Oakland 12/9 Press Conference

First of all, thanks to Nina Thorsen’s excellent start-to-finish coverage @KQEDNewsLive. She was tweeting like a madwoman while I was stuck in transit. Hopefully I’ll get to hear the audio soon so that I can comment more thoroughly. Bear with me, I’m at the Trappist celebrating LeAndre’s new job at Lucasfilm with him over beers (wow!).

Here’s what we know:

  • The Victory Court EIR is not done. Not even started.
  • The City is presenting two site options, Victory Court and the new Coliseum City. The Coliseum has an RFP out for planning and redevelopment of the Coliseum area on both sides of 880, and Coliseum City is basically the plan.
  • Mayor Jean Quan and Let’s Go Oakland’s Doug Boxer emphasized the positive economic impact of either plan.
  • Quan positions either site as feasible if MLB, the A’s and Warriors are willing to play ball.
  • Quan has talked to the Giants. They have said they could delay San Jose for up to ten years.
  • There will be renderings of Coliseum City released soon. I’ll put them up when I have a chance.

After the meeting we spoke to Let’s Go Oakland’s Doug Boxer briefly. He was very straightforward in his assessment:

  • The litigation aspect is a very real threat for the A’s.
  • The two Oakland sites are being pitched not only as alternatives to each other, but also as alternatives to San Jose if that plan doesn’t come to fruition.
  • I asked him if he was disappointed that there was no progress on at the state of the Victory Court EIR. He said yes but also understood why – the City is only dealing with itself until MLB commits to Oakland.
  • There are no innocents among the various parties (A’s, Giants, Oakland, San Jose, San Francisco, MLB) involved in this mess.

Honestly, this came off pretty much as I expected. The Coliseum City plan makes sense since the City is putting resources into it. A new/revamped arena and ballpark can slot in as alternatives to a Raiders stadium in the planning work, so it’s like killing two birds with one stone. Other than that, it’s a terribly disappointing bit of news. There has been no action on the EIR front, and virtually nothing has happened in the last 2.5 years, yet Quan is characterizing the Oakland options as doable by 2016. Oakland’s track record doesn’t back her up. It all sounds like a bunch of fronting, and everything else I’m hearing outside of Oakland indicates that the City is not going to get the chance to prove itself. I’m not sure Oakland deserves it.

Added 2:34 PM – The Trib will have a live chat today at 3:30 to cover today’s news. Participants will include reporter Angela Woodall, BANG senior editor for community involvement Martin G. Reynolds, and the ever popular Dave Newhouse.

Added 4:05 PM – Two new pics of Coliseum City.

coliseum-city1-sm

Overhead shot has ballpark on north lots. I assume the green strip running from left to right (north-south) through complex is the easement for the sewer interceptor.

coliseum-city2-sm

Close-up shot shows hotel between ballpark and stadium

180 thoughts on “Oakland 12/9 Press Conference

  1. Ha, SF thinks they can keep San Jose in court for 10 years… try it. So far their only suit is baseless, and once the vote goes through when Wolff does buy the land they have no feet to stand on. And that assumes MLB lets them go forward with this crap which they won’t once they’re stripped of their T-Rights.

  2. Giants can’t do that if MLB tells them to stop.

  3. Sounds like a whole lotta nothin’. And why is Jean Quan talking to the Giants? Why are the Giants talking to Jean Quan? Something’s wrong with that.

  4. Yeah she’s talking to the Giants but not the A’s… something fishy there. Time for San Jose to sue Oakland and the Giants. Two can play that silly game.

  5. This is going to get very interesting.

  6. Looks like Oakland wants to force the A’s to build there. Good luck with that. Giants know full well they can’t individually oppose MLB policy on their own – if MLB gives the OK to San Jose.

  7. Tell you what, after today I’m no longer a “just keep them in the Bay Area” guy. I’m now San Jose all the way. Oakland’s leadership is inept and frankly is just pissing me off now. I mean their grand plan at this point seems to be do nothing until after MLB’s ruling, maybe. And in the interim consort with the hated Giants to do everything they can to block San Jose, which remains the only viable option presented by anyone. Fuck Oakland’s leadership. How about you idiots present a plan that MLB can choose rather than try and cock block another city and do nothing (which seems to be the only thing you ARE good at). Particularly since we know the team is gone if SJ doesn’t happen since you have nothing going on. I mean seriously, no EIR, no public funds, no working with the team, working against the A’s by consorting with the Giants… did I miss anything?

  8. It has always been Oakland and San Francisco vs. San Jose for years when it came to the A’s. Both cities want to keep the A’s right where they are.

    10 years? Bahahhaha! That is retarded beyond belief.

    Both cities have an inferiority complex when to comes to San Jose. The 49ers are gone pretty much and the Raiders may or may not follow suit.

    Then both cities are competing for the Warriors at the same time……Goes to show how much credibility this has.

    Investors lining up? Yeah right…..If that was the case Coliseum City would have been a reality years ago…This has CYA all over it.

  9. Also interesting that she didn’t mention the Raiders at all and only mentioned the Warriors in the Q and A. So what happened to the Raiders?

  10. @Dan- Where is the Q and A? Do you have a link?

  11. In the previous thread I was speculating about this press conference.

    I said it’s either going to be unintentional comedy, or they’ll have something substantive to announce.

    Now we know it’s the former.

    Jean Quan has to be biggest fool on the face of the planet. She calls this press conference to announce she has this big Coliseum City thing going. But, no EIR, no funding plan, not talks with MLB or Lew Wolff, only RFPs and discussions with the Giants … GIANTS!!! WTF!!!!!! (saying they could tie up SJ in court for 10 years).

    What Quan did was show up with nothing, zilch, nada, actually less than nothing, only a ridiculous pipe dream that MLB rejected a long time ago.. She only made a complete fool of herself.

    And she almost makes it sound like she’s been conspiring with the Giants to force the A’s to stay in Oakland.

  12. It was @KQEDNewsLive on twitter. It wasn’t a very long Q and A either because they really didn’t have much new to say.

  13. So is that it? Pitching the already-rejected Coliseum site and conspiring with the Giants against the A’s? Absolutely amazing.

  14. Nevermind I just read it on KQED’s website.

    The did not mention the Raiders at all…..Wow.

    Either the Raiders are heading to SC or LA……That is unreal.

    The A’s are done in Oakland, if MLB evaluated both sites already (VC and the Coliseum) why is MLB asking Wolff to expand his San Jose ballpark?

    It is because MLB has shot down those sites years ago. Plus, no EIR on VC? Wow….Where would the A’s play in the case of a new ballpark at the Coliseum site? The old stadium cannot be renovated and needs to be torn down.

    What is Oakland thinking??? They seem to be in their own little world and do not see what else is going on…Almost like they live in a bubble.

  15. Sid it gets better. According to SusanSlusser the Raiders WOULD be included in a giant Coliseum City development with the other 3 teams, but NOTHING on what they’d do with them if the A’s end up in SJ or VC. This whole meeting was such a contrived piece of crap. So tired of this. Just give up if you have no real intention of keeping the team. Because all you’re doing is upping the likelihood the Bay Area loses them entirely.

  16. @Dan

    “Tell you what, after today I’m no longer a “just keep them in the Bay Area” guy. I’m now San Jose all the way. ”

    I’m with you 100%

    Quan is an embarrassment to all humanity. How clueless, lazy, incompetent (no EIR, no viable funding plan), and downright sneaky (conspiring with the Giants) can you be?

    Clearly, she did this press conference only to try to save face. But what she did was only make herself look worse. What a joke.

  17. “Both cities have an inferiority complex when to comes to San Jose.” Seriously?

