Senator considers filing bill to stop 49ers move [Archive]

View Full Version : Senator considers filing bill to stop 49ers move

Bobbyq85

11-14-2006, 01:18 PM

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday she may introduce a bill requiring local officials to approve if their sports team tries to leave town and take the city's name along.

There's more:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2661759

Hopper15

11-14-2006, 01:41 PM

When will it end

goldeneye

11-14-2006, 02:04 PM

Is A New Stadium Really Worth The Move???come On York...what The **** Is Wrong With You!!!god **** It!!

Fromthe3rdRow

11-14-2006, 02:33 PM

linkboy

11-14-2006, 02:35 PM

Does the FEDERAL government really need to get involved in this?

Something that I don't think Senator Fienstein understands. Except for the Green Bay Packers, a sports team does not belong to the city they play in. They are a privately owned corporation. The 49ers do not belong to the City of San Francisco, they belong to the Debartolo Corportation.

Also, the 49ers technically moved years ago when their HQs were moved to Santa Clara (they do business there and that is where they file and pay their taxes, not the City of San Francisco). One reason why the San Francisco is complaining is because if the 49ers move, they lose the money they get from leasing the dump (aka Candlestick Park, which, btw is mostly in the condition its in because the city won't put-up the money for repairs (remember Candlestick Park is owned by the city, not the 49ers)) to the 49ers.

This is not an issue for the Federal Government (god knows they have bigger issues they should be focusing on). Heck, this shouldn't even be at the state level. Its an issue between the City of San Francisco and the 49ers organization.

Also, if this does pass, its going to effect a lot more teams (across many sports), then just the 49ers. That's the issue I have with it. What's to stop New York from complaining about the Giants and Jets, for example (or even the A's and their upcoming move down to Freemont), Dallas and their move to Arlington.

This is just another issue of the Federal Govt sticking its nose in business where it doesn't belong (which they do a very good job of, its about the only thing they're good at).

Personally, I think the 49ers should move and drop the San Francisco from their name. They wouldn't have to change the logo (the City of San Francisco doesn't not hold the trademark for that, the team does) and who says the SF stands for "San Francisco (hell, it could stand for anything). Just call the team "The 49ers".

NolansTheMan

11-14-2006, 02:59 PM

Uh, like dude - there is NO new stadium without a move.

The team has already indicated the current plan at Candlestick will not work.

The ball is now officially in city of SF's court. Their move. If they want to play ball - they'll come up with a new plan.

If not - we get a bright shiney new stadium in Santa Clara.

Ther's no reason to be so upset. This is a good thing.

can they renovate or desotry then rebuild on existing plot. while that is going on 9ers can play at a nearby college stadium or something. giants did it. unhless they are trying to build this massive stadium. i dont think our stadium is that small?:sam:

yayareafanatic

11-14-2006, 03:13 PM

They should just change their name to San Fran, since everyone else in the nation calls the team that godaweful name. The San Fran 49ers... it's horrible, but its proves a point to these meddling politicians.

When this all started, I was glad to hear that the Niners were serious about building a new park and were serious enough to do it in Santa Clara. Suddenly, everyone's coming out of the woodwork to put in their two sense. Arlen Specter opposed a move by the Eagles from Philly to Phoenix...what does that have to do with the Niners. They're moving 45 minutes down the road.

sacguy

11-14-2006, 03:24 PM

does that mean both n.y. teams and the cowboys will have to change their names ????? the name "san francisco 49ers " is a copy righted name .....lol--- don't think di fi can change a copy right law .... dumb *****

sacguy

11-14-2006, 03:27 PM

Is A New Stadium Really Worth The Move???come On York...what The **** Is Wrong With You!!!god **** It!!

niners should move ......most season tickets holders don't live in s/f anyway ... anf s/f is just a wierd place ...i used to live in s/f for 50 years so i know how strange s/f is .....

linkboy

11-14-2006, 03:41 PM

can they renovate or desotry then rebuild on existing plot. while that is going on 9ers can play at a nearby college stadium or something. giants did it. unhless they are trying to build this massive stadium. i dont think our stadium is that small?:sam:

That's one of the issues.

