SANTA CLARA - Levi's Stadium (68,028)

[will101]

Originally Posted by Richo83

This stadium looks like a game of pickup sticks. I also don't like the size, at 68.5k its too small and looks ugly. I'm convinced that they had cheaper better options but that's just my outsider's view.

As for the move, can anyone explain to me why there are so few sf fans, and why some people in this thread have claimed that sf doesn't have the demographic to support a team, but sj does?

That look is on purpose. The Niners want a wide open and airy stadium, to counter the dark and dingy look of Candlestick. There is also room to add ~10,000 seats for the long-promised Super Bowl. The smaller capacity is also on purpose, to guarantee the continued string of sellouts, which dates from the fifth game of the 1981 season.

There is no "cheaper better option". Buildings in California have to be built three times stronger than most other places. Something we learned the hard way. Seismic requirements dictate a lot of how something is built. LA doesn't adhere to the standards as strictly as we do, which is probably why a major earthquake down there usually has 10 times as much damage as ones up here.

San Francisco is a moderately sized city, surrounded on three sides by water, so the population will never grow much above 800,000. And while in one sense it is close to the center of the 8,000,000 people of the Bay Area, the transportation options are very limited, and The City itself is more and more comprised of old money and wealthier Asian immigrants. Whereas San Jose is now the 10th largest city in the country, part of Silicon Valley and the world center for high tech. This is now the jobs center of the Bay Area, and the folks here are more inclined to spend their money. Right now 40% of the Niner season ticket base comes from Santa Clara County's 1.8 million people, and a similar number go see the Giants at the Phone Booth and make the trek to Oakland for the Raiders, A's and Warriors.

[Richo83]

That's fine but surely for close to a billion dollars the size could be better, they could add some cladding and just class up the place a bit more? The stadium to me doesn't look open and airy it looks half finished and a ripoff. At 68.5k it still puts SF in the bottom half of stadium sizes. The thing which may save this is the large corporate section which may bring in money.

Here's an idea, why doesn't Oakland and SF ground share? It seems both clubs have bad football stadiums, could kill two stadiums with one stone so to speak. Is it too far distance to be covered by one ground? Given matches are only held by each team 8 times a season there doesn't seem that much of a chance of overlap. And Oakland fans surely would travel to SJ is they don't have to use one of the worst stadiums/arenas in professional US sports.

[will101]

Originally Posted by Richo83

That's fine but surely for close to a billion dollars the size could be better, they could add some cladding and just class up the place a bit more? The stadium to me doesn't look open and airy it looks half finished and a ripoff. At 68.5k it still puts SF in the bottom half of stadium sizes. The thing which may save this is the large corporate section which may bring in money.

We don't know that they won't "... add some cladding and just class the place up a bit more ...". When the Giants planned AT&T Park, the design drawings had a very similar feel to them. But when the park opened, there were dozens of odds and ends built that were not in the drawings, and have turned a 'nice' ballpark into easily the best one in baseball.

The Niners have made it clear that the entire project has three goals: build a home for the team that will last for decades in an area prone to sometimes quite violent earthquakes; offer the very finest in corporate amenities; and give the loyal fans the most enjoyable venue possible.

As I said before, the 68,500 figure is deliberate. The Niners like having the tickets difficult to come by. The recent run of losing seasons has caused the old season ticket waiting list to evaporate, and there have been times where it was possible the game would not sell out. A season ticket is cash in advance (which earns interest), as is a $100 deposit on a possible future season ticket (the waiting list required a deposit). And empty seats look bad on TV.

And the capacity will only be 644 below the new league median. Since the Niners expect close to a tenfold increase in corporate income, this will not be an issue. Right now Candlestick Park is in the bottom five in luxury box income. The Niners expect to be in the top five in five years.

And, if push comes to shove, there is room for temporary seating. Or permanent expansion.

Here's an idea, why doesn't Oakland and SF ground share? It seems both clubs have bad football stadiums, could kill two stadiums with one stone so to speak. Is it too far distance to be covered by one ground? Given matches are only held by each team 8 times a season there doesn't seem that much of a chance of overlap. And Oakland fans surely would travel to SJ is they don't have to use one of the worst stadiums/arenas in professional US sports.

