Tear down the 'stick and play at Stanford

[Rattlehead]

For a few years that is. Crazy? Not really. What would it take, 2-3 years to build a new Stadium on that site? Do it, stop fooling around. Do what the Yankees did although they did it a couple of blocks away. Build a new one at the same site as today. The 'stick is a big stadium when you look at boundaries. It's because it used to be a combined stadium (Baseball and Football). The new one would be smaller but taller. So the parking would be somewhat better. But it would be in the city. Where the Niners should stay. Screw Santa Clara. Meanwhile the Niners should play at Stanford to honour the late Bill Walsh. Oh, and one more thing...the new stadium should be called Bill Walsh Stadium/Field. Do it right SF! Stop fooling around with the legacy. You can't buy our legacy.

[Hobbes2d]

How about completely remodel Candlestick? Far too much history there to just tear it down.

And in the meantime they can play at Stanford or Pac Bell Park or SOMEWHERE.

[Rattlehead]

How about completely remodel Candlestick? Far too much history there to just tear it down.

And in the meantime they can play at Stanford or Pac Bell Park or SOMEWHERE.

Good for me, but I do understand the need for luxury VIP boxes, bigger tailgating area and better seating and view.

If someone would guarantee today that they would build on the 'stick site I would support that option with all my heart. There are no other sites in SF to build on. Hunters Point? NO! China Basin? NO? Share it with the Giants like in the old days? Been there, done that. NO! It only leaves the current site. That option is better than anything else. The Niners should not need votes or politics. They should blackmail the city. And believe me, the city will break. Afterall, SF without the Niners is the same as NYC without the Yankees...unthinkable.

[echerne]

didnt the seahawks do this also. tear down thier old stadium and put it on top of the old one? oh and they played at huskie stadium. works for me. take down the old stick move to stanford for a couple years and then move back. WHAT A CONCEPT NINERS

[Peter Proud]

For a few years that is. Crazy? Not really. What would it take, 2-3 years to build a new Stadium on that site? Do it, stop fooling around. Do what the Yankees did although they did it a couple of blocks away. Build a new one at the same site as today. The 'stick is a big stadium when you look at boundaries. It's because it used to be a combined stadium (Baseball and Football). The new one would be smaller but taller. So the parking would be somewhat better. But it would be in the city. Where the Niners should stay. Screw Santa Clara. Meanwhile the Niners should play at Stanford to honour the late Bill Walsh. Oh, and one more thing...the new stadium should be called Bill Walsh Stadium/Field. Do it right SF! Stop fooling around with the legacy. You can't buy our legacy.

How about completely remodel Candlestick? Far too much history there to just tear it down.

And in the meantime they can play at Stanford or Pac Bell Park or SOMEWHERE.

didnt the seahawks do this also. tear down thier old stadium and put it on top of the old one? oh and they played at huskie stadium. works for me. take down the old stick move to stanford for a couple years and then move back. WHAT A CONCEPT NINERS

Monster Park....70,000 + seats.

Stanford Stadium...50,000 seats

Please explain which 15,000+ Season Ticket Holders don't get their seats?

[Texicali blue]

Monster Park....70,000 + seats.

Stanford Stadium...50,000 seats

Please explain which 15,000+ Season Ticket Holders don't get their seats?

The late ones, duh!

[Rattlehead]

Monster Park....70,000 + seats.

Stanford Stadium...50,000 seats

Please explain which 15,000+ Season Ticket Holders don't get their seats?

Do you really believe there are 65,000-70,000 seasons ticket holders at the 'stick? Get real! LOL! And please, don't use the the Monster Park phrase in this thread. I hate that name.

[Peter Proud]

Do you really believe there are 65,000-70,000 seasons ticket holders at the 'stick? Get real! LOL! And please, don't use the the Monster Park phrase in this thread. I hate that name.

In 2004 there were approx. 60,000 STH'ers.

In 2005 approx. 91% renewed.

2006 numbers aren't available yet and the 2007 season hasn't started yet. But I would guess the number is somewhere between 60,000 - 62,000 STH's.

That's still 10,000-12,000 more STH's than seats at Stanford!

[Rattlehead]

In 2004 there were approx. 60,000 STH'ers.

In 2005 approx. 91% renewed.

2006 numbers aren't available yet and the 2007 season hasn't started yet. But I would guess the number is somewhere between 60,000 - 62,000 STH's.

That's still 10,000-12,000 more STH's than seats at Stanford!

So what? Those season ticket holders in the nosebleed seats don't attend every game.

Let's make a poll where only those in the worst seats can vote if the Niners should stay in the city or move. Since they don't attend every game what do you think their answer would be? Yeah right, they will surely travel to Santa Clara...

[photomonkey]

So what? Those season ticket holders in the nosebleed seats don't attend every game.

Let's make a poll where only those in the worst seats can vote if the Niners should stay in the city or move. Since they don't attend every game what do you think their answer would be? Yeah right, they will surely travel to Santa Clara...

:nolisten:

[Peter Proud]

So what? Those season ticket holders in the nosebleed seats don't attend every game.

Let's make a poll where only those in the worst seats can vote if the Niners should stay in the city or move. Since they don't attend every game what do you think their answer would be? Yeah right, they will surely travel to Santa Clara...

So you are speaking as a Season Ticket Holder?

The point isn't about where the seats are. It's about maintaining senority, deciding which ticket holders get to use their seats, it's about the revenue lost to the 49ERS from the difference of Monster Park's seating capacity and Stanford's...20,000 seats.

