The adult conversation

Two weeks ago, Think Big Sacramento released its 100 Day report (PDF), meant to provide a clear picture of funding and economic impact of a new downtown railyards arena for the Sacramento Kings. The 199-page report is actually comprised of 10 separate reports, the last two covering nearly 70 pages of economic impact. Unfortunately, no reader will find the solution within the 199 pages, though that can be somewhat forgiven since they’ve only had 100 days to put this together. Still, the document is a good, important step on the way to actually building anything because it actually lays out all of the financing options, public and private.

Barrett Sports Group prepared a 74-slide Powerpoint presentation on those financing options. I’ll cut to the chase and list the conclusions (emphasis not mine):

  • Public-Private finance plan will likely include a public contribution in the form of land
  • Parcels of public land located in the downtown area, many of which are not currently being used or are severely underutilized have the potential to increase in value due to the development of the ESC downtown
  • ESC development development allows for the maximization of land sales that could increase the number of jobs created in the short term and increase the economic impact of the project by encouraging private development
  • Finance plan will require support from three areas: private investment, user fees and public participation
  • User fees represent a key contribution as these revenues are provided by those benefiting from the facility and bear a direct nexus to the complex

Doesn’t tell you much, does it? The conclusion actually belies the other key information within the presentation. For instance, BSG studied every possible public financing option, from taxes to fees to the sale of parking rights. Here’s the entire list:

Unrealistic sources were culled, cutting it from 58 to 36. The following is the list Sacramento citizens, the public and private sectors can consider as feasible for any kind of contribution:

Once you get past the first eight options (the usual taxes used for many venue financing plans) the pickings get pretty slim. There was talk of potentially selling future parking revenue to a private operator in exchange for an upfront payment, which may be illegal in California. And notice how there’s no mention of redevelopment. That’s a good sign that the folks up in Cowtown are ready to engage in a substantive, adult conversation about how this is going to get done. The rest of the year is supposed to be spent creating the funding mix(es) that will be debated by the City Council, and in all likelihood, voted on by Sacramento voters. That’s a tough one to deal with, considering another component study’s admission that only one-quarter of visitors to ARCO/Power Balance come from within Sacramento city limits.

Some other interesting nuggets from the study:

  • The Oakland Coliseum gets $1.2 million per year from the numerous billboards spread throughout the complex. That’s about as much money as they get from the A’s. FWIW, the Raiders pay a little more than a half million bucks to the Coliseum Authority annually.
  • Public support for user fees is as follows: Selling naming rights: 74%; Parking surcharge: 71%; Ticket surcharge: 57%; Arena fee on concessions: 57%
  • One assumed source of revenue is the sale of other various lands, including the Natomas site where ARCO/Power Balance currently sits and another city-owned Natomas site.
  • A remote source of financing being considered is called EB-5, or “green card” financing. It would provide a conditional green card to immigrants who invest at least $500k or $1 million dollars. The Atlantic Yards project was cited as an example, though the EB-5 financing was used for ancillary development, not Barclays Center. The EB-5 may be what attracts Filipino investor Manny V. Pangilinan, though as someone a little familiar with the immigration process, I have to say that people with money or business skills aren’t the ones who need help with green cards.

While I’m glad that Sacramento is going through the process (even if it eventually leads nowhere), I’m confounded that Oakland has not gone through even a tiny bit of this. Why not? The Bee’s Marcos Breton nails the similarity between Sacramento and Oakland:

One thing is certain: Sacramento does not have the corporate base to privately finance buildings, such as AT&T Park in San Francisco or the Staples Center in Los Angeles.

Sounds familiar, right? No number of cute T-shirts or banners hung from railings is going to take the place of real discourse over what Oakland needs to accomplish to retain both of its outdoor teams, let alone the Warriors. If Oakland is serious about getting something done it needs to have its adult conversation. Not lip service. Not a claim of getting an EIR done in a year and then not having a draft in nine months. Getting something big done starts with getting the little things done. And if you’re not having that dialogue with your citizens, you’re just avoiding the subject.

P.S. Of course, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson goes and blows away the adult conversation with an offhand comment about how Cowtown can support two teams, including a relocated A’s franchise.

