Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-12-2011, 08:08 PM
 
Location: San Leandro
4,576 posts, read 9,134,146 times
Reputation: 3248

Advertisements

Warriors play in the oldest arena in basketball. It is an antiquated relic from a suburban era. If Oakland can not get a new arena built, the only viable option is for the team to go to San Jose or SF.

I think SF would be cool. Sf one of the largest cities in the USA with out a quality arena.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-12-2011, 10:13 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,965 posts, read 32,471,672 times
Reputation: 13615
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
And why exactly do you say this? What makes you think there are no rowdy, die hard warriors fans in SF? What makes you think die hard fans from elsewhere would be less rowdy in SF than in Oakland?
I never said there are "NO" rowdy fans in SF nor would the same ones that currently go be less rowdy in the City. IMHO, if the GSW were to move to SF they would attract a wealthier clientele to the areana and that is why they would be less rowdy.
Quote:
And what makes you think all people in SF go to sporting events just because it's something "to do" and "to be seen"?
I never said "all" people, but some of the Giants fans IMO are clearly not paying attention to the game nor do they care that much, they are there to socialize from what it looks like. Again, I'm not saying "ALL" or even the majority are like that.
Quote:
And why do you feel an arena in SF would suddenly attract way more "deep pocket fans"? These deep pocket fans never go to Oakland, or live in Oakland/the east bay themselves, according to you? Is there a sign on the Bay Bridge that says "no rich people allowed"?
It's pretty simple, a new shiny arena located in the downtown area of a city like SF (aka WEALTHY and URBAN) located close to a lot of wealth, more so than the East Bay, would indeed attract a wealthier fan base overall IMO. Sure some wealthier people go to Warriors but build a new arena in SF near downtown and even more would go. Do you honestly think some high earning professional in Downtown SF is just as likely to go Oracle Arena as a new downtown SF arena? Or all the people who go out to dinner/happy hour in SF on any given night wouldn't be more likely to catch a game near downtown SF as opposed to the Coliseum area?

Quote:
Honestly, you sound like you don't really know what you're talking about.
That's incredibly ironic considering how you don't seem to understand same pretty basic concepts regarding demographics and professional sporting events.

I'm curious rah, how many Warriors games did you go to last year? How many Lakers or Clippers games have you been to at Staples Center? Ever been to American Airlines Arena in Miami or any basketball venue outside of the Bay Area? I have plenty of experience with different basketball arenas and crowds.

I know this may not be politically correct probably to some people here, but people with less money tend to be rowdier and more passionate fans imo. The difference in the types of fans between the upper level versus the lower level of a nice arena like Staples Center is pretty significant. The upper levels are rowdier. The difference in the crowd at a Clippers versus a Lakers game is pretty obvious too, tickets to the Clippers are much easier and cheaper to get. Places like Staples and American Airlines arenas attract a wealthier crowd compared to Oracle and it's obvious.

Just look at the A's and Giants. When the Giants played at the Stick they were pretty much the same in attendance and the Stick attracted a rowdier fan base back then. Then look what happened when the Giants moved into a shiny new ballpark by downtown SF. Attendance is now one of the best in the league and it's definitely a more refined crowd compared to Candlestick. What makes you think the same thing won't happen with the Warriors? Do you honestly think team owners go through the difficult and long process of getting a new venue built without the intention of attracting a wealthier clientele to increase the value and profitability of the team? As well as to attract top talent in the process?

"In the mid-'80s, then-Warriors President Dan Finnane commissioned a study to determine the financial effect of moving to the city. The result was a 30 percent increase in value and revenue.

Today that number would only be higher. The sponsorship opportunities would be much better, the potential for selling premium tickets would be higher, and selling the naming rights to the new arena would be a cinch."

This time, Warriors' return to S.F. has a shot

Again, the irony with you telling me I don't know what I'm talking about when you have yet to present any compelling argument, as well as any evidence, to back up your claims.
Quote:
It's almost as if some of you think there's an invisible wall between SF and Oakland or something.
There is for a lot of people in this region, you gotta be pretty naive not to notice it.

