View Full Version : New twists to Niners stadium deal
49ers169
11-10-2006, 05:46 PM
This is very disappointing to all of the 49ers fans however lawmakers are planning on barring the 9ers to use the name San Francisco if they move. I am hoping they now can rework something with the city because it would be a shame if the team could not be called the San Francisco 49ers.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2657091
Tracker
11-10-2006, 05:50 PM
Has to be one of the most chicken **** things I have ever read.
Good luck with that no allowing us to use the San Francisco name. As long as they stay in the San Francisco Bay Area they have solid case in court. This is nothing more than sour grapes.
sandiegojoe
11-10-2006, 05:54 PM
I figure they're bluffing. What politician wants to looks so petty as to prohibit a team from using the term SF when they technically are in the SF Bay area. It'd be a ridiculous court battle. They're just using whatever leverage they can to try and talk York into it. It's gonna get ugly.. but who knows, maybe York wants to be in SF and wants to see how far the City will go if they think they'll lose the team?
757niner
11-10-2006, 05:55 PM
Totally rediculous. The Cowboys stadium is in Irving, the Giants and Jets play in another state! What's the big freakin deal.....its 30 miles away. Hell, the team facilties are already there. Alot of stadiums are not located in the teams' home city. Just seems totally anal to not allow them to use the name.
AlexSmith5rings
11-10-2006, 05:55 PM
it's politics tracker. it's a scare tactic, newsom desperately wants this team to stay in SF and he's going to do all that he can to do that, like sandiego joe said it's gonna get ugly unless they can get a deal done soon
Peter Proud
11-10-2006, 05:58 PM
This is very disappointing to all of the 49ers fans however lawmakers are planning on barring the 9ers to use the name San Francisco if they move. I am hoping they now can rework something with the city because it would be a shame if the team could not be called the San Francisco 49ers.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2657091
If the politicians put as much effort into the stadium project as the 'name' project, a deal would be in place!
Eric 80
11-10-2006, 05:59 PM
Man that politician is stupid.
It seems to me that he is trying to take away all possible reasons for the team to stay in The Bay Area.
nolanlover
11-10-2006, 06:00 PM
so sf doesnt want to fund a new stadium for us? is it cause the 49ers suck?
Giedi
11-10-2006, 06:01 PM
As much as I hate the idea of the team moving, I don't think they can legaly do anything with regards to preventing the team using "San Francisco"
Giedi
Eric 80
11-10-2006, 06:02 PM
As much as I hate the idea of the team moving, I don't think they can legaly do anything with regards to preventing the team using "San Francisco"
Giedi
I think they could.
Iamavictory
11-10-2006, 06:08 PM
If I remember right Frost, it was Eddie D who wanted to change the logo on the side of the helmet but there was such a fervor from the fanbase that he wisely decided against it.
Eric 80
11-10-2006, 06:10 PM
If I remember right Frost, it was Eddie D who wanted to change the logo on the side of the helmet but there was such a fervor from the fanbase that he wisely decided against it.
Well the new logo was uglier than hell. I am sure the fans would have been more open to change if logo wasn't so stupid.
Iamavictory
11-10-2006, 06:11 PM
If the politicians put as much effort into the stadium project as the 'name' project, a deal would be in place!
You hit the nail on the head! Now I want to move to Santa Clara and keep the San Francisco name just to stick it to the jerkoff politicians. POLITICIANS SUCK!!!! NINERS RULE!!! :sf49:
RedAlert
11-10-2006, 06:11 PM
That's so funny! Why fight to keep the name? No other team is coming. They need to be thankful York plans to still use it. I wouldn't piss him off. San Jose or California 49ers could happen.
ArmofJustice
11-10-2006, 07:20 PM
This would be an uphill battle. First, the law would have to be passed at the state level. Because San Fransisco law wouldn't pertain to a team based in Santa Clara, the only possible venue for such a law would be a state law. As a state law, they would have to generalize it so that it worked for the entire state - ie, sporting organizations couldn't use the name of a city they weren't based in in their name.
This of course would cause all sorts of national repercusions as many businesses use names of places they are not technically based out of in their name. It would inevitably go into the legal system where it would spend 5-10 years going through appeal processes. Durring that time, the team would be able to use the name. It would cost the city of San Fransisco millions in legal fees over the course of several years to try and stop the 49ers from using the name even if they could get the law passed and I doubt they could.
It is a scare tactic, nothing more.
cds49ers
11-10-2006, 07:36 PM
<=========
Hmmmm.....
A very political piece of bull****
Niner Jan
11-10-2006, 07:48 PM
Fans who are writing from sheer emotions are burning themselves out for nothing!
First, the stadium is in SOUTH San Francisco, not San Francisco. People seem to ignore that little detail--2 separate cities.
Second, the 49ers Practice Facility and Headquarters are located in Santa Clara, not San Francisco--where they have been for 20 years now.
Third, the Stadium originally was Kezar in San Francisco, but I don't recall any outlandish claims when the team moved to Candlestick in South San Francisco. What's the difference where they play as long as the name stays the same: San Francisco 49ers.
Fourth, there are quite a few NFL teams who have changed where they play and the world didn't come to an end for those teams.
Fifth, when physical conditions dictate a change in location, common sense follows that logical dictate.
Sixth, it is childish to call the OWNER insulting names because emotional fans don't like some change he is making--like a move. This doesn't change the TEAM one iota. In fact, improving the stadium location removes those whimsical winds and saturated ground conditions. Ah...some fans forgot those details!
Seventh, parking and transportation at the Stick could not be worse, but again, selective memories fail to remember the deplorable traffic jams due to the poor road access to the stadium. They prefer to wait 2 hours to get in and out rather than a location where wide highways and public transport is available.
Eighth, some fans seem to like having to put up with construction noise and compounding traffic jams for 6 years while a new stadium would be going up next to the the old one at the Stick. OH...they never thought of that!
Ninth, under the "old" stadium plans at Candlestick, building all that housing and shopping center would use up a huge amount of the land available on the Point. And with the construction of the new stadium + all the other stuff, where are those complaining fans going to park? And tailgate?
Tenth, in order to accommodate all the new construction (see #9), a HUGE parking edifice would have to be erected to hold 10,000 cars--in which the fans could not have any tailgating parties. (OH, NO!...They never thought of that, either!)
Now, for the other side of the coin.
The new location in Santa Clara is where there are better, wider, and more access roads and public transportation already in place: The Light Rail and regular trains--which are visible from the 49ers practice field.
LOTS of parking available across the street from the 49ers Facility. Games are on Sundays, when the traffic on Great America Parkway is minimal due to the nature of the corporate businesses being closed on weekends.
During the season when the amusement park is open and for faraway fans looking for additional entertainment during their stay, this is a big plus for them.
There are lots of hotels within a block of the stadium for out of towners to stay at--I can think of 4 or 5 very large ones. That has to be a big blessing for travelers from other states who come to our 49er home games. That's a real convenience for our fans.
The San Jose Airport is very close to the area selected for the new 49ers Stadium--15 minutes away.
There are many roads that lead to the site of the new stadium: besides Hwy 101 and 237, Lawrence Expwy, Great America Pkwy, Hwy 880 (feeding into Tasman or 237), Central Expwy. That's a big improvement of having only Hwy 101!
Having the new stadium construction away from Candlestick will not add to the BURDENS already borne by that piece of real estate, including traffic and parking as well as (construction) noise, loss of tailgating opportunities until 2012.
These factors greatly enhance having the new stadium in Santa Clara.
I've run out of pros and cons, but there are probably more that I've missed. Sentimentality does NOT outweight the improvements that having the new stadium in Santa Clara brings to the table.
And moving the team to a nearby city within the San Francisco Bay Area does NOT preclude using the designation of "SAN FRANCISCO" 49ers. No more than it did for those other NFL franchises like Dallas, New York Jets, etc. (there are more).
If I have not helped clarify the reasons for the new stadium of the 49ers, I recommend fans look up the videos on 49ers.com on this topic. There is also the entire press conference of Wednesday on CBS--I can't find the link; it was in one of the hundreds of threads on the new stadium move. Sorry!
Don't let your emotions rule you without getting all the facts, please!
Niner Mom :shades:
LOS41510
11-10-2006, 07:50 PM
so sf doesnt want to fund a new stadium for us? is it cause the 49ers suck?
When was the Kittys i mean Lions won a championship?? oh right when the chevy bel air was still in the market?
San francisco is already hit hard on a budget crunch cause of everything little and either way that land ( Candlestick ) has condo's which make no sense since where is a bus route for them?? obviuosly somebody's retarded when they were thinking of creating something in the outskirts of the city
LOS
YEEE!!:sflogo: :sflogo: :sflogo: :sflogo:
bionic3
11-10-2006, 07:52 PM
An independent party badly needs to step in with some signifigant financial backing to get this statium project off the ground. The latest news of new talks with San Francisco just seem to me like a step back with potnetially more months, years going in circles. Right now it just seems both projects have a lot of 'ifs' that need to be resolved and most center around how to pay for this new facility.
A San Francisco site can probably be done, maybe with a MAJOR financier owning the facility and leasing it out to the 49ers. If that were to happen the city would need to seek out such a person or group and probably make sweeten the deal for additional land use surrounding the facility for shops/housing/etc. It could be lucrative if it could all happen in time for a potential Olympic event.
From the sense I get the 49ers just don't have the money to make the stadium happen exactly where they desire, thus they have to find other alternatives. I see their point of fronting money totally for something they wil use only 10 times a year. They have to find other means that the facility and surrounding accomodations can add extra revenue. That is why they need a housing or entertainment partner.
If someone MAJOR can step in and help financially, this project could go much more smoothly.