The Oakland Coliseum is not a bad place to watch football, despite some of the tales that have gone by. Yes, it's a mid 60s design, and Mount Davis is horribly ugly. And it's a lousy place to watch baseball. But the construction that gave us Mount Davis also completely refurbished the older section of the stadium, and you can't beat the location, transit access and amount of parking. It's a nice football stadium.

And having them share would be similar to a sharing arrangement between, say, Chelsea and Arsenal, or Rangers and Celtic, Barcelona and Madrid, etc. Most of the time they are our neighbors and friends, but on game day they become a hideous plague. (I have two good friends who hold Raider season tickets. ) Sports in the US has never had violence issues on the level that Europe has become known for, but that could be a start.

[Gondolier]

Originally Posted by Richo83

Here's an idea, why doesn't Oakland and SF ground share? It seems both clubs have bad football stadiums, could kill two stadiums with one stone so to speak. Is it too far distance to be covered by one ground? Given matches are only held by each team 8 times a season there doesn't seem that much of a chance of overlap. And Oakland fans surely would travel to SJ is they don't have to use one of the worst stadiums/arenas in professional US sports.

That is/was actually Plan B should the Santa Clara site NOT happen. The only problems are: (1) they were looking for a new site for the combined Raiders/49ers stadium; and (b) initial funding again. Everybody in CA in strapped for cash. Oakland has been forced to lay off like 40 street cops...and now they are going to start to build another playpen for a few wealthy men?

Screw those football teams. Let them rot in their substandard stadia--especially after the Yorks screwed the Bay Area's 2016 Olympic plans!! I hope Santa Clara never gets built--even if it may not get included in a 2026 World Cup bid!!

[will101]

Originally Posted by Gondolier

Screw those football teams. Let them rot in their substandard stadia--especially after the Yorks screwed the Bay Area's 2016 Olympic plans!! I hope Santa Clara never gets built--even if it may not get included in a 2026 World Cup bid!!

Quit holding back, and tell us how you really feel.

Seriously, blaming the Yorks for the 2016 debacle is foolish at best. Hunter's Point is an unbelievably bad place to put a stadium. It would literally have the worst access on the planet. And it should have been obvious after the way that the USOC shot down our brilliant 2012 proposal they were never going to give the Olympics to the Bay Area. The Yorks could see that, and decided to move on.

[Gondolier]

Originally Posted by will101

Quit holding back, and tell us how you really feel.

Seriously, blaming the Yorks for the 2016 debacle is foolish at best. Hunter's Point is an unbelievably bad place to put a stadium. It would literally have the worst access on the planet. And it should have been obvious after the way that the USOC shot down our brilliant 2012 proposal they were never going to give the Olympics to the Bay Area. The Yorks could see that, and decided to move on.

Good or bad, I thought SF had a better shot than Chicago. Plus, there was a way to counter the chilly Hunter's Point area for a "Summer Games." Parkas and windbreakers would've been a major earner for the Organizing Committee.

Anyway, maybe all that is moot but I hope those football teams sit at the bottom of the rankings. I certainly don't need them.

[pesto]

will101 has said it just about perfectly, so just some stray comments.

Not only for Santa Clara but for the LA stadium proposals (or SJ baseball for that matter) smaller is better, especially if disproportionately large numbers of corporate suites can be sold. Sell outs build a buzz and allow more flexibilty in broadcasting deals.

Packers, Bears, Steelers and Ravens don't have the newest or architecturally most interesting stadia, but no one seems to care as long as they win. Conversely, the Giants and Cowboys are catching heat from fans in spite of billion dollar stadiums.

It's hard to picture either SF or Oakland keeping a football team unless the city pays for it. The growing areas for people, companies and money are in south Peninsula, SJ, Fremont and away from the Bay, east of Oakland. SF has few large companies while Silicon Valley has HP, Google, Intel, Apple, Facebook, Oracle, AMD, Cisco, Yahoo, Adobe, McAfee, etc., and huge facilities for just about every US, European or Asian tech co. Money probably talks more than it should but in this case it ties in to where the people are as well.

