There are 70 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

How did San Francisco lose the 49ers

Originally posted by Marvin49:

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.


There was a lot of organized resistance from the residents. They simply don't want a big noisy stadium, and don't like the idea of paying for it.

It's actually like a business life cycle. At first everything is built and then expands and everybody is enthusiastic. Then as the business becomes more successful, it expands more broadly, and focuses more on efficiency than on innovation. Then it focuses on bureaucracy and shareholder value. It completely forgets where it came from and why it was successful in the first place, it only cares about it's stock price, and now it can't compete with the new innovators.

San Francisco is comfortable and established, and the residents like it because of what it is now, not because of it's future. This allows other cities to come in and innovate and build towards a better future. It's no different from any other big city. Everything is based upon some kind of cycle.
Originally posted by BrianGO:
Originally posted by Marvin49:

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.


There was a lot of organized resistance from the residents. They simply don't want a big noisy stadium, and don't like the idea of paying for it.

It's actually like a business life cycle. At first everything is built and then expands and everybody is enthusiastic. Then as the business becomes more successful, it expands more broadly, and focuses more on efficiency than on innovation. Then it focuses on bureaucracy and shareholder value. It completely forgets where it came from and why it was successful in the first place, it only cares about it's stock price, and now it can't compete with the new innovators.

San Francisco is comfortable and established, and the residents like it because of what it is now, not because of it's future. This allows other cities to come in and innovate and build towards a better future. It's no different from any other big city. Everything is based upon some kind of cycle.

I get your point, but SF is just different than any other city. Way too much politics.

As for the residents not wanting a big noisy stadium....Candlestick is ALREADY there. The new stadium wouldn't infringe on anyone. In fact, that is a larger concern in SC than in SF.

The problem is simply short-sightedness. Not to get too political myself but its similar to National Politics. One side yells cut all spending. They don't understand that some spending is an investment and the return is far greater than the original expenditure. You don't grow an economy by not spending money. you grow it by speding it on things that return more than your investment. in the 50's and 60's we build infrastructure all over this country. That created jobs and built the economy. Now we have a crubling infrastructure and nobody seems to have the forethought to realize that is an avenue to fix alot of our problems.

Again...I'm not trying to be political...I'm using it as an analogy.

If SF had realized the oportunity that they had instead of concentrating on nothing but the here and now, they'd still have the team and would probably be hosting Super Bowls already. They'd be making MORE money than they do at Candlestick.
Fans from San Francisco had the same percentage of season ticket holders as Sacramento (10%). More San Joseans by far than San Franciscans. Move the team closer to the fan base.
Because John York refused McGowan's offer of playing at AT&T Park with the Giants
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
How was it political ..when the city of SF voted against it ?

i blame the residents more then the SF's office ( SF had their chances and voted no )

There was no support from local politicians, so it was unlikely the public was going to vote for an unspecified stadium. It was very poorly presented and did not deserve to pass, as both the 9ers and the city were arrogant. If Eddie had not been caught making payoffs to politicians in other states, I believe the stadium may have succeeded. He has a knowledge of development and would have done a good job selling it to the city...the biggest shopping center in the world!

All said and done, the current location is much better than any SF location as for as access goes and fans will travel the few miles willingly. It is also better for many of us who do not live in the bay area...don't have to worry about the bay bridge!
Originally posted by Gore_21:
Originally posted by Chico:
like everything else in this world, it more than likely came down to MONEY!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Yeah, the city probably wanted the team to pay for all or most of it and the team probably wanted the city to pay a good chunk.

That's what I remember. SF wanted the 49ers to follow the example of the Giants - self-financing the whole she-bang. The 49ers were willing to do that, but wanted concessions from the city on a lot of things. The issue went to the voters, and SF voters voted down the whole thing. Santa Clara jumped in and gave the 49ers the better deal.

Personally I don't want to lose the team, but if the whole thing came down to a vote, and if I had to foot the bills, I'd vote no.
Originally posted by Marvin49:
I get your point, but SF is just different than any other city. Way too much politics.

As for the residents not wanting a big noisy stadium....Candlestick is ALREADY there. The new stadium wouldn't infringe on anyone. In fact, that is a larger concern in SC than in SF.

