Day of Reckoning 1: Next Monday?
- 02.08.10, 14:50
- 142 Comments
According to East Bay Express scribe Robert Gammon, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums spilled the beans on the date of the MLB panel’s forthcoming report. Monday is the big day, apparently. That jibes with what I had heard privately. Update: Gammon reports that the report will be delayed a week (Matthew Artz reported the same last week).
Over at the A’s Drumbeat, Vlae Kershner is laying odds. For entertainment purposes only, of course.
Longtime broadcaster Amaury Pi-Gonzalez, a longtime Fremont resident, doesn’t think his city has the mindset to get a ballpark deal done.
Let’s keep all of this in perspective. One city will “win” this recommendation, but will have a long way to go towards having/keeping the A’s. The others will be DFA’ed for all intents.
(Beyond the terms of an active lease).
Understand that neither has a right to a MLB franchise but seems that SJ is being restricted from benefiting economically when you have a company willing to locate in your city but not allowed to by an arbitrary designation of territories that was established without benefit or compensation—
LMAO
(a href= “insert link here”)> type something fancy (/a) replace the parenthesis with a less than sign and then a greater than sign in both cases and a link will magically appear
and here it is live and in technicolor
GoA’s,
Territorial restrictions are inherently anti-competitive, and are regulated primarily under the antitrust laws. Sometimes they pass muster, sometimes not.
In manufacturing and other industries, vertical territorial restrictions are very common. Many manufacturers will assign exclusive territories to their distributors in order to prevent them from stepping on each other’s toes or creating confusion in the marketplace. If it is a competitive marketplace, such vertical restrictions are usually subject to a “rule of reason” analysis (e.g. does the arrangement “unreasonably” restrain trade). If there is sufficient interbrand competition, they will usually pass muster.
However, if the industry is a monopoly (like a major pro sports league), the bar for defending such arrangements is raised significantly. For this reason, the Raiders were able to win their antitrust case against the NFL and block the NFL’s effort to prevent them from moving to Los Angeles.
But Congress in its wisdom has exempted MLB from the antitrust laws, foreclosing the normal avenue San Jose might use to challenge the restriction. Were this not so, I think San Jose and the A’s would have a solid case. Unfortunately, I can’t think of another theory they could use. The fact San Jose might benefit economically by itself does not establish a cause of action.
On my commentary on the relocation of the A’s and possibly suing…
There are multiple precedent setting cases for suing (or, threatening to sue) over territorial boundaries within league constitutions. The first (as was mentioned above) was Angelos and the relo of the Nationals. The location was not within the Orioles physical territory, yet, Angelos threatened a lawsuit based on dilution of television territory.
The other was the attempted relocation of the Phoenix Coyotes through the attempted bankruptcy sale to Jim Ballsilie.
In both these cases (or, in the case of the A’s potentially being granted Santa Clara Co. against the Giants’ will), the *threat* of a lawsuit is often times in play. Think about it… the challenge by the Giants would be against league territory as a whole. One would think this would fall flat, based on the Coyotes case. At the very least, the Giants could say that proper indemnification has not been met. All of this could give Bud second thoughts.
There is, however, the fact that the A’s controlled the territory to begin with.
Lastly… I’ve been an A’s fan all my life. My interest in the business side of baseball came when I was all of 9 seeing Harvey the Rabbit when the club first relocated to Oakland. None of that, however, cloud the analysis of the situation.
Maury—great to have your direct contribution–thanks—I have to believe that any lawsuit would be pretty weak given that not only did the A’s once have control over Santa Clara County, but that it was also given to the gints for ZERO compensation based upon the premise that they would move into SCC.
Sure the threat of it might make BS think twice but what are his options? Moving the A’s out of the area (gints would love this), contraction (tried that with the Twins and it didn’t fly), leave them in Oakland on perpetual MLB welfare….gotta believe that the best option is to open SJ and deal with the gints—-but than again who knows with Selig—I doubt that even a new ballpark in Oakland would take the A’s off the dole–
Anyone can threaten to sue. Navigator is on here every day, ranting about how the City of San Francisco, the Giants, the City of Oakland, the County of Alameda, Barbara Boxer, Barack Obama and the Bavarian Illuminati are all going to sue to prevent an A’s move. I don’t think he’s really striking fear in the heart of either Mr. Wolff or Mr. Selig.
The effectiveness of this as a tactic is tied directly to the strength of your underlying case. Most of the precedent, such as it is, points the other way. Peter Angelos may have threatened to sue to prevent the Expos move, but he did not actually sue, and the Expos did move. The NHL successfully asserted their right to control the relocation of the Coyotes (although the issues were very different in that case). The City of Seattle and Mr. Coffee had about the best one-two legal punch I can think of to keep the Sonics in town (a lease which expressly provided for specific performance, and a fraud claim to void the underlying sale of the team to Bennett), yet the Sonics still moved.