88 Responses to The adult conversation

  1. Anon says:

    ” If Oakland is serious about getting something done it needs to have its adult conversation. Not lip service.” “And if you’re not having that dialogue with your citizens, you’re just avoiding the subject.”…. if you pro-Oaklanders need help “deciphering” this let us know. We can point you in the right direction and hint, it doesn’t start on Facebook. It starts with the public and your local government….as a matter of fact, I will help ya’ll and send an email to Quan for you:


    Hi Jean – I’m very excited to hear that you are proposing a new home in Oakland for my beloved A’s. However, I am also very concerned about the delay in the VC EIR and the transparency of the process. Do you have any updates on this for us? Also, will a new VC stadium effort be privately financed or will it require public funding? Do you have plans to hold a public meeting on this matter to formally propose your plan and solicit feedback?”

  2. jk-usa says:

    @Anon–nope, it wasn’t me on the Brad Pitt ownership thing. Kind of ridiculous. Now that’s a pipe dream and a half!! And BS wouldn’t allow it, cuz Brad actually has a little class compared to the other owners in the Lodge.

  3. pjk says:

    re: Do you have any updates on this for us? Also, will a new VC stadium effort be privately financed or will it require public funding?

    …Oakland’s plan is for the A’s to pay for the thing, something they’ve never agreed to. Kind of like me going out and buying a new car and telling the dealer that you, Anon, will pay for it on my behalf.

  4. jk-usa says:

    I got a free STAY shirt and sticker from Oaklandish when I was one of the first 75 fans at the EIR meeting at City Hall last December.

  5. Sid says:

    @eb- When I say “sprawling” suburbs it means families with money. Something San Jose clearly has an advantage over Oakland not only city wise but in the surrounding region.

    @Nam Turk- I know the South Bay in and out, you should try me on it…

    @jk-usa- I have not been to a Giants game in 4 years in protest of them blocking San Jose from the A’s. But have been to 5-7 A’s games over that time. If it was closer (Fremont or San Jose) I would have season tickets. SF and Oak are too far.

    The Pro-Oak crowd always ignores the Giants being 12 miles away dominating their region but still thinks building 12 miles away is a good idea when it would not solve the inequalities that exist between both teams in the market.

    The inequalities between the cities and their surroundings below are obvious:

    Population: Oakland 390K and not growing, San Jose 945k and growing. The surrounding area around Oakland is all SF Giants territory like it or not. The Giants kill it in the East Bay because it is so close with BART and the bridges.

    Crime? Not even close, Oakland has 637 cops for 390k in population. San Jose has 1,100 cops for 1M people. Huge difference.

    Corporations/Sponsors? With the Giants so close this becomes a even wider gap that it should be.

    A Downtown site that does not need 16 businesses to relocate? That does not need a massive overhaul of the roads, freeways, exits, around it? Ouch!

    It is sad that Oakland has done so little while San Jose is pulling out all the stops to get the team. San Jose has no guarantee of the team because of the Giants and Selig….yet they press on.

    Oakland has done nothing since they back stabbed the team with Mt. Davis years ago to keep the team. The city leaders do nothing and blame the owners when they can easily make a phone call or send an email.

    Oakland as a city wants the same deal as San Jose. “We will provide the site but you build it yourself”….What?

    Oakland knows deep down they need a billionaire to build a free stadium and they are stalling the process out thinking that is the best course of action since they know Wolff/Fisher won’t build in Oakland without a public subsidy.

    BTW…Ray Ratto is a born moron, if anyone buys the A’s it will be MLB and they will give “Lewie” the Dodgers. MLB will then decide what to do with the team.

    MLB will “never” build privately in Oakland, it is a fantasy that will never happen…..That could happen anytime without MLB doing anything but yet nothing happens.

    MLB put themselves in this position with Selig and they have to clean up this mess. Lew Wolff selling the team to another buyer will never happen…..that buyer will be MLB a la Montreal Expos. That is a scary thought…..if that happens the Giants would have truly won.

  6. GoA's says:

    @jk–just curious–you mentioned that LW was booed—hadn’t heard that from anyone else–but wondering if Billy B was also boo’d—after all he supports the A’s moving to SJ and is a part owner–

  7. jeff-athletic says:

    I don’t understand people getting their boxers in a bunch.

    From my standpoint, particularly living in the SacTown area, I just want the A’s to get a new ballpark in the Bay Area, period. I have no dog in the Oakland vs San Jose fight. None.