DraconisRex
11-10-2006, 07:54 PM
it's politics tracker. it's a scare tactic, newsom desperately wants this team to stay in SF and he's going to do all that he can to do that, like sandiego joe said it's gonna get ugly unless they can get a deal done soon
If Newsome wanted the 49ers to stay so darn bad, he'd have done more FOR keeping the 49ers than refusing to release the bond money without ANOTHER election AND he'd have tried to get the plans out of committee instead of burying them in committee.
Newsome is now realizing he's going to go down as "the Mayor who Lost the 49ers" and it will end his political career and he's desperately trying to fix things and make things hot. The time for building a stadium was back in the late 1980's. But all they did was make a freakin' face lift.
I have no sympathy for Newsome or any other politician that gets in trouble over this. Ever since Willie Brown left, the City has done everything it could to reneg on the bonds and drag the process out. A pox on their houses!
DraconisRex
11-10-2006, 07:54 PM
I think they could.
I think they can't. It's called the First Amendment. And it prohibits such childish little things.
bionic3
11-10-2006, 08:03 PM
Fans who are writing from sheer emotions are burning themselves out for nothing!
First, the stadium is in SOUTH San Francisco, not San Francisco. People seem to ignore that little detail--2 separate cities.
Second, the 49ers Practice Facility and Headquarters are located in Santa Clara, not San Francisco--where they have been for 20 years now.
Third, the Stadium originally was Kezar in San Francisco, but I don't recall any outlandish claims when the team moved to Candlestick in South San Francisco. What's the difference where they play as long as the name stays the same: San Francisco 49ers.
Fourth, there are quite a few NFL teams who have changed where they play and the world didn't come to an end for those teams.
Fifth, when physical conditions dictate a change in location, common sense follows that logical dictate.
Sixth, it is childish to call the OWNER insulting names because emotional fans don't like some change he is making--like a move. This doesn't change the TEAM one iota. In fact, improving the stadium location removes those whimsical winds and saturated ground conditions. Ah...some fans forgot those details!
Seventh, parking and transportation at the Stick could not be worse, but again, selective memories fail to remember the deplorable traffic jams due to the poor road access to the stadium. They prefer to wait 2 hours to get in and out rather than a location where wide highways and public transport is available.
Eighth, some fans seem to like having to put up with construction noise and compounding traffic jams for 6 years while a new stadium would be going up next to the the old one at the Stick. OH...they never thought of that!
Ninth, under the "old" stadium plans at Candlestick, building all that housing and shopping center would use up a huge amount of the land available on the Point. And with the construction of the new stadium + all the other stuff, where are those complaining fans going to park? And tailgate?
Tenth, in order to accommodate all the new construction (see #9), a HUGE parking edifice would have to be erected to hold 10,000 cars--in which the fans could not have any tailgating parties. (OH, NO!...They never thought of that, either!)
Now, for the other side of the coin.
The new location in Santa Clara is where there are better, wider, and more access roads and public transportation already in place: The Light Rail and regular trains--which are visible from the 49ers practice field.
LOTS of parking available across the street from the 49ers Facility. Games are on Sundays, when the traffic on Great America Parkway is minimal due to the nature of the corporate businesses being closed on weekends.
During the season when the amusement park is open and for faraway fans looking for additional entertainment during their stay, this is a big plus for them.
There are lots of hotels within a block of the stadium for out of towners to stay at--I can think of 4 or 5 very large ones. That has to be a big blessing for travelers from other states who come to our 49er home games. That's a real convenience for our fans.
The San Jose Airport is very close to the area selected for the new 49ers Stadium--15 minutes away.
There are many roads that lead to the site of the new stadium: besides Hwy 101 and 237, Lawrence Expwy, Great America Pkwy, Hwy 880 (feeding into Tasman or 237), Central Expwy. That's a big improvement of having only Hwy 101!
Having the new stadium construction away from Candlestick will not add to the BURDENS already borne by that piece of real estate, including traffic and parking as well as (construction) noise, loss of tailgating opportunities until 2012.
These factors greatly enhance having the new stadium in Santa Clara.
I've run out of pros and cons, but there are probably more that I've missed. Sentimentality does NOT outweight the improvements that having the new stadium in Santa Clara brings to the table.
And moving the team to a nearby city within the San Francisco Bay Area does NOT preclude using the designation of "SAN FRANCISCO" 49ers. No more than it did for those other NFL franchises like Dallas, New York Jets, etc. (there are more).
If I have not helped clarify the reasons for the new stadium of the 49ers, I recommend fans look up the videos on 49ers.com on this topic. There is also the entire press conference of Wednesday on CBS--I can't find the link; it was in one of the hundreds of threads on the new stadium move. Sorry!
Don't let your emotions rule you without getting all the facts, please!
Niner Mom :shades:
Very well said, Jan! Emotionally, I would love for a new sprawling stadium to be in San Francisco, but it is just not feasable at the current Candlestick Point site. The Santa Clara proposed site is hands down better for all the reasons you mention and more.
I've mentioned this before, but only a MAJOR independent financier or financing group could get the type of facility this team needs and fans would enjoy going to. The China Basin area makes the most sense and if the city, team, and development partners really want to keep the 49ers playing games in San Francisco, they should focus heavily on that site.
linkboy
11-10-2006, 08:04 PM
Wouldn't the fact that the 49ers do business in Santa Clara (where their Headquarters are) make this lawsuit irrevelant?
BrentJones84
11-10-2006, 08:09 PM
Democratic Assemblyman Mark Leno is an *****.
Why is he wasting his time getting involved?
MENGO49er
11-10-2006, 08:09 PM
Totally rediculous. The Cowboys stadium is in Irving, the Giants and Jets play in another state! What's the big freakin deal.....its 30 miles away. Hell, the team facilties are already there. Alot of stadiums are not located in the teams' home city. Just seems totally anal to not allow them to use the name.
Couldn´t agree more ...
CSULB49er
11-10-2006, 08:10 PM
Newsome is a moron. There's not a chance in hell he'd win that lawsuit.
BrentJones84
11-10-2006, 08:10 PM
If anyone cares,
Democratic Assemblyman Mark Leno
can be reached:
District Address
455 Golden Gate Avenue
Suite 14300
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: (415) 557-3013
Fax: (415) 557-3015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Address
P.O. Box 942849
Room 3146
Sacramento, CA 94249-0013
Phone: (916) 319-2013
His official state web page is here:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/makebio.asp?district=13
BrentJones84
11-10-2006, 08:12 PM
Newsome is a moron. There's not a chance in hell he'd win that lawsuit.
It doesn't say Newsome is involved in a lawsuit......
sacguy
11-10-2006, 08:38 PM
so sf doesnt want to fund a new stadium for us? is it cause the 49ers suck?
wasn't asking s/f to fund it ----- for one i'm glad if niners move even thou it is farther for me i would now be able to take the train ... :sf49:
sacguy
11-10-2006, 08:40 PM
If you guys remember(I could be wrong)years back the team wanted to put just 49ers on the helmet,and the city stopped it from happening.
the city didn't stop it ---- the fan's did .....
sacguy
11-10-2006, 08:46 PM
Fans who are writing from sheer emotions are burning themselves out for nothing!
First, the stadium is in SOUTH San Francisco, not San Francisco. People seem to ignore that little detail--2 separate cities.
Second, the 49ers Practice Facility and Headquarters are located in Santa Clara, not San Francisco--where they have been for 20 years now.
Third, the Stadium originally was Kezar in San Francisco, but I don't recall any outlandish claims when the team moved to Candlestick in South San Francisco. What's the difference where they play as long as the name stays the same: San Francisco 49ers.
Fourth, there are quite a few NFL teams who have changed where they play and the world didn't come to an end for those teams.
Fifth, when physical conditions dictate a change in location, common sense follows that logical dictate.
Sixth, it is childish to call the OWNER insulting names because emotional fans don't like some change he is making--like a move. This doesn't change the TEAM one iota. In fact, improving the stadium location removes those whimsical winds and saturated ground conditions. Ah...some fans forgot those details!
Seventh, parking and transportation at the Stick could not be worse, but again, selective memories fail to remember the deplorable traffic jams due to the poor road access to the stadium. They prefer to wait 2 hours to get in and out rather than a location where wide highways and public transport is available.
Eighth, some fans seem to like having to put up with construction noise and compounding traffic jams for 6 years while a new stadium would be going up next to the the old one at the Stick. OH...they never thought of that!
Ninth, under the "old" stadium plans at Candlestick, building all that housing and shopping center would use up a huge amount of the land available on the Point. And with the construction of the new stadium + all the other stuff, where are those complaining fans going to park? And tailgate?
Tenth, in order to accommodate all the new construction (see #9), a HUGE parking edifice would have to be erected to hold 10,000 cars--in which the fans could not have any tailgating parties. (OH, NO!...They never thought of that, either!)
Now, for the other side of the coin.
The new location in Santa Clara is where there are better, wider, and more access roads and public transportation already in place: The Light Rail and regular trains--which are visible from the 49ers practice field.
LOTS of parking available across the street from the 49ers Facility. Games are on Sundays, when the traffic on Great America Parkway is minimal due to the nature of the corporate businesses being closed on weekends.
During the season when the amusement park is open and for faraway fans looking for additional entertainment during their stay, this is a big plus for them.
There are lots of hotels within a block of the stadium for out of towners to stay at--I can think of 4 or 5 very large ones. That has to be a big blessing for travelers from other states who come to our 49er home games. That's a real convenience for our fans.
The San Jose Airport is very close to the area selected for the new 49ers Stadium--15 minutes away.
There are many roads that lead to the site of the new stadium: besides Hwy 101 and 237, Lawrence Expwy, Great America Pkwy, Hwy 880 (feeding into Tasman or 237), Central Expwy. That's a big improvement of having only Hwy 101!