And if they use Stanford not only will 10,000-12,000 STH's not be able to go to a game, but there would be absolutely NO tickets available to the general public. Scalpers would have a gold mine!

What if the 49ERS make the playoffs?

Make any poll you want. There aren't enough STH's that visit this board to give it any credibility. BTW, there are STH's with the worst seats who drive 2 hrs. or more to come to a game.

[Rattlehead]

So you are speaking as a Season Ticket Holder?

I'm speaking as a former season ticket holder with crap seats which still made my day everytime I went to SF.

The point isn't about where the seats are. It's about maintaining senority, deciding which ticket holders get to use their seats, it's about the revenue lost to the 49ERS from the difference of Monster Park's seating capacity and Stanford's...20,000 seats.

You're failing to graps the concept here. Are you willing to let 10,000 people and their season tickets (the crap seats) dictate where the future of the SAN FRANCISCO 49ers should be? How about this...the ones stuck in the middle or on the losing side will get an option to renew their season tickets in 2-3 years time for half the price? By that time the Bill Walsh Satdium will have a capacity of 75,000-80,000 on 90% of the area the 'stick uses now. Everyone wins, right? Along with and additional 10,000 possible season ticket holders.

And if they use Stanford not only will 10,000-12,000 STH's not be able to go to a game, but there would be absolutely NO tickets available to the general public. Scalpers would have a gold mine!

Name me your price for someone that haven't gone those extra yards to upgrade their seats during the years. If you care about the Niners you try to upgrade the first chance you get. If you don't, then you don't care enough an it won't hurt you to wait 2-3 years.

What if the 49ERS make the playoffs?

If the Niners make the playoffs their attendance will be their smallest problem.

Make any poll you want. There aren't enough STH's that visit this board to give it any credibility. BTW, there are STH's with the worst seats who drive 2 hrs. or more to come to a game.

I'm not going ot make a poll. I asked you to make one if you want. Sure, I don't dispute the fact that there are some STH's who travel a long distance to watch a game with a binocular. But again, ask them what they would prefer. The Niners in SF or in Santa Clara.

[Peter Proud]

I'm speaking as a former season ticket holder with crap seats which still made my day everytime I went to SF.



You're failing to graps the concept here. Are you willing to let 10,000 people and their season tickets (the crap seats) dictate where the future of the SAN FRANCISCO 49ers should be? How about this...the ones stuck in the middle or on the losing side will get an option to renew their season tickets in 2-3 years time for half the price? By that time the Bill Walsh Satdium will have a capacity of 75,000-80,000 on 90% of the area the 'stick uses now. Everyone wins, right? Along with and additional 10,000 possible season ticket holders.



Name me your price for someone that haven't gone those extra yards to upgrade their seats during the years. If you care about the Niners you try to upgrade the first chance you get. If you don't, then you don't care enough an dit won't hurt you to wait 2-3 years.



If the Niners make the playoffs their attendance will be their smallest problem.



I'm not going ot make a poll. I asked you to make one if you want. Sure, I don't dispute the fact that there are some STH's who travel a long distance to watch a game with a binocular. But again, ask them what they would prefer. The Niners in SF or in Santa Clara.

Why don't you take the time to read all the different threads and posts that were started 3 months ago that express the many different opinions of many different fans...whether they are STH's or not.

You're kind of coming in late on this subject, but go ahead and express your opinion. I'll stay with mine.

Poll has already been done...go look for it.

[Rattlehead]

Why don't you take the time to read all the different threads and posts that were started 3 months ago that express the many different opinions of many different fans...whether they are STH's or not.

You're kind of coming in late on this subject, but go ahead and express your opinion. I'll stay with mine.

Poll has already been done...go look for it.

Oh Peter, I've read them all. Make no mistake about it. So please, show me someone who put forward an opinion to play at Stanford for 2-3 years. IMHO, they should do that first and foremost to honour Bill Walsh. But it would be a good opportunity to build a new home for the team.

[Coldrain85]

The 49ers will not play at Stanford for the same reason that the Packers don't play at the Univ of Wisconsin, and for the same reason that the Titans don't play at the University of Tennessee etc. etc. The logistics would be impossible, especially if there are 2 games on the same weekend. The smaller number of available seats isn't even the real issue. What's more is that Stanford is private, and who do you think would have access to the best seats? That's right, Stanford people. NOT 49ers STH's. Let's drop this thread and talk about something meaningful.

FWIW, around 90% of the available seats at Candlestick belong to STH's. Probably something in the neighborhood of 62,000. Assume that maybe 1,000 tickets are not even available to the public because the team gets some of them, as does the NFL, the press, etc.

The proposed stadium is going to hold 62,000 people according to the website. I'm surprised it's not going to be a little bigger. I'm just glad I'm already a STH because that means I'm in the door. I don't mind paying for a SBL either, so hopefully I will get decent seats. I don't have much seniority.

[49Faithful]

This guy just wants the Niners to stay in Frisco, he dont care about what the fans who go to every game want or what the owner is trying to do or even how the Mayor is trying to screw everyone. He just wants it his way well, too bad so sad now go cry some where else.

[McDude]

wow the wiz is gonna rip you a new one.
:falldownlaugh:

[ThisHero]

wow the wiz is gonna rip you a new one.


haha. I'm trying to picture TheWiz pumping himself up. I bet he's slapping himself in front of the computer right now, saying things to himself like, "It's game time baby, let's go! Let's go!"



