Is he off his rocker, or is he onto something?
I just feel like San Francisco took a big stage to show the NFL and to show the state of California that they needed a new stadium. I think it was a very strategic move and Candlestick may be no more very soon.
So, did San Francisco stage these outages as an attempt to prove their need for a new stadium?
This seems like a chicken/egg kind of conversation to me. The 49ers either have a crappy stadium that is now prone to power outages and need a new one, or San Francisco needed to prove that the stadium was crappy enough to need a new one.
From my perspective, the 49ers had already proven the need for a new stadium. Anyone who has gone up to the press box or has visited the visitors' locker room could tell you that old Candlestick Park isn't exactly a bastion of comfort or convenience.
The new stadium has already been secured, for the most part, anyways.
The city of Santa Clara approved the 49ers stadium deal last week, putting the matter squarely in the hands of the league.
Then there is the breaking news that team president and CEO, Jed York, has reportedly brought in two new investors who have purchased a one-percent stake in the 49ers to help things along.
What this tells me is that the city of San Francisco had little motivation to have a need to sabotage the Monday Night Football game.
It also tells me that Clark is off his rocker with these comments.
I expected more class from a veteran Steelers team, and I am surprised anyone in that locker room would cause the team any drama by making silly statements like the one Clark made.
There was no conspiratorial effort by the 49ers and the city of San Francisco here, just a player who isn't happy about getting slaughtered on national television.