  18. Quan’s ten-year litigation estimate is actually not outlandish, given the huge delays in the Calif. court system that have developed since the state slashed the courts’ budget earlier this year. Also, the ginormous backlog of foreclosure and credit-card default cases is clogging things up. I am aware of two cases that are being briefed on appeal right now that originally were filed in 2003, in two different Calif. superior courts. (Both went up on appeal after an initial judgment, and are not up again after a second run through the trial court.) Those two cases “sped” through the system when things were flush. I would add a good two or three years to those timelines under today’s circumstances.

    Giants fan or A’s fan, I can’t imagine anyone will enjoy baseball litigation in the Bay Area. I hope mlb is able to work out some sort of deal with the Giants soon.

  19. They will. Be it with the carrot or the stick. MLB will try to entice the Giants with some sort of reward, and if that doesn’t work they’ll shove it down their throats and the Giants will take it because if they don’t they’ll lose their franchise.

  20. Too funny about talking to the Giants a if they are a friend- same Giants that will be the development partner building a new arena in SF for the Warriors- Jean Quan needs to be recalled- she is clueless

  21. What a bunch of bull $hit! You know, I was going to feel bad for Oakland when they eventually loose the A’s. Now? NO @#$% WAY! Now I definitely can’t wait for the owners meeting next month. Wolff’s /MLB’s most likely response to this crap: “really?!”

  22. She should really just focus on the Warriors. The Raiders are too expensive and are likely gone already. The A’s want no part of her and her city for a very good reason. At least the Warriors option would be the cheapest and have the greatest civic return if they tried to keep them. But that would be too smart. Instead as you say she’s talking with the Giants while they’re doing so behind her back trying to steal her basketball team and the football team is walking out the door while she’s distracted with the other two.

  23. @suit,
    Frivolous, baseless lawsuits won’t last 10 seconds in court! Wishful thinking on your part eh!

  24. Tony how about you stop attacking the guy? His point was valid and is a good indication of why MLB won’t allow this monkey business to go on indefinitely.

  25. @Dan,
    Anyone who champions litigation to try and stop the A’s from moving to SJ will be “attacked.” But you’re right, MLB won’t let it happen, so I guess no need to get all riled up over nothing.

  26. @suit
    Sorry to break it to ya, but Bud and MLB can strip control of the Giants if they file suit, and then immediately decide (as head of Giants baseball operations) to reach a settlement with the A’s. “Best interests” clause BOOM.

  27. Any word on who pays for these new facilities? The teams themselves, of course. Oakland pitches the Coliseum site it already owns and the teams have to put forward hundreds of millions of their own $$ to make it happen. What a deal – for Oakland.

  28. Why doesn’t Doug Boxer get an ownership group together, buy the A’s and build privately there? Why won’t he do that instead of trying to force someone else to take on this unreal risk?

  29. In summary:
    – Quan and the Oakland leaders have done absolutely nothing for a year
    – They hope MLB will be interested in a site that historically doesn’t work for baseball
    – Quan admits to collusion with the Giants ownership
    – Somehow neglects mentioning the Raiders in Coliseumville

  30. The post has been updated to reflect all of today’s news.

  31. Both the Giants and the A’s have been very quiet about the San Jose Giants involvement in the lawsuit filed last week. The winter meeting, of course, intervened. But still. And I haven’t seen any new stories in the press. Maybe Quan’s litigation threat today will get the reporters on the line to the Giants and A’s for some response, and the one piece of actual litigation will get discussed and reported on by local writers.
    mlb definitely has to do something about the A’s. I have no idea what the Giants long-range plan might be–whether they want to make a deal or make trouble. Now that Neukom’s gone, I’m still waiting to see what we’ve got going on in the Giants’ front office. (I liked Larry Baer better when he was a student at Cal, broadcasting the A’s games on KALX.)
    By the way, this blog, despite its apparent bias, is far and away the best source of information on all these issues. I also appreciate how kind people are to Tony.

  32. @AL
    Well stated. Deal already done in MLB eyes. Lawsuit already in route to Filed Endorsed Request for Dismissal. Gnats get “bagel” for monumentally overplaying their hand. Reinsdorf already took Baer behind the woodshed and laid him out. Gnats could have had all of their debt paid off in one fell swoop, but like the Wile E. Coyote Super Geniuses that Baer and Neukom are they will end up holding the sign that says, “That’s All Folks!” with their thing in their other hand.

  33. I think the pro-San Jose contingent dominates this blog. I have no objecton to that.

  34. Jean Quan must be on crystal meth. Recall her NOW, period.

  35. Ahh..the rookie appreciates how kind people are to me on this site; how sweet. What have I said again about bringing milk into this bar? Let me just sum up nearly 7 years of knowledge for yah suit: ANTI-TRUST EXEMPTION, MLB TEAMS CAN’T SUE FELLOW MLB TEAMS, BEST INTEREST OF BASEBALL CLAUSE IN THE MLB CONSTITUTION, TWO FULLY COMPLETED/CERTIFIED EIR’s FOR SJ. Hopefully the bold print will help you understand what I’m saying. Good day!

  36. This is actually a “pro-A’s ballpark somewhere in the Bay Area in our lifetime” blog. Interpret that however you like.
    By the way, rendering available at KQED site (pretty cool!).

  37. The rendering on the KQED website shows an arena and a football/soccer stadium. NOT a baseball stadium. Are these folks for real?

  38. I like how the Coliseum City A’s Ballpark is tucked mostly out of sight behind some random building in the rendering. Is it too late to become a Mariners’ fan? They seem like a polite bunch. I’m guessing they’re like Canadians, but are obsessed with coffee instead of hockey.

  39. Quan….”We are sending a letter to Commissioner Selig to let him know Oakland wants the A’s and we have two viable sites.”

    Blackwell….”We are waiting to get to the table with the A’s….”

    Jon Stewart couldn’t ask for better material.

  40. OK. Oakland authorizes and EIR for VC a year ago and never does it. But the site is still viable. OK

  41. Giants sue over territorial rights, MLB loses anti trust when one team sues another. No anti trust and there is no territorial rights, all fronting.

    A’s should just fund. Stand for sf. To mess with the giants. Stall the warriors move just to say two can play that game.

  42. This is very sad. For Oakland to trot this out almost a year after declaring the Victory Ct. site a go is embarassing. Not only that but the rendering they use for an Athletics/MLB press conference doesn’t even center on the baseball stadium. Hell, you can bareley tell it is there. If they think this is going to impress Selig, they don’t have a clue. They should have presented this 15 years ago. No hail Mary here, just a “See, we tried.” Pathetic! Let’s go Bud, get this train moving to San Jose. I’m done with Oakland politics.

  43. Here’s a link to the rendering

    Note the prominent placement of the ballpark… Also note they never mentioned where the A’s and/or Raiders would play while these stadiums would be built. Or who would pay for them. Or any actual time frame.

  44. This thing is all pie in the sky. Something Oakland would like to see if only the team owners would chip in the $2 billion that is needed. I’d like a new BMW, if only somebody else would pony up the $40Gs I need…I don’t even see a baseball stadium on that rendering…

  45. I can’t find where in the liveblog Quan relayed that the Giants could hold up the San Jose plans for years. Can anyone cite this?

  46. Briggs, SueSlu got that tidbit during her post presser interviews. It’s on her Twitter.

  47. She must’ve removed that tweet. It’s not there.

  48. Boy, there are a lot of exclamation marks popping up in here. It looks like a long shot, but the idea is beautiful. Politicians aside, Oakland is a beautiful blue collared city that deserves some good news, I’m crossing my fingers.

  49. @Briggs – I heard it as I was sitting down in the Q&A.

  50. eb, keeping your fingers crossed in this case is paramount to putting your head in the sand. This is not what MLB is looking for.