Having the new stadium construction away from Candlestick will not add to the BURDENS already borne by that piece of real estate, including traffic and parking as well as (construction) noise, loss of tailgating opportunities until 2012.
These factors greatly enhance having the new stadium in Santa Clara.
I've run out of pros and cons, but there are probably more that I've missed. Sentimentality does NOT outweight the improvements that having the new stadium in Santa Clara brings to the table.
And moving the team to a nearby city within the San Francisco Bay Area does NOT preclude using the designation of "SAN FRANCISCO" 49ers. No more than it did for those other NFL franchises like Dallas, New York Jets, etc. (there are more).
If I have not helped clarify the reasons for the new stadium of the 49ers, I recommend fans look up the videos on 49ers.com on this topic. There is also the entire press conference of Wednesday on CBS--I can't find the link; it was in one of the hundreds of threads on the new stadium move. Sorry!
Don't let your emotions rule you without getting all the facts, please!
Niner Mom :shades:
Monster Park, Room 398
San Francisco, Calif. 94124
Phone: (415) 656-4949
looks like a san francisco address to me ....
sorry you are wrong about south san francisco ....
tumbleweed
11-10-2006, 09:53 PM
Change the name to Northern California 49er's or just The 49er's would fine with me. I don't have any ties with the city other than the Niners and personaly don't want any.:tumbleweed:
I think they can't. It's called the First Amendment. And it prohibits such childish little things.
I don't think that the first amendment refers to such things as naming rights. That probably falls more into the category of intellectual property rights, which the first amendment does not allow just anyone to use of their own choosing (without express written permission of the owner). Which in this case, would be represented by the current SF city council.
J77Niner4Life
11-10-2006, 10:05 PM
it's politics tracker. it's a scare tactic, newsom desperately wants this team to stay in SF and he's going to do all that he can to do that, like sandiego joe said it's gonna get ugly unless they can get a deal done soon
Correction, Newsom desperately wants a new stadium for the olympics and improved access to a new development that the city doesn't have to pay for. If you watched York's press conference you'd see that their plan was full of problematic workarounds to keep the city from having to give up anything and forcing the 49ers to front the bill. When it came down to it, the big picture was a less than entertaining experience for 49er fans, something the city could care less about.
Eric 80
11-10-2006, 10:15 PM
I think they can't. It's called the First Amendment. And it prohibits such childish little things.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance."
I see nothing in there about allowing someone to use a name or title that rightfully doesn't belong to them.
It would be a hard fought battle and the politician would probably give up before the end but it is winnable.
sj niner
11-10-2006, 10:17 PM
The baseball Angels were sued by the city of Anaheim before this season when they announced they were to be called "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim"...And they won their case even though they didn't move anywhere!! This is a futile, desperate attempt by SF politicians to try and save face.."Well, we tried" they can tell their voters, even though it's closing the door after the horse has already left the barn (literally)
Eric 80
11-10-2006, 10:21 PM
The baseball Angels were sued by the city of Anaheim before this season when they announced they were to be called "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim"...And they won their case even though they didn't move anywhere!! This is a futile, desperate attempt by SF politicians to try and save face.."Well, we tried" they can tell their voters, even though it's closing the door after the horse has already left the barn (literally)
It's way different. Anaheim was suing to get their name as the title of the team. The Angels found/used a loophole by calling the team the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.
Now if LA had sued to keep their name off of the team it would have been similar and I think they would have won.
The baseball Angels were sued by the city of Anaheim before this season when they announced they were to be called "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim"...And they won their case even though they didn't move anywhere!! This is a futile, desperate attempt by SF politicians to try and save face.."Well, we tried" they can tell their voters, even though it's closing the door after the horse has already left the barn (literally)
The difference is, the city of Anaheim has no control over the use of the name "Los Angeles", and therefore has no right to deny any team the usage of it. If LA had sued, that would be a different story. Evidently, LA did not have a problem with the Angels using their name.
J77Niner4Life
11-10-2006, 10:31 PM
It's way different. Anaheim was suing to get their name as the title of the team. The angels got a loophole by calling the team the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.
Now if LA had sued to keep their name off of the team it would have been similar and I think they would have won.
I'm going to fall back on a previous post then. If the city forces the NFL's "San Francisco 49ers" to change it's name, virtually stripping it of it's great history, San Francisco will never be mentioned in the NFL again. Except maybe in NFL Films DVDs.
The NFL isn't exactly the most forgiving organization. Where do they hold the NFL draft again?
You mess with the NFL and they'll mess with you back.
BrentJones84
11-10-2006, 10:34 PM
The difference is, the city of Anaheim has no control over the use of the name "Los Angeles", and therefore has no right to deny any team the usage of it. If LA had sued, that would be a different story. Evidently, LA did not have a problem with the Angels using their name.
The deal there was the Angeles had a contract with the city of Anaheim to have the word Anaheim in the name as part of their stadium deal.
The city of Anaheim sued when the Angeles added Los Angeles to their name in addition to Anaheim, because the city felt the addition of Los Angeles was in violation of the spirit of the contract. The city lost because the contract did not specify that Anaheim could be the only city in the name, just that it had to be in the name.
None of this is relevant to the 49ers case, because their is no contract between the city of San Francisco and the 49ers forcing the 49ers to use the San Francisco in the name.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/homepage/article_995046.php
the city, which sued the team for changing its name to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim last year. While city officials said the team violated the city-owned stadium lease, Angels officials maintained that they stayed within the contract by including "Anaheim" in the name as required in the contract.
None of this is relevant to the 49ers case
Which was my entire point. The situations are far too different to be comparable.
I'm going to fall back on a previous post then. If the city forces the NFL's "San Francisco 49ers" to change it's name, virtually stripping it of it's great history, San Francisco will never be mentioned in the NFL again. Except maybe in NFL Films DVDs.
The NFL isn't exactly the most forgiving organization. Where do they hold the NFL draft again?
You mess with the NFL and they'll mess with you back.
The Cleveland Browns were allowed to move to Baltimore, but they could not use the name "Browns". That was determined to belong to the city of Cleveland, and the Browns returned as an expansion team.
That would not be realistic in this situation however, as there could not be an NFL team in Santa Clara and SF. The economy could never support them both.
BrentJones84
11-10-2006, 11:14 PM
Which was my entire point. The situations are far too different to be comparable.
Right. Sorry, that wasn't speficially to you, just the whole conversation of the Anglels in general.
Right. Sorry, that wasn't speficially to you, just the whole conversation of the Anglels in general.
NP. :up:
The info about the Angels situation is relevant to this conversation however, because people want to throw out any comparison they can think of to say that the 49ers can keep the "San Francisco" name. I think it's been pretty well established that there is no standard to go by that guarantees anything, and the city can certainly cause problems with the use of their name if they want to.
Dynastic
11-10-2006, 11:27 PM
1. Candlestick park is in South San Francisco, not San Francisco. Here's the South San Francisco Mayor (http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/council/mayor_message.asp). Hmmm, doesn't look too much like Newsom to me! There's one major deathblow to their "case."
2. In the worst case scenario, the Niners could appease the whiny politicans by simply adding the word "Bay" to their name and call themselves the "San Francisco Bay 49ers" and keep the "SF" logo on the side of their helmet, and there isn't a **** thing the city of San Francisco can do about it.
Hopper15
11-10-2006, 11:32 PM
1. Candlestick park is in South San Francisco, not San Francisco. Here's the South San Francisco Mayor (http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/council/mayor_message.asp). Hmmm, doesn't look too much like Newsom to me! There's one major deathblow to their "case."
2. In the worst case scenario, the Niners could appease the whiny politicans by simply adding the word "Bay" to their name and call themselves the "San Francisco Bay 49ers" and keep the "SF" logo on the side of their helmet, and there isn't a **** thing the city of San Francisco can do about it.
That won't matter.
Faraway
11-10-2006, 11:34 PM
I don't know what the Niner's legal rights are regarding the San Francisco name, but I'm inclined to believe they can't be stopped by the city of San Francisco, and it would be virtually impossible to get such a bill through the state legislature. Any politician who tried may find himself in a lot of deep dodo.
Besides, there is more than one San Francisco in this world. They could name it after a small town on the eastern side of Mindanao by that name. If they had to buy the rights, it might cost a couple of dollars. Just kidding, because it won't come to that.
I believe they can move and still name the team after the San Francisco Bay Area. Or, is some politician going to try to force the San Francisco Bay Area to change it's name? This is a load of political crap. I thought we just voted those guys out! :whistling:
1. Candlestick park is in South San Francisco, not San Francisco.
No it's not. Candlestick point is in SF, just north of the Daily City border. South SF is south of Daily City.
LOS41510
11-11-2006, 12:48 AM
No it's not. Candlestick point is in SF, just north of the Daily City border. South SF is south of Daily City.
Thank you BY. See even he knows that candlestick point is in SF
prospector
11-11-2006, 02:35 AM
Dallas Cowboys= Irvin, Texas
New York Giants= New Jersey
New York Jets= New Jersey
The list goes on and on. There is no precedent for this. F* the city of San Francisco, if they by some miracle do win, which they won't, then just call them them San Francisco Bay Area 49ers, they don't have the rights to that name. I was born in San Francisco, but the SF group of politicans are the most clueless, brain dead, embarrassing bunch of people I have ever come across, and have been for years.
9erMan
11-11-2006, 06:39 AM
The politicians are just rattling their sabers. They would beg the team to put SF back in their name if York called their bluff and decided to change the name due to pressure from the political hacks.
