There are 68 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Joe Montana: City wasted opportunity

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9880625/joe-montana-says-san-francisco-kept-49ers

After reading what Joe Montana said it got me thinking again and I don't know all the facts so I'm looking for the webzone to help clarify things for me. Montana said in this article San Francisco did a terrible job keeping the team here but didn't the city offer the 49ers a few locations to build a stadium at? I remember re building Candlestick with a mall but the Niners didn't like the location at the stick and the Eddie D legal problems started. They offered the Hunters Point Shipyard Niners said it was a dump and unsafe. They offered them a downtown location near the Giants but they said no cause it's to close to where the Giants play. It seems to me SF offered them a few good spots i mean there's only so much empty land in the city of San Francisco for a stadium. And the Niners rejected them all. I truly believe 49er ownership just wanted the team in Santa Clara for there own personal reasons no SF location would have been good enough for them.
can't wait to see what the new Santa Clara 49ers helmet looks like.
You raise a reasonable point.

The 49ers could have played an entire season at Stanford, demo'd the stick and built a new stadium on site.

Vikings are doing something similar with new stadium.

However the counterpoint in all this is that if building a fancy stadium was the bigger priority , it might not have been feasible in the SF city limits. Especially when you consider super bowl hosting and other marquee events, it becomes trickier.
[ Edited by JTsBiggestFan on Oct 26, 2013 at 11:52 AM ]
You have to understand that while technically the city of San Francisco "offered" several locations that would allow for the construction of a stadium the city was being extremely difficult to work with. None of the sites made sense from a business standpoint and the city refused to contribute any legitimate amount of public funds to the project.
[ Edited by goodthings19 on Oct 26, 2013 at 1:00 PM ]
Originally posted by goodthings19:
You have to understand that while technically the city of San Francisco "offered" several locations that would allow for the construction of a stadium the city was being extremely difficult to work with. None of the sites made sense from a business standpoint and the city was refused to contribute any legitimate amount of public funds to the project.

this
Originally posted by Raul98:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9880625/joe-montana-says-san-francisco-kept-49ers

After reading what Joe Montana said it got me thinking again and I don't know all the facts so I'm looking for the webzone to help clarify things for me. Montana said in this article San Francisco did a terrible job keeping the team here but didn't the city offer the 49ers a few locations to build a stadium at? I remember re building Candlestick with a mall but the Niners didn't like the location at the stick and the Eddie D legal problems started. They offered the Hunters Point Shipyard Niners said it was a dump and unsafe. They offered them a downtown location near the Giants but they said no cause it's to close to where the Giants play. It seems to me SF offered them a few good spots i mean there's only so much empty land in the city of San Francisco for a stadium. And the Niners rejected them all. I truly believe 49er ownership just wanted the team in Santa Clara for there own personal reasons no SF location would have been good enough for them.

I think you have spun it round. I think the team tried hard but the city had no interest.

I don't recall them being offered anywhere except the polluted navy land which would apparently have cost a lot of money to clean up.
Thank God they didn't go with hunters point! I spent a year there when the USS Enterprise was in dry dock and you could not safely walk out of the gate and have a few beers without taking half the ships crew with you. They are right, it is a f'n dump!
Originally posted by JTsBiggestFan:
You raise a reasonable point.

The 49ers could have played an entire season at Stanford, demo'd the stick and built a new stadium on site.

Vikings are doing something similar with new stadium.

However the counterpoint in all this is that if building a fancy stadium was the bigger priority , it might not have been feasible in the SF city limits. Especially when you consider super bowl hosting and other marquee events, it becomes trickier.

One year to build a stadium? Hahaha
Originally posted by English:
I think you have spun it round. I think the team tried hard but the city had no interest.

I don't recall them being offered anywhere except the polluted navy land which would apparently have cost a lot of money to clean up.

They offered to take down candlestick and re build a new stadium there. Like JTsBiggestFan said they could have played at Standford a few seasons while a new stadium was built where Candlestick is. I'm just really disappointed and mad my team is playing outside of the city. It just doesn't feel right I don't know exactly how well city officials worked with the 49ers only they know. I just wish the Yorks could have waited longer but maybe they were tired of waiting. I'm glad this site exists to let people voice there opinions and we can discuss these things so we get different peoples opinions.
Originally posted by Raul98:
Originally posted by English:
I think you have spun it round. I think the team tried hard but the city had no interest.

I don't recall them being offered anywhere except the polluted navy land which would apparently have cost a lot of money to clean up.

They offered to take down candlestick and re build a new stadium there. Like JTsBiggestFan said they could have played at Standford a few seasons while a new stadium was built where Candlestick is. I'm just really disappointed and mad my team is playing outside of the city. It just doesn't feel right I don't know exactly how well city officials worked with the 49ers only they know. I just wish the Yorks could have waited longer but maybe they were tired of waiting. I'm glad this site exists to let people voice there opinions and we can discuss these things so we get different peoples opinions.

I'm just glad the team is in the bay. I'm not too familiar with the city's efforts to keep the team but this is the same city that nearly lost its dear SF giants to tampa. I mean, the city was literally allow one of baseball's crown jewel of a team go to Tampa because they don't want to put up some public money. SMH at san Francisco. I like the city but i hate it also because the lack of "support" for sports.

I think SF was ranked 16th or lower when it came to super bowl ratings. And I don't think they showed the game on the big screen at the civic center like they did the WS. That's pretty f**ked up IMO. Also, I think the Warriors may have to clean up the pier in order to put a new arena there, but I think the city will pay them back eventually. You also have to ask yourself where could they have build a stadium. I was thinking at the new UCSF site right across the street of ATT park. And tailgating and parking could've happened across and under the freeway and also the giants current parking lots.
[ Edited by pdizo916 on Oct 26, 2013 at 1:03 PM ]
Originally posted by mod:
Originally posted by goodthings19:
You have to understand that while technically the city of San Francisco "offered" several locations that would allow for the construction of a stadium the city was being extremely difficult to work with. None of the sites made sense from a business standpoint and the city was refused to contribute any legitimate amount of public funds to the project.

this

RIGHT ON THE MONEY! Former Mayor and current Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom was a giant bag of douche during the entire process.

Remember that when the giant bag of douche runs for Governor kids, and then vote Republican!
[ Edited by billbird2111 on Oct 26, 2013 at 1:12 PM ]
The city did waste an opportunity and obviously could have done more. Even if they demo'd the Stick and rebuilt there, it would be like hanging a new expensive chandelier in an old run down haunted house. Just wouldn't make sense. The immediate area around the Stick (Hunters Point) is a ghetto dump.
[ Edited by sacninesixteen on Oct 26, 2013 at 1:28 PM ]
Originally posted by goodthings19:
You have to understand that while technically the city of San Francisco "offered" several locations that would allow for the construction of a stadium the city was being extremely difficult to work with. None of the sites made sense from a business standpoint and the city refused to contribute any legitimate amount of public funds to the project.

This exactly^
Personally, couldn't care less about the move as long as the team stayed in the Bay Area. Levi's Stadium should ensure that the team stays in the Bay for many, many years to come which is what I care about. A lot of people point fingers at the team and the organization but from my understanding, the team wanted to stay in the city and get something done. It was the city that didn't seem to put much effort in keeping the team there and sat on their hands for YEARS finding a suitable location for the team to move and just didn't get it done. Can't blame the team for moving on and looking elsewhere - the Stick is an old rotting dump surrounded in by the ghetto. They deserved better.
Originally posted by susweel:
can't wait to see what the new Santa Clara 49ers helmet looks like.