Hey Portugal Mike, do you call SportsFone 680 everyday? Every time I listen I hear you or Smirnoff calling in. Never fails.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

{Sigh} Do we have to do this again, for every newby that walks into the room and claims they have done the research and understand all of the issues?

Well if you had actually read all of the threads on this topic, you would have learned that rebuilding the stadium at Candlestick Point was the Niner's original plan. That plan was originally proposed by Eddie D. It had been the team's primary plan for many years.

Unfortunately, the city mucked it all up. If you had done the reading, you'd know all of the reasons why the Niners chose to abandon the plan to rebuild on Candlestick Point. Those reasons have not changed.

The city has even tacitly agreed with those reason. They no longer advocate rebuilding on the current site, but are now trying to sell Hunter's Point instead. It appears to me that even the city of SF understands the stadium can not be rebuilt on Candlestick Point.

But since obviously already know all of the facts, please help us understand how you solved the problems which caused the team to abandon the Candlestick point plan to begin with. We can hardly wait.

[smoking_rubber]

Share Raider Dump over in Oakland for 3 years! We always play on different days anyway.

Just throwing it out there like a bad fish dinner. Chew on THAT!

[The Jerm!]

For a few years that is. Crazy? Not really. What would it take, 2-3 years to build a new Stadium on that site? Do it, stop fooling around. Do what the Yankees did although they did it a couple of blocks away. Build a new one at the same site as today. The 'stick is a big stadium when you look at boundaries. It's because it used to be a combined stadium (Baseball and Football). The new one would be smaller but taller. So the parking would be somewhat better. But it would be in the city. Where the Niners should stay. Screw Santa Clara. Meanwhile the Niners should play at Stanford to honour the late Bill Walsh. Oh, and one more thing...the new stadium should be called Bill Walsh Stadium/Field. Do it right SF! Stop fooling around with the legacy. You can't buy our legacy.

Do you even attend all the games at monster park? Are you a season ticket holder? If not I can see why you are so for this crazy lunatic idea..

[ethanh]

Share Raider Dump over in Oakland for 3 years! We always play on different days anyway.

Just throwing it out there like a bad fish dinner. Chew on THAT!

I agree, the best option if the 49ers considered redoing Candlestick, would be to play at the Oakland stadium while the stick is rebuilt or fixed.

[frk49rs]

In 2004 there were approx. 60,000 STH'ers.

In 2005 approx. 91% renewed.

2006 numbers aren't available yet and the 2007 season hasn't started yet. But I would guess the number is somewhere between 60,000 - 62,000 STH's.

That's still 10,000-12,000 more STH's than seats at Stanford!

LOTTERY

[Peter Proud]

I agree, the best option if the 49ers considered redoing Candlestick, would be to play at the Oakland stadium while the stick is rebuilt or fixed.

LOTTERY

NEC where the RAIDERS play holds 62,000 and has more suite space.

[TheWiz]

You're right, chances are I could tear this entire post apart. I figure why not.

Claim: The Team NEEDS to name the stadium after Bill Walsh.

False. First of all, it's a great idea. It's symbollic, classy, and honorable. I'm sure ownership would gladly do it provided everyone pay an extra $30 or so per ticket. Why? Because stadiums don't get built for free. The amount a stadium naming rights sale brings in helps pay for the stadium. It's money out there that pays players checks, for new bathrooms and seats and jumbotrons and stadium maintenance and remodeling. When owners don't sell the rights, that's money they are more or less losing. Then when they don't pay to bring in a top coach or a free agent you call them cheap. So, in order to avoid the situation, you've got to shell out big time per ticket to make up the 10M or so owners could easily make otherwise.

Claim: Teams don't NEED to sell the naming rights.

True. After all, look at how many stadiums out there bear the names of that teams' great owners and players? Jack Kent Cook Stadium? Oh, wait, now it's FedEx Field. Joe Robbie Stadium? Last time I check it was Pro Player Stadium. Teams can and will sell it because its profits that can create revenue which more often than not, improves the stadium and product on the field. Lambeau Field? You're right, they haven't sold those naming rights. When was the last time the Packers got a big name player in free agency or an elite coach? The Packers are run on public trust, they don't have an owner. The money they can spend on maintenance, players, equipment, and staff all comes from the stadium. Yet they can't afford 20M signing bonuses or huge contracts because they don't have that cash flow there to pull it off. It's fair to say that the money they haven't earned is largely why they haven't done well since the mid to late 90s before big money deals were more common.

Claims: The Team OWES it to San Francisco to stay in the city.

Who says we owe the city anything? I mean, they gave us Kezar Stadium back in the day to get a pro team. Then when it got old, their offer was to shuffle us into a converted baseball stadium for 30 years. Lately they even pocketed our rent money and refused to spend it on maintenance on Monster Park as per the lease. We've brought them 60 years of football, 5 championship rings and a 15+ year dynasty. I think we've paid them back plenty enough. This isn't a case of us trying to break a lease or being lured by another city, San Francisco has generally ignored us. After all we've done for them, a city that has never really spent anything to have us won't pinch a dime to keep us around. I think the owner owes it to the fans to get us the best stadium possible, not the best one we can squeeze into San Francisco city limits.

[Rattlehead]

Claim: The Team NEEDS to name the stadium after Bill Walsh.

False. First of all, it's a great idea. It's symbollic, classy, and honorable. I'm sure ownership would gladly do it provided everyone pay an extra $30 or so per ticket. Why? Because stadiums don't get built for free. The amount a stadium naming rights sale brings in helps pay for the stadium. It's money out there that pays players checks, for new bathrooms and seats and jumbotrons and stadium maintenance and remodeling. When owners don't sell the rights, that's money they are more or less losing. Then when they don't pay to bring in a top coach or a free agent you call them cheap. So, in order to avoid the situation, you've got to shell out big time per ticket to make up the 10M or so owners could easily make otherwise.

