Jump to content

You IDIOTS! What have you done?!


Saint Zephyr III

Recommended Posts

Raiders= quite possibly the worst AFC team+ 49ers= quite possibly the worst NFC team= Bay Area football is a lost cause

Yeah right. I agree both teams are at their worst. But they've been down before and they've come back.

Ten Super Bowls and eight rings between them. Other metro ares should have such lost causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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

The surrounding neighborhoods Bayview/Hunters Point are among the worst in the city and have the highest murder rate. Then again it is a low income - high crime area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Wouldn't the Ducks have been the team to set that precedent since they had Anaheim (and only Anaheim) in their name since 1993?

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

champssig2.png
Follow me on Twitter if you care: @Animal_Clans.

My opinion may or may not be the same as yours. The choice is up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Wouldn't the Ducks have been the team to set that precedent since they had Anaheim (and only Anaheim) in their name since 1993?

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

I thought about that, but I decided the more important precedent was that it was an MLB team and even the specific MLB team in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if they remain the San Francisco 40ers in Santa Clara this is not bad for the Bay Area fans, I blame the city though they had a stadium deal then reneged.

ecyclopedia.gif

www.sportsecyclopedia.com

For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com

champssigtank.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Sounds like a double standard. The Angels were the "California" Angels for 30 yrs while in Anaheim, they changed monikers for what, about 8 yrs? Then the owner wants to change again to Los Angeles Angels. What about the 30 yr "legacy" they had as the California Angles? No one threw their arms up in disgust when they changed their name to Anaheim Angels. The Dallas Cowboys had played in Dallas for about 10 yrs when they moved to Irving, Tx which is as much an indepedent municipality as Anaheim is. (Population about 200,000). No one demands that they change their name to Irving Cowboys, and they have played in Irving for 3 times as long as they played in Dallas. They are scheduled to move to Arlington Texas (Current population 359,000) in 2009. I don't expect an outcry to change their name to the Arlington Cowboys anymore than there was one to be the Irving Cowboys. The Rams played in Anaheim for what 10 yrs? No one demanded they be called the Anaheim Rams. The New York Giants haven't played in the state much less the city of New York in 20 years. If Anaheim is successful in its bid for an NFL team and Los Angeles isn't, do you think the NFL will want the team to be called the "Anaheim whatevers" instead of the "Los Angeles whatevers"? Santa Clara is what, about 30 miles from San Francisco proper, and is in a different county even, and has a population of 100,000 of its own, and I don't think anyone considers it a "suburb" of San Francisco. In short, I don't see any freaking difference in the two situations as far as naming rights go, except that Californians apparently are fiercely territorial. This point apparently can be argued forever, and I suppose that there will always be people on both sides of the fence. I'm on the San Francisco 49'ers play in Santa Clara and it's OK to be branded San Francisco, and the Los Angeles Angels play in Anaheim and they can be called Los Angeles without any heartburn, side.

metslogo_215.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're about to lose the Sonics in Seattle, but of course I know that's nothing like San Francisco losing the 49ers. What a freaking joke.

This is like Cleveland losing the Browns, but worse. They probably won't get the Niners back.

Oh, please. The 49'ers are going to Santa Clara for Christ's sakes. It's not like they're moving to Calgary.

If Santa Clara rejects the deal, then its likely to Los Angeles.

Do I have to bitchslap some sense into you Erhu? ITS GONNA BE THE LOS ANGELES BUCCANEERS!!!!!! :P

The L.A. Buccaneers are coming back? After a what? 80 year hiatus?

Hopefully this time they won't be an all-road team. :D

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.

No... this is the equivalent of the Rams moving out of the L.A. Coliseum out to Anaheim in 1980.

nav-logo.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arlington with the way its growing and have been growing, its becoming a city that can rival Dallas and Fort WOrth. Only thing is they keep living in the shadow of their mega cities to its east and west. With the cowboys coming to Arlington with that new stadium, the development and population is going to go through the roof. I at least hope it does because after the Ball Park in Arlington was built with promises of development, it has yet to be developed. which is sad because you have this really nice ballbark and hardly any development around it like promised by then owner W. I don't know what Arlington Mayor Cluck thinks about naming rights because he could make a serious case for wanting to have them named the Arlington Cowboys. Unless there was some agreement by him and Dallas city Mayor Laura Miller(I honestly don't know how she keeps getting re elected in Dallas especially with her latest gaffe the Strong Mayor Proposal that got soundly killed by the voters of Dallas.) to keep them the Dallas Cowboys.

islandersscroll.gif

Spoilers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I at least hope it does because after the Ball Park in Arlington was built with promises of development, it has yet to be developed. which is sad because you have this really nice ballbark and hardly any development around it like promised by then owner W.