    That said, from everything I’ve read in the media, this blog, other A’s websites, the big Lew Wolff interview, studies done from various sources – the city of Oakland has really dropped the ball, and at this point, there really seems to be no viable (by viable, I mean economically viable) option in Oakland. A Jack London Square site sounds nice – but no EIR, very limited space, need of lots of land acquisition, relocation of lots of businesses, and mega bucks on infrastructure upgrades, and probably not enough local corporate support to economically support a privately financed project, no money from the City of Oakland itself. Sorry, but the money just doesn’t pencil in.

    The SJ Diridon site, by contrast, seems to have all the ducks in line – EIR done, needed land acquisitions, pro-active local government, tons of corporate support, economic plan (adjacent condos/real estate) to help support the economics. It’s only hurdle is the Giants’ T-rights. And even at that, there are so many factors that would/should push Selig to opening it up.

    I only support the SJ option because it is the only viable option for the Athletics.

    For the pro-Oakland crowd – I don’t want you to lose the team for your city. But SJ is still part of the same overall urban area, and not all that far for you to go. For me, coming from Sac, it’s about the same. The team is still essentially local. It would just have “San Jose” on it’s away jerseys, instead of “Oakland”.

    And really since we’re all die-hard A’s fans, I know we all want them to stay local, and we all want them to be in the best possible position to economically compete in MLB. And SJ, with all it’s ducks in line to build a stadium, and it’s huge corporate base (which is waaay larger than Oakland’s), is by far the best possible place for the Athletics, and staying in the Bay Area.

  8. Tony D. says:

    Tony D. Standing up and applauding loudly for Jeff Athletic!

  9. Jeffrey says:

    Good Lord, can this shit be over someday, please?

  10. LoneStranger says:

    Soon, Jeffrey. Soon.

  11. jk-usa says:

    @GoA’s–on a few of the A’s FB sites it was mentioned several times that they booed outside the theater when Wolff showed up and he ducked into the place quickly. Not sure what was going on inside the theater. It was also mention by Greg Papa on the live coverage from the Red carpet (actually the green carpet ) that Wolff was loudly booed by the fans. I thought I heard in the background “Lew Wolff Sucks.”, and another person on one of the sites said she heard that too.

  12. Jeffrey says:

    Can I be honest, who cares who booed who? I take that to be akin to the stupid slogans painted on bedsheets…

  13. Tony D. says:

    Agreed 100%..WHO @#%& CARES WHO GOT BOOED!

  14. jeff-athletic says:

    FWIW, I think it’s wrong to boo Lew Wolff. I don’t agree with everything he’s done, and I do have my frustrations. However, just because he and Fischer are rich, doesn’t mean they have to spend themselves into the poorhouse for the charitable purpose of keeping the A’s in Oakland. I support them trying to make it economically viable and turn a long term profit. It is a business. They have looked at several Oakland sights, and tried really hard to do the Fremont site (spending $30 million in the process, to no avail), and their best option is SJ, by far.

  15. jk-usa says:

    @jeff-athletic–yup, you nailed it “they have looked at several Oakland sites.” Looked, but for not too long, probably in passing by at 70 MPH, but with SJ dialed into the GPS many years before.

  16. pjk says:

    re: Looked, but for not too long, probably in passing by at 70 MPH,

    ….Well, MLB’s been looking at Oakland sites for nearly 1,000 days now and seems to be coming up with the same conclusion as Wolff: There aren’t any. We knew the blue ribbon committee was having trouble with its original mission – explore possibilities in the A’s current territory – when it became clear MLB was looking at the San Jose site, too. Why go through all the fuss and controversy if there’s a workable solution in Alameda or Contra Costa counties? Obviously, because there isn’t. Wolff invited MLB to come to Oakland and see for themselves, remember?

    re: .just because he and Fischer are rich, doesn’t mean they have to spend themselves into the poorhouse for the charitable purpose of keeping the A’s in Oakland.


  17. A's observer says:

    To all:

    1) What has Oakland done?

    A) It’s there in the record – on the Internet or in your local public library. No point in rehashing it because it won’t change minds here.

    A’s observer.

  18. jk-usa says:

    @pjk–well, they’ve made on average 20 mill profit each year for 6 years, and the franchise value has almost doubled in the same tiime, so spending some of that on a new park in Oakland won’t put them in the poorhouse.Okay, so they won’t do that, but how about a little more into payroll and into the in the meantime?