Dallas Cowboys= Irvin, Texas
New York Giants= New Jersey
New York Jets= New Jersey
The list goes on and on. There is no precedent for this. F* the city of San Francisco, if they by some miracle do win, which they won't, then just call them them San Francisco Bay Area 49ers, they don't have the rights to that name. I was born in San Francisco, but the SF group of politicans are the most clueless, brain dead, embarrassing bunch of people I have ever come across, and have been for years.
The fact that this type of naming scenario exists in other areas does not prove that cities do not have the rights to the use of their name. It simply means that these other cities want their names to be associated with the teams, and have not restricted the use of their names. it does not mean that they could not do so.
The fact is, it is in the city's best interest to keep their name associated with the team. They have everything to gain by doing so. Remember that this is the opinion of one person, Gavin Newsome. His opinion is obviously knee-jerk. Perhaps he has not fully thought out the ramifications to the city if they are no longer associated with the 49ers by name. I seriously doubt that the city council would share his opinion.
More significantly, the 49ers will have to contract with Santa Clara on a stadium deal, and the rights to play there. Santa Clara could try to force a name change also.
Giedi
11-11-2006, 09:54 AM
I don't know what the Niner's legal rights are regarding the San Francisco name, but I'm inclined to believe they can't be stopped by the city of San Francisco, and it would be virtually impossible to get such a bill through the state legislature. Any politician who tried may find himself in a lot of deep dodo.
Besides, there is more than one San Francisco in this world. They could name it after a small town on the eastern side of Mindanao by that name. If they had to buy the rights, it might cost a couple of dollars. Just kidding, because it won't come to that.
I believe they can move and still name the team after the San Francisco Bay Area. Or, is some politician going to try to force the San Francisco Bay Area to change it's name? This is a load of political crap. I thought we just voted those guys out! :whistling:
I'm of the same mind as you too. I think the unique power of the legislative body - IF they can pull it off - can legislate common names and restrict common words that are within their jurisdiction.
I believe if the State of California decided that the word *be* is a name reserved uniquely for the State of California and cannot be used without paying the State one cent for ever page it's on then that's the rules in California. Everybody will have to pay one cent to the State for every piece of paper with the word *be* on it. <shrug> This is assuming it goes through the legistaltive process and is ratified by Gov Arnold.
Giedi
Giedi
11-11-2006, 09:56 AM
The fact that this type of naming scenario exists in other areas does not prove that cities do not have the rights to the use of their name. It simply means that these other cities want their names to be associated with the teams, and have not restricted the use of their names. it does not mean that they could not do so.
The fact is, it is in the city's best interest to keep their name associated with the team. They have everything to gain by doing so. Remember that this is the opinion of one person, Gavin Newsome. His opinion is obviously knee-jerk. Perhaps he has not fully thought out the ramifications to the city if they are no longer associated with the 49ers by name. I seriously doubt that the city council would share his opinion.
More significantly, the 49ers will have to contract with Santa Clara on a stadium deal, and the rights to play there. Santa Clara could try to force a name change also.
I just hope it doesnt get THAT nasty. I think things can be worked out. I personally think all three sides (SF, York, SC) will be able to work it out. THere is so much riding on this - that to NOT make it work, and for it to devlove into name calling and lawsuits - would hurt ALL three parties to this issue.
Giedi
Giedi
11-11-2006, 09:59 AM
Dallas Cowboys= Irvin, Texas
New York Giants= New Jersey
New York Jets= New Jersey
The list goes on and on. There is no precedent for this. F* the city of San Francisco, if they by some miracle do win, which they won't, then just call them them San Francisco Bay Area 49ers, they don't have the rights to that name. I was born in San Francisco, but the SF group of politicans are the most clueless, brain dead, embarrassing bunch of people I have ever come across, and have been for years.
They may be clueless and braindead - but factor in Nancy Peolsi - speaker of the House and you got a wildcard there that potentially alters MUCH of the political landscape, not only of the city, but this country.
She ain't no chump change and, no I didn't vote for her, nor do I care much for her political leanings, but ****, if she can get a San Francisco stadium deal done that satisfied both the city and the team. I'm contributing to her next political campagn.
Giedi
Giedi
11-11-2006, 10:02 AM
The fact that this type of naming scenario exists in other areas does not prove that cities do not have the rights to the use of their name. It simply means that these other cities want their names to be associated with the teams, and have not restricted the use of their names. it does not mean that they could not do so.
The fact is, it is in the city's best interest to keep their name associated with the team. They have everything to gain by doing so. Remember that this is the opinion of one person, Gavin Newsome. His opinion is obviously knee-jerk. Perhaps he has not fully thought out the ramifications to the city if they are no longer associated with the 49ers by name. I seriously doubt that the city council would share his opinion.
More significantly, the 49ers will have to contract with Santa Clara on a stadium deal, and the rights to play there. Santa Clara could try to force a name change also.
I agree, the City will lose a lot if they can't brand their city correctly with an NFL team. The NFL is currently expanding worldwide - and you can't buy a unique brand like *San Francisco* and a team like the 49ers. Ultimately, I think the city will allow the 49ers will continue to use the name San Francisco even if they aren't in San Francisco. It's just a smart marketing move. Obviously the BEST scenario is for the City to keep the team though.
Giedi
ArmofJustice
11-11-2006, 01:15 PM
One thing people need to understand here - precident doesn't matter. They are talking about making a new law. Once a law is made, it does not matter to the courts if precident exists. The issue would be is the law legal. By that I mean does the law state or federal constitutional provisions or does it violate federal law.
There are several things that could be argued by the 49ers. The most compelling in my mind would be that the law would violate the 49ers rights as a private business to express themselves openly. There are other angles that could be taken. In the end though, this matter would go into huge amounts of litigation. You also have to realize that the second such a law was passed, the team would look for loopholes. For instance, if the law stated "a spots team that does not play in the city cannot have the name", they could play a practice game in ANY city named San Fransico anywhere in the country and meet the necissary criteria for the law. For example, it wouldn't cost too much to fly 10 players to San Fransisco, Texas and have a 30 minute scrimmage - which would then satisfy the law.
Even more open to debate would be if a state law would be enough. For example, if they were to put their head quarter's mail box in San Fransisco, Texas - could California argue on a large enough scale that a company based out of San Fransisco could not carry that name on its team?
Basically, I don't believe you could get a law tight enough to actually prevent the name from being used. The issue becomes how much money does San Fransisco (the city) want to spent to try and remove their name from the team. Especially when the team having that name actually benefits the city. My answer would be none - which is why I think this is all political smoke and mirrors.
rjk*49
11-11-2006, 06:47 PM
They may be clueless and braindead - but factor in Nancy Peolsi - speaker of the House and you got a wildcard there that potentially alters MUCH of the political landscape, not only of the city, but this country.
She ain't no chump change and, no I didn't vote for her, nor do I care much for her political leanings, but ****, if she can get a San Francisco stadium deal done that satisfied both the city and the team. I'm contributing to her next political campagn.
Giedi
Pelosi is chump change, esp. in this situation. She's on record as an avowed, anti-business socialist. She's been against every proposal regarding the Giants, and the 49ers, and stood in the way of a many practical business development proposals in The City. As did Fienstein. This is just a new slant from/for Pelosi and others in The City to save face, and to build an image for herself in the national spotlight.
Legally, she has no power to do or influence anything, other than through others' respect for the position, not her. As she can only ask for cooperation out of respect for her new position, and as she does not have the respect from the business community, she won't be able to get anything done unless she resorts to abusing her new power by threatening the Yorks and any contractors involved with the new stadium with IRS investigations into the foreseeable future.
If this swings back the other way, and you hear/read anything remotely like, "Pelosi was instrumental behind the scenes in her assistance to get this deal done," then you KNOW that's what went down.
The Vin
11-11-2006, 07:05 PM
The fact that this type of naming scenario exists in other areas does not prove that cities do not have the rights to the use of their name. It simply means that these other cities want their names to be associated with the teams, and have not restricted the use of their names. it does not mean that they could not do so.
It also means that other cities are smart, unlike the idiots that run San Francisco.
You're getting free promotion from a team that doesn't even play in, technically, your city and you're balking on that over bitterness? Give me a break. Even if the franchise plays in Santa Clara, the association of the San Francisco to the 49ers is a good thing for the city. It generates buzz and gets people focusing in on the city when speaking of the 49ers. Even though SF is a large market, sports teams and their association to the city do give the city an edge. It's a freebie. But the city won't take it because York has caught them sleeping and now Newsome and his boys look like fools for being the people in charge and losing their city's first sports franchise.
But that's San Fran for you.
Also, if the city does try to sue over this, they will lose. They'd have to make a new law and that just ain't happenin'. It'll put private business rights against whatever Newsome is cooking up and the 49ers will win.
rjk*49
11-11-2006, 07:20 PM
It also means that other cities are smart, unlike the idiots that run San Francisco.
You're getting free promotion from a team that doesn't even play in, technically, your city and you're balking on that over bitterness? Give me a break. Even if the franchise plays in Santa Clara, the association of the San Francisco to the 49ers is a good thing for the city. It generates buzz and gets people focusing in on the city when speaking of the 49ers. Even though SF is a large market, sports teams and their association to the city do give the city an edge. It's a freebie. But the city won't take it because York has caught them sleeping and now Newsome and his boys look like fools for being the people in charge and losing their city's first sports franchise.
But that's San Fran for you.
Also, if the city does try to sue over this, they will lose. They'd have to make a new law and that just ain't happenin'. It'll put private business rights against whatever Newsome is cooking up and the 49ers will win.
Absolutely correct. And to further stress the point on revenue by free association, when they studied the feasibility of expanding the NHL into San Jose, one of the primary selling points was proximity to SF. An internal poll two years ago done in the NHL on players and management regarding economizing logistics, also backed this up. Another poll done through a major national ticket transaction group also showed that the majority of fans purchasing tickets and packages from outside San Jose & CA, thought more in terms of SF as the destination location than San Jose.