  51. sorry equivelent to not paramount.

  52. @ Xootsuit Even if the Giants did sue, even if they somehow survived summary judgment, that doesn’t mean they would be holding up the A’s project. To do that, they would need to get a preliminary injunction – very hard to do. They’d need to establish both a likelihood of success on the merits (unlikely) AND that if the A’s were allowed to proceed, they would suffer irreparable harm for which they couldn’t be made whole by money damages. I find it hard to see how they would make that case.
    .
    Not to mention the fact, as others have pointed out, using the nuclear option of litigation would destroy their relationship with MLB as a whole and perhaps risk invalidating the only legal mechanism that allows them or MLB to keep the A’s out of San Jose in the first place (the antitrust exemption). A very risky gambit.
    .
    Seattle sued to stop the Sonics from leaving. They had the strongest legal case I could imagine in this kind of scenario – a lease which specifically stated they were entitled to specific performance (i.e. a court order to enforce it), plus a corollary lawsuit by Mr. Coffee which could have invalidated the original team sale to Bennett. We all know what city they are playing in now, and it’s not Seattle.
    .
    So the length of time it might take for a theoretical lawsuit to resolve is irrelevant. The resolution of this matter will not be driven by litigation.

  53. @Bay Area A’s I’m pretty sure MLB isn’t looking to me for direct input, so yeah, crossing my fingers in hopes that my teams stay home and gain stability is what I’m going to do.

  54. eb, I understand. This is just deflating for anyone hoping Oakland could come through.

  55. Typical reaction from you guys on this. Agreed, I wish this Coliseum City was done 15 years ago, but it is what it is as they say and it sure beats going to SJ, SC and SF.. As for pulling it all off when the (A’s)owner wants out of Dodge asap and a Commish who hates the Town, it’s gonna be tough. At least the W’s are open-minded about it. Maybe the R’s will come aboard too. They like the coliseum area.
    Cool renederings. Wish I can see the A’ s park a little better though( @Al–the A’s ballpark is shown in the middle right of the pic, behind a big hotel). Maybe Lew can help build that hotel there.
    I hope an Oakland sports museum will be included. Statues of all the Oakland greats. Wouldn’t be the same in SJ, SC and SF.

  56. But it wasn’t done 15 years ago. It’s an unfunded, 1tth-hour Hail Mary pass that’s going to fall incomplete.

  57. @briggs: That baseball stadium behind the office building does look like it hasn’t been fully developed — like maybe they tucked it into the pic last week, or something.
    The KQED tweets mentioned the Giants/10 year litigation threat.
    One aspect of discussion here that sort of casts a shadow on credibility: The legal analysis about mlb’s A/T exemption, etc., and the litigation options available to whoever might wish to sue the A’s or San Jose over this dispute.

    See, I think it’s pretty damn informative when ML tells me I might want to reconsider my opinion of Wolff because he has met him and has been imprressed, and then I find the Wolff interview links on the side of the blog. That’s some substance. But you legal eagles offer no authority at all. Let me yet again refer you to a pretty good, recent discussion of the mlb A/T exemption:

    http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/44/2/articles/44-2_Grow.pdf

  58. @Bay Area A’s I don’t know, I didn’t come away from this deflated at all. Things haven’t been run smoothly, but at least there’s a goal to work towards.

  59. Jk even you have to admit this was a pretty lame attempt at trying to save the team by Quan and company. They come out with no funding, no EIR’s, no nothing except a shitty picture that doesn’t even show the ballpark. And they hope this is going to save 3 teams. They’ll be lucky to save the W’s with that crap. I mean where does Oakland, broke Oakland, except to come up with a billion+ dollars?

  60. The Giants are on a very slippery slope because it is the AE that protects San Jose from getting a team. If the owners vote against the Giants (29-1 is my prediction) it is over real fast.

    By suing even with surrogates like Stand for San Jose they risk MLB losing its precious AE and they would be forever hated by the other owners and Selig.

  61. It was good catching up with you ML…until next time. Cheers

  62. ah, bartleby, ah, humanity
    I didn’t say litigation was good, or that it necessarily would create a 10 year delay even if it failed in the end; I simply said the 10 year comment is not outlandish. Who expected the Giants quietly to acquire a controlling interest in the SJ Giants in 2010 so they’d be in a position to fund the lawsuit filed last week — which is for a writ of mandate vs. various defendants, but naming the A’s real party in interest? (I can see by your references to SJ and PInj that you enjoy the procedural jargon.)

  63. @sid: I’ve been saying all along that both sides are playing a chess game with the A/T exemption as the queen on each side of the board. It appears to be a slow-motion game of chicken.

  64. A goal to work towards? Bartleby is now a “legal eagle”? Does the feces get any deeper with some here?

  65. Xoot, it’s only a game of chicken as long as MLB wants it to be. The “best interests” clause of the MLB constitution is the ace in the hole that MLB always has that can derail ANYTHING the Giants throw at them. In the end this only goes on as long as it suits MLB to let it go on. Once they’ve had enough they can shut the Giants down REAL fast.

  66. Hey, sorry, tony. You’re a legal eagle, too.

  67. @xootsuit — An old, overweight labrador retreiver lying on the porch who continues to snap at flies, obviously, never succeeding, is aptly analogous to this situation and xootsuit’s apparently genuine but misguided arguments. The article you have linked is informative (I read it the other night at my Little League Board meeting and actually downloaded one of the cases cited), but will have zero application in this situation as MLB has already made its decision. Remember, this is a feifdom.

  68. re: where does Oakland, broke Oakland, except to come up with a billion+ dollars?

    ..How? By requesting the 3 teams “work with the city of Oakland.” In plain English: requesting that the 3 teams pony up $2 billion so Oakland keeps its team without taking on any risk.

  69. @dan: What if the City of San Francisco sues (as the City Attorney threatened a year or so back)?

  70. The City of SF has no legal grounds outside of the MLB AE which would be impossible to argue in court.

    Anti-Trust law is a big deal in the US and to argue “around” it with the MLB AE would be a bad case. How could a judge agree with it when he knows full its anti-competitive?

  71. Hey, I much prefer a downtown /waterfront site, but nothing wrong with this Coliseum City at all. Through the 80’s, it was always known as a very well-run, profitable complex and the envy of most cities, then the separate football and baseball parks came in vogue, with MLB going back into the downtown core, and the Coliseum looking dated comparatively.Philly has all 3 venues in one area, (not DT), and Milwaukee is still in the same non DT spot too. So it’s okay for them to be not downtown, but the A’s have to be?

  72. Xoot, on what grounds would the city of San Francisco sue either the A’s or the city of San Jose regarding a transaction of the A’s to San Jose? You have to have some basis for a suit. And they don’t have one. They wouldn’t get beyond a motion for summary judgement.

  73. Jk, Philly and Milwaukee are also less than half the distance the Coliseum is from their downtowns. And the public contributed 50% and 66% respectively to both those projects. Which again means minimum Oakland ponies up 1 billion dollars for this project as a whole, and 250 million to the A’s. I don’t see Oakland coming up with that kind of scratch.

  74. I’m not making arguments. You guys are arguing, based on your assumption that you understand all of the rules and the laws that govern. I see no indication that anyone here does understand. Personally, I’m intrigued and impressed with what appears to be going on, even though I actually don’t like it at all. As I said last weekend, when the Giants made that move to acquire 55% of the SJ Giants, Neukom was riding high was the managing general partner in SF. Previously, as General Counsel for Microsoft, Neukom supervised some of the most costly and complicated A/T lawsuits of the late 20th century. The law firm that represents the Giants (and the SJ Giants in the new lawsuit) has handled A/T litigation for Std Oil Calif/Chevron and other huge corporations for as long as the Sherman Act has been around.