The problem is simply short-sightedness. Not to get too political myself but its similar to National Politics. One side yells cut all spending. They don't understand that some spending is an investment and the return is far greater than the original expenditure. You don't grow an economy by not spending money. you grow it by speding it on things that return more than your investment. in the 50's and 60's we build infrastructure all over this country. That created jobs and built the economy. Now we have a crubling infrastructure and nobody seems to have the forethought to realize that is an avenue to fix alot of our problems.

Again...I'm not trying to be political...I'm using it as an analogy.

If SF had realized the oportunity that they had instead of concentrating on nothing but the here and now, they'd still have the team and would probably be hosting Super Bowls already. They'd be making MORE money than they do at Candlestick.

Football stadiums are too expensive as there are too few games per year. The 49ers have to do extremely well on the field for the city of Santa Clara to cover its bets. According to Bloomberg, the cost to the city by 2015 will already be $78 million in fees and interest. Considering that Santa Clara only has slightly more than 100 thousand residents. That's close to $750 per head.
SF probably makes enough money from the Giants, warriors possibly on the way and other events so they decided to let the niners slip away from them.


Big mistake
The A's should move into Candlestick....demolish the outfield stands like they did w/ Anaheim Stadium and make it a serviceable baseball field again...San Francisco Athletics of Oakland LOL

Territorial rights dispute solved! (won't happen lol)
[ Edited by Dr_Bill_Walsh on Apr 22, 2013 at 6:35 PM ]
Mayor Gavin.
santa clara ftw
Originally posted by danimal:
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

Absolutely! The South Bay gets more revenue, they're still the San Francisco 49ers, when a Super Bowl comes to town, SF will still see a huge jump in tourist dollars, the Niners play right where they practice - no more bus rides through 101 traffic, the weather is better, the team gets more corporate revenue to compete with the Jerry Jones's of the world, the stadium will be state-of-the-art, since lots of the licenses are going to corporate groups who's members are not necessarily into it all the way, there will probably be more seats available on any given Sunday for regular working people to purchase through third parties at reasonable prices, etc. etc. This is all good. There is no need to grip or panic.
so is the new name Santa Clara 49ers starting next year also ?
No. I think this has been made very clear. They are still the San Francisco 49ers. It's not the Jersey Jets or the New Jersey Giants. It's the New York Giants and the New York Jets. There's precedent on this, people. Why are so many of you pretending there is a problem with the name?

It's not the Arlington Cowboys. Their stadium is closer to Fort Worth than it is to Dallas. It's not the Fort Worth Cowboys.
Originally posted by fastforward:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
I get your point, but SF is just different than any other city. Way too much politics.

As for the residents not wanting a big noisy stadium....Candlestick is ALREADY there. The new stadium wouldn't infringe on anyone. In fact, that is a larger concern in SC than in SF.

The problem is simply short-sightedness. Not to get too political myself but its similar to National Politics. One side yells cut all spending. They don't understand that some spending is an investment and the return is far greater than the original expenditure. You don't grow an economy by not spending money. you grow it by speding it on things that return more than your investment. in the 50's and 60's we build infrastructure all over this country. That created jobs and built the economy. Now we have a crubling infrastructure and nobody seems to have the forethought to realize that is an avenue to fix alot of our problems.

Again...I'm not trying to be political...I'm using it as an analogy.

If SF had realized the oportunity that they had instead of concentrating on nothing but the here and now, they'd still have the team and would probably be hosting Super Bowls already. They'd be making MORE money than they do at Candlestick.

Football stadiums are too expensive as there are too few games per year. The 49ers have to do extremely well on the field for the city of Santa Clara to cover its bets. According to Bloomberg, the cost to the city by 2015 will already be $78 million in fees and interest. Considering that Santa Clara only has slightly more than 100 thousand residents. That's close to $750 per head.

...and how much will the city make when a Super Bowl is hosted in the City? How much will the City make of tax revenue from the Montana/DeBartolo project that wouldn't be there without the stadium. How much revenue will be made off of the new Mall complex being proposed in place of the Golf Course that, AGAIN, wouldn't be there if not for the stadium.

This is my point. Short sighted. You can't look at the stadium in a phone booth. The stadium is just a catalyst to all sorts of other recenue creating projects.

78 Mil? Are you joking? The stadium cost 1.2 BILLION. Thats less than 10 percent of the total.
[ Edited by Marvin49 on Apr 23, 2013 at 10:38 AM ]