[Richo83]

Originally Posted by will101

We don't know that they won't "... add some cladding and just class the place up a bit more ...". When the Giants planned AT&T Park, the design drawings had a very similar feel to them. But when the park opened, there were dozens of odds and ends built that were not in the drawings, and have turned a 'nice' ballpark into easily the best one in baseball.

Agreed, at&t works, I don't think this does. I echo the levels of disappointment shown by others. This has to change from the original plans for it to improve to a standard for it to be respected. I get Yanks don't like roofs, but you can have a good open stadium without a roof and not make it look like it's half finished.

Originally Posted by will101

The Niners have made it clear that the entire project has three goals: build a home for the team that will last for decades in an area prone to sometimes quite violent earthquakes; offer the very finest in corporate amenities; and give the loyal fans the most enjoyable venue possible.

Call me armchair amateur architect, but that stick frame doesn't look amazingly solid in the face of possible crushing earthquakes. Cladding may not just hold aesthetic purposes here. As for decades, I feel this stadium will outlive its usefulness anyway. In 20 years time I feel this stadium will be known as the ugly small stadium built for a ridiculous sum of money. In fact, that's what it already is.

Originally Posted by will101

As I said before, the 68,500 figure is deliberate. The Niners like having the tickets difficult to come by. The recent run of losing seasons has caused the old season ticket waiting list to evaporate, and there have been times where it was possible the game would not sell out. A season ticket is cash in advance (which earns interest), as is a $100 deposit on a possible future season ticket (the waiting list required a deposit). And empty seats look bad on TV.

I get supply and demand. What I don't get is SF's mindset that they have to shoot so low. With LA's 75k, meadowlands, cowboy stadium and even the vikings stadium all pitched at 70k+, this seems too low. 61.5k is ridiculously low for Chicago, and 68.5k is too low for a side pooling from SJ and SF.

Originally Posted by will101

And the capacity will only be 644 below the new league median. Since the Niners expect close to a tenfold increase in corporate income, this will not be an issue. Right now Candlestick Park is in the bottom five in luxury box income. The Niners expect to be in the top five in five years.

And, if push comes to shove, there is room for temporary seating. Or permanent expansion.

Don't get me wrong, I like some of the stats on this stadium, specifically the no of corporate boxes. But SF should think larger than 68.5k. Call me naive but if SF want to become a major footballing player, they need to start thinking bigger than filling out a 68.5k stadium 8 times a year. Heck, Minnesota might build a bigger stadium.

Originally Posted by will101

The Oakland Coliseum is not a bad place to watch football

I'm sorry but (no offense btw) the Coliseum the stadium which has half of its seats in a curve? That's gotta suck for viewing pleasure. Hey look at our stadium for a rectangular code shaped like a D!

Originally Posted by will101

And having them share would be similar to a sharing arrangement between, say, Chelsea and Arsenal, or Rangers and Celtic, Barcelona and Madrid, etc. Most of the time they are our neighbors and friends, but on game day they become a hideous plague. (I have two good friends who hold Raider season tickets. ) Sports in the US has never had violence issues on the level that Europe has become known for, but that could be a start.

Okay not to sound like a football snob but this isn't even close. For starters, the fact that SF is willing to play in SJ shows the club identity isn't as strong as say a Barcelona or Celtic. Tottenham fans are throwing a massive riot about moving to a slightly lower suburb which is nevertheless in the same city and is above the river.

Yet you're willing to move the stadium to a completely different city, because well, most of your fans don't live in the same city which the team is named after, and because your club decided to move all the club's facilities outside the team's city because for some reason being based in San Francisco wasn't important to the club of San Francisco 49ers.. Sorry if I question the equivalence of the 49ers to say a Chelsea, whose fans literally refuse the club to move from Stamford Bridge without being forced to literally change the team's name.

Celtic and Rangers and Madrid and Barcelona have issues which Oakland and SF (tehe) just don't have. You don't hear Oakland raiders fans calling 49er fans Francoist sons of lovely mothers. You shouldn't complain either but facts are facts.