The city wants the 49ers to pay to improve the roads, parking and other infrastructure needs.

The 49ers, on the other hand, feel that the city should (and the 49ers are right, its not the responsibility of a PRIVATE business to pay for stuff that the CITY should).

As for renovating Candlestick, forget it. The stadium is far to old and it doesn't have any modern features that make owners money (ie luxary boxes). There's a big reason why the Redskins can sign all the free agents they do. Those luxary boxes are not part of the NFL's revenue sharing, so that's basically free money in Daniel Snyder's pocket.

The point of the matter is this, the 49ers need a new stadium.

The Vin

11-14-2006, 03:51 PM

I'm tired of politicians trying to tie down the hands of our team. It's Yorks team. Passing laws to prevent him from doing what he believes is right is something I look down upon.

Dynastic

11-14-2006, 05:46 PM

Feinstein sucks. Pelosi too. But it was TOTALLY expected of them.

Eric 80

11-14-2006, 06:14 PM

Um, If this passes I don't see the team staying in NoCal.

Peter Proud

11-14-2006, 07:23 PM

Somehow I don't think issues like this are why she was voted into office!

ninerman

11-14-2006, 07:33 PM

Seems to me the City is a little ungrateful. I guess they don't remember 5 Super Bowls.

The dame city should be building the Niners a new stadium. Maybe they will have to pull out like the old Browns/ Ravens did.

At the very least the city should give the Niners the real estate to build the stadium on. That does not seem unreasonable to me.

I know this has nothing to do with me..........not even being a US citizen and all..................I care about my team though and from an outsider looking in I think the city has more to loose than the Niners do.

Row1Endzone

11-14-2006, 10:12 PM

Is A New Stadium Really Worth The Move???come On York...what The **** Is Wrong With You!!!god **** It!!

Answer #1 YES Answer #2 Nothing, the man runs a bussiness not a charity

Politicians are morons..... and so are you for believing any of this preliminary crap.

Breath deep...now go take your meds, you'll be ok.

Niner Jan

11-14-2006, 10:43 PM

How can a politician (dirty word) pass a law to be retroactive? There are other teams who play in nearby cities other than the city whose name they bear...POLITICS! That may not be a 4-letter word, but it's definitely one of the BAD WORDS in our language!

Most of the loud-mouthed orators are politicians from SF, it seems to me...:gunshoot:

Niner Mom :shades:

The Vin

11-14-2006, 11:20 PM

Somehow I don't think issues like this are why she was voted into office!

Issues like these are why I didn't vote for her period.

But on a serious note: I just find this funny. The city and the politicians around here are trying to save face. But honestly, they didn't show enough commitment towards building a new stadium even when the Olympics were still hopeful. Now that they're scratched, methinks the people nearest to SF's government are trying to play hardball and get some payback for York telling them off. Do you honestly think that with nothing on the line for SF they'd okay a deal now when even the Olympics benefit didn't get things rolling fast enough?

Roaring Back

11-14-2006, 11:44 PM

That's one of the issues.

The city wants the 49ers to pay to improve the roads, parking and other infrastructure needs.

The 49ers, on the other hand, feel that the city should (and the 49ers are right, its not the responsibility of a PRIVATE business to pay for stuff that the CITY should).

As for renovating Candlestick, forget it. The stadium is far to old and it doesn't have any modern features that make owners money (ie luxary boxes). There's a big reason why the Redskins can sign all the free agents they do. Those luxary boxes are not part of the NFL's revenue sharing, so that's basically free money in Daniel Snyder's pocket.

The point of the matter is this, the 49ers need a new stadium.

Why exactly should the city (the PUBLIC) pay for the roads and infrastrucure serving a PRIVATE entity?

Oh, and why do the Redskins suck if the system is so supportive of Danny Snyder?

:gunshoot:

San Francisco is more appealing than Santa Clara. SF knows this. SC doesn't, even though it's been down this road before. Therefore, SF has leverage, and SC has hope. We'll see.