The Vin
11-11-2006, 07:36 PM
Absolutely correct. And to further stress the point on revenue by free association, when they studied the feasibility of expanding the NHL into San Jose, one of the primary selling points was proximity to SF. An internal poll two years ago done in the NHL on players and management regarding economizing logistics, also backed this up. Another poll done through a major national ticket transaction group also showed that the majority of fans purchasing tickets and packages from outside San Jose & CA, thought more in terms of SF as the destination location than San Jose.
Yep.
San Fran is just run by boneheads. I mean York is building this stadium with his own pockets. Initially, in the new location, it'd help with an Olympics bid but that just isn't feasible for the football aspect, which is why the 49ers are even pursuing a new stadium. The city hasn't really provided any support for the stadium and wants to even take the issue to the ballots again despite a 1997 vote. But despite all of that, even if the team moves to Santa Clara and calls themselves the San Fran 49ers, the city would still share in the success of the franchise by its association. No Olympic bid would happen, but as a city, how can you milk the 49ers for that? That's just unfair. It shows, to me, that the city cares more about the revenue generated by the Olympics than the actual team. And that's fine. Business is business. But when idiots like Feinstein, Pelosi, and Newsome come in with their sweeping epic of "I understand the tradition of the 49ers" give me a break.
Say the truth: You want the 49ers to build that stadium in San Fran and incur all of the costs so that you can host your precious Olympics, reap all the benefits, and then hold the 49ers responsible in fees and about 1000 extra features that will never be used again thus depriving the fans of a great football experience.
**** off San Fran.
The best part is how the city has sat idly and delayed every attempt that the 49ers have made on a move for a new stadium. Now, when York gets tough and moves on for the good of the team and its own revenue, they try to play hardball and act like they care. A new 49ers stadium should have been built years ago. The problem is that the city doesn't want to budge or compromise and expects the 49ers to do everything. York has essentially agreed to that, but now after doing tons of research, he's come to the conclusion that the feasible way to make a stadium in its current location would deprive the fans of their gameday experience and ask for all kinds of ridiculous infrastructure changes that'd leave us reeling for years and put the fans in a construction zone for God knows how long. But, you can go to Santa Clara...a city that's far more welcoming, already has the infrastructure in place, and could greatly expand and build on an area that's ripe for entertainment. Santa Clara is a goldmine and an easier place to build a stadium. San Fran has the tradition, but you're dealing with douches in the city and all kinds of requirements that aren't even for the football aspect. As a business owner, what would you do? The choice is very clear. Santa Clara. Unless the city has a better plan, but they've had 10 years to come up with something and haven't.
AlexSmith5rings
11-11-2006, 07:45 PM
Yep.
**** off San Fran.
SF has residents too. :mouthclosed:
Roaring Back
11-11-2006, 07:49 PM
SF has the advantage because it is SF. SC is a chess piece to get SFs attention. The politicians behave the way they do, because they know this.
LOS41510
11-11-2006, 08:00 PM
COUGH york is quote on quote building the stadium from his pocket COUGH! please if he would do that. we would of had a winning team and and not give us his bs! he thinks were that stupid
LOS
YEE:lightbulb:
COUGH york is quote on quote building the stadium from his pocket COUGH! please if he would do that. we would of had a winning team and and not give us his bs! he thinks were that stupid
LOS
YEE:lightbulb:
York is building this stadium out of his own pocket and that has nothing to do with whether we're a winnning team or not.
49erFanFoLife
11-11-2006, 08:27 PM
no #%@!:angry:
49erFanFoLife
11-11-2006, 08:38 PM
WTF?!:angry:
rjk*49
11-11-2006, 09:02 PM
Good points, Vin.
Just like a 49er deal, The City will never get the Olympics done. They will never be able to show commitment or control to build or renovate for the various venues. Too much wrangling and political backstabbing, too many deals in place going back decades for political power. Too many whacko extremes and hysteriae throwing sand into the machinery because this or that offends their paradigm. Too little money (see my other posts).
Sure, though, they like the idea of hosting the Olympics, because afterall, they see SF as a socialist-progressive, multi-cultural, multi-national city, unfortunately part of the US, so what venue would better fit the image than the Olympics? But, to have to pay for it? We're San Francisco! You should be throwing money at us just to get us to deign to consider your proposal.
Has everyone forgotten just how close the Giants were to becoming the St. Petersburg Giants? It wasn't until someone actually publicly asked how SF and its leaders would explain why one of America's premiere cities couldn't hold a major sports franchise. Not that it relocated to a better climate slightly South of the City, but completely out of state. Wasn't until that the 600lbs gorilla was out there in public that anybody representing the City actually started to make any noise about support for the Giants and Bay Area sports.
How did it get to that point? For the same reasons that it took 3 votes before the $100mm was approved for the 49ers... Blame it on SF's amnesty for illegal immigrants, anti-business environment, getting rid of the ports for DiFi's embarcadero boondoggle (and all the Unions and resident employees who relocated to the East Bay), socio-political upheaval... That fact was then, and now that SF's demographics have changed irrevocably. Every internal poll and census done by The City showed that its demographics had warped so much that a near majority could care less about SF tradition, SF/US values and icons, and especially not SF sports. 47 languages for voter brochures and ballots?
Which is why there was such political uproar and claims of fraud over Willie Brown when the $100mm 49er bond was approved. Every internal poll showed the demographics didn't care, and didn't support it, so the Board and the power elite of The City never saw a reason to. They still don't, even moreso now, until a couple days ago when the national spotlight sent all the cockroaches scrambling for cover.
Until a couple days ago, The City's politicians could have cared less, unless they're going to be embarrassed nationally. As far as the majority of them are concerned, The City's perspective on supporting sports franchises is exactly that old adage, "Why buy the cow when you can milk it for free?"
I can picture the arguments they've had with York et al...
What, you're going to move your cows to the next county? You can't do that, we need the free milk!
What?!! You actually want us to help pay for feed, mortgage, grazing, vet bills, taxes, farm hands, and everything else? How dare you. You're allowed to be here by our good graces.
What? Get stuffed? We'll take you to court. You can't just up and move when we've become so dependant on your smelly, land-abusing, manure-producing, methane-bulching, vile looking, unhealthy sources of animal fat and protein.
We'll show you! We'll bring in lambs and make goat cheese. Oh wait... that means we'll have to become shephards and actually work.
OK... upon consideration, you can stay. But, you're going to have to build your own new barn with your own money, and pay us an annual fee for the existance of the structure, and use of the land.
That's the best deal you're gonna get anywhere, because afterall, who needs ugly cows next door.
Oh, and by the way, we still want the free milk.
The Vin
11-11-2006, 09:48 PM
SF has residents too. :mouthclosed:
Yes. And when I say SF, I don't entail or presume to include the residents. I'm speaking of the city, i.e. the government. If the people in SF who are 49er fans would see that the people in charge of running the city are superficially attached to the team then they should be pissed.
9erMan
11-11-2006, 10:00 PM
Yes, the City of San Francisco is reaping the rewards of extreme liberalism gone wild. I suppose they think there will be new laws preventing such trademarks as “Chicago Pizza” here in California. What will they do with “China Town”, rename it?
San Francisco doesn’t deserve to host an NFL team anymore in my opinion. They are so anti private sector and so socialist oriented they deserve to get what’s coming to them.
The Vin
11-11-2006, 10:00 PM
Good points, Vin.
Just like a 49er deal, The City will never get the Olympics done. They will never be able to show commitment or control to build or renovate for the various venues. Too much wrangling and political backstabbing, too many deals in place going back decades for political power. Too many whacko extremes and hysteriae throwing sand into the machinery because this or that offends their paradigm. Too little money (see my other posts).
Sure, though, they like the idea of hosting the Olympics, because afterall, they see SF as a socialist-progressive, multi-cultural, multi-national city, unfortunately part of the US, so what venue would better fit the image than the Olympics? But, to have to pay for it? We're San Francisco! You should be throwing money at us just to get us to deign to consider your proposal.
Has everyone forgotten just how close the Giants were to becoming the St. Petersburg Giants? It wasn't until someone actually publicly asked how SF and its leaders would explain why one of America's premiere cities couldn't hold a major sports franchise. Not that it relocated to a better climate slightly South of the City, but completely out of state. Wasn't until that the 600lbs gorilla was out there in public that anybody representing the City actually started to make any noise about support for the Giants and Bay Area sports.
How did it get to that point? For the same reasons that it took 3 votes before the $100mm was approved for the 49ers... Blame it on SF's amnesty for illegal immigrants, anti-business environment, getting rid of the ports for DiFi's embarcadero boondoggle (and all the Unions and resident employees who relocated to the East Bay), socio-political upheaval... That fact was then, and now that SF's demographics have changed irrevocably. Every internal poll and census done by The City showed that its demographics had warped so much that a near majority could care less about SF tradition, SF/US values and icons, and especially not SF sports. 47 languages for voter brochures and ballots?
Which is why there was such political uproar and claims of fraud over Willie Brown when the $100mm 49er bond was approved. Every internal poll showed the demographics didn't care, and didn't support it, so the Board and the power elite of The City never saw a reason to. They still don't, even moreso now, until a couple days ago when the national spotlight sent all the cockroaches scrambling for cover.
Until a couple days ago, The City's politicians could have cared less, unless they're going to be embarrassed nationally. As far as the majority of them are concerned, The City's perspective on supporting sports franchises is exactly that old adage, "Why buy the cow when you can milk it for free?"
I can picture the arguments they've had with York et al...
