New litigation...

Originally posted by Lifer:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by Lifer:
I agree that the new stadium should have been built a decade ago and, while the Yorks share some of the blame, the real reason for failure is the dysfunctional politics of San Francisco. If the 9ers were trying to build this stadium in SF, there would be ten lawsuits right now instead of one. I believe that the main reason the 49ers turned to Santa Clara (and now consider Oakland to be their second best option) is the hostile and dysfunctional political environment in San Francisco.

The SF voters already overwhelmingly approved the stadium proposal and financing. And there can't be any realistic lawsuits that would make a difference because the has sole rights to the land for the stadium, where Cedar Fair has leasehold rights to part of the property to be used. And even if there was a lawsuit it wouldn't be a similar situation because the voters already passed it, the financing is already there, and they could get started pretty quickly. If the Cedar Fair lawsuit has any bearing on voter's opinions that could be the difference maker. No lawsuit could derail a vote in SF, it already passed.

Are you talking about the 1997 stadium/mall proposal? The one that passed by the narrowest margin in city electoral history with all the allegations of ballot tampering and voter fraud? The one that provided $525 million for a stadium that today will cost over a billion dollars? The proposal that's been dead as a doornail for 10 years? The one that Lennar has pulled out of and the 49ers say they have no interest in?

No.

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by Gavintech:
I say thrilled, anything that keeps it out of Santa Clara is good by me. The 49ers belong in San Francisco. And if they are not they should at least be somewhere on the peninsula, with a possible view of the bay. They also need to be somewhere that they can play MNF, and Thursday home games, which it seems will not be possible at the Santa Clara site, all games will be on Sunday afternoons.

Anything but THIS I will be disappointed with...

Where did you read that from?

-9fA

Look it up, man. The Santa Clara proposal requires nearby businesses to give up their parking spots during games. That's easy for them to do on Sunday, when they are closed. But won't be at 2PM Monday afternoon when people started showing up for games.

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by Gavintech:
I say thrilled, anything that keeps it out of Santa Clara is good by me. The 49ers belong in San Francisco. And if they are not they should at least be somewhere on the peninsula, with a possible view of the bay. They also need to be somewhere that they can play MNF, and Thursday home games, which it seems will not be possible at the Santa Clara site, all games will be on Sunday afternoons.

Anything but THIS I will be disappointed with...

Where did you read that from?

-9fA

Look it up, man. The Santa Clara proposal requires nearby businesses to give up their parking spots during games. That's easy for them to do on Sunday, when they are closed. But won't be at 2PM Monday afternoon when people started showing up for games.

Unless the plan strictly states that Primetime games are not going to be permitted at the new stadium due to parking restrictions, then I'll believe you. Until then, it's speculation in my eyes. I am too lazy to search for it myself.

It's difficult for me to see the Yorks approving a plan if this were the case.

-9fA

They sued saying the environment is at risk. Made me wonder how exactly Great America theme park that uses a tremendous amount of power to operate every day of the week through Spring/Summer, with daily crowds creating garbage, using toilets, is so good for the environment. LOL

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
It's difficult for me to see the Yorks approving a plan if this were the case.

They seem to want this Santa Clara thing at all costs, no matter what other options are out there. I think there is some sort of unknown motive. I know this sounds silly but the only thing I can think of is they just don't like driving to the city on game days, that is the best I can come up with.

There have been quotes saying they will deal with not being able to have MNF games, as well as the NFL saying they would not be happy if that happened.

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
It's difficult for me to see the Yorks approving a plan if this were the case.

They seem to want this Santa Clara thing at all costs, no matter what other options are out there. I think there is some sort of unknown motive. I know this sounds silly but the only thing I can think of is they just don't like driving to the city on game days, that is the best I can come up with.

There have been quotes saying they will deal with not being able to have MNF games, as well as the NFL saying they would not be happy if that happened.

On that note...

---
The owners of the San Francisco 49ers selected Santa Clara over San Francisco because public money was pledged by the City of Santa Clara and no such offer was made by the City of San Francisco, according to an professional source associated with the San Francisco 49ers.

The source, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that both John York and his son, Jed York, now team president, made the selection of Santa Clara over San Francisco solely for financial reasons, and not the public reason that they gave regarding parking and transportation access when they announced San Francisco was their second choice for a stadium site.

The package deal being offered by Santa Clara amounts to close to $500 million, according to the source. The City of San Francisco offered no public money to the team, but instead private developer Lennar Corp. pledged $100 million to build the pad and infrastructure for the 49ers at the former Hunters Point Navy site in San Francisco.

“It was a no-brainer for the York family to accept the Santa Clara offer, which covers nearly half the cost of a new stadium versus the $100 million offer that came from Lennar,” according to the source. “The choice was never about parking and traffic access in San Francisco, it was purely a financial decision by the York family because they would get greater benefit from public money in Santa Clara.”