  75. oh, god, not “summary judgment” again. Look, both of the lawsuits that I mentioned this morning — the ones that have been around for over eight years and are now both on appeal for the second time — both are on appeal from summary judgment.

  76. Something makes me think that these renders were originally created to pitch to the Raiders, and this press conference was a knee-jerk reaction to the W’s talking to SF yesterday.

  77. Good for them. In the meantime the city of San Jose would have built the stadium and the A’s would have moved in. Because they’d never be able to obtain an injunction. And in the meantime they’d end up looking silly.

  78. lonestranger, pretty much my thoughts as well.

  79. ML, were there any VC renders?

  80. @lone: I agree on the renderings. The football stadium is the centerpiece. As briggs pointed out, you can barely see the baseball park hidden in the corner.

  81. @LoneStranger At this point, does it matter? Maybe the W’s deal is finally getting Oakland politicians off of their butts. If the gears start to grind I’m all for it. From a “stay in the Bay perspective” if the SJ situation doesn’t pan out, at least there will be other possible options. From the perspective of an Oaklander, I’m hoping this city can have a beautiful sports complex to be proud of.

  82. So they do have a “funding plan”. It’s as pie in the sky as the whole project. This is from Blackwell today, “Yes, the city has been discussing new facilities with all three teams. The financing would be a combination of tax credits, federal transit funds, bonds, redevelopment and private investors. Absolutely no general fund dollars.”

  83. @suit,
    No need to keep hammering you. I truly feel for yah; you don’t want the A’s to leave Oakland. No probs with that, if I were in your shoes I’d feel the same way. And all of this legal mumbo jumbo you keep throwing around, desperately clinging to the hope that the courts will somehow keep the A’s out of SJ, is obviously your defense mechanism for the inevitable. So if it helps you, just keep at it; I’m all for self-therapy. The rest of us here know how this will all work out. Off for some Toppings Tree in SC (try it RM if you haven’t already). Until the next thread..

  84. Newhouse has turned the Trib chat into his own personal soap box.

  85. Per usual. And they’ve already resorted to spouting half truths about the EIR and funding as well that are contrary to the press conference today.

  86. @eb: “At this point, does it matter?”
    .
    Well, it would be yet another example of the city putting the Raiders first and the A’s last.

  87. Wow, so according to Angela Woodall, MLB had both Oakland and SJ under gag orders when it came to talking about a move. But Oakland has now chosen to disregard it due to the press assuming SJ was a done deal. So not only is Oakland sending a pie in the sky plan with a crap picture to Selig, they’re also defying his orders by doing so.

  88. @ Xootsuit There are a lot of different legal doctrines being thrown around here. Regardless of what grounds the Giants argue from, regardless of whether they win or lose an SJ, they can’t stop the A’s from going forward through legal process unless they get an injunction, period. The standard I gave you was drawn from memory, but I believe is a generally accurate paraphrase of what the standard for getting an injunction is, whether the underlying claim was based on contract, antitrust, or something else. They’re tough to get. As Seattle apparently concluded.
    .
    Personally, if I were the A’s, MLB approved the move, and the Giants were dumb enough to sue, and assuming they somehow managed to keep the case in court, I’d laugh it off, go about my business, and wait for the inevitable financial settlement. The Giants would have several massive procedural hurdles to clear, the merits of any claims they might bring are shaky, and any theoretical damages are speculative and questionable. If I was Lew, I wouldn’t lose a lot of sleep over it.
    .
    Herrera’s letter was a bunch of arm waving. No way in hell any court is going to start awarding damages to landlords suing businesses for lawfully competing with their tenants on the theory the competition may impair their (wildly financially successful) tenant’s ability to pay rent at some distant point in the future. The underlying theory runs counter to the antitrust laws and would be disastrous for a market economy. And even if it were a valid legal theory, San Francisco’s damages are way too theoretical and speculative, and certainly not of a type which would support an injunction.
    .
    The law review article was interesting, but I think the author glosses over the significance of the Curt Flood Act too easily. A claim to revoke the AE would have been tough to begin with, I think the Curt Flood Act makes it much, much tougher. But part of the point of law review articles is to be provocative, otherwise they wouldn’t be interesting to read.

  89. @xootsuit As far as Neukom presiding over complex, high-stakes, antitrust litigation – you neglect to mention that he lost the case.

  90. And that he’s no longer the Giants managing partner.

    And in other news both Cahill and Breslow are gone. Both moves Beane stated he’d only make if it looked like San Jose was a go. If he’s rebuilding seems likely they know something we don’t…

  91. @Lone Stranger I understand, but it could also mean that the city had other plans which needed to be scrapped and this one was adapted. Either way, if it comes to fruition it means a new A’s stadium, which is the whole issue.

  92. Coliseum City renderings added. There were no renderings on display at the press conference.

  93. So would the Warriors even be getting a new arena? Because that looks suspiciously like Oracle arena in those newest renderings.

  94. Added a caption to the first drawing: Rendering of Coliseum City. You may not notice the ballpark hidden behind the high-rise hotel. It’s an apt depiction of how the A’s have been treated by Oakland: Raiders’ stadium glowing, arena in background but prominent, ballpark an afterthought.

  95. So who’s going to finance this proposal? The renderings appear to show a brand new baseball stadium and a remodeled football stadium. That’s going to run $1B at a minimum.
    And then there’s that “village” that needs to get built…

  96. A’s fan, that’s actually a brand new football stadium. And according to the city manager via Angela Woodard this whole project is going to run upwards of 2 billion dollars.

  97. I have no idea what will come of any of this, but those renderings make my Oakland heart ache. It would be so amazingly cool to be able to take my future child to that complex and root for the A’s.

  98. Why do the A’s have to be hard up against the drainage ditch?

  99. @eb – A good and realistic viewpoint from Poole.

  100. Good article by Poole. Can hardly wait for the usual suspects to start bashing him for being sane and rational.

  101. @doctorK because Quan couldn’t find a worse place to put them.

  102. Don’t see why anyone would bash Poole. That is the most balanced opinion I think I’ve read recently on the subject of the ballpark in Oakland.

  103. The article basically illustrates what is so confusing/frustrating about professional sports. A team can be built into the fabric of a community, have been followed by fans for generations, help give a place an identity and, yet, poof, capitalism and an owner’s whim wins out. BTW, I’m not being specific to the A’s, just generalizing about the delicate balance that seems to exist.

  104. Quan’s letter can be found here…

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=107810922

    In it she outlines nothing substantial that Oakland will be contributing beyond the already known “land” at the Coliseum and the 250 million in redevelopment funds to work the VC site (the same funds that might vanish in the coming month).

  105. How kind of her to provide 10% of the construction costs.

  106. No that’s not for construction. That’s for buying the land at VC for the redevelopment of that site. So far the city has nothing but wishes and dreams to provide for funding actual construction at either site. That’ll be another 250 mil to make VC work MINIMUM. And another approximately 2 billion to make it work at the Coliseum site.

  107. That chat on the other hand was garbage. All panelists on the same side of the issue, rational questions from Dan and ML ignored. Newhouse spouting false or irrelevant statements without challenge (excepf from Dan).

  108. Newhouse – wants the A’s owners to build in Oakland and pay for it themselves. OK. Tell them how they have to spend their own money. That’s nice…

  109. Congrats to LeAndre, by the way. Working for Lucas sounds like fun.

  110. Woah woah woah, wait a second… they’re evicting Chubby Freeze for this? NIMB!

  111. Billy Beane says the A’s will be in a rebuilding mode if there is a sign they are going to San Jose. Looks the the rebuilding has started. The A’s just traded Cahill and Breslow to Arizona for prospects.