Let me ask you this. What is the most important factor in sport? Tradition, right? That's why some teams are more successful than others. Some teams (and the people running them) know the value of tradition. The passing of Bill Walsh was very sad but it can be a blessing in disguise. Who thought they would name the turf at the 'stick, Bill Walsh field? Did you? The next step is rather obvious. And I said in my first post, there is no price on a legacy like ours. You make it sound like the Niners are like any other team out there. We're not! Some teams in US sports are on a different level. How often do you hear commentators speak of our stadium as Candlestick even though that's not the official name anymore and hasn't been for years.

Claim: Teams don't NEED to sell the naming rights.

True. After all, look at how many stadiums out there bear the names of that teams' great owners and players? Jack Kent Cook Stadium? Oh, wait, now it's FedEx Field. Joe Robbie Stadium? Last time I check it was Pro Player Stadium. Teams can and will sell it because its profits that can create revenue which more often than not, improves the stadium and product on the field. Lambeau Field? You're right, they haven't sold those naming rights. When was the last time the Packers got a big name player in free agency or an elite coach? The Packers are run on public trust, they don't have an owner. The money they can spend on maintenance, players, equipment, and staff all comes from the stadium. Yet they can't afford 20M signing bonuses or huge contracts because they don't have that cash flow there to pull it off. It's fair to say that the money they haven't earned is largely why they haven't done well since the mid to late 90s before big money deals were more common.

And yet the Packers whipped our asses 4 times in the playoffs in the last 12 years! And on top of that, they've won their division 3 times in the last 6 years. I rest my case.

Claims: The Team OWES it to San Francisco to stay in the city.

Who says we owe the city anything? I mean, they gave us Kezar Stadium back in the day to get a pro team. Then when it got old, their offer was to shuffle us into a converted baseball stadium for 30 years. Lately they even pocketed our rent money and refused to spend it on maintenance on Monster Park as per the lease. We've brought them 60 years of football, 5 championship rings and a 15+ year dynasty. I think we've paid them back plenty enough. This isn't a case of us trying to break a lease or being lured by another city, San Francisco has generally ignored us. After all we've done for them, a city that has never really spent anything to have us won't pinch a dime to keep us around. I think the owner owes it to the fans to get us the best stadium possible, not the best one we can squeeze into San Francisco city limits.

I never said the Niners owe it to the city to stay here. This should be a silent, mutual agreement. Difficulties that arise should be worked out immediately. The Niners are on the biggest assets of the bay area. Much bigger than the Raiders, the Giants and the Athletics when it comes to sports.

In the end it really doesn't matter what you or me are saying. Believe me when I say this, the Niners will never move to Santa Clara. They won't move anywhere as a matter of fact. This recent lunacy will stop and sensible reasoning will get the upper hand.

[smoking_rubber]

. . . Believe me when I say this, the Niners will never move to Santa Clara. They won't move anywhere as a matter of fact. This recent lunacy will stop and sensible reasoning will get the upper hand.

:francis: :shots:

:falldownlaugh:

[Peter Proud]

Let me ask you this. What is the most important factor in sport? Tradition, right? That's why some teams are more successful than others. Some teams (and the people running them) know the value of tradition. The passing of Bill Walsh was very sad but it can be a blessing in disguise. Who thought they would name the turf at the 'stick, Bill Walsh field? Did you? The next step is rather obvious. And I said in my first post, there is no price on a legacy like ours. You make it sound like the Niners are like any other team out there. We're not! Some teams in US sports are on a different level. How often do you hear commentators speak of our stadium as Candlestick even though that's not the official name anymore and hasn't been for years.

Sports is competition.....people play to win. The CARDINALS have a great tradition...as losers. While naming the field after Bill Walsh was a positive, it was a chance for the mayor to look like a good guy. I wonder how much the City will spend on signage to proclaim it to all who enter Candlestick Point.

And yet the Packers whipped our asses 4 times in the playoffs in the last 12 years! And on top of that, they've won their division 3 times in the last 6 years. I rest my case.

Teams go in cycles.....it's tradition!

I never said the Niners owe it to the city to stay here. This should be a silent, mutual agreement. Difficulties that arise should be worked out immediately. The Niners are on the biggest assets of the bay area. Much bigger than the Raiders, the Giants and the Athletics when it comes to sports.

Traditionally, the City has acted as a slumlord toward it's biggest asset. Collecting rent, ignoring problems, not spending anything in maintaince cost. It's like claiming to have a girlfriend but never spending any money on her...sooner or later she's going to realize that the City only sees the 49ers as a 'booty call'!

In the end it really doesn't matter what you or me are saying. Believe me when I say this, the Niners will never move to Santa Clara. They won't move anywhere as a matter of fact. This recent lunacy will stop and sensible reasoning will get the upper hand.

I hope that last sentence applys to your postings.

Frankly, your head-in-the-sand attitutude is hardly worthy of response but I wasn't about to stand by and say nothing.

[NinerRider]

I'd rather tear down the stick and play at AT&T Park for a few years. The SF Demons played there so why can't we?

[Nevyn]

didnt the seahawks do this also. tear down thier old stadium and put it on top of the old one? oh and they played at huskie stadium. works for me. take down the old stick move to stanford for a couple years and then move back. WHAT A CONCEPT NINERS

I think the Seahawks build beside the old one, not on top of.