Fromthe3rdRow

11-15-2006, 12:37 AM

Why exactly should the city (the PUBLIC) pay for the roads and infrastrucure serving a PRIVATE entity?

Oh, and why do the Redskins suck if the system is so supportive of Danny Snyder?

:gunshoot:

San Francisco is more appealing than Santa Clara. SF knows this. SC doesn't, even though it's been down this road before. Therefore, SF has leverage, and SC has hope. We'll see.Uhm, let's be sure we get a few things straight...

The plan which has been discarded included development of a shopping mall/entertainment complex, as well as housing, a parking structure and god knows what else. That development was intended for public use.

The plug was pulled because of extensive studies which showed new roads, sewage, power, free way exits and public transportation would be required to support the old plan. Those improvements would cost about the same as the stadium itself - thus doubling the price the city expects the Niners to pay.

The city should not expect the Niners to buy them a redevelopment in Candlestick park. Nor should they expect them to spend even more so the city can host a sporting event which lasts three weeks. The Niners and their fans plan to use the stadium for a heck of a lot longer than three weeks. I think the team has it right when they put their fan interests ahead of the money boys seeking to land an Olympic deal.

Lastly - let us all be sure we understand that the plan which has been ditched would have required TWO state laws be changed in order for the city to aquire STATE owned property (Candlestick Point State Recreation Area) which is adjacent to the existing stadium, and land which was needed in order to house the massive development. There is ZERO, I repeat ZERO chance the state of California would change their laws in order to give land to the Niners. Why do I say ZERO? Think about it - you think for one second any one down in Southern California is gonna give one fig for something the Niners want? Not if they want it up in San Francisco they don't!

The deal at Candlestick is no more! The city knows it, the Niners announced it - and some fans just need to accept it. Fienstein is just blowing smoke. She knows she has no leg to stand on. Read her statements again - basically all she is saying is that she is "going to look into the possibility" of passing legislation to keep the Niners from moving. She's just making nice noises for her well heeled political supporters living atop Nob Hill.

She should buy herself a clue and join the rest of us in celebrating and support a new stadium in Santa Clara - a bright new shiny - state of the art stadium, built in the heart of Silicon Valley.

I can easily imagine state of the art, high tech amenities which will blow your socks off. Wanting anything less is just silly.

DraconisRex

11-15-2006, 04:33 AM

That's one of the issues.

The city wants the 49ers to pay to improve the roads, parking and other infrastructure needs.

The 49ers, on the other hand, feel that the city should (and the 49ers are right, its not the responsibility of a PRIVATE business to pay for stuff that the CITY should).

As for renovating Candlestick, forget it. The stadium is far to old and it doesn't have any modern features that make owners money (ie luxary boxes). There's a big reason why the Redskins can sign all the free agents they do. Those luxary boxes are not part of the NFL's revenue sharing, so that's basically free money in Daniel Snyder's pocket.

The point of the matter is this, the 49ers need a new stadium.

It's funny you mention the Redskins. I've read that Snyder makes something like $70 million a year off of luxury box rentals. The total gate for the 49ers is close to $35 million on a full-sell-out basis.

DraconisRex

11-15-2006, 04:59 AM

Why exactly should the city (the PUBLIC) pay for the roads and infrastrucure serving a PRIVATE entity?

What are you? A neocon? Neo-libertarian? Anarcho-Capitalist? And do you even know what the proposal was? To make the deal work as a privately funded venture, it required 6,500 Housing units plus a new stadium. 6,500 new housing units meant new roads, perhaps a new school or two, new sewers, new utilities, etc. Those are the responsiblities of the city and why they do things like issues bonds (construction) and collect taxes (pay off bonds, pay for maintence). Most every other city in the United States seems to grasp this little economic reality. As do the people who live in these cities.

York wasn't the one asking for a free lunch here. It was the City.

"Build our Olympic stadium (that will suck for football) and our roads and our sewers and we'll give you nothing in return but property taxes..." Big deal the apple...

Oh, and why do the Redskins suck if the system is so supportive of Danny Snyder?

