You IDIOTS! What have you done?!

[Audiodrama]

This news is more than shocking...it's...well, it's damn sad. This is the equivalent of the Steelers leaving Pittsburgh, the Leafs leaving Toronto, the Celtics leaving Boston, the Tigers leaving Detroit.

The Niners are one of sports' most hallowed franchises, and to pick that legacy up and move it elsewhere is not only demeaning to the history of that franchise, but it's demeaning to the NFL in general.

[Cyclopsis Joe]

My question to anyone with any experience around Candlestick: Is it really that bad?

[dfwabel]

I don't think this is equvalent to the Dodgers moving to Los Angeles, at all. when I lived in Detroit, nobody complained about going to Pontiac or Auburn Hills, but moaned about going to the Joe (though, Rangers fans do complain about still driving to Arlington). Heck, they went from Kesar and left the downtown area to move to Monster Park. When the ballot initiative was passed 10 years ago, under scady circumstances, I knew then it was improbably that a new facility would be built on the parcel. Add to that, it was originally a baseball facility with little infrastructure surrounding it today.

Look, Peter McGowan had to privately build AT&T Park, so the precedence is there for the city officials. Plus, he has 82 dates to pay down debt, football has 10 plus playoffs, or a bowl game. Granted, if a new facility was to be build, it would ahve to be on that parcel as the cost closer to they city are even higher. Have most of you looked at real estate costs in the city Santa Clara is about 40 miles south of Monster Park with better traffic patterns (and a $50 million parking garage to be build regardless of a stadium), and more to do around the area. plus, that is were their training facility is. Whether it was the Eddie DeBartolo or John York, it is more logical to be there as opposeed to see a stadium being demolished and a new one build next door in that area.

Lastly, the Patroits were signed to go to Hartford, and the White Sox were legislative minutes away to be in St. Pete. Look where they are now.

[whitedawg22]

I fu*king HATE the Yorks. They are the worst thig that has happened to the NFL since Al Davis. Bay Area sports are a mess right now.

I was actually thinking that before I read your post... who is a worse owner RIGHT NOW, York or Davis? (Obviously Davis used to be much better.)

[RickV]

OK, all of you out there who think the baseball Angels should be the Anaheim Angels and not the Los Angeles Angels, using your logic, must the 49'ers now be called the Santa Clara 49'ers?

[BaltimoreFan]

I don't really see where it would be such a big deal if the 49ers were to "move" to Santa Clara. Santa Clara isn't too far from San Francisco. The team could probably still be known as the San Francisco 49ers. Its not like the team is moving to another major city (its hard to compare this to the Browns leaving Cleveland as someone said earlier in the thread). Now moving the team to Los Angeles would be an entirely different situation.

[STL FANATIC]

I think people are going pretty overboard here.

I'm all for tradition and when it's ignored, it ticks me off.

But moving 30 miles and keeping everything about the history doesn't dismantle that history.

I know I'd be a littled...I dunno...disappointed as a SF fan. Just like I would have been if new Busch Stadium was built in a suburb (or even on the Illinois side). Just like I was when the Cards left KMOX.

But ultimatley, I realized all the history is there and those moves (well, thankfully they stayed downtown, but at least the radio move) were best for the franchise. And furthermore, the Cardinals were not the sole reason for those moves. KMOX left the Cardinals as much as the Cardinals left KMOX.

The problem in this case is that the SF owners may or may not be doing what's right for the team. Maybe it's just right for their wallets (the Cards owners did both, and I think that's fine). But usually owners that are active enough to build a new stadium will also be active enough to try and win even if their greedy jerks.

I dunno. I understand the traditional sentiment, but you have to step back and realize the tradition is with the team and this is just progress. If they moved to LA or something, then yeah, that's not the ideal progress. But they're staying in the area.

If the stadium and surrounding area is nice, if they keep the San Francisco part of the name (and it sounds like they will), and if they start winning, people will embrace it.

[RickV]

Well if everyone here agrees that if they move to Santa Clara, that it's not a big deal, and they should still be referred to as the San Francisco 49'ers (and I think they should be) then there is NO more argument about the Los Angeles Angels, is there?

[Roger Clemente]

Regardless of where at in the Bay Area they are, I think the San Francisco 49ers club should host Super Bowl XLIX, regardless of wherever they are situated. The marketing potential is too great.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[leopard88]

Aside from it not being "San Francisco", what's wrong with Santa Clara? Isn't that where the team already has its offices and training facilities? It's not like it's a random city somewhere else in the state.

If the Detroit Lions can play in Pontiac, and the Dallas Cowboys can play in Irving, why can't the San Francisco 49ers play in Santa Clara?

My thoughts exactly. Unless I'm missing something, why is there all this gnashing of teeth?

Maybe the answer to one question can explain it, since I don't know the Bay Area at all -- would this move be more like the Baltimore Bullets moving about 30 miles to Landover (and essentially becoming a Washington team) or the Lions moving to Pontiac (basically a distant suburb, but still part of Greater Detroit)?

If it is more like the Lions move, then I really don't see what the outcry is about.

[rams80]

How 'bout we call them the San Francisco 49ers of Santa Cla-(gets tackled by half the board).

[Brian in Boston]

OK, all of you out there who think the baseball Angels should be the Anaheim Angels and not the Los Angeles Angels, using your logic, must the 49'ers now be called the Santa Clara 49'ers?

No.