[TheWiz]

Let me ask you this. What is the most important factor in sport? Tradition, right? That's why some teams are more successful than others. Some teams (and the people running them) know the value of tradition. The passing of Bill Walsh was very sad but it can be a blessing in disguise. Who thought they would name the turf at the 'stick, Bill Walsh field? Did you? The next step is rather obvious. And I said in my first post, there is no price on a legacy like ours. You make it sound like the Niners are like any other team out there. We're not! Some teams in US sports are on a different level. How often do you hear commentators speak of our stadium as Candlestick even though that's not the official name anymore and hasn't been for years.

Tradition? What the heck? You think that tradition brought over Nate Clements? A tradition is letting grandpa carve the Turkey each thanksgiving feast. It's letting the youngest child put a star on top of the christmas tree or singing Auld Lang Syne on New Years. Those are traditions.

Amazingly, what keeps professional sports going: MONEY! If you want tradition go somewhere like Notre Dame or Alabama. I think you're a major homer, that's the problem. Because you must be joking if you honestly think you can talk to a diehard fan of any other team and convince them that somehow we have more 'traditions' or a better legacy. Heck, try selling that to a Bears or Cowboys fan some day. I think you're just such a fan that you're delluded into thinking other teams haven't also been around for decades and won big games and had great players.


And yet the Packers whipped our asses 4 times in the playoffs in the last 12 years! And on top of that, they've won their division 3 times in the last 6 years. I rest my case.

Okay, clearly you skipped over anything I said. The point is the Packers haven't won anything meaningful since the late 90s, that's what I said. They can't afford players and their entirely team has been Brett Favre. You counter-argument is winning their division? Again whom? The Lions? A team that has been so bad the last half a decade 95% of their fans want the management fired? The Vikings, who haven't had a decent team since Randy Moss split to the Raiders? Or how about the Bears, who couldn't field an offense? Heck, at least the NFC West had some Superbowl winners and contenders. Other than Chicago last year, that division has been anyone's game.


In the end it really doesn't matter what you or me are saying. Believe me when I say this, the Niners will never move to Santa Clara. They won't move anywhere as a matter of fact. This recent lunacy will stop and sensible reasoning will get the upper hand.

Oh well, thank you for ending all future need to respond by throwing out completely baseless rants like that one. Recent Lunacy? We'd been planning to move since the middle of last season. Funny how you're so certain and an entire city and many people with lots of money involved are only more certain it is going to happen.

[jmichura]

It's like claiming to have a girlfriend but never spending any money on her...sooner or later she's going to realize that the City only sees the 49ers as a 'booty call'!

lol, rep

edit: sorry, must give others first.

[Rattlehead]

Tradition? What the heck? You think that tradition brought over Nate Clements? A tradition is letting grandpa carve the Turkey each thanksgiving feast. It's letting the youngest child put a star on top of the christmas tree or singing Auld Lang Syne on New Years. Those are traditions.

Yes, I do think our tradition was a big factor why Nate signed for us. Clearly not the only one but ask yourself this, would he have gone to the Cardinals, the Rams or the Seahawks for an additional million? The answer is unknown but my bet is, no! There is buzz going on around the Niners lately. It's not a coincidence we had the best free agency in the league this off-season.

Amazingly, what keeps professional sports going: MONEY! If you want tradition go somewhere like Notre Dame or Alabama. I think you're a major homer, that's the problem. Because you must be joking if you honestly think you can talk to a diehard fan of any other team and convince them that somehow we have more 'traditions' or a better legacy. Heck, try selling that to a Bears or Cowboys fan some day. I think you're just such a fan that you're delluded into thinking other teams haven't also been around for decades and won big games and had great players.

Money? Not anymore and especially all of us should know that. The Patriots have created a dynasty on the same terms as every other team in the league. We might be behind in that department but we're learing and we are going to graduate so to speak. Sooner than later.

Besides, when I wrote that the Niners are not like every other team, I didn't mean we are the only ones. Teams like the Cowboys, the Packers, the Steelers, the Bears etc. and recently the Patriots are on a different level. Some things seperate teams and tradition is the biggest factor.

Okay, clearly you skipped over anything I said. The point is the Packers haven't won anything meaningful since the late 90s, that's what I said. They can't afford players and their entirely team has been Brett Favre. You counter-argument is winning their division? Again whom? The Lions? A team that has been so bad the last half a decade 95% of their fans want the management fired? The Vikings, who haven't had a decent team since Randy Moss split to the Raiders? Or how about the Bears, who couldn't field an offense? Heck, at least the NFC West had some Superbowl winners and contenders. Other than Chicago last year, that division has been anyone's game.

And what have we won since the mid 90s? What have the Cowboys won lately? I didn't skip your point. It was just stupid because you tried to make a point by pointing out the short comings of the most successful team in football history. It was stupid, admit it. Putting down the Packers...

Oh well, thank you for ending all future need to respond by throwing out completely baseless rants like that one. Recent Lunacy? We'd been planning to move since the middle of last season. Funny how you're so certain and an entire city and many people with lots of money involved are only more certain it is going to happen.

A lot of people on this board really respect your opinions and views. So do I, but sometimes your logic is flawed. I used to live in SF (16 years). Now I live on the other side of the pond so maybe my opinion doesn't count as much anymore. Clearly you live in the midst of all of this but it distorts your view. Are you willing to make a bet on this?