  19. pjk says:

    …Who says the A’s have a profit of $20 mill every hear? Forbes? Which has no access to the actual books and relies on guesswork for its annual stories about what teams make? I’ll bet the franchise is worth a lot more with a lease that allows it to go anywhere in 2 years than it would be with an unpayable 30-year mortgage. I read that Oakland would need $100 mill just to obtain the VC site and make it workable, without even talking about paying for the actual ballpark. Not sure how accurate that is. Meanwhile, what little redevelopment $$ Oakland might have left is going to purchase the Kaiser Convention Center . Yikes….For the 50th time – hard to spend more on payroll when free agents won’t come to Oakland and other players make sure their agents install “no-trade-to-Oakland” clauses in their contracts. I suppose the A’s could pay $11 mill a year to Landon Powell – that would boost the payroll but not produce any more wins.

  20. Jeffrey says:

    A’s Observer, I’d love to see your list of what the City of Oakland has done. I am not being facetious.

  21. jk-usa says:

    I would believe Forbes figs over these lying owners any day. The G’s and A’s said they just broke even last year. Open your books, I’d like to see that!!

  22. pjk says:

    So Forbes is your source for the $20 mill figure. OK. Then it’s no source at all….

  23. Anon says:

    SIgh…i gave an example what to do to encourage local Oakland government to do to get the ball rolling there and yet we hear the same diatribe without any action just wishful thinking and BS. /facepalm.

  24. jk-usa says:

    @pjk–well, they’re just estimates and i bet they’re within 10% + or -.

  25. Sid says:

    Jeff-Athletic- You said it the best in a “nut shell”. San Jose is it but Selig still delays. If there was another city involved it would be a very “hush-hush” process and no one would know about it until it was known a ballpark could be constructed.

    New owners would be secondary a la the Washington Nationals. That process was more public because there was no T-rights involved.

    BRC is called the “Blue Ribbon Committee” for show….It really stands for “Baseball Relocation Committee”…..If you read between the lines.

    The signs point to MLB not opening up San Jose:

    -Denying SJ its ballot process not once but twice. Even offering to pay for it over a year ago with nothing since.
    -Ignoring SVLG’s letter that they would support the A’s and Giants in San Jose….no response from Selig.
    -Ignoring Mayor Reed’s multiple letters….Even mocking Selig by talking about the “glacial speed of government” compared to this process.
    -Selig stating the A’s being in Oakland in the first place was a big mistake
    -Selig stating it has always been controversial the Bay Area being 2-teams.
    -Selig stating he will not make any decisions about San Jose unless all options have been “exhausted”.
    -The fact MLB makes more $$ by moving the A’s even to a small market like San Antonio and cashing in far more on the Giants revenue sharing checks in a 1-team Bay Area.
    -Selig’s letter to Wolff stating if Fremont fell through he would be free to speak to “other communities”.
    -The Giants refusal to even negotiate something that was given to them for free from the A’s so they could build a ballpark that never happened.
    -Selig refusing to put to a vote a T-rights change despite massive rumors the other owners would vote in the A’s favor easily.

    When you see all the evidence above it clearly shows San Jose has probability of 10% of occurring or less.

    Tony is right it is up to MLB….too bad MLB is Selig and he is a coward, too scared to even help an old friend from 50 years ago. Then again Selig was BORN AFRAID!

  26. jeff-athletic says:


    What does Selig have to be afraid of? The Giants throwing a hissy fit?

    I think what he’s more worried about is how can he make the most amount of $$$$ for all the owners. Keeping a team on the $30mil a year dole ain’t it.

    So on one side he has team throwing a hissy fit (while it will still do just fine – great in fact), but making a welfare recipient into a money maker. On the other side the one team remains happy, and the other remains non-viable and on the dole, still losing money for MLB.

    Which way do you think anyone with half a brain is going to go?

    You got it …. the money making way ….. this, even though they’d have to listen to the Giants brass go “whaaaaaaah! we want this market to ourselves, no no no no no!!!”.

    It’s in Selig’s, and all the other MLB owners, best interests to put the A’s in a profitable situation, and without negatively affecting the Giants.