Last edited by sav858; 12-12-2011 at 11:42 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2011, 07:33 PM
 
Location: Oakland CA
295 posts, read 459,930 times
Reputation: 169
Ok sav858 your a little off point with the Clippers Lakers comparison because in that case its working against your point that a new shinny arena brings in deeper pockets. NOBODY cares about or goes to clipper games in LA especially not people with any wealth. Lakers yes, but that's more because the Lakers are good and the Clippers are mediocre at best. So in that vain of thinking it wont even matter where the Warriors play they just need to put a better team on the court and people with money will show up. Mind you i really don't believe that. At best the move to San Francisco will net simply a newer arena, the same attendance, a new city name, the same under-performing team, and higher ticket prices ( that may actually prove detrimental to attendance).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2011, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Oakland CA
295 posts, read 459,930 times
Reputation: 169
also Oracle isn't a good enough name on the arena?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2011, 09:01 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,965 posts, read 32,471,672 times
Reputation: 13615
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsba View Post
Ok sav858 your a little off point with the Clippers Lakers comparison because in that case its working against your point that a new shinny arena brings in deeper pockets. NOBODY cares about or goes to clipper games in LA especially not people with any wealth. Lakers yes, but that's more because the Lakers are good and the Clippers are mediocre at best. So in that vain of thinking it wont even matter where the Warriors play they just need to put a better team on the court and people with money will show up.
My point in bringing up the Clippers was how they attract a different crowd than the Lakers due to their lower ticket prices and easier availability, because apparently Rah seems to think no matter what the ticket prices are the fans are the same. You won't see anyone like "Clipper Darrell" sitting lower level at a Lakers game, let alone one that is a season ticket holder. Clearly with a two team market it's a different dynamic but I was talking how ticket prices make a difference in the types of people that come to the game.

And the Clippers do have fairly good attendance and relatively high ticket prices compared to the rest of the league too, especially for being a much worse team in a 2-team market.

Quote:
At best the move to San Francisco will net simply a newer arena, the same attendance, a new city name, the same under-performing team, and higher ticket prices ( that may actually prove detrimental to attendance).
This is basically just a bunch of wishful thinking on the part of Oakland homers that it won't make a difference when pretty much anyone with any knowledge of how this stuff works would disagree. One of my best friends who sales tickets for the Warriors knows exactly what a new downtown arena in SF would mean to his paycheck and the team. A brand new downtown arena in San Francisco is more appealing than an old arena in the ghetto of Oakland simply put. You gotta be an absolute moron if you think Oakland has the same appeal as San Francisco and that a new arena won't appeal to more people with deeper pockets. Do you honestly think all those big name corporations and businesses in SF are just as likely to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a luxury suite at Oracle compared to a new arena in Downtown SF?

For all the people that think building a new arena won't make a difference answer these questions:
1) Would you rather watch a Lakers game at Staples Center in Downtown LA or The GReat Western Forum in INGLEWOOD?
2) Would you rather watch a Clippers game at Staples Center in Downtown LA or at the Honda Center in the middle of a sea of asphalt in Anaheim?
3)Would you rather watch a NBA game at the Meadowlands in New Jersey or Midtown Manhattan?
4) Would you rather watch a Giants game at Candlestick or At&t?

The new owners of GSW didn't pay a record price for a NBA team to keep it in some aging arena in the middle of the ghetto IMO. The Bay Area is one of the wealthiest regions in the country and there is so much potential for higher revenues here with a professional sports franchise in a new venue. NONE of you who that have claimed a new arena won't make a difference have stated any reasons why you believe so. Back up your claim with something already.