[Fromthe3rdRow]

...A lot of people on this board really respect your opinions and views. So do I, but sometimes your logic is flawed. I used to live in SF (16 years). Now I live on the other side of the pond so maybe my opinion doesn't count as much anymore. Clearly you live in the midst of all of this but it distorts your view. Are you willing to make a bet on this? Sure, your opinion counts just as much as the next guy. Just as much as my opinion - which is that your opinion is wrong!

Living closer to the situation allows us access to much more information than those who live much farther away. There is no distortion when you have more data.

[jmichura]

As much as I enjoy your Rust in Peace avatar, I have to disagree. I very much doubt that tradition has much to do with Clements signing with us.

1) We have the cap room to accommodate him best. Only a handful of team could even afford to sign him.

2) Warm weather attracts alot of people, especially those just getting out of Buffalo.

3) He wanted to be on a team that had a chance at going to the playoffs.

4) He was gonna go where he was needed.

Given those conditions, I doubt very much that there were many teams that suited him well like we did.

[offtackle24]

Yes, I do think our tradition was a big factor why Nate signed for us. Clearly not the only one but ask yourself this, would he have gone to the Cardinals, the Rams or the Seahawks for an additional million? The answer is unknown but my bet is, no! There is buzz going on around the Niners lately. It's not a coincidence we had the best free agency in the league this off-season.

Tradition was not a factor. When people asked Clements why he went to San Francisco, He said he wanted to join a team that had a decent chance of making the playoffs unlike Buffalo who is in a division with the Patriots and the Jets. So yes, He would have gone to the Rams or the Seahawks but maybe not the cardinals.

Money? Not anymore and especially all of us should know that. The Patriots have created a dynasty on the same terms as every other team in the league. We might be behind in that department but we're learing and we are going to graduate so to speak. Sooner than later.

Well, Yes there are certain exceptions when you have an defensive genius in Bellicheck and an elite qb in Tom Brady. But look what happened to Green Bay this offseason. They couldnt spend the money to pick up a decent runningback or even got a decent FA in a long time. Even the Pats had to change their style this offseason by signing all of these players. Oakland cant sign their draft pick due to money issues and holdouts sometimes forces teams to restructure larger contracts as you can see this offseason.

Besides, when I wrote that the Niners are not like every other team, I didn't mean we are the only ones. Teams like the Cowboys, the Packers, the Steelers, the Bears etc. and recently the Patriots are on a different level. Some things seperate teams and tradition is the biggest factor.

Only if your old enought to experience them. You think Edgerrin James cared about tradition when he joined the cardinals.

And what have we won since the mid 90s? What have the Cowboys won lately? I didn't skip your point. It was just stupid because you tried to make a point by pointing out the short comings of the most successful team in football history. It was stupid, admit it. Putting down the Packers...

No....it wasnt. Ever since the late nineties, the Packers have only been successfull due to Brett Favre. Its a wonder that Brett has had so many consecutive starts in Green Bay. Think for one moment. Ever since the salary cap age, the Packers have been slowly and steadily declining until last year. But again this offseason was so bad for them that they will probably continue to decline.

A lot of people on this board really respect your opinions and views. So do I, but sometimes your logic is flawed. I used to live in SF (16 years). Now I live on the other side of the pond so maybe my opinion doesn't count as much anymore. Clearly you live in the midst of all of this but it distorts your view. Are you willing to make a bet on this?

I am



:bubble:

[smoking_rubber]

Earth to Rat: The niners are splitting . . . one way or another . . . soon.

Anything else you'd care to fabricate?

[SC9erFan]

I'd rather tear down the stick and play at AT&T Park for a few years. The SF Demons played there so why can't we?

That'd work if they could double the seating capacity. Maybe float a big barge full of bleachers in mccovey cove ;)

[Coldrain85]

That'd work if they could double the seating capacity. Maybe float a big barge full of bleachers in mccovey cove ;)

Not to mention the fact that they would somehow have to increase the size of the field.

Playing at AT&T Park is by far the dumbest suggestion I've heard. Even dumber than playing in Oakland.

[echerne]

or just move to cal. 65,000 "seats"

[agent23]

or just move to cal. 65,000 "seats"

Why would they do that? Cal needs a new stadium too and that place is worse than the Stick. Might as well have them play at Kezar or something.

[Coldrain85]

The inherent problem with playing NFL games at a college campus is the fact that there may be games scheduled back to back on a Saturday/Sunday. Stadium staff won't have enough time to clean up in between games. And then there are the MNF games that will disrupt the students.

The idea of a college campus hosting NFL games is a stupid one, and it will NEVER work. Drop it.

[ninersrule]

I'd rather tear down the stick and play at AT&T Park for a few years. The SF Demons played there so why can't we?

Playing at AT&T would mean only 40,000 fans at all home games, doesn't work. And Stanford rebuilt their stadium and made it smaller which means only 40,000 fans as well. The 49ers need a stadium no matter it being for two years or 100 that will seat about 50,000-70,000 fans.

[echerne]

ok move to san jose state

[Nevyn]

To me, the only workable way to move temporarily out of and rebuild the 'stick would be to share a stadium with Oakland for 3 years. Of course, I'm sure fans on both sides would hate that arrangement, Al Davis would demand a king's ransom if he allowed it at all, and you would still have all the problems associated with rebuilding the 'stick.

But that is what it would take. Niner games at a college campus won't happen. This is why the original candlestick plan involved building a stadium beside the current one then tearing it down, instead of going elsewhere for a few years and rebuilding.

