SAN FRANCISCO - Golden State Warriors Arena (18,000) - Page 2

blacktrojan3921 · May 24th, 2012, 02:14 AM

Best of luck on getting this arena built

pesto · May 25th, 2012, 08:13 PM

Cat Fight!!!!

"San Francisco has given the Warriors a waterfront offer that they could not refuse,” said Fred Blackwell, assistant city administrator, in a statement. “And in the end, we will leave a space for the Warriors after they are exhausted from the CEQA litigation and cost increases required to be on the San Francisco Waterfront.”

Sounds reminiscent of Newsom's and Lee's and others' comments re the 49er's move to SJ. I guess SJ and LA are also in the act, trying to poach the A's and Raiders.

BoulderGrad · May 25th, 2012, 09:31 PM

They're not exactly moving to Seattle or KC: http://goo.gl/maps/7HxY

Oakland should cut their losses with these franchises and redevelop the land into something that actually generates tax dollars for the city.

Franchise646 · May 25th, 2012, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoulderGrad

They're not exactly moving to Seattle or KC: http://goo.gl/maps/7HxY

Oakland should cut their losses with these franchises and redevelop the land into something that actually generates tax dollars for the city.

I think they should focus on the Raiders. They make the most money out of the 3.

will101 · May 26th, 2012, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoulderGrad

They're not exactly moving to Seattle or KC: http://goo.gl/maps/7HxY

Oakland should cut their losses with these franchises and redevelop the land into something that actually generates tax dollars for the city.

There's actually been a lot of corporate development in the area between the Coliseum and the airport.

will101 · May 26th, 2012, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franchise646

I think they should focus on the Raiders. They make the most money out of the 3.

Actually, rumors are flying that the Raiders actually lose money. Evidence includes the many blackouts, Al's sale of 20% of the team to some venture capital guys a few years ago, and the Raiders' failure to sell many of the luxury suites ever since the construction of Mt. Davis.

pesto · May 26th, 2012, 07:38 PM

It does seem likely that the Raiders will be the lynchpin for the new Coliseum City proposal (which Mayor Quan says will attract FOUR professional teams). Apparently, there will also be a massive new convention center. The whole thing seems to be the idea of AEG, who will presumably fund and build it.

The A's seem a bit more problematic and I haven't a clue who the other teams might be (Kings and NBA seem blocked by the NBA; Sharks are happy enough in SJ). Maybe soccer?

Could SF go after the Sharks for its new arena on the bay? Should we call it New Oracle Arena?

krnboy1009 · May 26th, 2012, 08:15 PM

Sharks doesnt need a new arena yet. Maybe in few years when they are looking to build a new arena, they can either move in and be a tenant or be bought buy Warriors ownership group.

techniques1200s · May 26th, 2012, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jericho-79

I think the vacant lots along 3rd Street across the channel (south) from AT&T Park would've been a better location. Lots of space to play with there.

Those vacant lots are all part of the Mission Bay redevelopment plan, and already have other buildings planned/approved for them. There actually was a proposal to have the new Warriors arena be just south of AT&T park, across mission creek, as part of a large lot the Giants will be developing into apartments/retail/offices/a park (Seawall lot 337), but the Warriors turned it down in favor of the pier 30-32 site, which makes sense as far as public transit access goes. Pier 30-32 is much closer to BART than Mission Bay is, while also having equal light rail, bus and commuter rail access as the Mission Bay site, not to mention having easier pedestrian access to the heart of downtown SF compared to Mission Bay.

hubemx · May 26th, 2012, 11:36 PM

They will be rebranded "San Francisco Warriors" like in the 60´s?

will101 · May 27th, 2012, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hubemx

They will be rebranded "San Francisco Warriors" like in the 60´s?

Who knows. Franklin Mieuli (the owner of the team that moved them to Oakland) was a died-in-the-wool San Franciscan, and could not stomach having his team named "Oakland". And none of the subsequent owners have really felt a strong need to change it. But everybody here just says "the Warriors". And I would be lying if I denied that the rest of the world's apparent dislike of the geographic label of "Golden State" is entertaining.

will101 · May 27th, 2012, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krnboy1009

Sharks doesnt need a new arena yet. Maybe in few years when they are looking to build a new arena, they can either move in and be a tenant or be bought buy Warriors ownership group.

I don't see why the Sharks would ever move. The Gunds will never sell the team, and they really like being the primary tenant of their arena. It has already undergone minor refurbishment twice, and if there is a need, new suites can be built to order at one end of the seating.

Besides, it makes no sense to move from the area of new money to the area of old money. New money is much more likely to be spent.

blacktrojan3921 · May 28th, 2012, 10:48 AM

Plus, the Sharks are really popular and successful in San Jose, it would make little sense to have them move as of now.

krudmonk · May 28th, 2012, 08:09 PM

Also, the footprint would have to be expanded to properly acommodate hockey. Construction will be expnsive enough as is.

ryebreadraz · May 28th, 2012, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krudmonk

Also, the footprint would have to be expanded to properly acommodate hockey. Construction will be expnsive enough as is.