That is a direct result of having acres upon acres of parking surrounding the ballpark. Massive parking lots hinder development. It happens in every stadium of this kind, from US Cellular to Kauffman to Dolphin Stadium. Create a buffer zone of development between parking areas and stadiums and you are a lot more likely to see development.

1997 | 2003

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

That's a stupid question.

MouthoftheSouth.jpg

I don't speak for democrats, democrats don't speak for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Angels were the "California" Angels for 30 yrs while in Anaheim, they changed monikers for what, about 8 yrs? Then the owner wants to change again to Los Angeles Angels. What about the 30 yr "legacy" they had as the California Angles? No one threw their arms up in disgust when they changed their name to Anaheim Angels.

I never had a problem with the Angels changing to the Los Angeles Angels. The problem I have is them calling themselves the Los Angels Angels of Anahiem. That just sound stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called San Francisco Politics, my friends. The same principals that are causing these teams to move are the same as those by the people you just voted into the Senate and HoR.

Weird. I thought Jon Tester was from Montana, Jim Webb from Virginia, Claire McCaskill from Missouri, and Brad Whitehouse from Rhode Island.

Crazy that the Democrats were able to pull of such geographical shenanigans and no one was the wiser....except for you!

1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what could be a rather tragic moment for a once-great franchise, the two babbling buffoons running the team into the ground have finally done the unthinkable. According to ESPN, John York has told the mayor of San Francisco that they are ending further discussions on a new stadium and plan to move either to Santa Clara, the headquarters of the franchise, or somewhere else in California.

Despite efforts to build a new stadium, including a failed proposal to include the new stadium with a possible 2016 Olympics bid, the city's stern stance to not provide any direct finances for the stadium ultimately doomed the progress. Candlestick Park, while one of the most famous stadiums, is also one of the most rundown, and has been needed to be renewed for some time.

Yet now any option is mute for now...and with Los Angeles, Anaheim, and a new commissioner that wants to finally bring a team into the mentioned cities, we could very well see the end of an era-no, a legacy.

The 49ers have finally died...

No they haven't... they'll still be around for a very long time (even if it means playing in Santa Clara)!

Los Angeles 49ers and San Antonio Saints? :therock:

I do not see that happening; however, I do see the Chargers possibly moving from San Diego to Los Angeles (if that ever happens)!

I believe a moment of silence is in order...

Well, you can just forget about that "moment of silence"!

YOZXkBG.png?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're about to lose the Sonics in Seattle, but of course I know that's nothing like San Francisco losing the 49ers. What a freaking joke.

This is like Cleveland losing the Browns, but worse. They probably won't get the Niners back.

Oh, please. The 49'ers are going to Santa Clara for Christ's sakes. It's not like they're moving to Calgary.

I made that statement under the assumption Santa Clara was, I don't know, near San Diego or something. I apologize for my ignorance.

In retrospect, if the team can get a better deal a few miles away, go for it. If it can save the taxpayers of San Francisco some money that can be used better elsewhere, even better. Seems like neither side is very fond of the other, so perhaps a split is in the best interests of both.

1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

The surrounding neighborhoods Bayview/Hunters Point are among the worst in the city and have the highest murder rate. Then again it is a low income - high crime area.

But the stadium itself isnt bad at all. It is old, a bit run down, kinda boring in presetation, still had the old orange Giants seats, but all of that stuff is just asthetics and can easily be replaced. Only real issues I can see is that maybe the parking, which isnt perfect but not much worse than any other stadium, and it gets pretty cold there during the winter months, but its not like Green Bay or Buffalo or anything. If they are REALLY desperate, why dont the Niners try to work a deal to play at At&t Park? Its not like At&t park has never had football before. And itd save the owners, city, and taxpayers quite a bit of money

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.