[Sauce707]

DO NOT TEAR DOWN THE STICK. That endzone where The Catch was made should always remain. Remodel the stick, and if the seats do not work at Stanford, AT&T Park always needs money. That is publicly funded ballpark, and I am sure they would love to open up Sundays and let the niners play there. Put in roll out bleachers and see if close to 58,000 seats are availible.

[SF_49ers_Kezar]

AT&T Park always needs money. That is publicly funded ballpark, and I am sure they would love to open up Sundays and let the niners play there.

Well, AT&T is NOT a publicly funded ballpark. The Giant's fans and their owners actually appreciated their team enough to fund 100% of the ballpark. Compare this to the Yorks and some 49er fans that believe anyone should pay but them ... this is why a new stadium is years away

[Nevyn]

Well, AT&T is NOT a publicly funded ballpark. The Giant's fans and their owners actually appreciated their team enough to fund 100% of the ballpark. Compare this to the Yorks and some 49er fans that believe anyone should pay but them ... this is why a new stadium is years away

Seems to me the Yorks are currently offering to spend $800 million and then not even own the stadium or land in Santa Clara. Gotta hate those free rides, huh?

[SF_49ers_Kezar]

[QUOTE][Seems to me the Yorks are currently offering to spend $800 million and then not even own the stadium or land in Santa Clara. Gotta hate those free rides, huh?/QUOTE]

Well this topic has been re-hashed on this board many times in many threads. But the myth that the Yorks are willing to spend $800M ... if this was the case, they would have broken ground in SF a long time ago on a new stadium.

The SC construction cost break down is closer to: Yorks: $200M, NFL: $150M, City of Santa Clara $160M, Stadium Authority (again the City of Santa Clara selling naming rights, seat licenses, etc): $330M

And yes, the 49ers do not want to own the stadium. If the stadium does well and makes sufficient revenues ... then the 49ers get a percentage. If the stadium does poorly and loses money ... then the 49ers loss is $0. So a great deal for the 49ers.

[Local49ersFan]

Just wondering, who has to pay for the cost of tearing down the stick if the team leaves and play in Santa Clara?

[Coldrain85]

Just wondering, who has to pay for the cost of tearing down the stick if the team leaves and play in Santa Clara?

The city of SF owns Candlestick as well as the land surrounding it. It's their problem.

[Nevyn]

NFL: $150M

The NFL fund that helps build stadiums is for loans, they don't just give you the money.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

The NFL fund that helps build stadiums is for loans, they don't just give you the money.
And they don't give out loans unless the community participates in the project......

In the end, the entity which holds title to the land and the stadium will likely receive the most benefit.

[Tovey21]

Seems to me the Yorks are currently offering to spend $800 million and then not even own the stadium or land in Santa Clara. Gotta hate those free rides, huh?


lol I'll believe it when I see it.

[co2112]

Rgeardless of how much I paid for my tickets its still my cash to see my team I enjoy, of course Im going to go to every game I pay for.

[young tone]

I read all the post on this thread and yes Stanford wouldnt work but I didnt understand why Cal wouldnt work. I know its old but wouldnt it be a temp thing? Bears, Seahawks, even the Cards played in college stadiums. I dont know if Cal would work though. Also Oakland would be the place to play at if remodeling the Stick was to take place. Raiders played at Kezar (yes a long time ago) but it could work for a year or two. Now doesnt the city of Oakland run the coliseum? If that scenerio ever occured, wouldnt we have to pay Oakland? How much would Oakland or Davis charge for rental?

[Niner Jan]

I can't believe the nonsense and misinformation that peope are willing to post in their name! There were so many inaccuracies that I can't remember them all, but it is obvious that the writers didn't spend any energy to do their research before they opened up and led the flood of fallacies gush forth!

This should be a silent, mutual agreement.

ACCENT IS ON THE WORD, SILENT. Now I understand your screen name. Very appropriately chosen, sir.

Wiz has done himself proud by his latest posts on this thread. Nobody knows the facts better than him and From the 3rd Row. Both of these gentlemen know the information, which cannot be said of most other posters on this stadium topic.

Another point. I am so honoroed by the posts of Peter Proud on our forum. Even though he is both a 49ers fan and a Raiders fan, he always speaks from a rational point of view. Because of where he comes from, I would rate him as one of the Top Ten posters on this MB. Good work, Larry!

As far as rebuilding on the site of the old Candlestick stadium, the writer needs to do some research on the terrible swampy field, the inclement weather/winds at Bill Walsh Field, poor access to highways, etc., won't wouldn't change with a new stadium on old grounds. And that wouldn't guarantee cooperation from the City of SF--who was a terrible absentee landlord that pocketed the rent money and didn't fix any of the problems.

Regarding remodeling the 'Stick, that is the most ridiculous statement (if I can even call it that) that I've ever read. Nobody who knows anything about the run-down condition of the old stadium would ever suggest that...

I can't believe some fans would suggest playing in a college stadium that only holds 50,000 or less when there are more STH's than that! I don't think that deserves any more words of explanation than that. Doubtless those were not STH's suggesting that space-out notion.

Please explain which 15,000+ Season Ticket Holders don't get their seats?

I chuckled over Texicali's answer to the above query: "The late ones, duh!"

I'm speaking as a former season ticket holder with crap seats which still made my day everytime I went to SF.

Rattletrap is obviously referring to the GLORY DAYS; I note that he is no longer a STH. I wonder why and for how long...Maybe he is just protesting because he pines for those bygone days, and any negative argument lets him lash out in protest.

What would it take, 2-3 years to build a new Stadium on that site?

