on TV from people was "why should we spend money on a stadium when we have bigger needs for the city". Short sighted. The stadium brings money IN to the city. A new stadium would have brought SUPER BOWLS to SF and that would be even more money coming into the city (at the time 400 mil was the estimate).

People don't understand the difference between an expenditure and an investment. As it is, the City is going to lose alot of money that flowed into it from Candlestick. Alot of that money funded the park service, etc. Now it's gone. Who do they have to blame? Themselves.

Excellent synopsis
Excellent comment Marvin!
Originally posted by kronik:
Easy question: SF Politcians and red tape. I don't blame the team one bit after the BS the city pulled

Yeah I think the team has been trying since 93 to get a new stadium...no progress was being made so the Niners had to move on...
Google "49ers and Lennar" and start there.
How did the City of New York and the State of New York lose the Giants and the Jets!!!

How did Dallas lose the Cowboys!
If I recall, there was a $100 mil Bond that was approved by the people of San Francisco to help out with a new stadium. What created the mess was the environmental impact the "powers that be (politicians)" raised (no study at the time). Given that the 49ers really wanted something new to make money off from, they ended up focusing at Santa Clara, where they were more welcoming. Granted, not all the folks at Santa Clara were all for it initially, but they slowly began accepting the idea.

- 98
I'm just glad they're still in the Bay Area. This could have been a Baltimore or Oakland style nightmare. The fact that the Jets and Giants actually play in New Jersey doesn't prevent the people of New York from calling them their team and it doesn't prevent the teams from calling themselves the NY Giants and the NY Jets.

Everyone should keep in mind that San Francisco is one of the smallest "big cities" in the U.S., sitting on the end of a peninsula. There just isn't a lot of space. Traffic is a huge problem. Infrastructure is a problem. If a city like New York, with 8 million residents can live with their stadium not only out of the city but out of the state, San Francisco residents should be able to live with the San Francisco Forty-Niners playing in Santa Clara, a 40 minute train ride down the peninsula. And, this is coming from a long-time San Francisco native.
I actually side with the City. I think all big cities should let their pro teams go out into the suburbs(many already are). These pro teams just make too much of a profit and the big cities have too many other options as well. If I was the mayor of SF or NYC I would make the Pro Team pay for almost everything themselves. Cities like this don't need those teams......they were economic giants, tourist attractions before the team and will be so after.

Now take strong secondary cities like Santa Clara or New Jersey. OK now we are talking...the two entities need each other about equally which is always the best basis for a partnership. The team gets their subsidies and the city gets to climb up a notch on the revenue and reputation ladder. win win.

As for the names of these teams. All parties involve benefit from keeping the more famous metropolis name so really nobody should be arguing about that