    The BRC, most likely, has been tasked to find that solution. I’m sure they’ve looked at all possibilities in Oakland. I’m sure they’ve looked at all possibilities in Portland, SA, Charlotte, or wherever else. I’m sure they’ve looked at how any of the possibilities will affect the Giants. And I’m sure they’ve looked at the SJ possibility. And here is what I think they’ve found:

    1. There is no viable option in Oakland or East Bay.
    2. Most likely, they’ve found no viable option in other cities. True, just having the A’s out of the Bay Area, even though it wouldn’t improve the A’s situation much, if at all, would make the Giants even more profitable. But it would be better for the A’s to be profitable as well.
    3. The A’s to SJ will not negatively affect the Giants, a lie the Giants like to perpetuate. Of their overall revenue streams, the corporate support and advertising support from the south bay is relatively small. And they wouldn’t lose them, most likely. They’d just have to work a bit harder in retaining that business.
    4. A’s in SJ will make the A’s profitable on their own, turning them from welfare recipient, to contributors to revenue sharing, while the Giants would still be every bit as healthy as they are now.

  27. jeff-athletic says:

    Here are reasons I think it’s taken the BRC and Selig so long:

    1. Cover every possibility. Cross all t’s, and dot all i’s.
    2. The wish that the Giants would just take the “good for baseball” stance, and back off the T-rights thing, and make it so Selig and MLB wouldn’t have to do anything. The A’s originally did the “good for baseball” thing in ’92 by surrendering the T-rights, and continue to do so now, by not lobbying, not raising lawsuits, and just patiently waiting so as to not upset “the lodge”.
    3. Give the Giants a big head start in getting stable and healthy, so they’re well on their way to paying off the ballpark debt.
    4. Do not give the image of favoritism towards Wolff, since Wolff and Selig were college buds. Taking so painstakingly long has totally squashed any appearance of favoritism.

  28. jk-usa says:

    @jeff-athletic–the favortism/cronyism to allow LW to buy the team was so obvious from the get go, and possibly giving him SJ is just more proof of that, regardless of the wait. All part of the master plan the two frat bros are concocting, but they didn’t think the G’s would be so stubborn.
    Selig repulses me, and his frat bro is not much better.

  29. letsgoas says:

    townsend went on a rant i think wednesday night on his show about how he’s called quan’s office about a possible interview or even an update regarding a new park in oakland and he’s gotten nothing back in return. he then said working with sj it only took a few phones to get reed on his show months ago.

  30. jk-usa says:

    Towney’s kind of worried I’d say. This will affect his future and the future of that station if the A’s leave the area. Tittle’s the man. Hands down the best on that station.

  31. pjk says:

    I have no inside information, but I’m guessing the EIR will report that the VC ballpark is doable -for about $700 mill, with Oakland having no money to contribute. The report will talk about getting federal grants for infrastructure (from a federal government that also is broke) and how owners can pay off the ballpark with a 60-year mortgage. The report will not address the weak corporate environment in the East Bay and will leave it to the lucky owners to figure out how to pay for everything.

  32. Sid says:

    @jeff-athletic- Your logic is sound in every way when you look at it “Bay Area” only.

    From MLB’s perspective the Bay Area is a wash. The Giants throw 30M in and A’s get 30M out. That means from the naked eye this should not be a 2-team market.

    The problem with San Jose is without the Giants accepting some sort of compensation for sharing the Bay Area or giving up Santa Clara County alone you have major problem from MLB’s point of view.

    The whole A’s giving SJ to the Giants for free is a moot point now and although I agree with you that a move to San Jose would not hurt the Giants but MLB views it differently.

    They think by moving the A’s to San Jose they will have to cut the Giants a break in some fashion for giving up their T-rights. That has never been done in the history of MLB…..Hence why Selig does nothing.

    The “break” could be in revenue sharing, a 1-time payment, etc….But the Giants would have to agree to it period. That by now is 100% obvious even though in reality what the Giants are doing is wrong in every sense. It is against all anti-trust law for them to lock out Silicon Valley because of T-rights.

    Selig does not want to set a precedent for anything, he is too old and conservative. Even to help his old friend out whom he put into this situation.

    Wolff does not press because he knows he will win with SJ or get the Dodgers. San Jose cannot sue or even threaten to sue without Wolff’s approval hence why they do nothing as well.

    Selig will move the team to another market before forcing the Giants to do anything. Hence why he states he will not do anything unless all options have been “exhausted”.

    Cross the T’? and dot the i’s? 922 days for that is absurd. Something else is going on here that no one knows about…

  33. Sid says:

    @jeff-athletic- Also if the Giants have the market to themselves they will be a contribute 75M-100M a year in rev sharing.

    The A’s with a new public ballpark anywhere would break even.

    Right now its a 0 net in the Bay Area in terms of rev share. 30M in, 30M out.

    With the A’s gone it would be 75M-100M in and 10 out or in fact 0 out.