I just don't buy the argument that somehow these two clubs have such a history (so much that Oakland is possibly being shipped off to LA, can you imagine Arsenal being shipped off somewhere else? Didn't think so) that they can't share. It was only 15 years ago that the raiders weren't even based in Oakland, now they apparently can't play in the same ground as SF. And given the economy is in the toilet (well, at least yours is) and Oakland are possibly on the chopping block for relocation, things can change when the R word starts to get thrown around. US sporting history tells us that either club can disappear if they're not willing to make economic sacrifices. And this may in the future include ground sharing. Who here thought Seattle Supersonics were oh so safe and had lots of history and would never be relocated to some middling western city? I sure did.

[ElDudarinodotcom]

Originally Posted by Richo83

I get supply and demand. What I don't get is SF's mindset that they have to shoot so low. With LA's 75k, meadowlands, cowboy stadium and even the vikings stadium all pitched at 70k+, this seems too low. 61.5k is ridiculously low for Chicago, and 68.5k is too low for a side pooling from SJ and SF.

The LA stadium proposal actually calls for a seating capacity of 64,000 expandable to 78000 for superbowls, final fours and such. So no, I do not think that they are shooting too low.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...,7459705.story

[KingmanIII]

Originally Posted by pesto

Packers, Bears, Steelers and Ravens don't have the newest or architecturally most interesting stadia...

Umm, I can't say I fully agree with that statement...

[Jericho-79]

You know something? This new stadium looks a lot like the Sooners stadium in Norman, OK.

Huge tower on one side and all.

It doesn't make the stadium look ugly. It just makes it look awkward.

But compared to the monstrosity of the new Meadowlands Stadium, this new stadium is a sight for sore eyes.

[will101]

Originally Posted by Richo83

Agreed, at&t works, I don't think this does. I echo the levels of disappointment shown by others. This has to change from the original plans for it to improve to a standard for it to be respected. I get Yanks don't like roofs, but you can have a good open stadium without a roof and not make it look like it's half finished.

You completely and totally missed the point. At this same point in the process for constructing what is now AT&T Park, the drawings looked just as bare and spartan. The details came in later, which is what's going to happen here. A lot will change in the next four years.
And we don't need roofs because we live at basically the same latitude as Gibraltar. Wide brimmed hats and sunscreen works just fine, and saves $100 million.

Call me armchair amateur architect, but that stick frame doesn't look amazingly solid in the face of possible crushing earthquakes. Cladding may not just hold aesthetic purposes here.

It's not supposed to be solid. We live with this as a daily reality. A magnitude 4.1 just rumbled through less that 48 hours ago. Many billions in research (and mistakes) has proven time and again that solid buildings collapse, and flexible buildings survive. If you want I can suggest some resources for engineering in an earthquake zone. Or ask some of the LA folk. They should be easy to find, over in the party zone known as the Farmers Field thread.

As for decades, I feel this stadium will outlive its usefulness anyway. In 20 years time I feel this stadium will be known as the ugly small stadium built for a ridiculous sum of money. In fact, that's what it already is.

Do me a favor, and go look at the pictures of Candlestick Park for a while. That is what we have had for either baseball or football for 52 years now. Trust me: we will be quite happy with the Santa Clara design for many years.

I get supply and demand. What I don't get is SF's mindset that they have to shoot so low. With LA's 75k, meadowlands, cowboy stadium and even the vikings stadium all pitched at 70k+, this seems too low. 61.5k is ridiculously low for Chicago, and 68.5k is too low for a side pooling from SJ and SF.

The now freshly named Farmers Field (which does sound strange) in LA is described on their new web site as having 68,000 seats, even fewer than Santa Clara in the basic configuration. Both venues will have the capability of adding ~10,000 more for events like the Super Bowl or World Cup. Minnesota's designs are meaningless, since they have zero money available.

Don't get me wrong, I like some of the stats on this stadium, specifically the no of corporate boxes. But SF should think larger than 68.5k. Call me naive but if SF want to become a major footballing player, they need to start thinking bigger than filling out a 68.5k stadium 8 times a year. Heck, Minnesota might build a bigger stadium.

I'm sorry but (no offense btw) the Coliseum the stadium which has half of its seats in a curve? That's gotta suck for viewing pleasure. Hey look at our stadium for a rectangular code shaped like a D!