Unless they are already planning for the arena to accomodate hockey, which I think is likely. Not that I think the Sharks will go there. At best they use it as a threat to get arena upgrades or to redo their lease more favorably.

surrill · May 29th, 2012, 05:11 PM

The Sharks have a very very sweet deal at HP Pavillion with full control. They are the only game in town and have an abundance of silicon valley corporate sponsors, not to mention full sellouts for a 3rd tier sport. It would be idiotic for them to leave even if it was for the pretty new arena up north.

krnboy1009 · May 30th, 2012, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryebreadraz

Unless they are already planning for the arena to accomodate hockey, which I think is likely. Not that I think the Sharks will go there. At best they use it as a threat to get arena upgrades or to redo their lease more favorably.

Its always good to accomodate hockey, just because they dont have a team there doesnt mean hockey games wont be hosted there.

Archbishop · May 30th, 2012, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krnboy1009

Its always good to accomodate hockey, just because they dont have a team there doesnt mean hockey games wont be hosted there.

It's a waste of time and money to make it a good hockey venue when there will never be an NHL team there.

krnboy1009 · May 30th, 2012, 04:16 AM

How so? It doesnt cost much more, and has more potential event to make money from.

blacktrojan3921 · May 30th, 2012, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surrill

The Sharks have a very very sweet deal at HP Pavillion with full control. They are the only game in town and have an abundance of silicon valley corporate sponsors, not to mention full sellouts for a 3rd tier sport. It would be idiotic for them to leave even if it was for the pretty new arena up north.

The NHL a third. Tier. SPORT??????? >8C

May 25th, 2012, 09:31 PM	#23
BoulderGrad Registered User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 3,357 Likes (Received): 39	They're not exactly moving to Seattle or KC: http://goo.gl/maps/7HxY Oakland should cut their losses with these franchises and redevelop the land into something that actually generates tax dollars for the city. __________________ My shrink once said to me: "Maybe life isn't for everyone..."

May 29th, 2012, 05:11 PM	#36
surrill Registered User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 122 Likes (Received): 0	The Sharks have a very very sweet deal at HP Pavillion with full control. They are the only game in town and have an abundance of silicon valley corporate sponsors, not to mention full sellouts for a 3rd tier sport. It would be idiotic for them to leave even if it was for the pretty new arena up north. __________________ http://WWW.BUMPCERTIFIED.COM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

May 24th, 2012, 02:14 AM	#21
blacktrojan3921 Yes, that is my face~ Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Regina, SK Posts: 217 Likes (Received): 8	Best of luck on getting this arena built

May 25th, 2012, 08:13 PM	#22
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,148 Likes (Received): 26	Cat Fight!!!! "San Francisco has given the Warriors a waterfront offer that they could not refuse,” said Fred Blackwell, assistant city administrator, in a statement. “And in the end, we will leave a space for the Warriors after they are exhausted from the CEQA litigation and cost increases required to be on the San Francisco Waterfront.” Sounds reminiscent of Newsom's and Lee's and others' comments re the 49er's move to SJ. I guess SJ and LA are also in the act, trying to poach the A's and Raiders.

May 26th, 2012, 07:38 PM	#27
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,148 Likes (Received): 26	It does seem likely that the Raiders will be the lynchpin for the new Coliseum City proposal (which Mayor Quan says will attract FOUR professional teams). Apparently, there will also be a massive new convention center. The whole thing seems to be the idea of AEG, who will presumably fund and build it. The A's seem a bit more problematic and I haven't a clue who the other teams might be (Kings and NBA seem blocked by the NBA; Sharks are happy enough in SJ). Maybe soccer? Could SF go after the Sharks for its new arena on the bay? Should we call it New Oracle Arena?

May 26th, 2012, 08:15 PM	#28
krnboy1009 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 1,205 Likes (Received): 12	Sharks doesnt need a new arena yet. Maybe in few years when they are looking to build a new arena, they can either move in and be a tenant or be bought buy Warriors ownership group.

May 26th, 2012, 11:36 PM	#30
hubemx BANNED Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: León - Cya - Qro Posts: 1,762 Likes (Received): 1	They will be rebranded "San Francisco Warriors" like in the 60´s?

May 28th, 2012, 10:48 AM	#33
blacktrojan3921 Yes, that is my face~ Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Regina, SK Posts: 217 Likes (Received): 8	Plus, the Sharks are really popular and successful in San Jose, it would make little sense to have them move as of now.

May 28th, 2012, 08:09 PM	#34
krudmonk sucks Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sannozay Posts: 1,645 Likes (Received): 4	Also, the footprint would have to be expanded to properly acommodate hockey. Construction will be expnsive enough as is.

May 30th, 2012, 04:16 AM	#39
krnboy1009 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 1,205 Likes (Received): 12	How so? It doesnt cost much more, and has more potential event to make money from.