I don’t know what it means to say “the challenge by the Giants would be against league territory as a whole.” If you mean the Giants would be challenging the League’s fundamental right to assign territories, that would be an extraordinarily foolish thing to do. The only thing which prevents the A’s from moving to San Jose in the first place is the league’s right to set territories, and the only reason that right is enforceable is because MLB is exempt from antitrust laws. Without the antitrust exemption, you have basically the same case the NFL brought to prevent the Raiders from moving to LA – and lost. If MLB does not have the fundamental right to assign territories, it’s game over for the Giants, hello San Jose A’s.
And again, even if the Giants did sue, even if they didn’t get kicked out of court because of the MLB arbitration clause and covenant not to sue, even if they could establish a claim (despite there being no breach of the league constitution), all they’re going to get is money. I frankly question whether they could even get a preliminary injunction which would delay the A’s move while a lawsuit went forward, let alone prevent it entirely. Injunctions are extraordinary remedies, normally granted only when money would not make the plaintiff whole, which is not the case here.
Here is the decision the Giants would have to make:
(a) We can sue the league, possibly get kicked out of court immediately and have to arbitrate before a PO’ed Bud Selig, alternately spend years of time and effort, invest tens of millions of dollars, incur the animosity of our business partners, watch the A’s most likely move anyway, and take the risk of getting nothing. Or,
(b) We can take a nice fat check from the league, get this thing over with quickly, avoid major transaction costs, keep our partners happy, and eliminate any risk of getting nothing.
The Giants may or may not rattle sabres a bit, but I will be very surprised if they file an actual lawsuit.
Bartleby,
Neukom has been a MLB owner for what now, little less than a year? Anyhow, he was voted in by all the owners, including Lew Wolff. I imagine during his initial discussions with Bud Selig the issue of the A’s and San Jose came up. MLB does not allow owners in it’s ranks who won’t play nice. With that, Neukom knew (and knows) full well that he has to play by the rules/decisions set forth by the “lodge” and is not allowed to act like some renegade. MLB told him in December not to talk about the territorial rights; he has abided. If, or when, the decision come from MLB re: the A’s and SJ, he will abide once again. Good to see Maury here also!
Maury, you rock. I love your website. What the hell is going to happen with the Beavers?
A very funny (and educational) “imaginary conversation” between Wolff & Selig from Tri-City Beat blog:
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2010/02/08/lew-bud-and-the-oakland-as-of-san-jose-and-fremont/
What Oakland needs to do if they lose the A’s is lobby for ending the anti-trust exemption which MLB now enjoys. I just heard Senator Feinstein on KCBS speaking about the health insurance industry and their regional monopolies which hold citizens hostage to exorbitant premium increases. MLB needs to have that anti-trust exemption taken away so that every city will be able to compete for a baseball franchise. Oakland needs to free itself from any territorial rights claims from either the A’s or Giants. MLB is going to regret messing with Oakland.
bartleby, Oakland supported the A’s better than San Francisco supported the Giants. Bud Selig saved the Giants for San Francisco, I expect him to do the same for Oakland.
What good would that do, Nav?
If the A’s relocate elsewhere in the Bay Area, primarily because Oakland was unable or unwilling to come up with a realistic plan to keep the A’s in Oaktown, what makes you think another team would want to relocate to Oakland.
It’s interesting that you state that “Oakland needs to free itself from any territorial rights claims from either the A’s or Giants” when the Territorial rights issue is the ONLY major obstacle keeping the A’s from relocating to San Jose immediately.
“MLB is going to regret messing with Oakland.” Can you elaborate on that, cause the last time Oakland “messed” with another pro sports team was when it fought the Raiders move to Los Angeles, and they lost in court, big time.
Try being a bit more specific as to what will happen to MLB if they “mess” with Oakland.
Oakland has a right to be free of any interference from any league or any city in retaining or recruiting pro sports franchises. Oakland should be able to stand on its qualifications of being centrally located to the 7 million residents in the Bay Area along with having an available sports complex. If the market isn’t there as many of the San Jose folks suggest, than you don’t have anything to worry about. Oakland needs to free itself from any claims and any restrictions to recruiting any sports franchises. MLB can’t say they don’t want Oakland, while at the same time, hanging on to Oakland. That isn’t fair, now is it? The anti-trust exemption should be challenged, and will be challenged, should Oakland lose the A’s to San Jose. Every city will become a free agent without any interference, collusion, or territorial claims.
New EBX item about JLS sites. Some owners not willing to sell, some willing, some expensive relocations, spector of eminent domain and lawsuits, and shockingly one owner says “I haven’t heard anything from the city, all I know is what I read in the paper.”