You are presumably several thousand miles away, and have likely never sat in a curved stadium. Trust me when I say that I have sat on both sides of the stadium for football, and the viewing is much better on the curved part. It may be funny looking, but it works. It's like Molineux Ground being a better layout than Deepdale. It's easier to see everything.

Okay not to sound like a football snob but this isn't even close. For starters, the fact that SF is willing to play in SJ shows the club identity isn't as strong as say a Barcelona or Celtic. Tottenham fans are throwing a massive riot about moving to a slightly lower suburb which is nevertheless in the same city and is above the river.

But that's London. Manchester City moved to a different part of town with hardly a peep. Over here the folk in San Francisco are rather unhappy, but there is nothing they can do, as all of their plans have been fatally flawed.
And the team moved their offices and practice facilities out of San Francisco more than 40 years ago, because San Francisco simply had no room.

Yet you're willing to move the stadium to a completely different city, because well, most of your fans don't live in the same city which the team is named after, and because your club decided to move all the club's facilities outside the team's city because for some reason being based in San Francisco wasn't important to the club of San Francisco 49ers.. Sorry if I question the equivalence of the 49ers to say a Chelsea, whose fans literally refuse the club to move from Stamford Bridge without being forced to literally change the team's name.

Again, that's London. There you have 14 teams and 11 million people. While the Bay Area has two teams and eight million. You guys are more territorial. Perhaps I should have used the Manchester analogy before. But there is no place over there like San Francisco, with literally no room to grow.

Celtic and Rangers and Madrid and Barcelona have issues which Oakland and SF (tehe) just don't have. You don't hear Oakland raiders fans calling 49er fans Francoist sons of lovely mothers. You shouldn't complain either but facts are facts.

They often call us worse actually. And violence against non-Raider fans is not unheard of in Oakland. I go to Raider games occasionally, and have to be very careful to wear neutral colors. The issues are here, and can be fairly serious, even if you do not know of them.

And since you are many thousands of miles away, while I live in San Jose, your definition of facts is somewhat shaky.

I just don't buy the argument that somehow these two clubs have such a history (so much that Oakland is possibly being shipped off to LA, can you imagine Arsenal being shipped off somewhere else? Didn't think so) that they can't share. It was only 15 years ago that the raiders weren't even based in Oakland, now they apparently can't play in the same ground as SF. And given the economy is in the toilet (well, at least yours is)

Actually the recovery is going quite nicely thank you. All major economic indicators are up. No sounds of running water here. Sounds like you need a newer news source.

and Oakland are possibly on the chopping block for relocation, things can change when the R word starts to get thrown around. US sporting history tells us that either club can disappear if they're not willing to make economic sacrifices. And this may in the future include ground sharing. Who here thought Seattle Supersonics were oh so safe and had lots of history and would never be relocated to some middling western city? I sure did.

Many of us knew that the Sonics were not happy campers, and had been that way for a long time. The only surprise is the ease in which the owners found such a crooked judge to hear the case.

The owner of the Raiders is 80 years old, and is known to have issues with his employees, the city, the media, the league, shadows, and the outside world. There is no way to predict what he will do next. But they are not coming to Santa Clara. You do not invite a psychotic person with weapons into your home.

[Richo83]

Quite a good post. I'm scrambling in some senses, but I hope this response will do. For the record I like that SF is building a new stadium, have no problem with them moving the facilities and stadium to SJ. I just wish it were a little cheaper, improved and possibly, SF fans open themselves to all possibilities before spending a billion dollars (which is a lot of money, recession or no recession)

Originally Posted by will101

You completely and totally missed the point. At this same point in the process for constructing what is now AT&T Park, the drawings looked just as bare and spartan. The details came in later, which is what's going to happen here. A lot will change in the next four years.

That's fine, no, it's excellent, and it's what I've been waiting to hear: that the pictures shown on pg 1 and 2 will be improved. All I ask is that the original effort be improved. Now it's actually quite common for a plan four years out to be improved, that SF (according to you) will improve on that plan is good stuff. Improved, and this is a nice stadium. Currently, the sercan's mocking of the excuses for the bare frames shown still stands.

Originally Posted by will101

It's not supposed to be solid. We live with this as a daily reality. A magnitude 4.1 just rumbled through less that 48 hours ago. Many billions in research (and mistakes) has proven time and again that solid buildings collapse, and flexible buildings survive.

