ESPN is reporting this, too.

espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7953690/source-golden-state-warriors-committed-moving-san-francisco-oakland

Could be based on the same tweet, though. But, I tell you, if I could place an arena in San Francisco, I'm not sure I could choose a better spot. Very close to transit, China Town, the "touristy" areas (Pier 39, etc.). It does wreck a parking lot, though.

I'd say this location is so ideal that it wouldn't surprise me if, eventually, the Sharks moved there too. I see no one else talking about this, but face it, in 2017, the Tank will be well over 20 years old.

But even without the Sharks, this arena would be busy 200+ nights/year.

Do it with private money and do something about the parking lot it takes away, and I think they have a deal.

It's pretty nearly an ideal location, but I'm still hesitant to say that even 200+ nights/year of traffic would be enough to pay off, say, $600-700m in construction costs, especially if they have to pay property taxes like the Giants. Private financing *could* work, which is saying something, but I'm still very curious to see the actual numbers.

And, meanwhile, I see that Jean Quan is ready to start a bidding war. That's not likely to end well for taxpayers.

Tim Kawakami thinks it might make the next five years in Oracle a little awkward, but I don't think so. Here's why: The owners of the Warriors already, in effect, control Oracle. They'll advertise the heck out of the new arena from inside the old arena, without an ounce of restraint or shame.

Anyway, here's Kawakami's take:

www.mercurynews.com/raiders/ci_20670304/tim-kawakami-golden-state-warriors-appear-headed-san

I tell you, if they can come up with a financial plan that meets or exceeds Seattle's plan, then this falls into the universe of arena deals I'd support. Sacramento's deal was awful, as is Orlando's, Indy's and Hamilton County's (among many others). Those fall into the "dreadful" category.

From what little information we have about the SF deal, I'd say this is on the better end of the spectrum.

O/T: The Port of Seattle doesn't like Hansen's arena ideas.

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2018240446_portarena19m.html

Read the comments. Most people seem to have the same reaction I did, which would be, "Oh, hogwash."

Poor Oakland, nobody want to be there - SURPRISE!

Big $$$'s trump any awkward situations, Quan would do better to attract businesses that pay taxes and employ larger numbers but you know she won't.

@MM- Sharks control HP Pavillon- why would they give up that to share an arena in SF- not to mention completely different fan bases-100 plus sellouts... And one of the most desirable locations from a corporate money perspective in US- which is wht '9ers are moving to the valley out of SF and why the A's are working so hard to get into downtown SJ- more likely you will see Larry E continue to pursue an NBA team and in the next 10-15 years talk about a ne arena in the parking lot of the existing one in downtown SJ

@SanJoseA's...the 49ers will be located in a undersized stadium, with limited parking, limited transit, next to an amusement park in a condensed area of Santa Clara...The Yorks used their Mid-Western Logic in this decision & local, "there is NO there there"...Btw, have fun walking 20 minutes to and from the 49ers stadium to the Yahoo employee parking lot for your car, Mission College parking lot.

should be "or the Mission College Parking Lot."

SanJoseA's: Because that's the game sports team owners play. The Pavilion will no longer be considered a top 10, or even average, arena by 2017. So they'll say, "Replace this dump, or we consider San Francisco's offer."

Maybe they'll mean it; maybe they won't. That's not relevant. What's relevant is they'll try, and they'll have a shot at it.

Kudos to SF for rejecting the 49ers demands. They were, and continue to be, outlandish. I'm glad SF had the guts to turn down an opportunity like that. Santa Clara's headaches are yet to come.

I like SJ's tax base. I like SF's just as much. That's a wash. The great part: That's not much of a walk from BART.

Kudo's to the SF for rejecting the '9ers demand--wtf? they put a $100m on the table for them and were fighting until the end to keep them---bottom line is came down to a better site in Silicon Valley with lots of Fortune 500 companies around it---SV has more Fortune 500 companies than Oakland and SF combined--

and you still have yet to provide any financial insight as to why a team who currently controls HP and its events (believe it is T10 in bookings at over 200 events)--would give all this up to go be a tenant in SF--a city that is not a sports city at all--and give up a fan base that is very loyal-

btw--this isn't a debate with disgruntled santa clara citizens who don't want the '9ers--stadium is under construction--point is they went to a place where they could sell plenty of luxury boxes, sponsorships etc to pay the $1.2B cost--

@MM - Pier 30/32 is not close to Chinatown or Pier 39/Fisherman's Wharf

Mike, the Sharks won't be interested. Between 15 years of sellouts, more corporate support in SJ than San Francisco, and the fact that the Sharks owners all but control the HP Pavilion means there's no way they'd move to SF even if the arena is newer. Not unless the Warriors and SF would be willing to give up control of their new private arena to the Sharks ownership (and by control I mean control over not just Sharks game day revenues, but a large portion of ALL revenues from ALL events held in it, and management rights). Because that's what the Sharks have in San Jose right now. It's part of why the HP Pavilion is one of the most booked in the country.

How about move the kings to san jose? Rename the kings the California seals, so the sharks and seals share the same arena, what could go wrong?

Friscan Warriors?