:gunshoot:

I always like this card. The Redskins suck because they're foolish. And, actually, they don't spend as much money as people think. Snyder goes on a roster binge every three years and makes a lot of headlines. Then gets in cap-hell and purges the roster at the end of the cycle, only to start again.

And, just to make it funny, USA Today has spending information for the last 6 seasons on their website. The Redskins were actually been out-spent by a perceived "cheap" organization like the Eagles.

And to make it even funnier, if you go back through those six years (plus this half season) the Redskins and the 49ers have the same exact W/L record.

Where the money makes a difference is in providing services to the players - best locker rooms, best treatment, best coaching staffs, best support services, best weight-room, best doctors, etc. It doesn't, however, apparently provide good player personnel services.

Another thing the high-dollars allow is BIGGER bonuses. You may not get to pay $1 more over time, but the players appreciate the bigger contract bonuses because that's job security.

So, there are clear advantages. It's just Snyder is incompetent of using them to produce a winning team.

San Francisco is more appealing than Santa Clara. SF knows this. SC doesn't, even though it's been down this road before. Therefore, SF has leverage, and SC has hope. We'll see.

Not really. 60% of the fan base is from the South Bay/penninsula region. And, in fact, there are more season ticket holders in Sacramento County than in San Francisco itself. Fact is, San Francisco doesn't support the 49ers - the Bay Area and Northern California support the 49ers.

And if the choice is to go to an ultra-modern park in Santa Clara or the crap-hole Candlestick... Well, I don't go to the 'stick and stopped going in the 1970's. Some of it was because of work and family. Some because I stopped following the Giants. But most of it was because even in the late 1970's, Candlestick was a fithly, decrepit sewer, more like a men's restroom at a truckstop, than a quality venue. Oh, and those "piss troughs" in the men's room... *barf* *barf* *barf*

Niner Jan

11-15-2006, 04:33 PM

Fred and Rex,

Excellent information to enlighten the fans who are voting with their hearts instead of their heads.

Even I didn't know all the details you spelled out. Good job! Maybe a couple of OPEN MINDS might now understand. :banghead:

I'm going to give Diane Feinstein a piece of my mind! :gunshoot:

Niner Mom :yikes: :boxing:

I rewarded you both with REP points!

Venom

11-15-2006, 09:51 PM

I'm tired of politicians trying to tie down the hands of our team. It's Yorks team. Passing laws to prevent him from doing what he believes is right is something I look down upon.

That's correct. This has been coming for years but the fat cats didn't heed the warnings. Now they are full off pee and vinegar. I have no sympathy.

49erRyder

11-16-2006, 11:01 AM

San_Fran_49ers

11-16-2006, 04:04 PM

Seems to me the City is a little ungrateful. I guess they don't remember 5 Super Bowls.

Thank you!

Is that all the politicians have to do? Seriously, isn't there better things they can earn their salary doing that doesn't include trying to take away the name that the history and success of this team is built on? They are the SF 49ers. They won 5 superbowls as the SF 49ers. And SF officials don't want to remember that or be a part of it?

I don't know why this bugs me as much as it does...
:sflogo: :sflogo: :sflogo:

FODY

11-16-2006, 04:27 PM

Man why do people from outside of San Francisco keep speakin on it like they know ****. San Francisco got die hard niner fans probably harder than most yall know.
50.4

The Vin

11-16-2006, 04:44 PM

Man why do people from outside of San Francisco keep speakin on it like they know ****. San Francisco got die hard niner fans probably harder than most yall know. And if yall sayin stuff about Sacramento havin the most niner fans which is outrageous you think they want to drive all the way the **** down to Santa Clara.:pullhair:

With the new stadium in Santa Clara they might not have to drive. There might be public transportation that reaches as far as Sacramento. Just things to ponder before you act like San Francisco is the only location where a new stadium can be built. :dance2:

AZTEC

11-16-2006, 05:36 PM

The Vin

11-16-2006, 07:16 PM

And don't forget.......BART should be arriving in Santa Clara County by 2012.

The voting propositions that Californians just approved in the last election for improved infastructure is going to make Santa Clara County a top priority for Federal Assistance in the BART project and other transportation projects.

