Levi's Stadium pics and info...

Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
adding misters at levis stadium for the first couple of home games

the most heated debate of our lifetime

.

Only fan base to be afraid of the sun.

Originally posted by captveg:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So what you're saying is, it's possible, but it's too expensive and the 49ers owners are cheap a**holes who got what they wanted and that's all they care about?

Thanks, that's what we've been saying all along.

Anyone with a brain knows I wasn't saying it was literally impossible. I was clearly saying that the liability cost was beyond what any stadium was going to agree to, because it's unreasonable for a sports stadium to pay the much higher cost for theme park level insurance for f**king misters, something they would likely not have to do if the natural temperature allowed the water to evaporate and not accumulate on concrete pathways. You know, like in Arizona.

But that's not how you troll on Niner Talk. No, you troll by ignoring my statement and interpreting it in the extreme, unintended way it was meant. Because trolls gonna troll, point their finger and neener-neener to make themselves feel important. Because all you care about is making yourself seem to be a bigger man Jed York or other message board users, and measured conversation and logic goes out the window. f**k all that, I say.

I'm not trolling. I actually work in commercial insurance and have for 15 years. I don't have any theme parks as clients, but I did look it up and found this supplemental application from Philadelphia Insurance, one of the largest insurers in the U.S. Interesting note - not one mention of misters anywhere.
https://www.phly.com/Files/Application%20-%20Amusement%20Parks31-1310.pdf

You've been pretending to know what you're talking about when it comes to this, just stop. Even if we grant you the possibility that there would be an added insurance cost because of the misters, that still proves our point - that this is about money, and not what's physically "possible." That's the issue everyone is having with York and Co. They are lying by saying that these fixes are "impossible."

I remain shocked at how many people there are that blindly defend billionaires and their shady/greedy business practices.

Originally posted by Janitor:

Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Warnings handed out. Chill the hell out

That's what the misters are for bruh

Originally posted by Furlow:
I'm not trolling. I actually work in commercial insurance and have for 15 years. I don't have any theme parks as clients, but I did look it up and found this supplemental application from Philadelphia Insurance, one of the largest insurers in the U.S. Interesting note - not one mention of misters anywhere.
https://www.phly.com/Files/Application%20-%20Amusement%20Parks31-1310.pdf

You've been pretending to know what you're talking about when it comes to this, just stop. Even if we grant you the possibility that there would be an added insurance cost because of the misters, that still proves our point - that this is about money, and not what's physically "possible." That's the issue everyone is having with York and Co. They are lying by saying that these fixes are "impossible."

I remain shocked at how many people there are that blindly defend billionaires and their shady/greedy business practices.

I'm a professional ambulance chaser, a regular Saul Goodman. Slip and fall extraordinaire.

The idea misters create some large burden of liability is a complete joke.

If an area is anticipated to be wet, all you need to do is make sure the co-efficient of friction is up to standard business practices. There's no crazy standard. There's no secret. Its all often published in trade publications. And if you hire anyone experienced in the field and properly trained, they know a lot of the safety standards second-nature, or at least where to look.

If you install a pool in your backyard, look at the concrete near the pool. I'd presume its not perfectly smooth. Its really not rocket science.

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:

Originally posted by Furlow:
I'm not trolling. I actually work in commercial insurance and have for 15 years. I don't have any theme parks as clients, but I did look it up and found this supplemental application from Philadelphia Insurance, one of the largest insurers in the U.S. Interesting note - not one mention of misters anywhere.
https://www.phly.com/Files/Application%20-%20Amusement%20Parks31-1310.pdf

You've been pretending to know what you're talking about when it comes to this, just stop. Even if we grant you the possibility that there would be an added insurance cost because of the misters, that still proves our point - that this is about money, and not what's physically "possible." That's the issue everyone is having with York and Co. They are lying by saying that these fixes are "impossible."

I remain shocked at how many people there are that blindly defend billionaires and their shady/greedy business practices.

I'm a professional ambulance chaser, a regular Saul Goodman. Slip and fall extraordinaire.

The idea misters create some large burden of liability is a complete joke.

If an area is anticipated to be wet, all you need to do is make sure the co-efficient of friction is up to standard business practices. There's no crazy standard. There's no secret. Its all often published in trade publications. And if you hire anyone experienced in the field and properly trained, they know a lot of the safety standards second-nature, or at least where to look.

If you install a pool in your backyard, look at the concrete near the pool. I'd presume its not perfectly smooth. Its really not rocket science.

Jed: "Hmmm, that sounds expensive, how about we just have Al tell the public that it is impossible?"
Al: "Oh yes please boss, anything you want. As soon as I finish baking your cookies."