What, you're going to move your cows to the next county? You can't do that, we need the free milk!
What?!! You actually want us to help pay for feed, mortgage, grazing, vet bills, taxes, farm hands, and everything else? How dare you. You're allowed to be here by our good graces.
What? Get stuffed? We'll take you to court. You can't just up and move when we've become so dependant on your smelly, land-abusing, manure-producing, methane-bulching, vile looking, unhealthy sources of animal fat and protein.
We'll show you! We'll bring in lambs and make goat cheese. Oh wait... that means we'll have to become shephards and actually work.
OK... upon consideration, you can stay. But, you're going to have to build your own new barn with your own money, and pay us an annual fee for the existance of the structure, and use of the land.
That's the best deal you're gonna get anywhere, because afterall, who needs ugly cows next door.
Oh, and by the way, we still want the free milk.
You hit the nail on the head. It's something fans of the team used to criticize York for doing. Whenever you want to accomplish something or do something, you have to show SOME willingness to actually do it and take on the expenses or energy to do so. With San Francisco, their priorities aren't on sports franchises, but to appease the average, blue collar fan, the politicians will pretend to care.
It's a load of garbage. And for York it's a simple decision:
He wants to build a stadium.
He's done all kinds of research and tried as hard as he could to make a feasible, state of the art stadium that would appease fans at the current location.
After his research, he's found that the current location will need all kinds of ridiculous infrastructure that will actually take away the gameday experience for the fans.
Santa Clara, a location a mere 30 miles away from the Stick and still in close vicinity for Bay Area fans, is ready and willing to accomodate the stadium without compensating by taking away the fan's gameday experience.
York chooses Santa Clara as his top priority, while still being open to any developments in San Fran.
The story would be over, but then you have douches like Gavin Newsome threatening to sue and acting bitter by accusing York of negotiating badly. The team has been negotiating with the city for 10 years, has gone through the voting process, and nothing has been done. I'm sorry, but if you're a business owner on any level, then you have to do what is best for your business and that means packing up and moving to a more feasible location. The city can cry all it wants and pretend to care, but my question is simply that if the city officials were so adamant about the tradition of the 49ers then why milk the team for so long, demand that they build the Olympic stadium for the city, and offer very little in the way of help? I'm not a big supporter of John York by any means. But this move of his is brilliant and aggressive and exactly the thing to do. For too long, the city of San Fran has put the 49ers on the backburner. Now we're simply moving on and trying to bring people football. The football culture needs to be amplified around these parts anyways. And I sense that a move to Santa Clara could attract better fans and focus the team on football as opposed to all the outside factors of San Francisco.
9erMan
11-11-2006, 10:15 PM
You hit the nail on the head. It's something fans of the team used to criticize York for doing. Whenever you want to accomplish something or do something, you have to show SOME willingness to actually do it and take on the expenses or energy to do so. With San Francisco, their priorities aren't on sports franchises, but to appease the average, blue collar fan, the politicians will pretend to care.
It's a load of garbage. And for York it's a simple decision:
He wants to build a stadium.
He's done all kinds of research and tried as hard as he could to make a feasible, state of the art stadium that would appease fans at the current location.
After his research, he's found that the current location will need all kinds of ridiculous infrastructure that will actually take away the gameday experience for the fans.
Santa Clara, a location a mere 30 miles away from the Stick and still in close vicinity for Bay Area fans, is ready and willing to accomodate the stadium without compensating by taking away the fan's gameday experience.
York chooses Santa Clara as his top priority, while still being open to any developments in San Fran.
The story would be over, but then you have douches like Gavin Newsome threatening to sue and acting bitter by accusing York of negotiating badly. The team has been negotiating with the city for 10 years, has gone through the voting process, and nothing has been done. I'm sorry, but if you're a business owner on any level, then you have to do what is best for your business and that means packing up and moving to a more feasible location. The city can cry all it wants and pretend to care, but my question is simply that if the city officials were so adamant about the tradition of the 49ers then why milk the team for so long, demand that they build the Olympic stadium for the city, and offer very little in the way of help? I'm not a big supporter of John York by any means. But this move of his is brilliant and aggressive and exactly the thing to do. For too long, the city of San Fran has put the 49ers on the backburner. Now we're simply moving on and trying to bring people football. The football culture needs to be amplified around these parts anyways. And I sense that a move to Santa Clara could attract better fans and focus the team on football as opposed to all the outside factors of San Francisco.
I agree. I think it would be better for the fans and better for the team if the 49ers moved away from that city. As a season ticket holder I look forward to better traffic conditions and a better stadium than SF will ever provide. It’s not like the 49ers are moving away, they are just moving to a location that gives them the best chances of having the best stadium and most ideal conditions for it’s market.
If York goes for the 20 story parking garage with little to no tailgating available to the fans, I won’t renew my season tickets.
The Vin
11-11-2006, 10:20 PM
If York goes for the 20 story parking garage with little to no tailgating available to the fans, I won’t renew my season tickets.
And that's the problem he's faced with.
His customers are you guys, the fans. And you have your demands. Seeing that tailgating is such an important factor of football, it'd be silly to take it away. Likewise, why go to a game if it's more of a hassel and a complete inconvenience? You'd rather watch it on TV instead.
But the city doesn't care about that. They want the stadium to be suited for the Olympics. You don't tailgate during the Olympics and I'm sure the seats won't be as close to the action. And since it's a once in a lifetime sort of thing, traffic isn't an issue on that front.
Once the Olympics pass, the stadium is going to be a logistical nightmare as a football venue. And you can't sell that to the fans. People complain about parking and what not now. Imagine when it takes you 2.5 hours just to exit a parking garage and hours to get home after a game. That's not smart and would do nothing to attract season ticket holders.
9erMan
11-11-2006, 10:31 PM
Imagine when it takes you 2.5 hours just to exit a parking garage and hours to get home after a game. That's not smart and would do nothing to attract season ticket holders. It already takes almost that long to get from the stick to the other side of the bridge after a game.
Imagine the toxic fumes of 10,000 or so vehicles trying to exit a parking garage all at the same time (after a game). Talk about a crappy deal for the fans.
ninersrule
11-11-2006, 11:54 PM
I hear a lot of talk about how the City is at fault here and not York. I hear that it seems to be that the City doesn't want to pay for it, but if I remember what York has repeatadly said he will not use the 100 million bond to build the stadium, or any other tax payer dollars. So where exactly is the City at fault here. It is obvious to me that York has not even thought about anyone else but himself. He hasn't thought of the ramifications. York very abrubtly decided that it wasn't worth pursueing and therefor called the negotiations off, it wasn't until Feinstein and Pelosi got involved that he decided to return to the table.
Also with a law that leno is proposing it would preclude a sports team to use the name that they are not based unless that city says it is ok. So if that law passes which I hate to say it is being reccomended by a Democrat and the Democrats run the place in Sacremento. The City would have a say over if the 49ers could use the name San Francisco which they would almost certianly would not. Also since the lease is up in 2008 it leaves the 49ers homeless.
Fromthe3rdRow
11-12-2006, 12:05 AM
I hear a lot of talk about how the City is at fault here and not York. I hear that it seems to be that the City doesn't want to pay for it, but if I remember what York has repeatadly said he will not use the 100 million bond to build the stadium, or any other tax payer dollars. So where exactly is the City at fault here. It is obvious to me that York has not even thought about anyone else but himself. He hasn't thought of the ramifications. York very abrubtly decided that it wasn't worth pursueing and therefor called the negotiations off, it wasn't until Feinstein and Pelosi got involved that he decided to return to the table.
Also with a law that leno is proposing it would preclude a sports team to use the name that they are not based unless that city says it is ok. So if that law passes which I hate to say it is being reccomended by a Democrat and the Democrats run the place in Sacremento. The City would have a say over if the 49ers could use the name San Francisco which they would almost certianly would not. Also since the lease is up in 2008 it leaves the 49ers homeless.You have heard right. The city of San Francisco has been dragging their feet for some time. If they had actually cooperated with the team instead of:
A) Expecting the team to pay for all infrastructure improvements
B) Expecting the team to remodel their stadium plans to accomodate track and field events for the Olympic games.
C) Expected the team to remodel the stadium a second time to accomodate opening and closing ceremonies for the Olympic games.
D) Expecting the team to double the price of the stadium in order to build a mall, housing and other improvements that benefit the city, and not the team...
Well, I think you get the point.
However, you may fail to realize that the teams name is a branded trade mark. That trademark belongs to the San Francisco 49ers organization. Any judge will have difficulty listening to the city argue that they can't use that name now, after allowing them to use that name for the past 60 years. Vain attempts to change the law are just not going to fly - nor will they hold up in court.
If the city is willing to spend millions fighting this out in court, they are even dumber than they look.
As for the $100 million dollar bond - York has already said he's not interested in asking the people of San Francisco to spend their money for a measuer that was passed years ago, for a project that just won't work. I think he's being generous on that point.
Peter Proud
11-12-2006, 02:07 AM
The 49ers have said they weren't going to try to use the $100 million dollar bond, that they would use private funds.
Without saying it in public, my guess is that the 49ers don't want to delay getting a stadium built because of spending time in court fighting lawsuits over the $100 million dollar bond money!
As for the $100 million dollar bond - York has already said he's not interested in asking the people of San Francisco to spend their money for a measuer that was passed years ago, for a project that just won't work. I think he's being generous on that point.
Not quite.
A few years ago, when York renewed talk about a stadium project, the 49ers expected the bond to still be available to them, but the city started to whine about it, saying that too much time had passed, and the bond shouldn't be valid anymore. It was after this that York decided not to fight the city over it, and decided to go with private financing. That would also have given the 49ers ownership of the stadium rather than the city.