  112. Where’s David to spin the back door secret handshake conspiracy theories?! Lol.

    Funny, but this latest pipe dream, err announcement sounds a lOt like my proposal I put forth before, however with a lot of notable omissions:

    – no proclamation about public funding (who’s paying for all of this?)

    – no enticement for the owners (why spend hundreds of millions in a depressed area, again?)

    – no transparency (is VC officially dead with this new CC?)

    IMHO, this proposal is all about politics. JQ doesn’t want to be seen as the mayor that let all the sports team leave. There hardly any substance to her proposal. S.F. has the prestige the W’s want. S.C. has the Niners behind them with all the funding in place (good luck getting a billion dollar loan for the Raiders). S.J. has the corporate , political, and owner’s support (and soon MLB’s official endorsement) with actual land and money behind it, not just pixie dust and well wishes.

  113. It’s interesting that the CBA allows for continued revenue sharing by the A’s if they don’t have a new ballpark- imagine all those owners reactions to having to pay into it while the giants sue away for 10 years- with whatever front organization they want to use- if I am Selig I take Quan’s statement as a direct threat- rule of thumb in business- not a good idea to piss off the guy your trying to impress-goes for both quan and baer

  114. @ Anon – “…millions in a depressed area, again?” Again? Which owners have spent hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money in this depressed area? /rolleyes

  115. @Al–NOOOO!!! Not Chubby Freeze!! I’ve been going there for over 30 years. A little hole in the wall (they recently remodeled–looks a lot better) A solid pastrami burger; good fries; a Philly cheese deluxe with mushrooms is the most greasy ooey-gooey thing you can get; yummy shakes and chocolate dipped cones that my wife always gets. It’s amazing that they’ve been around for so long with the Mickey Dee’s on one side and Burger King on the other, that;s how good they are IMO. Good people running it too.
    The renderings look pretty cool, kind of generic looking venues, and the arena looks the same though? The A’s park looks like tiny, bland Cisco Field, but if it’s in the O where they belong, i can live with it. I would love an east bay corporation to step up soon with naming rights. That would help this cause tremendously. Common Clorox, Safeway, Chevron or Kaiser. I’ll wait 5 minutes for the jk-usa, JQ and Oakland bashing. What else is new on here?

  116. I’m sure Giants are pissed that Quan ratted on them like that… more reason for Selig to go ahead and do what he feels is in the “best interests” of the game with little regard for placating the Giants.

  117. @jk – Damn right, I used to go there at least once a week.

    Fear not, something tells me Chubby Freeze will be there for many, many years to come. This Coliseum City (now that I can see the ballpark) looks awesome, but it’s definitely coming in too late. Mega-development would’ve been easier to sell back in 2000-2007… Who’s going to occupy all these properties these days?

  118. AgreeAl- you can bet that quote has already been shared with the other 28 owners- was this part of the “process” laid out by MLB that JQ was “supposedly” following?

  119. @Columbo – since you want to nitpick about the statement above, buying franchises that resides in the said vacinity would technically count, but I digress and will instead say, “why invest in the same old depressed area gambling billions of dollars when nothing has came to fruition in the past 45 years?”. Is that more appropriate?

  120. I don’t understand why some people complain about a lack of visible plan on Oakland’s part and yet, now complain that JQ has “broken” Bud’s s”stay quiet” guidelines. I think knowing the possible plan in Oakland is a plus.

  121. @ Anon – That will suffice. Thanks.

  122. @eb, we’ve yet to see a plan. What we have now is an acknowledgement that Oakland has done nothing for a year.

  123. @EB- what plan? Nothing has tangibly changed for the past 15 years- you and other Oakland-only guys have been touting this great plan that was being developed “in secret” as requested by MLB- tell me that MLB had it’s socks knocked off today…. And tell me why she had to send a letter to bs if she has been in contact with him throughout the past year as has been implied. Further- explain why no EIR for VC – it was December o 2010 when the council authorized it and she said it would be fast tracked- in my world your fired for lack of performance- Recall JQ!

  124. @ eb – as others have aptly, put it….what plan? A vision, err proposal has been presented, but none of the parties involved have consented to it or are thought to be on board (did any RAiders, A’s, or W’s official even attend the presser?). I’m very surprised that the Oakland pundits continue to support their supposed civic leaders, when all they’ve done is put up smoke and mirrors to appease the masses…

  125. Another new wrinkle: http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_19512258

    SJ is also pitching for a W’s move down south, but I don’t see that happening. Also a funny political ploy, err quote by Quan, “We wanted to let people know we weren’t sitting on our hands.” LOL

  126. I’m not saying what was presented was ideal or at a great stage of development. Believe me, I want the Oakland A’s to stay home more than anybody and a more developed agenda would have gone towards guaranteeing that. However, at this point it is a start. It might be too late, it might not, but it’s something. We’ll see how this plays out. I’m just glad some aspects of this situation are starting to flesh out.
    @GoA’s First of all, I have never claimed to know anything about secret plans. I have said from the start that more transparency would be a plus. As for the “Oakland-only” crap, I have said my first choice would be for the A’s to stay in Oakland and my second choice would be somewhere else in the Bay. But if life is too complicated for you and you need to make things simple, generalize away my friend.

  127. @EB- anyone who continues to support a city that has done nothing for the past 15 years and gets excited by today’s announcement is an Oakland-onl in my book- you and a few of the other Oakland-only guys would be happy with the A’s playing in the shithole that they are in today provided they stay in Oakland- I think A’s first- city second- and I am tiredof the Oakland leaders trying to obstruct progress- lead or get out of the way!

  128. @ eb – whoah there….there’s no need to go all JoaKlander on GoA’s…the prevailing theory from the Pro Oakland camp championed by Mr. Conspiracy Theorist, David is that a backdoor agreement was made or as he would like to put it, “how do you know what you don’t know and what i don’t if know one knows it?” It’s hard to keep track of which BS, wild speculations, and pipedreams are being said by whom these days…but if you want to continue to be sensitive about it, more power to you. It’ll all be over soon enough! ;)

  129. @ GoA’s – don’t worry, it’ll all be over soon and this Oakland charade will be a distant memory! :) As your name says, Go A’s! :)

  130. @GoA’s Well, that’s where you and I differ. I became an A’s/Raiders fan because they were from my childhood city and because my family goes back with them for two generations. I think the connection between a team and a region/city is very important. I love Oakland/East Bay and I support the families who make the city/region what it is. Politicians are a necessary evil and I generally don’t view them as what defines a populace, even though they are voted in.
    I would not be happy if the A’s stayed in the Coliseum as is. I would love a new Oakland park, getting it to happen is the challenge. If nothing can happen, I understand SJ is an option. We’ll see what comes to fruition. Meanwhile, instead of calling me “Oakland only” and getting worked up, you should chill out, take a break and maybe go color in your coloring book.

  131. @EB- thanks- love coloring with my kids- so another 15 years …30 total and the you will be ready to call an ace an ace? Go A’s….not Oakland

  132. @bartleby: don’t try so hard. Microsoft didn’t “lose”: Microsoft managed to defend A/T cases worldwide and remain essentially intact (unlike Standard Oil or AT&T, for example, to cite two comparable monopolists that got split apart by big A/T challenges). Settlements after decades-long litigation resolved the matters for MS. A lot of people reading this blog probably use Windows and Explorer together. If MS had “lost,” that wouldn’t be happening much.
    I’m not endorsing MS, or litigation. I’m just reminding you that things are a lot more complicated than you seem to realize. The best thing about the LR article I linked up is its discussion of the unpredictability inherent in any case that involves the mlb A/T exemption. I was especially interested in the cases the author discussed that concerned A/T actions under state laws. Now that would be a slo-mo case: Cartwright Act cause of action, trying the scope of the mlb A/T exemption, in your local, over-worked, back-logged county superior court. Chances for SJ diminish significantly. (Not impossible, I assure you; but not easy.)