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/making-room-for-the-oakland-as/Content?oid=1600161
Bottom line nothing has happened in Oakland since they threw their 3 sites on the table in early December–another 2 months without even due diligence to gauge interest of landowners and potential cost to acquire the property?? Come on–in the meantime SJ is getting ready to release its revised EIR report—while no one knows what the BRC report will contain one city continues to stand around and do nothing while the other moves forward—-vision and leadership are definetely not in Oaklands favor-
The Victory Court site doesn’t necessarily have to relocate Peerless Coffee. The area consists of the city owned Oakland Fire Department Training Center, Caltrans land, a storage facility, an old railroad right-of way, and a very wide Fallon Street. There are ways to make it work without necessarily relocating Peerless Coffee. The Restaurant Supply may have to go however. It be one or the other. It doesn’t have to be both businesses. This site is far less problematic because there are only two major businesses affected. The Jack London North site is more complicated because of many smaller parcels and many more businesses.
Sadly Nav didn’t answer my question.
Predictible.
The A’s or the City would need to build a ~1200-space parking structure adjacent to or near the ballpark. That’s part of the MLB’s infrastructure requirements. More than just one business will have to be moved.
Marine Layer, there’s already a new empty 1100 space garage right next to the Amtrak station at 2nd & Harrison. This is a five minute walk to the ballpark.
Sadly, Nav has declined to answer the question I posed.
Sadly,
Nav has declined to answer the questions I posed.
Also lacking are any specifics as to what Oakland can do if MLB “messes” with them.
plrraz,
I believe I answered your question.
It’s blatantly unfair for Oakland to be locked out of pursuing pro sports franchises considering Oakland’s central Bay Area location and existing sports complex. Oakland has the right to sue for its independence from MLB territorial claims along with any claims from the San Jose Sharks, the NHL, the San Jose Earthquakes, Lew Wolff and MLS.
Or… assuming they lose the A’s… they can push for the 49ers/Radiers to take over the Coliseum, a remodel and the Super Bowl.
That would eman the Santa Clara stadium doesn’t happen and the games the Earthquakes play that require a big stadium would presumably be in Oakland.
Or/and follow through on the Victory Court/JLS thing for a new basketball/concert arena.
It is true that JLS needs something more to make it what it could become and a baseball stadium is just one option.
The city could prioritize getting a street car system to link downtown with JLS with a transit option.
If the Warriors are playing at JLS it opens up the possibility for the shopping/entertainment area in the Coliseum parking lot that was pimped on Zennie Abraham’s blog.
Wouldn’t that sort of approach be more likely to bear fruit? I mean, rather than just suing the crap out of everyone.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/making-room-for-the-oakland-as/Content?oid=1600161
Don’t know if anyone say this, but it talks about the landowners at several of the Oakland “sites” for a ballpark that Dellums was touting a few weeks ago. Turns out many of the current owner would only sell if the “price was right” and several others won’t sell at all. So in reality, Oakland has no site for a ballpark unless they use Eminent Domain and force land and business owners out.
No he didn’t. McGowan saved them for San Francisco at the 11th hour. Selig was all set for the Giants to move to St. Pete.
The owners who indicate that they would not sell are from the JLS North site. That is not the favorable site for Oakland or MLB. They have all made it clear that the Victory Ct. site is the lead candidate for ballpark locations in Oakland. The owners at that site all will possibly sell for the right price. I even like the idea of working in some sort of deal between Peerless Coffee, the A’s and the city of Oakland which would allow them to be the official coffee distributor for all games and events held at a Victory Ct. ballpark.
The ones they specifically list were from the north site, but the article indicates there are owners at both sites who will not sell. So again, the city of Oakland currently has no sites.
It is when Oakland probably wasn’t telling the Blue Ribbon Panel everything. Like the fact they pulled those sites out of their butts in Oakland.
I like those ideas Jeffrey. Although, I doubt the Warriors would want to leave their current renovated arena. How about an arena for the Sharks? Oakland needs to get something out of this, if it loses the A’s. Oakland can’t be completely shut out of baseball, soccer and hockey. The central location and the great transportation system would allow fans from every corner of the Bay Area easy access to all of those sports. As it stands now, people in the North Bay are pretty much shut out of hockey and soccer.
That garage is for the train station. A ballpark EIR will show how heavily new traffic will impact the area and that will require new parking, including what MLB demands. If JLS does experience a renaissance with the ballpark as a much-needed catalyst, the parking will be more than merely necessary.
COUGH! Apples and oranges…COUGH!
To the post at 4:10 that is.
Well,
The people of the North Bay aren’t necessarily packing in A’s games at the Coliseum now are they. Meanwhile, Sharks games are packed to the gills! Tells yah a little something something now doesnt’ it.
You’re sooo right Dan! FYI, it’s always best, for the “story,” to get a positive spin; hence talking to land owners who are willing to sell or at least be open to selling. No need to talk to those who will not sell; It would only further confirm that “The O” has no sites (except maybe for the Coli parking lot).
Yes, that the Sharks are the ONLY hockey team in the Bay Area and that the A’s play in a terrible stadium with poor management.
Not to mention the Sharks are the only major professional sports franchise in the South Bay.
Ummmm, what about the Earthquakes?
Ummm yeah, what about the Earthquakes??