Giedi
11-12-2006, 09:17 AM
One thing people need to understand here - precident doesn't matter. They are talking about making a new law. Once a law is made, it does not matter to the courts if precident exists. The issue would be is the law legal. By that I mean does the law state or federal constitutional provisions or does it violate federal law.
There are several things that could be argued by the 49ers. The most compelling in my mind would be that the law would violate the 49ers rights as a private business to express themselves openly. There are other angles that could be taken. In the end though, this matter would go into huge amounts of litigation. You also have to realize that the second such a law was passed, the team would look for loopholes. For instance, if the law stated "a spots team that does not play in the city cannot have the name", they could play a practice game in ANY city named San Fransico anywhere in the country and meet the necissary criteria for the law. For example, it wouldn't cost too much to fly 10 players to San Fransisco, Texas and have a 30 minute scrimmage - which would then satisfy the law.
Even more open to debate would be if a state law would be enough. For example, if they were to put their head quarter's mail box in San Fransisco, Texas - could California argue on a large enough scale that a company based out of San Fransisco could not carry that name on its team?
Basically, I don't believe you could get a law tight enough to actually prevent the name from being used. The issue becomes how much money does San Fransisco (the city) want to spent to try and remove their name from the team. Especially when the team having that name actually benefits the city. My answer would be none - which is why I think this is all political smoke and mirrors.
Reps to you on some excellent points!
And I agree, I don't think SF wants to spend money on litigation. IF they *can't* get a deal done, they will do what the other cities have done, and that is to let the team remain as the "San Francisco 49ers" rather than the "Santa Clara 49ers."
Giedi
Giedi
11-12-2006, 09:26 AM
Pelosi is chump change, esp. in this situation. She's on record as an avowed, anti-business socialist. She's been against every proposal regarding the Giants, and the 49ers, and stood in the way of a many practical business development proposals in The City. As did Fienstein. This is just a new slant from/for Pelosi and others in The City to save face, and to build an image for herself in the national spotlight.
Legally, she has no power to do or influence anything, other than through others' respect for the position, not her. As she can only ask for cooperation out of respect for her new position, and as she does not have the respect from the business community, she won't be able to get anything done unless she resorts to abusing her new power by threatening the Yorks and any contractors involved with the new stadium with IRS investigations into the foreseeable future.
If this swings back the other way, and you hear/read anything remotely like, "Pelosi was instrumental behind the scenes in her assistance to get this deal done," then you KNOW that's what went down.
Well, I've always advocated the Hunters Point area as a possible site. I know the team wants to build on Candlestick point, but the fact that she's speaker of the house is important on one level - the *Federal* level.
As another poster said in another thread - there are toxic issues with regards to the Hunters point area. BUT, if she can get some federal help to deal with the fact taht Hunters Point was a Military Naval Shipyard and get some money from the feds to help YOrk and Co. clean up the place. That going to be a GREAT place for a stadium.
If you do a google earth look at hunters point, by just looking at it with raw eyes, it looks twice as big as Candlestick point. So far its at an early enough stage where plans can still change.
As for her anti business agenda. There is a very vocal minority of fanatic san franciscans that will have her head and fry her arse if she loses the 49ers. IF she doesn't pay attention to business interest, she had better pay attention to that vocal 49er fan minority. It could cost her, Galvin, and Fienstien their jobs if these guys get riled up. Most of the San Franciscan citizenery dont pretty much care for politics, that's why the vocal democratic minorities and extreme leftists get to run the show. But lose the stadium and you will trigger a portion of the population that is just as vocal, and just as vigorous, and just as willing to fry somebody's arse if they lose the 49ers.
Giedi
sgfried
11-12-2006, 09:44 AM
I would like to see how well anyone who crafts such a bill (can't use the name SF if you are not in the city without permission) does in thier re-election bid. That also goes for anyone who votes "yes" on such a bill. That would be political suicide IMO.
The city of SF has had 10ish years to get thier act together. There are some ligit concerns about the currently proposed sites within SF. In a post by Geidi (I think), their were some very good points about why the spot near Great America is such a good spot. Add in the fact that it is more central and light rail is near by and already installed, I think congestion could not be a bad as one might think. Plus, there would be alot of revenue generated for light rail on those days.
I think York should truely look at the Santa Clara sight and make the city of SF pony up big time if they want the Niners to stay.
9erMan
11-12-2006, 04:45 PM
Sf has about as much of a chance as an ice cube has in hell. They have no leverage and the threats are BS.
NJDiehardfan
11-12-2006, 06:35 PM
Good points, Vin.
Just like a 49er deal, The City will never get the Olympics done. They will never be able to show commitment or control to build or renovate for the various venues. Too much wrangling and political backstabbing, too many deals in place going back decades for political power. Too many whacko extremes and hysteriae throwing sand into the machinery because this or that offends their paradigm. Too little money (see my other posts).
Sure, though, they like the idea of hosting the Olympics, because afterall, they see SF as a socialist-progressive, multi-cultural, multi-national city, unfortunately part of the US, so what venue would better fit the image than the Olympics? But, to have to pay for it? We're San Francisco! You should be throwing money at us just to get us to deign to consider your proposal.
Has everyone forgotten just how close the Giants were to becoming the St. Petersburg Giants? It wasn't until someone actually publicly asked how SF and its leaders would explain why one of America's premiere cities couldn't hold a major sports franchise. Not that it relocated to a better climate slightly South of the City, but completely out of state. Wasn't until that the 600lbs gorilla was out there in public that anybody representing the City actually started to make any noise about support for the Giants and Bay Area sports.
How did it get to that point? For the same reasons that it took 3 votes before the $100mm was approved for the 49ers... Blame it on SF's amnesty for illegal immigrants, anti-business environment, getting rid of the ports for DiFi's embarcadero boondoggle (and all the Unions and resident employees who relocated to the East Bay), socio-political upheaval... That fact was then, and now that SF's demographics have changed irrevocably. Every internal poll and census done by The City showed that its demographics had warped so much that a near majority could care less about SF tradition, SF/US values and icons, and especially not SF sports. 47 languages for voter brochures and ballots?
Which is why there was such political uproar and claims of fraud over Willie Brown when the $100mm 49er bond was approved. Every internal poll showed the demographics didn't care, and didn't support it, so the Board and the power elite of The City never saw a reason to. They still don't, even moreso now, until a couple days ago when the national spotlight sent all the cockroaches scrambling for cover.
Until a couple days ago, The City's politicians could have cared less, unless they're going to be embarrassed nationally. As far as the majority of them are concerned, The City's perspective on supporting sports franchises is exactly that old adage, "Why buy the cow when you can milk it for free?"
I can picture the arguments they've had with York et al...
What, you're going to move your cows to the next county? You can't do that, we need the free milk!
What?!! You actually want us to help pay for feed, mortgage, grazing, vet bills, taxes, farm hands, and everything else? How dare you. You're allowed to be here by our good graces.
What? Get stuffed? We'll take you to court. You can't just up and move when we've become so dependant on your smelly, land-abusing, manure-producing, methane-bulching, vile looking, unhealthy sources of animal fat and protein.
We'll show you! We'll bring in lambs and make goat cheese. Oh wait... that means we'll have to become shephards and actually work.
OK... upon consideration, you can stay. But, you're going to have to build your own new barn with your own money, and pay us an annual fee for the existance of the structure, and use of the land.
That's the best deal you're gonna get anywhere, because afterall, who needs ugly cows next door.
Oh, and by the way, we still want the free milk.
Excellent post
ninerjeff
11-13-2006, 11:59 AM
Democratic Assemblyman Mark Leno is an *****.
Why is he wasting his time getting involved?
exactly! they don't call them the board of STUPIDVISORS for nothing:biggrin:
jojob101
11-13-2006, 12:33 PM
Hi and thank you for your e-mail! I am currently out of the office attending some training in El Monte, CA. I will return on Friday, November 17th in which I will respond to your emails then. If you need immediate assistance please contact Phone Bank Operations. Once again, thank you for your email.
I think it is best for the 49ers to move to Santa Clara. That area has already been developed for a stadium with the right amount of transit and hotels in the area.
the "new twists" are the politicians of SF :yikes: no realizing they will lose the Olympic bid. It's not the NINERS they want...it is the chance to host the Olympics.
Yo I love SF and is one of the most beautiful cities I have ever been too but I love my 49ers more. I love the fact that Santa Clara is ready for an NFL team and I also love the fact that Santa Clara is real close to S.F. There are way more access points in getting to Great America and hopefully future home of the Niners. Right now you have 2 ways on getting to Candlestick (south 101 or 80 bay bridge) without any trolley’s. It's ridiculous!! Santa Clara has 4-5 access points going to Great America with Trolley access and plenty of parking room. It is ideal!!
So F the politicians who have just sat on plans and never put them in place and only wanted to vote on stupid laws and or GaE marriages!! <-- not that that even matters but it seems stupid stuff like that gets S.F moving. Well my NINERS are more important and need a new home!!! N O W
:hide:
Ohio49erfan
11-13-2006, 02:37 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/San_Francisco_49ers_Unused_1991.png
For those that dont remember it, here's the helmet logo that the 49er organization proposed back in '91
GO GO GOOD GUYS! :sflogo:
LOS41510
11-13-2006, 08:33 PM
San Francisco needs this stadium otherwise newsome and his political buffons will be known for letting the 49ers leave.
LOS
:sf49::sf49: 60 seasons FAITHFUL :sf49: :sf49:
AZTEC
11-14-2006, 12:31 PM
For those of you worried about who owns the naming rights....well....
Last time I checked:
ARIZONA ICE TEA----is not made in Arizona
HAWAIIAN CHIPs are not produced in Hawaii
COLUMBIA clothing and attire are not made there either
A New York Steak doesn't come from Times Square....
and per my favorite reference from the ADAMS family-----GIRL SCOUT cookies are not made by real Girl Scouts!!!