    In SJ the A’s would put in 30M but the Giants would be cut a “break” and would only put in 20M or so. That is 50M in vs. 75M-100 in……MLB’s math in a nut shell.

  34. jeff-athletic says:


    Where do you get your 75M-100M in figure, if the Giants have the market to themselves?

    Do you know how exactly MLB revenue sharing breaks down? How much each profitable team contributes, and how much each welfare team receives? Is it based on market/revenue total, or are their flat rates? Also, do you know, actually know, that the Giants currently contribute $30Mil?

    If anyone can answer these questions, it would be appreciated.

    The only thing I know, and what has been mentioned here on this blog a number of times, is that the A’s receive $30mil a year. I have never seen anywhere how much the Giants pay into revenue sharing, and how revenue sharing breaks down everywhere else.

    So without hard facts/figures, it sounds like, Sid, you making assumptions. Your logic is sound, but even sound logic falls down without facts.

    But that’s the game we play here. There is so little real information – just bits and pieces. So in our die hard A’s support, we try to formulate ideas on what is going to happen, and project on what Bud Selig is thinking, or what MLB wants, what LW’s true motives are, etc etc. It’s freaking maddening.

    The only things we know for sure is that we love our A’s, and the Giants are total f&%$ing @ssholes. ;-)

  35. GoA's says:

    @j-a- Amen- I will sleep beter once the gints are eliminated from the playoffs entirely!

  36. bartleby says:

    @Sid Your assumptions regarding how much more the Giants might make with the A’s gone are wildly speculative and questionable.
    Right now, the Giants pretty much sell out every game. Sold out is sold out; they’re not going to realize much more stadium revenue with the A’s gone. P
    Giants TV ratings and merchadise sales would probably go up somewhat, but enough to generate an additional $45 – 70 million – not in revenue – but in revenue sharing to MLB? That’s absurd. It’s not like all A’s TV viewers and merchandise buyers are automatically going to switch over to the Giants. For one thing, there’s already some overlap between the two fan bases – people watching both teams on TV. For another thing, if the A’s leave a lot of their fans will resent the Giants and either stop watching MLB on TV, watch the A’s from afar, or pick another team to support.
    You stated “The Giants throw 30M in and A’s get 30M out. That means from the naked eye this should not be a 2-team market.” Your numbers may or may not be correct, but regardless, your conclusion does not logically follow from your premise. From a business standpoint, MLB wants the A’s where they will generate the most additional revenue for MLB. The comparison is therefore, “How much additional revenue could the A’s bring in in another market,” versus “How much additional revenue could the A’s bring in in San Jose, after offsetting the incremental revenue the Giants coult realize if the A’s left?”
    I can see how the math MIGHT work out to favor an A’s move if, and only if, there was another city out there ready to build them a publicly-financed ballpark (and maybe not even then). However, there is no sign whatsoever that this is the case. Clandestine discussions with a prospective buyer are possible; clandestine discussions that could result on a commitment for $500 million that MLB could rely on are far less likely.
    Silicon Valley is one of the richest corporate markets in the country, and an order of magnitude greater than any currently vacant MLB market. It’s hard to imagine credible numbers that would make MLB better off revenue-wise moving the team under present circumstances.

  37. jeff-athletic says:


    Great post. Completely logical.

    Any possible location outside the bay area – San Antonio, Portland, Charlotte, could not even come close to the corporate base, and potential revenue for the A’s and MLB, as San Jose / Santa Clara county.

    That fact alone makes a move outside the bay area very unlikely, even if the A’s out of the bay area means some more revenue for the Giants.

    Like you said, there really wouldn’t be more stadium revenue for the Giants (a sell out is a sell out – maybe ticket prices could get a slight bump), and TV revenue would only receive a slight bump – there is already overlap, and most A’s fans, who aren’t already Giants fans also, probably would not jump on with the Giants. For me, no way would I get on board with the Giants. I would still follow the A’s from afar (after all, I’ll still have the River Cats), and then I would root for the Dodgers, Padres, and Diamondbacks – all to screw the Giants.

    No, the A’s out of the Bay Area would not be a huge revenue bump for the Giants. Slight at best.

  38. Tony D. says:

    Im beginning to think that as a Giants fan you really want the A’s to leave the Bay Area (under the guise of wanting them to move to SJ). Nothing else could explain your imaginary facts, numbers and logic. (Respectfully)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>