Originally posted by captveg:

Originally posted by Janitor:
All the people in this photo slipped and died moments after it was taken



Just a shame that it's impossible for the 49ers to do it.

I don't know where the 4th pic is from, but I do see palm trees. Seems like the natural temperature is likely to be higher than San Jose.

Meanwhile in San Jose:

Originally posted by Janitor:

Originally posted by susweel:
You have no idea what you're talking about. Seems like you're just making up bs excuses. I doubt getting insurance for mist water would double or triple their insurance rates.

The insurance thing is entirely made up. It's a non-factor. All they would need is an ANSI rated slip resistant surface, and a little bit of signage, just to be safe.

If anything, the misters may lower insurance because then there is less risk of heat related injuries, especially considering the 49ers are on notice that people are having health issues directly caused by the heat. If someone dies becaues of this you bet they'll sue Jed''s ass.

Funny thing is Jed went to court in a bitter battle and fought tooth and nail to have a cabana built for his house when neighbors complained it blocked their views. Too hot for his guests but not too hot for paying customers.

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:

Originally posted by Furlow:
I'm not trolling. I actually work in commercial insurance and have for 15 years. I don't have any theme parks as clients, but I did look it up and found this supplemental application from Philadelphia Insurance, one of the largest insurers in the U.S. Interesting note - not one mention of misters anywhere.
https://www.phly.com/Files/Application%20-%20Amusement%20Parks31-1310.pdf

You've been pretending to know what you're talking about when it comes to this, just stop. Even if we grant you the possibility that there would be an added insurance cost because of the misters, that still proves our point - that this is about money, and not what's physically "possible." That's the issue everyone is having with York and Co. They are lying by saying that these fixes are "impossible."

I remain shocked at how many people there are that blindly defend billionaires and their shady/greedy business practices.

I'm a professional ambulance chaser, a regular Saul Goodman. Slip and fall extraordinaire.

The idea misters create some large burden of liability is a complete joke.

If an area is anticipated to be wet, all you need to do is make sure the co-efficient of friction is up to standard business practices. There's no crazy standard. There's no secret. Its all often published in trade publications. And if you hire anyone experienced in the field and properly trained, they know a lot of the safety standards second-nature, or at least where to look.

If you install a pool in your backyard, look at the concrete near the pool. I'd presume its not perfectly smooth. Its really not rocket science.

I work in construction, and also report to the head of safety in our business. This stuff is basic. Slip resistant surfaces are basic, easy to install, and not even that expensive. I've dealt with them in Operating Rooms (blood is slippery!), Manufacturing buildings (oils, coolants, other liquids), outdoor surfaces (walkways), etc. etc. etc. It's one of the reasons I know Al is making crap up.

Originally posted by TheSixthRing:

Originally posted by captveg:

Originally posted by Janitor:

All the people in this photo slipped and died moments after it was taken



Just a shame that it's impossible for the 49ers to do it.

I don't know where the 4th pic is from, but I do see palm trees. Seems like the natural temperature is likely to be higher than San Jose.

Meanwhile in San Jose:

Originally posted by PrisonOfGlass:

Originally posted by TheSixthRing:

Originally posted by captveg:

Originally posted by Janitor:

All the people in this photo slipped and died moments after it was taken



Just a shame that it's impossible for the 49ers to do it.

I don't know where the 4th pic is from, but I do see palm trees. Seems like the natural temperature is likely to be higher than San Jose.

Meanwhile in San Jose:

You see that puddle on the bottom right? How long you think that's been there? HOW LONG??? Probably never dry up.

Originally posted by Furlow:

You've been pretending to know what you're talking about when it comes to this, just stop.

Fine. My reasoning was based in some conversations I had a few years ago about similar liabilty of a business, but if I was misinformed then so be it.

If Janitor had simpy made a straightforward point about this instead of lording it over me and laughing in my face in order to be the big dog I likely wouldn't have kept my defenses up and been so stubborn about it. But the defenses were mine and I own that. I still say it was obvious that "impossible" was clearly in context of the liability claim of the team, not at all meant in a physical reality sense. But this will be my final word on this aspect of this matter.

Originally posted by Furlow:

I remain shocked at how many people there are that blindly defend billionaires and their shady/greedy business practices.

See, this is my main source of frustration about this - this argument of "they're just cheap" would be great if it wasn't so muddled by other aspects. If there was consistent cheapness and avarice about these things by the 49ers I would agree with you. But I can't reconcile that argument with other factors.

As Young2Rice suggested, the team may be holding onto a more expensive-than-misters non-solution. That doesn't fit neatly into the "they're just cheap" narrative.