  133. Who still uses IE?

  134. @ Dan – lol….unfortunately most corporations use it still as a way to standardize on their IT infrastructure or make up for the lack of it! ;) Go Chrome or go home! :)

  135. yeah, yeah. If Google asked the A’s to change their name to the Search Engines you guys would support the idea. Hey, maybe in 5 years Apple will be one of the A’s biggest sponsors, with all sorts of ads punning on the “A,” the way The Gap put its logo on the wall in the gaps at Candlestick after Fisher pere joined with the others to keep the Giants in SF. Maybe. More likely, the people in Cupertino won’t be much interested. That’s the problem I sense with the San Jose ballpark. I mean, there’s a reason Wolff wanted to restrict the capacity to 32K, right?

  136. xoot,
    You do realize that Bartleby isn’t just an average keyboard commando here like most of us here, including you and I right? He isn’t just spouting legalese and acting like he has all kinds of experience in the legal profession without any.

    Bartlelby IS an attorney. If you look at what he writes, you’ll he provides a factual basis for what he is arguing; to poo poo his understanding of things as being “more complicated” than he realizes is laughable.

    Seattle had an ironclad lease regarding the Sonics…and that lease was satisfied monetarily.

  137. @XS – “That’s the problem I sense with the San Jose ballpark.”….what is the problem you sense?

  138. I understand that Bartleby is an attorney. You guys aren’t real quick on the uptake, after all.

  139. oh, by the way, it’s “including you and ME”
    anon: I made my point. If you don’t get it, I don’t care.
    This blog is a great place for info. ML and Jeffrey obviously work hard to keep it going, and they do a great job. So I’ll certainlhy check in for info. But the discussion here is high on arrogance and low on everything else. (Yeah, I’ll miss you too.)

  140. @ XS – ad hominem attacks aren’t going to make your case looks better. If you’re trying to assert that the MLB ATEs is vulnerable, then wouldn’t it be ironic that the same ATE is also responsible for holding the TR in place for the Gnats in the first place? And that per MLB’s charter, teams can’t sue one another? Or if you’re trying to assert that Oakland, with its A’s lease expiring at the Coliseum in a few years, can sue one another, as was previously threatened by S.F. (strangely enough out of all places), would be able to set a precedent for to disallow private corporations to move on their own accord is a little absurd as well. In either cases, most of this has been hashed and rehashed time and time again over the past 5 years hear. So the question i hope you can answer without trying to attack others, is what exactly is your concern?

  141. Realizing he is an attorney, yet disparaging his expertise as being too “complicated” for him to understand makes you the dim witted one, friend.

    Your true colors have slowly revealed themselves over the last week; as someone mentioned earlier, your actions on the sfgate board supposedly showed you to be more than the “aw shucks, I’m just a neutral Giants fan trying to understand what’s going on here” observer.

    As I don’t read those comments, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt; your actions here reveal you to be the shit stirrer you were supposedly banned for over at sfgate.

  142. bartleby’s “expertise” does not impress me. And I think I’m qualified to opine on what he’s posted, so far. There’s nothing aw shucks about me. As a Giants fan, I don’t care where the A’s play. As a person with deep roots in the East Bay, I do hate to see them leave. That’s it. Capice?

  143. @xootsuit
    As you aware no lawsuit between the Athletics and Gnats would be heard in state court, thus no Cartwright Act issue. If Mr. MiceNuts Larry Baer had the balls and had his confederates file one in state court it would be swiftly removed to Fed Dist Ct. Moreover, this TR issue is unambiguously within the ‘Business of Baseball’ and within the A/E as discussed in Federal Baseball of Baltimore, and further analyzed in the Law Review article by Mark Nagle cited at footnote 322. Good read – when you have a chance you should get it and read it. BTW do you work for Pillsbury Winthrop et al?

  144. rayburn, you don’t know what you’re writing about. Why would a Cartwright Act case be heard in federal court? You’re missing the, as they say, interstices. Again, pleas understand, I’m not advocating litigation. Nor am I endorsing what the Giants are doing. I’m just trying to keep you knuckleheads from knocking yourselves out as you stumble around trying to comprehend what’s happening.

  145. @xootsuit
    Actually, you stated it in one of your previous posts, unless it was a typo, or a mistake you made in your haste. Notwithstanding your error, you appear to be a decent person and a somewhat rationale thinker, and maybe someday some form of therapy will bear me out on this evaluation. The revelant citation to a law review article which is really at the crux of the TR issue is http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/eslj/issues/volume4/number3/nagel/. You never did answer my question about your employment; It’s a yes or no answer counselor.

  146. @xootsuit “don’t try so hard.”
    .
    And here I thought I was writing a sincere response to what a took to be a sincere position. My bad.
    .
    ” Microsoft didn’t “lose”: Microsoft managed to defend A/T cases worldwide and remain essentially intact (unlike Standard Oil or AT&T, for example, to cite two comparable monopolists that got split apart by big A/T challenges). Settlements after decades-long litigation resolved the matters for MS. A lot of people reading this blog probably use Windows and Explorer together. If MS had “lost,” that wouldn’t be happening much.”
    .
    That’s an interesting rewrite of history. Microsoft lost on the merits. Its attorneys were cited for contempt of court and/or accused of introducing misleading and/or false evidence several times along the way. During the remedy phase, the Clinton Administration gave way to the Bush Administration, which quickly decided to stop seeking the breakup of Microsoft.

    Some might look at this history and conclude Microsoft ran a questionable defense, lost, and had its fat pulled out of the fire by a timely change in the political winds. You apparently interpret this as evidence of Neukom’s legal genius. Whatever. Not that it’s particularly relevant to the point you seem to be trying to make anyway.
    .
    “I’m not endorsing MS, or litigation. I’m just reminding you that things are a lot more complicated than you seem to realize.”
    .
    On the contrary, the fundamental point we are debating is fairly simple. You made the fairly obvious point that complex litigation can last as long as ten years, and implied that the Giants could delay Cisco Field in this fashion. I pointed out the Giants have several severe hurdles they would have to overcome to keep the case in court, but that even if they could, litigation does not automatically equate to delay of the project.
    .
    The usual remedy for most legal claims is money damages (e.g., assuming the A’s were doing something wrong by moving to San Jose, how much did it cost the Giants). A Giants lawsuit would not in and of itself prevent the A’s from building the park anyway and playing in it for many years while the action ground its way through the courts.
    .
    Only if the Giants were able to get an injunction could they actually stop the A’s from going forward. This is considered an extraordinary remedy, rarely given. In order to get one, the Giants would typically have to prove that they were likely to win on the merits, and that if the A’s were allowed to proceed they would suffer irreparable harm that could be be rectified by payment of money.

    I doubt they could meet either of these requirements. Any harm they might arguably suffer would take the form of potentially lost revenues. Unless they could show the A’s move would literally bankrupt them, it’s hard to see how this couldn’t be made good by the A’s simply writing a check.