This just PROVES that the Rattler has not done any homework on a new stadium. Even if the SC stadium deal went through today, it couldn't be ready until 2012--which is about the time when the contract for the present stadium expires. Research information before you spew forth misinformation. Funny how you think the 49ers Organization pays its players in TRADITION checks...

A lot of people on this board really respect your opinions and views. So do I, but sometimes your logic is flawed. I used to live in SF (16 years). Now I live on the other side of the pond so maybe my opinion doesn't count as much anymore.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! If that isn't flawed logic, I'm not sure what IS...

I like Fred's comment on your remark:

Sure, your opinion counts just as much as the next guy's. Just as much as my opinion - which is that your opinion is wrong!

I'm glad that Kezar pubished the correct fact that the Giants' stadium was built with private funds--not public funds, having been turned down TWICE by cities in the South Bay area (via public voting).

The SC construction cost break down is closer to: Yorks: $200M, NFL: $150M, City of Santa Clara $160M, Stadium Authority (again the City of Santa Clara selling naming rights, seat licenses, etc): $330M

Too bad, though, that Kezar didn't research the details on the source of the money for the SC stadium. As Fred retorted, the NFL amount is a LOAN--not a donation of money--which the 49ers have to repay. And you certainly do not know anything about the Stadium Authority, which is an entity not yet in existence, but which would be set up to MANAGE the handling of the new (proposed) stadium. How could a currently non-existing entity fork out money? Best that Kezar go to the City of Santa Clara's website to learn the real sources than just pulling information out of a hat. There's also the 49ers stadium website for the correct facts.

I've had about enough of this thread. :go9ers:

[Rattlehead]

Hey, Niner Jan!

I respect your post but as I said, there's no way the Niners will move out of the City. Guess I was right.

You make some valid points just like The Wiz but some of it is flawed.

We should stick and nurse what we got. Without our history and legacy we're nothing. Just look at the Colts...

Rattletrap is obviously referring to the GLORY DAYS; I note that he is no longer a STH. I wonder why and for how long...Maybe he is just protesting because he pines for those bygone days, and any negative argument lets him lash out in protest.

I'm a couple of timezones away from the action...

[49Faithful]

Hey, Niner Jan!

I respect your post but as I said, there's no way the Niners will move out of the City. Guess I was right.
You make some valid points just like The Wiz but some of it is flawed.

We should stick and nurse what we got. Without our history and legacy we're nothing. Just look at the Colts...

Excuse me, I might be wrong but last I checked it wasnt about being right or wrong. Its about whats best for the team and the fans.

[Rattlehead]

Excuse me, I might be wrong but last I checked it wasnt about being right or wrong. Its about whats best for the team and the fans.

And the best thing for the team is to stay exactly where they are. Measure the distance from where Kezar Stadium used to be and where the 'stick is located. That's your radius. Now find a suitable place. Hint, hint...you might actually stand on it 8 times a year.

[49Faithful]

And the best thing for the team is to stay exactly where they are. Measure the distance where Kezar Stadium used to be and where the 'stick is located. That's your radius. Now find a suitable place. Hint, hint...you might actually stand on it 8 time a year.

I would love for us to stay in SF. I dont really want to travel to SC for every home game but if we can't get a good deal out of SF screw them. They don't want to respect the team and the fans who pump tons of money into the city SCREW them.

[Rattlehead]

I would love for us to stay in SF. I dont really want to travel to SC for every home game but if we can't get a good deal out of SF screw them. They don't want to respect the team and the fans who pump tons of money into the city SCREW them.

This makes you one of the good guys. Keep the right faith and you'll be rewarded. It's the same with the team. Sooner than later we'll be back for real. For now though, be happy the Patriots and the Colts are stronger than the Cowboys and the Steelers. Keep the faith. We're not moving out of the way for anybody.

[49Faithful]

This makes you one of the good guys. Keep the right faith and you'll be rewarded. It's the same with the team. Sooner than later we'll be back for real. For now though, be happy the Patriots and the Colts are stronger than the Cowboys and the Steelers. Keep the faith. We're not moving out of the way for anybody.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f97/john24tattoo/key.jpg

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Excuse me, I might be wrong but last I checked it wasnt about being right or wrong. Its about whats best for the team and the fans.
Yes - I agree.

And currently, the team has decided it is best to pursue a stadium in Santa Clara. That point must not be forgotten.

As for what is best for the fans - well - that kind of conversation is what message boards were built for!

All I ask is that the conversation remain focused on the facts. There is way too much speculation and down right mis-information out there.

It's no wonder some fans have the wrong ideas.

[Niner Jan]

there's no way the Niners will move out of the City.

Anything that is done for the first time is always scarey. It takes courage and faith in one's future strengths as well as good history to make bold moves, as long as they are now downright foolish.

There is nothing foolish in moving the playing field to Santa Clara. The team would still be the SF Bay Area 49ers. What's so god-awful about that? They don't lose their history by playing on a new field.

So, where is my (long) post flawed? Or do I just SEE things differently from how you see them? To you, that may seem to make it flawed. I'm curious to hear what you think is "flawed."

[ozzcows]

Monster Park....70,000 + seats.

Stanford Stadium...50,000 seats

Please explain which 15,000+ Season Ticket Holders don't get their seats?

The ones that sell them to opposing fans.

[ethanh]

I'm think this could work now, I doubt there are even 50,000 season ticket holders right now at Monster. They could raise the prices while at Stanford and generate some buzz as people would now have to work to get tickets to games. It would probably be loader based on the stadium formation giving us a more home field advantage.