The York family, listed in business publications as having substantially more than $1 billion in assets, has come under criticism for how it has presented information to the public both in San Francisco and in Santa Clara in its attempt to build a new stadium for the franchise.

This past week the Santa Clara City election officials announced that the June ballot measure to approve the funding plan for the 49ers would be entitled ‘Measure J”.

The Santa Clara stadium plan has also been criticized for its lack of information regarding parking and traffic access. The team has pledged to forgo Monday Night Football unless it is able to roundup enough. Lastly, there is the possibility that the Oakland Raiders will also share the stadium, bringing rowdy Raiders fans to Santa Clara and doubling the use of the stadium, creating weekend traffic gridlock and parking issues.
---

Consider the source...

Dude, if you want the 49ers to build a stadium in San Francisco rather than Santa Clara, that's fine. Just say so. But don't go quoting a bunch of yellow journalism, and spreading complete speculation as fact. The San Francisco Sentinel? Are you serious? They're less credible than Fox News. There won't be any Monday night games? Oh nos! And you know what else? Season ticket holders will have to go before a "death panel" every six months so they can sell your tickets to someone younger!!!!

Originally posted by Lifer:
Consider the source...

Dude, if you want the 49ers to build a stadium in San Francisco rather than Santa Clara, that's fine. Just say so. But don't go quoting a bunch of yellow journalism, and spreading complete speculation as fact. The San Francisco Sentinel? Are you serious? They're less credible than Fox News. There won't be any Monday night games? Oh nos! And you know what else? Season ticket holders will have to go before a "death panel" every six months so they can sell your tickets to someone younger!!!!

I just posted the first thing I found. It's just as credible as anything else. Did you find anything saying there would be Monday night games? Find one source, even if it's only as credible as the Sentinel, and you might have a point. Until then every mention of it can have seen says there is a real chance and probability that there will be no Monday, Thursday, or Saturday night games at the Santa Clara stadium.

Of course it is speculation at this point, but it's speculation based on the facts, and none of the speculation contradicts the thought that there is not going to be any MNF if the Santa Clara stadium gets built.

Thanks for the link Gavintech

But wow, is that whole article one-sided. I haven't read anything about the proposal to forgo MNF games anywhere else. I'll do a little bit of my own research to see if I can find anything else to substantiate the claims.

-9fA

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Thanks for the link Gavintech

But wow, is that whole article one-sided. I haven't read anything about the proposal to forgo MNF games anywhere else. I'll do a little bit of my own research to see if I can find anything else to substantiate the claims.

-9fA

It's all over the place. I've read it mentioned in no less than 20 different places. There was also at least one thread about it right here in the WZ a couple months back when it was first brought up.

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Thanks for the link Gavintech

But wow, is that whole article one-sided. I haven't read anything about the proposal to forgo MNF games anywhere else. I'll do a little bit of my own research to see if I can find anything else to substantiate the claims.

-9fA

Don't remember the name of the article but a Merc Reporter wrote an article a day or two ago giving both sides of the argument. If you want to know the name of the article listen to Bruce's final hour on the KNBR site. I didn't write it down or I would have the title of it for everyone. Sorry guys.

~Ceadder

So what's the chance that Gavintech is actually Gavin Newsom, coming to the WZ to try and fight the move to SC?

Originally posted by StOnEy333:
So what's the chance that Gavintech is actually Gavin Newsom, coming to the WZ to try and fight the move to SC?

don't put it past Gavin Newsom, hes a slime ball. Just ask his ex best friend.

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by SnakePlissken:

Is that one of the Road Warriors Snake?

I know I've seen the guy before but I'm at a loss as to where.

~Ceadder

I smell a morphing gif in the making

Originally posted by midrdan:
The litigation is not going to result in a deal killer by any means and people better get used to the idea of having the stadium next to an amusement park in Santa Clara, because there is simply no other place in the Bay Area that is a sustainable alternative cite.

The bottom line is that the 49ers play in one of the most outdated stadiums in the country, with terrible parking, terrible access, and archaic concessions. And the stadium is not even located in San Francisco County, so balking at the 49ers moving away from their "proper place" makes no sense, unless you believe their proper place is in Daly City.

The 49ers' facilities have been located in Santa Clara for over 2 decades. Most of the players and personnel live in the South Bay or in San Mateo County. Most of the fans and sponsors are located in the South Bay. Building a new stadium in the South Bay makes the most sense geographically and financially. Hell, San Francisco can't/won't support a new venue outside of Hunter's Point and would have to essentially relocate thousands of people to even accomplish that proposal.

Daly City?? 602 JAMESTOWN AVE. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124