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

[JJG]

Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921

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

..... I guess he's never heard of The Big Four?

(NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL)

[pesto]

Originally Posted by hubemx

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

That's an interesting one. In general, SF has much better market recognizability than GS so it makes some sense to change names. But the Warriors are not much of a brand outside the Bay Area, so maybe this doesn't matter much.

But if, say, the San Jose Grizz or Bay Grizz (playing in SJ) come to town, then do you want to compete with them with the name GS Warriors or SF Warriors? When you change the name to "SF" and move you are sort of spitting at the 90 percent who don't live in SF and who are much more the target demographic for professional sports (and this is the demographic that counts in the Bay Area, as the 49ers have repeatedly pointed out). And with the severe expectations and product quality issues that current management has, the East and South Bay could be ripe to switch over.

[surrill]

Originally Posted by JJG

..... I guess he's never heard of The Big Four?

(NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL)

You just made my point. Your right, it's a 4th tier sport

[JJG]

Originally Posted by surrill

You just made my point. Your right, it's a 4th tier sport

No, I didn't make your point. You MISSED MY point. The NHL is appart of The Big Four, which are the TOP 4 sports in the nation. It's 1st teir. You could even argue that the MLS is up there with them.... almost.

2nd tier sports would be NASCAR, Arena Football or WNBA.

3rd tier sports would be tennis or golf or horse racing.

And 4th tier would be track & field events, hiking, arm wrestling, pretty much anything you see at the X-Games. Regular sports that ANYONE would take part in.

[BoulderGrad]

Children... focus...

[surrill]

Originally Posted by JJG

No, I didn't make your point. You MISSED MY point. The NHL is appart of The Big Four, which are the TOP 4 sports in the nation. It's 1st teir. You could even argue that the MLS is up there with them.... almost.

2nd tier sports would be NASCAR, Arena Football or WNBA.

3rd tier sports would be tennis or golf or horse racing.

And 4th tier would be track & field events, hiking, arm wrestling, pretty much anything you see at the X-Games. Regular sports that ANYONE would take part in.

Stop.why do you do this? Take a seat son

[JJG]

Originally Posted by surrill

Stop.why do you do this? Take a seat son

Oh for the love of God.... lol.

Anyway, the Sharks shouldn't move up the road to San Fran.

[surrill]

Originally Posted by JJG

Oh for the love of God.... lol.

Anyway, the Sharks shouldn't move up the road to San Fran.

Lol thank you.That was all I was trying to point out. The sharks got it sweet in SJ. No need to move anywhere.

[pesto]

Agree on the Sharks. Before Silicon Valley, SJ was a trucking, fruit growing, heavy industry city. You still see this distinction between downtown SJ, where the Sharks fans are big, menacing people named Marcovic and Petrocelli, and Santana Row or Palo Alto, where the techies are small, inoffensive people named Chan and Singh.

But in any event, SJ/Silicon Valley has about 2/3 of the corporate money in the Bay Area, the right demographic and is growing much faster.

[krudmonk]

NHL is 1st tier in San Jose. It's 5th or so in San Francisco.

[surrill]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

NHL is 1st tier in San Jose. It's 5th or so in San Francisco.

That is correct sir. SJ deffinately is a hockey town. The Sharks own SJ

[pesto]

Originally Posted by surrill

That is correct sir. SJ deffinately is a hockey town. The Sharks own SJ

Very true, but there is no competition at the moment. Interesting to see how the A's and "San Francisco 49ers" do at grabbing the hearts and souls of South Bay.

[techniques1200s]

I can't wait to see some actual renderings of this thing.

Originally Posted by pesto

Very true, but there is no competition at the moment. Interesting to see how the A's and "San Francisco 49ers" do at grabbing the hearts and souls of South Bay.

The south bay is already heavy 49ers territory. And the A's are not moving to SJ, as that's Giants territory. And what's with the quotes on San Francisco 49ers? You do realize that plenty of other cities have their sports teams playing in suburbs as well, right?

Originally Posted by pesto

Agree on the Sharks. Before Silicon Valley, SJ was a trucking, fruit growing, heavy industry city

SJ was never a heavy industry city. Definitely not to a greater extent than SF or Oakland were, at the very least.

Originally Posted by pesto

But in any event, SJ/Silicon Valley has about 2/3 of the corporate money in the Bay Area

SJ is not synonymous with "silicon valley". And you might want to post a source for such a claim.

Look, I get it, you have some sort of weird complex in regards to SF itself and how it relates to the Bay Area (or how you think it relates), and believe that SJ is now the true heart of the Bay Area, and you strangely think that SF is somehow irrelevant in comparison (a false idea that you push constantly when the topic comes up on SSC and a couple other forums)...but your views on the matter are not 100% based in reality.

[krudmonk]

why you so mad, guy?

[techniques1200s]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

why you so mad, guy?