Guys------Santa Clara is going be DA' Bomb and your property values are going to SOAR in the upcoming years.

Yeah but don't tell some of the old timers that. I mean, the 49ers HAVE TO BE in San Francisco. They simply can't represent the city and their traditions and still cater to the fanbase at a more feasible location. York is the cause of cancer. :gunshoot:

Peter Proud

11-16-2006, 07:32 PM

Man why do people from outside of San Francisco keep speakin on it like they know ****. San Francisco got die hard niner fans probably harder than most yall know. And if yall sayin stuff about Sacramento havin the most niner fans which is outrageous you think they want to drive all the way the **** down to Santa Clara.:pullhair:

5 Season tickets...currently a 97+ mile trip to a game.

Will become a 95 mile trip to Santa Clara.

We may not know ****, but we know San Francisco Politicians!

Wait....they're the same aren't they!

Roaring Back

11-16-2006, 08:25 PM

What are you? A neocon? Neo-libertarian? Anarcho-Capitalist?

I'm a "Bush Democrat" if you really need to know.

Niner Jan

11-17-2006, 01:18 AM

Senator Dianne Feinstein:

The topics given in your list are not really appropriate to why I am writing. My topic is the legislation that you are planning to introduce into the U.S. Senate about forbidding sports franchises from using their city designation when they move outside the immediate city limits but within a given radius of the city.

The San Francisco 49ers are planning to move to Santa Clara, which is less than 30 miles down Highway 101. For 10 years now, the City of San Francisco has done nothing to improve the conditions at Candlestick Point where the current team is playing in horrendous situations: boggy playing field, frigid climate, crazy swirling headwinds; prolonged, unmoving traffic, poor road access and surface conditions (not only unpaved but muddy during rainy seasons). Poor infrastructure.

If the 49ers Organization were to build a new stadium on the same ground as the existing stadium, imagine the additional construction noise and detours for the next 6 years for fans making their way to games. Public transportation to the Stick does not exist--except for the buses that wend their way from the City at game time whereas public transportation DOES exist in the Santa Clara area proposed site for the new stadium.

You cannot punish one franchise from retaining its name while other franchises entertain like privileges in other states when they have moved not far away from their origin. The Mayor of San Francisco is acting childish by pouting, shouting, and threatening the 49ers because they wish to relocate nearby WITHIN THE BAY AREA in an area much better suited to the fans and the team, while still retaining their name of San Francisco 49ers.

California politicians--mostly in San Francisco--are acting out of puerile emotions and because they don't want to lose REVENUE--which the City has benefitted from all these years ever since the 49ers moved from Kezar to Candlestick Park in 1971.

Dianne, I am so furious at the thought of your introducing a bill in the U.S. Senate to prohibit ANY franchise from moving out of its city of origin (specifically targeted to the 49ers right now). Doesn't the Senate have more vital issues to solve than this? I can think of at least a DOZEN more important things to work on in Congress than being so petty as to forbid the 49ers from retaining their full (city) name--when they are moving into a San Francisco Bay Area city close enough to still be associated with it. And when there are already 4 NFL teams who have moved and retained their original geographical names.

The only reason is emotional and loss of revenue to San Francisco. Punishing the 49ers is so childish, it is soiling the reputations of those politicians threatening with this revengeful measure. It is more damaging to the politicians than to the 49ers franchise.

If you go ahead with this plan, I will NEVER vote for you again--nor contribute to your campaign nor for any other California politicians who vote for this new bill. Stop being so narrow-minded and prejudiced against our local team. This is nothing to be settled in a FEDERAL unit of government! Local matters should be dealt with in local governing bodies.

Stop being so childish and punitive to the fans of the San Francisco 49ers! Do the MORE URGENT work that the Republicans dropped in the past 8 years! That's where your efforts need to be channeled now.

(My full Name)
Sunnyvale Resident

The above message was sent to Senator Feinstein on her website. Others who disagree with what she plans to do should google "Senator Dianne Feinstein" and get your thoughts in her email box.

First to hit 6

04-04-2007, 06:01 PM