There are 111 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

How did San Francisco lose the 49ers

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Yup. People are more interested in things like "love fest" or sitting in a park smoking weed playing bongo drums.


Yeah, it was very thoughtful of the degenerates attending the 420 "festival" in GG Park to leave so much garbage behind it cost the taxpayers $15K to clean it up. Maybe a few dozen more of those per year will help offset the loss of the Niners. Or not.
Originally posted by Marvin49:
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.

$78 million for 2 years in fees and interest. That's a lot of money for a city with barely more than 100,000 people. Santa Clara is a small town with not much to see. There is a Great America nearby, but that's pretty much it. How much money is the city going to get from tourism?

Many stadium projects have turned into money-losing ventures for the local government. Bloomberg reported in 2012 that in the stadium building spree, US taxpayers lost a cool $4 billion to make NFL owners richer.

I love football, but I'm very skeptical of all the sweet talks of booming economy because of football. There are only 8-10 games in a season, for Pete's sake.
Originally posted by fastforward:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
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.

$78 million for 2 years in fees and interest. That's a lot of money for a city with barely more than 100,000 people. Santa Clara is a small town with not much to see. There is a Great America nearby, but that's pretty much it. How much money is the city going to get from tourism?

Many stadium projects have turned into money-losing ventures for the local government. Bloomberg reported in 2012 that in the stadium building spree, US taxpayers lost a cool $4 billion to make NFL owners richer.

I love football, but I'm very skeptical of all the sweet talks of booming economy because of football. There are only 8-10 games in a season, for Pete's sake.

SC is not stockton...SC doesn't need tourism to survive with the stadium

the 49ers didn't just put down a finger on a map of the bay said lets build here.
Why does anyone think santa clara has money problems
What was stupid was the city tried to dick with the 49ers for ten years, thinking, what are they going to do-move? Guess what happened, they did, then at the last minute they realized the niners were serious and tried to make a last minute better deal, even then, they tried to p***y foot. Then they tried to use law suits such as not allowing the niners to keep the name SF 49ers.

They don't realize the impact the game has, anytime there is a big event, bars and restaurants will be filled if the game is sold out to watch the game. After the game people will go out to eat, drink and etc. Not to mention the people that come from out of town for the game and come early or stay after the game.

Also, in their limited thinking that only the NFL would be using it, if government people got off their butts, it could be filled in between with concerts and other sporting events such as the world cup soccer, maybe a college bowl game, track and field, maybe the Olympics, etc., small mind means nothing gained.

Not to mention the shopping mall that would have generated additional revenue. Plus if they did the infrastructure, it would help not only with game day traffic but overall traffic if done right.
Plus it makes property value skyrocket, adding addional revenue in property taxes.
Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Plus it makes property value skyrocket, adding addional revenue in property taxes.

The South Bay doesn't need a stadium to see its property values skyrocket. It's already one of the most expensive areas in the country.
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?
Its way over 10 years.....

Willie Brown was talking about a new stadium so often late 80s early 90s that I a person that lived in FL knew his name.

We are talking at the LEAST 23 years they have being openly talking about the 49ers needing a new Stadium.
There is not a lot of public information out there about the impact of a football stadium. GreenBay being publically owned gives us a hand in that matter....


They ran a study in 09 about the impact of adding 10,000 extra seats to their stadium.... It was eye opening, add in a preseason game here or a post season game there and you could be at 870k to 1.3 million extra in direct TAX revenue per YEAR for 10,000 seats.

The financial impact was listed at 250 million per year( not in taxes but in money spent in the area due to the ball games)

Build a 70,000 seat stadium from scratch and you could be talking 6-12 million a year in direct taxes( at Greenbay rates not Cali Rates)


ITs hard to even wrap you head around what 250 million extra would do to a region, or how that would effect secondary taxes such as property tax ect...

30 years of a stadium use would be 7.5 Billion in 2009 dollars of Financial impact, 180 million to 360 million in direct Tax Revenue ( based on Greenbays taxes)


Anyone wanna take a shot on how PSL play in to this.....
Remembering the stadium proposal back then, wasn't there a shopping complex that was supposed to be attached to it?
Originally posted by xtm059:
Why does anyone think santa clara has money problems

Seriously.

Look at a map of the companies in this area. The question shouldn't be how many people live in Santa Clara, it should be how many WORK in SC.
Originally posted by fastforward:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
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.

$78 million for 2 years in fees and interest. That's a lot of money for a city with barely more than 100,000 people. Santa Clara is a small town with not much to see. There is a Great America nearby, but that's pretty much it. How much money is the city going to get from tourism?

Many stadium projects have turned into money-losing ventures for the local government. Bloomberg reported in 2012 that in the stadium building spree, US taxpayers lost a cool $4 billion to make NFL owners richer.

I love football, but I'm very skeptical of all the sweet talks of booming economy because of football. There are only 8-10 games in a season, for Pete's sake.

Have you even been to SC? Do you have any idea what companies are within SC's borders? Have you ever heard of the "golden triangle"?

As another poster said...they didn't just pick a random backwater and stick a pin in it. Like it or not much of the MONEY in the Bay Area is NOT in SF. Its in the South Bay. San Jose, which neighbors SC is larger in both size and population than SF. Its the heart of Silicon Valley.

SC already has Great America and the Convention Center which caters to allof those businesses and surrounding city.

Bottom line, SC is doing just fine. Its not like your average taxpayer is taking out a loan to pay off the stadium. The stadium will more than pay for itself and that doesn't even take into account the additional hotel taxes because more people will be staying in those hotels for games, more hotels will be built, more people will make purchases at the proposed new mall project creating more revenue.

Again...this thing isn't being built in a phone booth. You can't look at the stadium all by itself and draw any difinitive conclusions. You have to look at the stadiums effect on the area as a whole.
Hahaha every time I see this thread, I think the title reads, "How did San Francisco lose to the 49ers".
[ Edited by SnakePlissken on Apr 25, 2013 at 3:06 PM ]
The City lost interest (SF season tickets equal Sacramento's season ticket holders).

SC and San Jose together are bigger than SF + Oak. Little brother now towers over older disinterested brother.
They should play at the Cow Palace