    Further, it is entirely likely that if they Giants were able to get an injunction, they would be required to post a bond covering the A’s losses from the delay if the A’s ultimately won on the merits. If you assume delays up to ten years, this could be hundreds of millions of dollars. Quite a gambit. I don’t see it happening.
    .
    “The best thing about the LR article I linked up is its discussion of the unpredictability inherent in any case that involves the mlb A/T exemption. I was especially interested in the cases the author discussed that concerned A/T actions under state laws. Now that would be a slo-mo case: Cartwright Act cause of action, trying the scope of the mlb A/T exemption, in your local, over-worked, back-logged county superior court. Chances for SJ diminish significantly. (Not impossible, I assure you; but not easy.)”
    .
    I’m really not sure why you’re so fixated on the A/T exemption. It doesn’t represent a cause of action for the Giants, nor does it help them keep a case against the A’s or MLB in court. Rather, it’s the main thing shielding the Giants from getting hammered in an antitrust lawsuit themselves (with the potential for treble damages). The possibility of it being invalidated represents a risk to the G’s, since that means they basically lose their case. But if it’s upheld, that does nothing to help them, it just maintains status quo. Meaning: They would have to press some very marginal breach of contract and/or equitable reliance type claims, and make some very difficult showings to get a remedy (injunction) that would be meaningful in this context.
    .
    Look, every time a team moves, someone is pissed off and often sues. How many real world examples can you name where such a lawsuit dictated or even delayed the result?

  147. Well here, let me dumb it down a little bit. Looking at the renderings, I notice a few things:
    -the airport connector is illustrated
    -it appears to have several new stops in the area
    -including one right about where the player’s parking lot used to be
    -the bart bridge appears unchanged
    -but the properties surrounding it have all been redeveloped
    -the entrance is elevated above the surrounding concourse
    -that means the entrance to the arena has been reconfigured to enter from a higher level
    -or the concourse has been lowered near the entrance

    I love the illustration of grand development visions. It’s always fun to look over the details and dream of what might be.

  148. I come back after 7 hours and come to find this suit character getting hammered? I love it! You can apologise to me later Dan for accusing me of being “mean” to the Guy earlier ;) turns out he deserved it. By the way, downtown San Jose was jumping tonight! Good night all.

  149. Happy day 1000 of the BRC, and we finally have answers.. Oh wait.

  150. Considering it’s about day 6000 for the city of oakland and this is the best they can do maybe 1000 isn’t so bad- here’s to believing that in the next 1000 days we’ll be getting ready to see our A’s in a new ballpark!

  151. LOL @ SFGate comments. Quan is a goner….Go A’s!

  152. It is completely understandable that Oakland and the Giants are going to play freely with the truth as well as throw everything but the kitchen sink into the mix (dirty tricks being fair game in a fight like this). Oakland and the Giants are looking to get the best deal for themselves and are going to play hardball. However, their goals are different. Oakland wants, albeit without as of yet trying too hard as counter intuitive as that is, for the A’s to stay in Oakland. The Giants want the A’s out of the bay area. It is silly to believe the Giants would want the A’s in a big, brand new, state of the art palatial facility in Oakland. That is not a benefit to the coffers/value of the Giants, it may well end up being a drain. The Giants know the A’s are a bottom feeder and with a move will increase their value. The A’s are squandering value with their current environment. If they can block San Jose, the A’s are leaving. The Giants franchise value will increase greatly with that development. And they don’t need to block them from SJ outright, they just need to make the hurdles so tall and numerous that the SJ plan falls apart.

    With that said, the Oakland tact is almost pathetic. A) They have a really cool drawing yet, in real terms, Oakland has done nothing, literally nothing, to make a A’s stadium plan closer to reality (that is the most unbelievable part). B) They let MLB know that their plan doesn’t have the burden of lawsuits …lawsuits they (and the Giants by proxy) will be filing if the A’s move to SJ. C) Oakland government has more money than San Jose, disregarding that San Jose is light years further in the process (including spending money) and have shown the A’s extreme due diligence for some years (while Oakland has been nearly absent). The whole thing is almost surreal…..

    The Giants will not be suing anyone regarding the move to SJ. TR is a non issue once MLB decides (and duh! Most owners want the A’s to become a non welfare team and increase MLB revenue). The only thing the Giants will be doing is behind the scenes support of small front groups who can throw up procedural roadblocks. The result of them have little chance of legal success but may delay the process sufficiently. As far as Oakland lawsuits, short of a sympathetic judge who stretches the legal boundaries and requires the almost certain overturn on appeal, these lawsuits will ultimately be a waste of time.

    If, and it is an if of unknown potential, SJ voters approve the park, lawsuits are nothing more than a few bumps in the road toward the inevitable. For Oakland and the Giants, the election is the real battle to be fought. They’ll have their media allies (numerous), they’ll have money to fund anti stadium groups, they’ll have the time to produce ‘paperwork’ to show the stadium deal will surely be a bad deal for SJ residents.
    If I am SJ, I damn well better make sure the stadium vote contains iron clad job gains for the unions. There support will be critical to pass the proposal……maybe the difference between success and failure.

  153. Next, Quan’s going to suggest dumping tons of dirt & sand into the port of Oakland to build an island sandlot for the A’s.

  154. People are again missing the point of all of this. IF oakland shows they have the ability to produce a ballpark in Oakland, a move to SJ must be dismissed. That was THE point of all of this. Whether Oakland stalled or ownership lied for years, it’s moot at this point. IS there a viable stadium site in oakland. The answer is: YES. If that’s the case, a relocation to SJ is in question. Now, IF there is a stadium site in Oakland, but ownership doesn’t want to stay, they must look at selling the team to ownership who will stay, before relocating the franchise out of the area.

    The point of the BRC was to determine location of A’s stadium. In fact, Lew was supposed to do that years ago (but only did the minimum to say there wasn’t so he could push a move out of the area – we all know that). Regardless of city politicians doing a poor job (happened) and the past 2 ownership groups lying through their teeth (happened) – if there are feasible sites for a new stadium in Oakland, they cannot be dismissed.

    The mistake that many national writers (like the moron Ken Rosenthal) make, is saying it’s SJ or same situation in Oakland. That is not the case. While we all know that Lew wants to move the team out of Oakland and has since day one, the *POINT* was to get a new stadium IN OAKLAND. That’s what was stated. If these locations are viable (and you tell me, are they??) then ownership must make a decision as to whether they are going to stick and around build, or sell the team to an ownership group who will.

  155. re: They have a really cool drawing yet, in real terms, Oakland has done nothing, literally nothing, to make a A’s stadium plan closer to reality (that is the most unbelievable part).

    …Yes, I was surprised at the lack of substance of Oakland’s “plan.” The same old feeling of entitlement to a free ballpark and trying to force the A’s owners to build there, with some conspiring with the Giants thrown in. I hope the other MLB owners see what the Giants are up to and vote 29-1 to l et the A’s into San Jose..

  156. @asch,
    Good one! Way to make ones stomach hurt on a Saturday morning. This is easy..repeat after me: corporate support, private financing, corporate support, private financing, and so on. How does the $2+ billion “Neverland” get paid for again?
    BTW, happy 1,000 days all! Just think, in another 1,000 days we’ll be witnessing final construction of beautiful Cisco Field in downtown SJ!

  157. Asch: where is the “viable” site again?

  158. Asch, unfortunately for Oakland it’s not just about drawing a line on a map. Oakland had to show they had VIABLE sites. MLB has already told them explicitly that the Coliseum site is not valid and that their preferred Oakland site was Victory Ct. However VC is not viable today either because Oakland has done “0” to make it viable. They’ve not purchased any of the land, not done an EIR, NOTHING. Oakland had to show they had viable sites, not just draw lines on maps and put out renderings. They’ve not done this… Remember NOTHING we say yesterday was new as far as anyone including MLB was concerned. They introduced no new sites that the BRC would have to look through, no new funding sources they’d have to consider, and no completed work like an EIR or land purchase at VC for them to review. I mean hell, the letter Quan sent Selig was a year and a half old according to her. Old news is BAD news for Oakland.