Then there's the lowering the bottle water price, which goes against that narrative. If they were just about the bottom line in the quickest and easiest way, they'd gouge water prices by raising them even higher, right?

Then there's the money spent in the last couple years on non-heat concerns, such as overhauling the food services. Obviously this is more profitable in the long run, but usually the opposite - quick fixes to save an immediate buck - are the symptoms of a wholly cheap philosophy. Keeping all fans cool and comfy would fall under the long-run profits philosophy, which is the opposite of just being cheap for cheap's sake.

Which brings us back to Al Guido's statement about misters not being a viable option for them. There's clearly something there that is giving them pause.

If it was the quick, money-saving miracle solution many of you are suggesting then a cheap, money-saving owner should be jumping at the opportunity to install them and boast about it, not disgruntle the fanbase further by making something up as to the reason for it not being viable. There just has to be something else - something practical and/or legitimately unappealing financially - for either the cheap or impractical to make any sense.

And it could end up being either one of those possibilities. I'm simply suggesting neither adds up with the information we have at the moment. If someone has some actual insight into what it may be - on either side of that pendulum - then I'm all ears. But just saying "they're cheap" doesn't work for me here. It's too vague and too contradictory for reasons I stated above, at least without further relative information.

Originally posted by captveg:

Originally posted by Furlow:

You've been pretending to know what you're talking about when it comes to this, just stop.

Fine. My reasoning was based in some conversations I had a few years ago about similar liabilty of a business, but if I was misinformed then so be it.

If Janitor had simpy made a straightforward point about this instead of lording it over me and laughing in my face in order to be the big dog I likely wouldn't have kept my defenses up and been so stubborn about it. But the defenses were mine and I own that. I still say it was obvious that "impossible" was clearly in context of the liability claim of the team, not at all meant in a physical reality sense. But this will be my final word on this aspect of this matter.

Originally posted by Furlow:

I remain shocked at how many people there are that blindly defend billionaires and their shady/greedy business practices.

See, this is my main source of frustration about this - this argument of "they're just cheap" would be great if it wasn't so muddled by other aspects. If there was consistent cheapness and avarice about these things by the 49ers I would agree with you. But I can't reconcile that argument with other factors.

As Young2Rice suggested, the team may be holding onto a more expensive-than-misters non-solution. That doesn't fit neatly into the "they're just cheap" narrative.

Then there's the lowering the bottle water price, which goes against that narrative. If they were just about the bottom line in the quickest and easiest way, they'd gouge water prices by raising them even higher, right?

Then there's the money spent in the last couple years on non-heat concerns, such as overhauling the food services. Obviously this is more profitable in the long run, but usually the opposite - quick fixes to save an immediate buck - are the symptoms of a wholly cheap philosophy. Keeping all fans cool and comfy would fall under the long-run profits philosophy, which is the opposite of just being cheap for cheap's sake.

Which brings us back to Al Guido's statement about misters not being a viable option for them. There's clearly something there that is giving them pause.

If it was the quick, money-saving miracle solution many of you are suggesting then a cheap, money-saving owner should be jumping at the opportunity to install them and boast about it, not disgruntle the fanbase further by making something up as to the reason for it not being viable. There just has to be something else - something practical and/or legitimately unappealing financially - for either the cheap or impractical to make any sense.

And it could end up being either one of those possibilities. I'm simply suggesting neither adds up with the information we have at the moment. If someone has some actual insight into what it may be - on either side of that pendulum - then I'm all ears. But just saying "they're cheap" doesn't work for me here. It's too vague and too contradictory for reasons I stated above, at least without further relative information.

Gets offended that he's accused of defending billionaire owners and their shady business practices, responds with a research paper defending a billionaire owner and his shady business practices.

Classic.

Originally posted by Furlow:
Gets offended that he's accused of defending billionaire owners and their shady business practices, responds with a research paper defending a billionaire owner and his shady business practices.

Classic.

wow great response. captveg laid out a pretty good argument and that's what you come back with? lmao

Originally posted by DonnieDarko:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Gets offended that he's accused of defending billionaire owners and their shady business practices, responds with a research paper defending a billionaire owner and his shady business practices.

Classic.

wow great response. captveg laid out a pretty good argument and that's what you come back with? lmao

It's a terrible argument. None of the things he mentioned are nearly as expensive as adding shade and/or misters, which have zero return on investment. The PSL's are already committed to, and that's all ownership cares about. Lowering the price of water is supply/demand, and improving the food boosts sales and profitability. All of those things he mentioned will make the team more profitable. Adding shade and/or misters will not. That's our point, all they care about is profit, and he continues to prove that, and vehemently defend it.