Cladding doesn't have to take the form of a brick either though. This stadium can still be flexible and yet not look half-finished.

Originally Posted by will101

Do me a favor, and go look at the pictures of Candlestick Park for a while. That is what we have had for either baseball or football for 52 years now. Trust me: we will be quite happy with the Santa Clara design for many years.

But see, that's selling yourself short IMO. It's kinda saying that since you've had such a crap stadium for so long, anything will be an improvement, and this is. Yes, it is, but this should be a point of moving a lot forward IMO. I think the big mistake with meadowlands is that it wasn't a massive step forward.

Originally Posted by will101

Minnesota's designs are meaningless, since they have zero money available.

And yet you have money, yet you still put up a smaller stadium. I'm quite confident with a good stadium and a good team, SF could easily fill out say 75k 8 times a year. SF should shoot for success not mediocrity.

Originally Posted by will101

You are presumably several thousand miles away, and have likely never sat in a curved stadium.

I have actually, many times. It has frustrated me many times. Why operators feel circles go on rectangles I'll never know.

Originally Posted by will101

Trust me when I say that I have sat on both sides of the stadium for football, and the viewing is much better on the curved part. It may be funny looking, but it works. It's like Molineux Ground being a better layout than Deepdale. It's easier to see everything.

Which has little to do with curves and flats and more to do with stand height and density. Deepdale is a cheap nasty job.

Originally Posted by will101

But that's London. Manchester City moved to a different part of town with hardly a peep.

Well, not really, at least they're in the same city. Secondly, since the ground is closer to... well, the city, it's hardly a culture shock. Plus, Maine road was old and a dump, city have bold plans and the stadium needed to be used regardless. Their move is not the same as a move from SF to SJ.

Just as an aside note ground sharing can and does work. Inter and AC are bitter enemies yet share stadiums. Ditto 1860 and Bayern. Clubs often have their own stadium because they built them many moons ago and decided to keep using them. AFL clubs all used to have stadiums which were their own (and part of their "identity") and yet consolidated into two stadiums even though their fans come from all over Melbourne and now groundshare due to economics. You'd be surprised what the dollar symbol can make clubs do.

Originally Posted by will101

Over here the folk in San Francisco are rather unhappy, but there is nothing they can do, as all of their plans have been fatally flawed. And the team moved their offices and practice facilities out of San Francisco more than 40 years ago, because San Francisco simply had no room.

My point wasn't to castigate SF for moving, my point was that SF seem to be able to make the moves which say London clubs just can't. It also seems to be a club which is willing to move with the times and say move to a new area. And yet this plan seems new, innovative and in some ways sensible, yet it's canned because of old rivalries. It seems SF want to maintain and dismiss tradition whenever it's convenient for them. It's convenient to move resources to SJ but not groundshare with the Raiders. Bold plans always seem ridiculous at the time, in hindsight, they become obvious. It seems Oakland-SF deal seems more open than a Chelsea-Arsenal deal because, well, Arsenal aren't willing to move their business in Chelsea.

Originally Posted by will101

Again, that's London. There you have 14 teams and 11 million people. While the Bay Area has two teams and eight million. You guys are more territorial. Perhaps I should have used the Manchester analogy before. But there is no place over there like San Francisco, with literally no room to grow.

Exactly! London is more territorial than the bay, a buttload more territorial. Which is why I think you're more open to a sharing deal than say London and Arsenal (which aren't even in similar places anyway, geographically, historically or culturally - arsenal's move withstanding)

Originally Posted by will101

They often call us worse actually. And violence against non-Raider fans is not unheard of in Oakland.

It's not unheard, it's not as major issue either as other derbies. I've watched raider games, I've watched 49er games, I've watched raider v 49er games, and never it seems to do you have banks and rows of police protecting away fans from home fans, like you have at nearly every old firm derby. Go watch the Dutch league. Think the Dutch are all nice and polite? Not when it comes to football.

Originally Posted by will101

I go to Raider games occasionally, and have to be very careful to wear neutral colors. The issues are here, and can be fairly serious, even if you do not know of them.