First, Anaheim is a city of 328,014 people, while the population of Santa Clara is just 102,361.

Second, prior to the rebranding of the MLB franchise as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, the team had only borne the Los Angeles place-name in five of it's first forty-four years of existence. The team had used California as a place-name for thirty-one seasons and Anaheim as a place-name for eight seasons. By contrast, the 49ers have utilized San Francisco as the place-name in their branding package for each and every one of the franchise's sixty-one seasons.

[smith03]

How would the 49ers leaving the city of San Francisco for a surrounding city be any different from

the Bills in Orchard Park

the Giants and Jets in East Rutherford

the Cowboys in Irving soon Arlington

the Dolphins in Miami Gardens

the Redskins in Landover

also teams that don't use a city name but play in a smaller city then the main city

Patroits in Foxbourgh

Cardinals in Glendale

[Epiphanic]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...rs/15972242.htm

The the move to Santa Clara may not be legitimate anyway. This issue is far from over.

[maz]

EDIT: Never mind

[DrBear]

The Niners should move to Oakland.

The Raiders should move to Alcatraz.

[RickV]

OK, all of you out there who think the baseball Angels should be the Anaheim Angels and not the Los Angeles Angels, using your logic, must the 49'ers now be called the Santa Clara 49'ers?

No.

First, Anaheim is a city of 328,014 people, while the population of Santa Clara is just 102,361.

Second, prior to the rebranding of the MLB franchise as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, the team had only borne the Los Angeles place-name in five of it's first forty-four years of existence. The team had used California as a place-name for thirty-one seasons and Anaheim as a place-name for eight seasons. By contrast, the 49ers have utilized San Francisco as the place-name in their branding package for each and every one of the franchise's sixty-one seasons.

OK, so we are in agreement then that it's OK to call them the Los Angeles Angels and the San Francisco 49'ers, right? Despite the fact that both franchises play (or will play) in "cities" other than Los Angeles and San Francisco.

[rams80]

The Niners should move to Oakland.

The Bengals should move to Alcatraz.

Fixed it.

[STL FANATIC]

OK, all of you out there who think the baseball Angels should be the Anaheim Angels and not the Los Angeles Angels, using your logic, must the 49'ers now be called the Santa Clara 49'ers?

No.

First, Anaheim is a city of 328,014 people, while the population of Santa Clara is just 102,361.

Second, prior to the rebranding of the MLB franchise as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, the team had only borne the Los Angeles place-name in five of it's first forty-four years of existence. The team had used California as a place-name for thirty-one seasons and Anaheim as a place-name for eight seasons. By contrast, the 49ers have utilized San Francisco as the place-name in their branding package for each and every one of the franchise's sixty-one seasons.

OK, so we are in agreement then that it's OK to call them the Los Angeles Angels and the San Francisco 49'ers, right? Despite the fact that both franchises play (or will play) in "cities" other than Los Angeles and San Francisco.

This is not comparable. If it were, precedent would have been established long ago. The Cowboys in Irving. The Lions in Pontiac. The Coyotes in Glendale. The Giants and Jets in New Jersey.

For one, Anaheim is much larger than those suburbs and can make a reasonable case for being it's own metro area.

The other thing is that the Angels set the precedent of Anaheim being large and prominent enough to be in the team name when they had their name as the Anaheim Angels.

The Angels changing back to Los Angeles while not moving from Anaheim and previously holding the Anaheim part of the moniker is in no solid way comparable to the 49ers remaining the 49ers with a move to Santa Clara.

[Brian in Boston]

OK, so we are in agreement then that it's OK to call them the Los Angeles Angels and the San Francisco 49'ers, right? Despite the fact that both franchises play (or will play) in "cities" other than Los Angeles and San Francisco.

No. You've misread my point.

The Angels play in a municipality - Anaheim - significantly larger than the community - Santa Clara - that the 49ers are reportedly considering moving to. As such, it is my belief that Anaheim has more of a claim to being a "major league" market than Santa Clara does.

Further, for 36 of their 49 years of existence the place-name in the Angels branding package has been something other than Los Angeles. This is primarily due to the fact that the Angels haven't been based in the City of Los Angeles or Los Angeles County since 1965. By contrast, San Francisco has been the place-name in the 49ers' branding package for the entirety of the franchise's 61-year history.

If Anaheim were a city with only a third of it's present population, I might agree that it's "major league" status - and, therefore, the necessity for it's MLB team to be branded with the municipality's name - could be called into question. Similarly, if Angels' ownership and management had chosen to maintain the Los Angeles place-name upon moving to a much smaller Anaheim back in 1961 - thus, creating a 46-year legacy for the Los Angeles Angels brand - I might concede that a modern-day switch to Anaheim as a place-name wasn't necessary.

However, in point of fact, Anaheim is significantly larger than Santa Clara. Anaheim - home to both the Angels and the Ducks - is a "major league" city. Los Angeles as a place-name has only been part of the Angels' legacy for 7 of the franchise's 46 years of history. Even Anaheim manages to outstrip that at 8 years.

Further, if the 49ers had moved to Santa Clara in - oh, let's say 1953 - and operated as the California 49ers for the next 41 years, then rebranded as the Santa Clara 49ers for a decade and THEN rebranded as the San Francisco 49ers of Santa Clara... well, that would be a similar scenario to what Arte Moreno pulled with the Angels.

In short, the Angels and 49ers scenarios don't have a ton in common.