Warriors to move to San Francisco, new arena in 2017

Capt. Factorial

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#3
#3
BMiller52 said:
I wonder if this effects are efforts positively or negatively.
Click to expand...
Well, let's see. The Warriors are 100% privately financing an arena. The Maloofs turned down paying less than 20% because "it wasn't a good deal". Mmm-hmm. That's going to really help their argument.
 
Purple Reign

Purple Reign

Starter
#4
#4
I think THIS "COULD" effect the arena efforts here in Sacramento in two ways (one positive and one negative):

1. POSITIVE - It puts the pressure on the Maloofs to get a deal done, any way possible. It "could" push them back to the table with the City of Sacramento in order to compete with big brother down the road.

2. NEGATIVE - This morning while listening to KNBR, the one name that was brought up that made me cringe was Larry Ellison. This Warrior move to SF, could open up the door for Larry Ellison to buy an NBA team and move it to San Jose. Guess which team was brought up?:confused:

I do not know how feasible that would be with the whole NBA relocation "dog and pony" show. But this move by the Warriors does at least raise the speculation. This announcement today, does put the arena news here in Sacramento back in public conversation. Particularly about PRIVATE FINANCING.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#5
#5
It seems pretty clear that Larry Ellison is going to have to start an anti-trust suit of his own if he ever wants an NBA franchise.
 
kennadog

kennadog

Dog On It!
#6
#6
Purple Reign said:
2. NEGATIVE - This morning while listening to KNBR, the one name that was brought up that made me cringe was Larry Ellison. This Warrior move to SF, could open up the door for Larry Ellison to buy an NBA team and move it to San Jose. Guess which team was brought up?:confused:
Click to expand...
It shouldn't make any difference to this. San Jose is still in the Warriors market, whether they are in Oakland or San Francisco. Of course, the Clippers and the Lakers play in the same arena, but the Clippers move was never approved by the NBA and probably wouldn't be under the current rules.
 
J

JB_kings

Starter
#7
#7
I'm happy that the Warriors are working on this. It's what I would have done if I were Lacob-Gruber. It's a huge investment on their part to build their arena in the city, but one that will pay off as we've seen with the Giants. The Giants tried to do partner up and do the arena for the Warriors before going it alone. So at least there are a few groups who think this investment is a money maker long term. We'll see if they can pull this off.

They picked a site that is a great location, but is loaded with red flags. The pier is only good for what it is now, parking on top of. This is the same site that Ellison's America's Cup group walked away from because of the work needed to make the site viable. But that was because the Cup site is virtually temporary use where the arena is permanent facility. I think they pretty much have to approach this site as a full demo of the pier and driving all new pilings capable of supporting a 700,000 sq foot arena. They aren't kidding when they say it could be well over 100 million in site development costs.

I hope it goes well for them.
 
Glenn

Glenn

Hall of Famer
#8
#8
Now they work on the details! That's one huge project they have in mind. It's hard to believe given our experience that the team can fund this. Now of course they get a higher revenue as the years go by but someone has a lot of cash laying around - and good credit. :)

Every time a new arena goes up, it makes ours look older. I think that's a good thing for us.
 
Last edited:
Gary

Gary

All-Star
#9
#9
Was just curious how people think of the possible Warriors move to SF.

Do you think it hits the Ws fans moving to SF the same as it hits the Sac fans possible move to Anaheim?

I ask because I haven't really heard much of a stink by Ws fans over the proposed move to the wharf in SF. I would assume it's the same thing as the Kings moving to Elk Grove from Natomas? Meaning it's still in the Sacramento media market so it's not a big deal?

Just curious how all of you think. It's not a huge deal to me.
 
Trueblood

Trueblood

Bench
#11
#11
I'm from the bay area and while I'm not as big a Dubs fan as I used to be, I still follow them and want what's best for the NBA and being in a world class city with a state of the art arena in the downtown area is much better than being at the south end of Oakland where there is no night life or businesses that can benefit from a sports team.

As for the analogy to the Kings and Anaheim, you're right, it shouldn't be that big a deal. I don't see why the Oakland fans are making a big deal out of this. If you're in downtown Oakland, you're only 2 BART stops from where the SF arena will be whereas you're 3 away from the current Oracle Arena. It's still the bay area and the Warriors have been the sole bay area team for the last 40 years. It shouldn't matter if they're in Oakland, SF or San Jose. If they're in position to rake in more revenue then the fans should be happy. That will make them more competitive.
 
Trueblood

Trueblood

Bench
#12
#12
Purple Reign said:
I think THIS "COULD" effect the arena efforts here in Sacramento in two ways (one positive and one negative):

1. POSITIVE - It puts the pressure on the Maloofs to get a deal done, any way possible. It "could" push them back to the table with the City of Sacramento in order to compete with big brother down the road.

2. NEGATIVE - This morning while listening to KNBR, the one name that was brought up that made me cringe was Larry Ellison. This Warrior move to SF, could open up the door for Larry Ellison to buy an NBA team and move it to San Jose. Guess which team was brought up?:confused:

I do not know how feasible that would be with the whole NBA relocation "dog and pony" show. But this move by the Warriors does at least raise the speculation. This announcement today, does put the arena news here in Sacramento back in public conversation. Particularly about PRIVATE FINANCING.
Click to expand...
The Warriors will put up a fight when it comes to having a team in San Jose and Stern then Silver will have their backs. Part of the lure of moving to SF is being a couple blocks from the caltran depot where the train goes to San Jose. This opens up public transportation options for the south bay crowd. They don't have that now with the Warriors since BART doesn't go to SJ.

If a worst case scenario for Sacramento happens and they have to be sold to an out of towner who will try to move them, I see them being sold to Chris Hansen in Seattle assuming his arena deal gets off the ground.
 
kennadog

kennadog

Dog On It!
#13
#13
Gary said:
Do you think it hits the Ws fans moving to SF the same as it hits the Sac fans possible move to Anaheim?

I ask because I haven't really heard much of a stink by Ws fans over the proposed move to the wharf in SF. I would assume it's the same thing as the Kings moving to Elk Grove from Natomas? Meaning it's still in the Sacramento media market so it's not a big deal?

Just curious how all of you think. It's not a huge deal to me.
Click to expand...
Well the Warriors played in SF before they were moved to Oakland. They used to be called the San Francisco Warriors. When they moved to Oakland they changed the name to the Golden State Warriors to try not alienate the SF fans.
 
KingsFanSince85

KingsFanSince85

All-Star
#15
#15
kennadog said:
Well the Warriors played in SF before they were moved to Oakland. They used to be called the San Francisco Warriors. When they moved to Oakland they changed the name to the Golden State Warriors to try not alienate the SF fans.
Click to expand...
Exactly, which is why it is not at all comparable. They are going back to where they first began in Cali (after moving from Philly).

While it's not comparable in terms of distance, I wouldn't be as mad or upset if the Kings moved back to Kansas City, Cincinnati, or Rochester versus a new city that has no prior history with the franchise such as Anaheim or Seattle.

That said, I don't want our team to go anywhere and will be upset if they do.
 
kennadog

kennadog

Dog On It!
#16
#16
KingsFanSince85 said:
While it's not comparable in terms of distance, I wouldn't be as mad or upset if the Kings moved back to Kansas City, Cincinnati, or Rochester versus a new city that has no prior history with the franchise such as Anaheim or Seattle.

That said, I don't want our team to go anywhere and will be upset if they do.
Click to expand...
Me too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.