You still escape though. And you don't have massive brawls which spill onto the streets and cause the UK to rethink their police protocols.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz1ClLv5ETM

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ike-animals.do

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-stadium.html

Originally Posted by will101

And since you are many thousands of miles away, while I live in San Jose, your definition of facts is somewhat shaky.

I still doubt you have proximity to London or Italy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Ca...tball_violence

As Tony Polumbo (sbs football correspondent) said of the recent riots of Italian football fans "I don't like using this phrase "at the end of the day" but at the end of the day someone was killed. I'll let that stand."

Originally Posted by will101

Actually the recovery is going quite nicely thank you. All major economic indicators are up. No sounds of running water here. Sounds like you need a newer news source.

Off topic so this is the last I'll speak about it (you can of course respond but understand for fear of derailment I wont respond):

Yeah.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7107WI20110201

U.S. stock gains "mean nothing": FX Concepts' Taylor

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7106DG20110201

State revenues growing, but outlook "ominous"

And even if you are getting up (very slowly from the ground), big clubs will still be careful not to make any risky ventures lest they fall off a cliff. It just makes sense in this climate when words like sustainability are being thrown about, that another word economists love - consolidation becomes a possibility.

Originally Posted by will101

Many of us knew that the Sonics were not happy campers, and had been that way for a long time. The only surprise is the ease in which the owners found such a crooked judge to hear the case.

We knew that, but relocation? That's a different kettle of fish. Relocations aren't as common as they used to be. And we all thought Seattle could manage. In 15 yrs time if (when?) Oakland is at the bottom, can they still manage?

Originally Posted by will101

You do not invite a psychotic person with weapons into your home.

I thought that's why you buy a gun? (kidding) If Oakland come with money and survival ensured of both clubs, you might reconsider.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by KingmanIII

Umm, I can't say I fully agree with that statement...

I have nothing against them, they just happen to be among the best teams and don't have new stadiums or their stadiums are not usually pointed out as what the new LA or SJ stadiums should look like (but the NY(NJ), Dallas and other newer stadiums are). I'm just saying that at the end of the day, there are lots of different stadiums and how your team does matters a lot more than what the stadium looks like.

[venki04ss]

will this new stadium host WRESTLEMANIA 29 in 2013.!

[will101]

Originally Posted by venki04ss

will this new stadium host WRESTLEMANIA 29 in 2013.!

Uh, no. The planned opening is the summer of 2015.

[Jericho-79]

@will101

Will the 49ers' new stadium get naming rights?

Since Santa Clara is within Silicon Valley, I figure that one of those hi-tech entities would gladly pony up the $$$ to put its name on the building.

The new stadium could be named Intel Stadium or Nvidia Field, since both Intel and Nvidia are headquartered right in Santa Clara.

What do you think?

[Darloeye]

Facebook Stadium sounds good haha

[will101]

Originally Posted by Jericho-79

@will101

Will the 49ers' new stadium get naming rights?

Since Santa Clara is within Silicon Valley, I figure that one of those hi-tech entities would gladly pony up the $$$ to put its name on the building.

The new stadium could be named Intel Stadium or Nvidia Field, since both Intel and Nvidia are headquartered right in Santa Clara.

What do you think?

Absolutely. I'm sure that many discussions will be held on that. In an earlier post I mentioned that HP (Sharks), Oracle (Warriors) and Cisco (A's) were committed elsewhere, but that leaves at least a couple of dozen tech giants available. Intel and Nvidia as you mentioned, along with Yahoo, google, Apple, AMD, Aligent, Adobe, Sun Micro, Intuit, Eton, Lockheed Martin, Verisign, Symantec, ebay, Facebook, Mozilla and so forth. All headquartered in the vicinity, and somebody has to want the opportunity to take the available technology for a stadium orders of magnitude beyond what has been seen before, and have that technology on display each week. And it will be

[pesto]

Sun is not likely since it is owned by Oracle. I would expect the name will eventually disappear although they might keep it for a few more years. All the others seem possible.

Yahoo has been discussed because "Yahoo Field" or "Yahoo Stadium" sound cool and have tie-ins to the 49er prospector image, and because you can literally see some of their facilities from the property. But they may be short on money at the moment.