Last edited by sav858; 12-13-2011 at 09:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2011, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,226 posts, read 36,736,145 times
Reputation: 28561
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
One of my best friends who sales tickets for the Warriors knows exactly what a new downtown arena in SF would mean to his paycheck and the team. A brand new downtown arena in San Francisco is more appealing than an old arena in the ghetto of Oakland simply put. You gotta be an absolute moron if you think Oakland has the same appeal as San Francisco and that a new arena won't appeal to more people with deeper pockets.
Anyone would rather see a game in a new arena vs and old arena. That's common sense. By the time you do the math on new in Oakland (let's say downtown) and new in SF in SOMA, it wouldn't be as different as people think. NEW is the keyword here.

And yes, a more vibrant neighborhood could be helpful too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2011, 09:19 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,965 posts, read 32,471,672 times
Reputation: 13615
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Anyone would rather see a game in a new arena vs and old arena. That's common sense. By the time you do the math on new in Oakland (let's say downtown) and new in SF in SOMA, it wouldn't be as different as people think. NEW is the keyword here.

And yes, a more vibrant neighborhood could be helpful too.
LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. Yes it does make a huge difference. Do you think the Knicks would be pulling in the crowd they do and the second highest average ticket prices in the league if they were located out in the Meadowlands versus Midtown Manhattan? You honestly don't think that makes any difference there? Even when the Nets finish their new arena in Downtown Brooklyn, I'd be willing to bet the Knicks will still draw more people that will pay more for tickets as well. What's more appealing to you, Midtown Manhattan or Downtown Brooklyn?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2011, 10:36 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,226 posts, read 36,736,145 times
Reputation: 28561
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. Yes it does make a huge difference. Do you think the Knicks would be pulling in the crowd they do and the second highest average ticket prices in the league if they were located out in the Meadowlands versus Midtown Manhattan? You honestly don't think that makes any difference there? Even when the Nets finish their new arena in Downtown Brooklyn, I'd be willing to bet the Knicks will still draw more people that will pay more for tickets as well. What's more appealing to you, Midtown Manhattan or Downtown Brooklyn?
Can't wait for the Brooklyn Nets. The Knicks are so established as a good team, the Nets not so much. Things change when metro areas have a choice of teams: one a perennial favorite and one an also-ran.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2011, 01:24 AM
 
Location: yeah
5,717 posts, read 16,305,162 times
Reputation: 2974
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Sure, but those Hockey fans would follow the sharks if they played in Redwood City, San Francisco or where ever else. They aren't just going to the games because they live in San Jose, and the team is in San Jose.
Perhaps true in 1993, but generations have now grown up with the team so notions about hockey being alien to us are way off base. The south bay is home to one of the largest adult rec leagues in the country, so hockey culture has expanded far beyond convenient entertainment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
And here's more strange thinking along the same lines.

So you believe that most SF/Marin socialite and celebrity Warriors fans would NEVER go to Oakland? Sean Penn was riding around New Orleans in a boat, armed with a shotgun, after Hurricane Katrina. I think he can handle going to Oakland to watch a Warriors game. Candlestick park is in the middle of the ghetto in SF, and that doesn't stop some very rich people from going there regularly.

I'll admit there is a little truth in what you guys are saying, seeing as Marin is closer to SF than Oakland, and snooty rich people are generally more accepting of SF than Oakland, and an arena in SF would undoubtedly bring in at least a few more fans...but I have a feeling the fan base/attendance would stay mostly the same, seeing as Oakland and SF are right next to each other. It's almost as if some of you think there's an invisible wall between SF and Oakland or something.
You're arguing a statement you think I made about Oakland/SF/Marin when all I was saying is that the Warriors owners are ****ing deluded. Of course the fanbase would not be greatly impacted, but if the status quo mattered then this move would not be discussed. They draw well now for a perennially crappy product. That's not good enough, apparently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2011, 01:54 PM
 
Location: San Leandro
4,576 posts, read 9,134,146 times
Reputation: 3248
There is watching a crappy team, and then there is watching a crappy team in San Francisco.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top