    And yes Anon, the comments at SFGate for the first time related to the A’s aren’t just a Wolff bash fest. With the Raiders and Warriors asking where the door is to leave people are suddenly realizing that maybe there is a systemic problem in the city of Oakland and maybe the A’s were just the first ones to figure that out.

  159. Ken must’ve been confused on what moving players indicated. Beane explicitly stated they wouldn’t trade their current prize pieces if they were staying in Oakland at the Coliseum. He did state that they’d be dumping players and acquiring minor leaguers and young guys IF it was going to be approved. If Gio and Bailey get traded too you can start printing those San Jose A’s t-shirts.

  160. How does he know? Why ask for an expansion of seating at a San Jose ballpark that’s never going to be approved? We all know most of the news media absolutely does not want San Jose getting Major League Baseball

  161. Just read the Rosenthal article; that last line doesn’t make any sense. Its either sarcasm or he accidently typed in “not”. Anyhow, if Beane and Reinsdorf feel a decision is soon or “coming to a head,” than I’m cool with that.

  162. @pjk,
    Rosenthal has been supportive of the A’s moving to SJ in the past; a stand up Guy in my book. Again, sarcasm or misstatement. No worries here (especially after yesterday’s fiasco).

  163. Where exactly do people park and tailgate when going to an A’s game? Looks like they’ve jammed a lot of buildings in the lot. I guess fans park and tailgate on the other side of the lot and walk. Gotta wonder what it would be like after a game where 30k fans all exit the same direction. Would make the Stick look good (in terms of getting home after a game). I wonder how serious the plan really is. Don’t get me wrong, it looks great I’m just wondering if it’s realistic to jam 3 stadiums, a hotel and other buildings into that space. But then again this was planned by city officials.

  164. The SFGate comments were typical of an Oakland/Jean Quan story. Anything focused on the Town brings out racist wingnuts. I don’t know if you saw some of the comments that followed the Hiram Lawrence story, but it was the type of stuff that makes you want to lose faith in humanity. Go to the Cahill trade article and you see the same low opinion of the A’s/Wolff, right or wrong.

  165. bartleby:
    1. Microsoft fought many A/T battles in the 90s, not just the one you cite. In the end, Microsoft escaped dismemberment. That’s the real issue. Government all across the country, the feds here and governments in Europe went after them. They survived intact. I’m not calling Neukom a legal genius. I’m saying that he’s conversant with the issues and knows how to work with outside counsel in high-stakes litigation.
    2. Your discussion of injunctions is rudimentary. I don’t think you’re familiar with the Clayton Act, for example. In any event, I’m aware of many lawsuits that delayed projects without TROs or injunctions issuing. I’m surprised you’re not.
    3. The mlb A/T exemption would be at issue in any lawsuit concerning division of territorial rights. No one in mlb wants to litigate that — especially not in a Calif. state court (under the Cartwright Act, for example). The lawsuit wouldn’t be directly between the Giants and the A’s. The current lawsuit should explain that point to you. The law review article is useful for its comprehensive look at the litigation related to the A/T exemption and at the unpredictability of outcomes in such lawsuits. It underscores the risk inherent in litigation over the San Jose territory. So I’m interested in it.

    Your theoretical projections about basic civil procedure aren’t very compelling. The current lawsuit, with its behind the scenes intrigues and plots, may be just the start. Like it or not, the first lawsuit is imaginative.

    Tell me this — as the A’s are named as the real party in interest in the writ of mandate proceeding, do you think the A’s have standing to move to compel arbitration under Article VI of the MLB Constitution?

  166. Those of us with some knowledge of the outcome of the MS antitrust case have not been surprised by the outcome: The constraints on MS conduct that the Justice Department won were more than sufficient to ensure the loss of market power. MS is now a shadow of its former self and essentially a joke that’s utterly failed to become a significant force in mobile or social networks as the action has shifted.
    .
    The beef that the A’s have with the gnats has some parallels. We have an abusive monopolist in Precious Park with a stranglehold on the Bay Area’s MLB market. That will soon come to an end as well.

  167. @eb – racism in JQ comments? Sorry, but what I read was anger and outrage among normal people (and not necessarily fans) that JQ would devote her time and city money to 3 sports team when the City’s crime wave should be priority.

    Re: Mickeysoft. I don’t understand all the legalese in the case, but from a technical standpoint, the government essentially forced MS to divorce IE from the core OS, after they claimed it wasn’t feasible. Unfortunately this dragged on for years, and by then competitors such as Netscape was just an afterthought in the browser landscape after dominating initially.

  168. >>>asch
    December 10, 2011 at 6:30 AM (Quote)

    People are again missing the point of all of this. IF oakland shows they have the ability to produce a ballpark in Oakland, a move to SJ must be dismissed. <<<

    With due respect, a "viable" plan was never and should never be the threshold. If it was, Oakland already won this argument a long time ago. They have already provided "viable" plans that would simply take heaven and earth to make happen (or at least a long time to make happen).
    Oakland or San Jose or Anywhere else has to A) have a choice of land B) have a plan to have the land purchased C) prove they have the money to make it happen D) All the pertinent leaders are unquestionably and publicly on board ….those necessary to make the project happen E) Have shown real progress toward making those items a reality. F) one plan is not obviously inferior to other plans.

    Considering how amazingly long the A's have been pursuing a new ballpark, how far along is Oakland on item E? almost nowhere. It boggles the mind! Oakland supporters simply are doing the Ostrich and ignoring this fact. Oakland is light years behind a city (SJ) that had nothing but a long shot at landing the A's, yet SJ was doing their due diligence – working toward a viable (an actual viable) plan.
    Oakland should be embarrassed that they were so absent for so long…. yet they seem so indignant the A's have made 'other plans' to improve their franchise (an improvement that is long overdue). This whole Oakland process is surreal, incredibly mind boggling yet it is an unfortunate indication of how so many politicians operate.

    Never mind the others,

  169. “MLB for Dummies” by Tony D: MLB can alter territories as they see fit, best interest of baseball clause, teams can’t sue fellow teams, SCCO was a shared territory prior to 1992 (pss..it can go back to being shared). Its not that difficult people (some of you at least). No need for legalese or citing irrelevant court cases. Any questions?

  170. Living outside the Bay Area, I had no idea about Jean Quan or what people are arguing about over her. After listening to the press conference…whoa! And with a Valley Girl accent to boot (no offense to valley residents). Cue me up that Moon Unit song!

  171. Valley girl accent?

  172. The fact that Oakland won’t even do an environment report on Victory Court without a mythical commitment from MLB proves they aren’t serious about anything and it’s all PR to make it look like they are trying. And as if any of us with a brain even needed that.

    Look for Oakland to keep moving the goalpost to different sites once a year when the clock clicks down and naive people start expecting progress on this year’s promises. 2011 Victory Lane, 2012 Coliseum City, 2013 Waterfront, 2014 Port of Oakland. It’s a joke just so people can think they are doing something when they aren’t.

    No different than (for example) the Mets saying over and over again they want to keep Jose Reyes. Then not even an offer and he signs elsewhere.

  173. I just woke up to damn early and found this article after doing some research on a NFL move to L.A. I don’t watch baseball so I am not in the loop so let me ask the dumb question.1) The Oakland A’s want to relocate because of the current state of the stadium in Oakland stinks and they want an exclusive ball park with out sharing any revenue with the Raiders even though the Raiders don’t make much there.

    So the A’s found a site possibly in San Jose and want to explore their options. In the Mean time the city of Oakland comes up with some cheap renderings of what a new state of the art Raider and A’s separated facilities on the current property would look like.

    2) There is no EIR or financial plan just some artist renderings to make the 2 teams or the A’s happy and content that they got something to look forward too in Oakland.

    Am I on the right track here??

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s