I'm not really mad. More like annoyed. He constantly says the same crap and constantly gets refuted and then he just says it again, throughout multiple forums. And misinformation is stupid.

[krudmonk]

Well yeah, I've seen that, but I think you took a couple points out of context. For one, he put "San Francisco 49ers" in quotation marks because they'll be located in the south bay despite not having a south bay name, meaning they would still compete for dollars. I agree with you that they would anyway, because football is king everywhere in this country.

Additionlly, the whole territorial rights issue does not sit in the hands of the Giants. They hold no legal claim to the area, it's just a formal objection within the boys club of MLB. No need to be threatened by the A's potentially (yes I am uncertain) moving further away from the Giants. I don't get why the fans echo corporate philosophy monopolizing revenue streams.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by techniques1200s

I can't wait to see some actual renderings of this thing.



The south bay is already heavy 49ers territory. And the A's are not moving to SJ, as that's Giants territory. And what's with the quotes on San Francisco 49ers? You do realize that plenty of other cities have their sports teams playing in suburbs as well, right?



SJ was never a heavy industry city. Definitely not to a greater extent than SF or Oakland were, at the very least.



SJ is not synonymous with "silicon valley". And you might want to post a source for such a claim.

Look, I get it, you have some sort of weird complex in regards to SF itself and how it relates to the Bay Area (or how you think it relates), and believe that SJ is now the true heart of the Bay Area, and you strangely think that SF is somehow irrelevant in comparison (a false idea that you push constantly when the topic comes up on SSC and a couple other forums)...but your views on the matter are not 100% based in reality.

Not often you see someone who can neither read nor reason properly.

The South Bay is split between 49ers and Raiders; the East Side tends to be Raiders, the Peninsula 49ers. But this is off the point, since the question I raised is whether SJ in general will have the same emotional response to the 49ers that they do to the Sharks, who are very broadly adored. Just moving the stadium to Santa Clara (1/4 mile from SJ) doesn't necessarily change the emotional response. This could be further affected by the retention of the name "San Francisco" rather than adopting San Jose.

Conversely, the A's will presumably change their name to "San Jose" if and when they move. All things being equal, this would seem to appeal to SJ residents more than keeping the Oakland name (or SF name in the case of the 49ers).

In any event, I raised a question. I didn't even draw a conclusion on this issue, which strikes me as interesting but not particularly controversial.

To say that SJ was never more manufacturing and ag oriented than SF just boggles the mind. Sure SF had manufacturing, but it also had huge tourism, finance, professional services and tech. Until 1980, SJ had about zero of those and still has almost no finance and tourism. What exactly did people do in SJ between 1940 and 1980 if it wasn't manufacturing, logistics and ag?

"SJ/Silicon Valley" does not imply that SJ and SV are the same thing; that would make the expession redundant. What it means is "the SJ and Silicon Valley area combined").

[surrill]

Originally Posted by techniques1200s

And the A's are not moving to SJ, as that's Giants territory.



.

Really?! That's huge news! So Seligs Blue Ribbon Panel has made its recommendation not to allow the A's in SJ? I guess I missed that cuz last I heard, Selig was still looking into the matter. If a decision has been made can you please post a link because I haven't heard of such a story. Lets not forget that SJ is prepared to go into "Nucleur Mode" by challenging MLBs anti trust exemption should they be denied an opportunity to host an MLB team. Al they are waiting for is for Uncle Lewie to give the thumbs up. Looking forward to that link

[pesto]

It's kind of rough day when your best argument is that the Giants "own" San Jose. Don't you see any ethical issues with utilizing the goodwill and courtesy of a previous A's owner as a means of driving his team out of the Bay Area? Even Bud was disgusted and is waiting for the Giants to do the right thing. But I'll bet you think it's kind of cool and gives you this sense of vicarious power.

Not only did this situation arise from the Haas' generosity, but it couldn't legally happen in any sport but baseball or in any two-team region except the Bay Area. Cartel action of this sort normally gives rise to huge fines and jail sentences. But with the exemption the Giants are riding it for all it's worth, baseball or fellow team-owners be damned. Not even a pretense that they have any goal other than to drive the A's out of the Bay Area.

[Archbishop]

Originally Posted by pesto

It's kind of rough day when your best argument is that the Giants "own" San Jose. Don't you see any ethical issues with utilizing the goodwill and courtesy of a previous A's owner as a means of driving his team out of the Bay Area? Even Bud was disgusted and is waiting for the Giants to do the right thing. But I'll bet you think it's kind of cool and gives you this sense of vicarious power.

Not only did this situation arise from the Haas' generosity, but it couldn't legally happen in any sport but baseball or in any two-team region except the Bay Area. Cartel action of this sort normally gives rise to huge fines and jail sentences. But with the exemption the Giants are riding it for all it's worth, baseball or fellow team-owners be damned. Not even a pretense that they have any goal other than to drive the A's out of the Bay Area.

Giants are like Walter White. "Stay out of my territory!"