The 49ers are a marketed product and form of entertainment and have the legal licenses/ copyrights to retain their identity via their working corporation history and league & labor agreements and financial banking history.
I'm not a lawyer.....but it seems like history favors the 49ers. :sflogo:
It would be so short-sited to attempt to take away the opportunity of the word "San Francisco" being broadcasted internationally for hours of live and taped television. This would only hurt the tourism industry for the Bay Area as a whole and not hit the pocket books of the Yorks----since they'd be catering to full capacity venues anyways not only for Football but as well as Concerts and other potential activities at the new Santa Clara site.
49erRyder
11-15-2006, 04:04 PM
Thats what I'm talkin about if they move to Santa Clara change the name Santa Clara aint San Francisco and they ain't no 49ers.:ninerh:
linkboy
11-15-2006, 04:42 PM
Thats what I'm talkin about if they move to Santa Clara change the name Santa Clara aint San Francisco and they ain't no 49ers.:ninerh:
Please, give me a break. The 49ers represent more then just the city of San Francisco (they represent the entire bay area and northern california.
Here's in idea. The 49ers move to LA and change their name to something totally different.
Guess what happens then.
The city, bay area and northern california lose one of their top sports franchises permanently.
Don't think it won't happen. If Santa Clara wasn't there as a viable plan B and a stadium deal can't be made with the city of San Francisco, then the 49ers WILL move. Its that simple.
Which sounds better to you out of these two options
A) 49ers move to Santa Clara, retain everything that makes them the 49ers (name, logo, etc). They get a brand-new state of the art stadium, fans have great tailgating opportunities.
B) 49ers move to Los Angeles, and change the name, logo and uniform. Guess what, the team history goes with them (and there won't be a cleveland/baltimore situtation, due to the fact that the league won't be expanding anytime soon).
prospector
11-18-2006, 07:04 AM
SF has residents too. :mouthclosed:
SF does have residents, and they have overwhelmingly rejected any reasonable idea for a stadium, finally barley passing this stadium and housing and mall proposition that is without precedent and completely unworkable. Put a stadium measure on the ballot in SF, and it goes down in flames. The people of SF have had their chance, and blown it. For the 49er fans in SF, there is no reason why they can't travel down the peninsula a few miles to see their boys play, just as the vast majority of 49er fans from elsewhere in the Bay Area have travelled to SOUTH SF to see the Niners play in the past.
And if the city of SF wants to get all uppity and letiginous about the 49ers, the state of California, which represents all of the Bay Area, can always step in and start to play with some of the state funding allocated for SF. If the city doesn't want to play nice with it's neighbors, the neighboring Bay Area can play political games as well. It's a losing battle for SF, they've had their chance at a stadium for decades.
tomacbeth
11-18-2006, 08:50 AM
I think they could.
For the legal challenge to hold, the courts WOULD have to overturn the precedent set by teams such as the GIANTS, JETS, COWBOYS, etc. That will not happen of course. Won't stop the city from trying. What needs to happen is for one of the Bay Area newspapers to publish a report detailing the projected costs that such a court action will incur. Get the taxpayers ticked off the watsed millions of dollars (yes.. Millions.. refer to Angels/Anahiem fiasco @ $ 7 million)
Of course it could to the ultimate absurdity of the SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS OF SANTA CLARA.
For the legal challenge to hold, the courts WOULD have to overturn the precedent set by teams such as the GIANTS, JETS, COWBOYS, etc.
Based on what facts? Did any of those cities oppose the use of their names? If not, than there is no precedent for determining the right to use a civic name by a commercial entity without the city's permission. I believe this is the first, because SF is the first city that apparently does not want it's name associated with an NFL franchise (a very poor PR decision also).
People keep wanting to say that the 49ers have the right to use "San Francisco" as it's franchise name, simply because other teams have done the same. And as I have said before, there are no facts in support of this notion because no other city has opposed the use of it's name. This is most definitely a new issue, and a new precedent to be set.
AlexSmith5rings
11-18-2006, 04:04 PM
edit:forget it
Fromthe3rdRow
11-18-2006, 04:12 PM
Based on what facts? Did any of those cities oppose the use of their names? If not, than there is no precedent for determining the right to use a civic name by a commercial entity without the city's permission. I believe this is the first, because SF is the first city that apparently does not want it's name associated with an NFL franchise (a very poor PR decision also).
People keep wanting to say that the 49ers have the right to use "San Francisco" as it's franchise name, simply because other teams have done the same. And as I have said before, there are no facts in support of this notion because no other city has opposed the use of it's name. This is most definitely a new issue, and a new precedent to be set.
Actually, the "San Francisco 49ers" is a trademark, and as such is the property of the NFL and the 49er organization.
The city would have an extremely difficult time trying to justify a change, or declare damage from the team's use of the city name. After all, they have been allowing the team to use the city name for 60 years without complaint. It is going to take a remarkable argument in order to convince a judge or jury that suddenly, the city has suffered damages from the teams use of their name after all these years.
AlexSmith5rings
11-18-2006, 04:14 PM
with all the fighting here about the name i wonder, i hope everyone wants them to stay the "San Francisco 49ers" right? alot of trashing SF is in this thread
Actually, the "San Francisco 49ers" is a trademark, and as such is the property of the NFL and the 49er organization.
The city would have an extremely difficult time trying to justify a change, or declare damage from the team's use of the city name. After all, they have been allowing the team to use the city name for 60 years without complaint. It is going to take a remarkable argument in order to convince a judge or jury that suddenly, the city has suffered damages from the teams use of their name after all these years.
That trademark is based on a contract between the team and the city. Once that contract is void... so is the trademark.
with all the fighting here about the name i wonder, i hope everyone wants them to stay the "San Francisco 49ers" right? alot of trashing SF is in this thread
Most of us are discussing facts and legalities. That is different from what we would like to see happen.
AlexSmith5rings
11-18-2006, 04:27 PM
Most of us are discussing facts and legalities. That is different from what we would like to see happen.
i know you are discussing facts but there are plenty of others that are just trashing sf in this thread
i know you are discussing facts but there are plenty of others that are just trashing sf in this thread
I would not say that it is all undeserved. SF has been dragging it's feet for many years. When the $100 mil bond was passed for Eddie Debartolo's plan, many in the city claimed that the vote was unfair. The city seems to want to contribute nothing to a stadium complex that would benefit the city greatly. And they want John York to foot the bill for their Olympic bid.
And now that York has grown tired of trying to please the city, and waiting for something to happen on their part, he chooses another site. And what is the city's response...?
Threatening to withhold it's name, and denying services to the 49ers for the remainder of their lease. What about SFs position do you not find contemptible?
Fromthe3rdRow
11-18-2006, 04:33 PM
That trademark is based on a contract between the team and the city. Once that contract is void... so is the trademark.I doubt a contract was ever signed between city and team 60 years ago. If you can prove me wrong, please do so.
I doubt a contract was ever signed between city and team 60 years ago. If you can prove me wrong, please do so.
I'm sure records exists - although hard to find. But 1946 was not the stone age. They did have leases and contracts back then. At that time, of course the trademark would have belonged to the AAFL.
The point being, when times and circumstances change for businesses, so do trademarks. Who currently owns the rights to the trademarks "Baltimore Colts" "Houston Oilers" "St Louis Cardinals" "LA Rams" "LA Raiders"? That's right, those trademarks don't exist any more because the contractual relationship between those cities and teams don't exist anymore. It doesn't matter how many years the relationship existed. Once it's over, all bets are off.
Local49ersFan
11-18-2006, 05:18 PM
I have seen a lot of SF bashing also, if York doesn't want to have anything to do with SF, why keep the name? It's llike a divorced woman keeping the previous husband's last name.
if York doesn't want to have anything to do with SF
When did he ever say that? York tried to work with SF on the stadium for several years. He did not want to move the team, and is still willing to listen to offers from SF while moving forward with Santa Clara.
What gives you the impression that York wants nothing to do with SF?
Niner Jan
11-18-2006, 08:56 PM
Excellent point, Fred (3rd Row).
We are trashing the politicians--not the geographical entity of thte City of San Francisco. There's a difference! The governing body of the City of SF has not done much for the stadium site at Candlestick Point since its inception in 1971. Look how long it has taken the municipal powers to fix the problems, and now they are complaining that the 49ers want to move since they have not fixed them and have found a better deal elsewhere?
Sour grapes! They just don't want to lose the revenue that they enjoy from the stadium operating in South San Francisco.
BY, are you a lawyer? You sound like one, splitting hairs in your latest argument. If San Francisco is the only municipality that has not permitted its local team to retain its name while still existing in the SF Bay Area, then that is not a compliment to San Francisco, IMO. More like a black eye self-inflicted by the City, if you ask me!
Niner Mom :boxing:
It makes sense to me that the NFL owns the trademark of "The San Francisco 49ers"--and not the City's property. Any and all changes to football franchises have to be approved by the NFL--except for hiring of players, of course. You can't even use the trademark improperly or the NFL will slap your hand--or worse.
statniner
11-18-2006, 09:01 PM
San Francisco 49ers. Haters can go to bed.
GoldRush49
11-18-2006, 09:59 PM
any body see see this yet
http://www.sportsline.com/spin/story/9799797
if this was supposed to be a joke. i dont find it funny at all. :down:
San Francisco 49ers. Haters can go to bed.
Call people haters if you want. Some of us are simply discussing the reality of the situation, that there is no reason to assume that SF cannot somehow withhold their name from the 49ers, whether we like it or not.
But can you deny that SF is blowing this situation big time?
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.