A’s release statement on Territorial Rights

Update 9:38 PM – the Giants’ statement:

Statement from the San Francisco Giants Regarding Territorial Rights
March 7, 2012

The Commissioner has asked us to refrain from discussing the territorial rights issue publicly. Out of respect for his request, we will limit our response to setting the record straight on the history of territorial rights.

The Giants territorial rights were not granted “subject to” moving to Santa Clara County. Indeed, the A’s fail to mention that MLB’s 1990 territorial rights designation has been explicitly re-affirmed by Major League Baseball on four separate occasions. Most significantly in 1994, Major League Baseball conducted a comprehensive review and re-definition of each club’s territories. These designations explicitly provide that the Giants territory include Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, Monterey, Santa Cruz and Marin Counties and the A’s territory included Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The MLB owners unanimously approved those designated territories and memorialized them in the MLB Constitution. Since then, the MLB Constitution has been re-affirmed by the MLB owners – including by the A’s – on three different occasions (2000, 2005 and 2008), long after the Giants won approval to build AT&T Park. Mr. Wolff and Mr. Fisher agreed to these territorial designations and were fully aware of our territorial rights when they purchased the A’s for just $172 million in 2005.

The population of Santa Clara County alone represents 43% of our territory. Upon purchasing the team 20 years ago, our plan to revive the franchise relied heavily on targeting and solidifying our fan base in the largest and fastest growing county within our territory. Based on these Constitutionally-recognized territorial rights, the Giants invested hundreds of millions of dollars to save and stabilize the team for the Bay Area, built AT&T Park privately and has operated the franchise so that it can compete at the highest levels.

Update 5:40 PM – John Shea has reaction from the Giants:

This just came in a few minutes ago:

OAKLAND ATHLETICS

Media Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 7, 2012

STATEMENT BY OAKLAND A’S OWNERSHIP

REGARDING A’S AND GIANTS SHARING BAY AREA TERRITORY:

Recent articles claiming that Major League Baseball has decided that the A’s cannot share the two-team Bay Area market were denied by baseball Commissioner Bud Selig last weekend.

Currently the Giants and A’s share the two-team Bay Area market in terms of television, radio, sponsors and fans. Last year, the Giants opened a specialty store in the middle of the A’s market (Walnut Creek). At the time, Lew Wolff commented that he was ‘fine with the Giants store and wished there was an A’s store in San Francisco.’

Of the four two-team markets in MLB, only the Giants and A’s do not share the exact same geographic boundaries. MLB-recorded minutes clearly indicate that the Giants were granted Santa Clara, subject to relocating to the city of Santa Clara. The granting of Santa Clara to the Giants was by agreement with the A’s late owner Walter Haas, who approved the request without compensation. The Giants were unable to obtain a vote to move and the return of Santa Clara to its original status was not formally accomplished.

We are not seeking a move that seeks to alter or in any manner disturb MLB territorial rights. We simply seek an approval to create a new venue that our organization and MLB fully recognizes is needed to eliminate our dependence on revenue sharing, to offer our fans and players a modern ballpark, to move over 35 miles further away from the Giants’ great venue and to establish an exciting competition between the Giants and A’s.

We are hopeful that the Commissioner, the committee appointed by the Commissioner, and a vote of the MLB ownership, will enable us to join the fine array of modern and fun baseball parks that are now commonplace in Major League Baseball.

Discuss. The emphasis is in the original release.

Added 10:29 AM – Susan Slusser has some musings.

Added 10:51 AM – Nina Thorsen is present at (and reminded me of) Oakland’s press conference regarding Coliseum City.

Updated 10:56 AM – Release updated to correct typo (“were” instead of “we”)

Updated 1:15 PM – Mark Purdy gets quotes from Wolff.

247 thoughts on “A’s release statement on Territorial Rights

  1. “MLB-recorded minutes clearly indicate that the Giants were granted Santa Clara, subject to relocating to the city of Santa Clara. ”
    .
    So then. We go back and finish that business and everything else, as they say, will take care of itself.

    • “MLB-recorded minutes clearly indicate that the Giants were granted Santa Clara, subject to relocating to the city of Santa Clara. ”.So then. We go back and finish that business and everything else, as they say, will take care of itself.

      Yes. Subject to relocating to Santa Clara. I’m assuming this press release had to pass by the A’s legal consultants/department. The operative language there is pretty fascinating.

  2. “At the time, Lew Wolff commented that he was ‘fine with the Giants store and wished there was an A’s store in San Francisco.'”

    Then build one! God, I’m sick of this rich old cracker. Please die in a fire.

  3. This is a reaction to the bang-bang coverage of the Madden article and the Coliseum City study approval, right? The Oak Trib/SJMerc headlines were a bit misleading and I could understand how it could cause some confusion.

  4. They had a typo in there… “The Giants we unable to obtain a vote ”

    We should have been were.

  5. This is all about anchoring negotiating overs compensation. They know they will have to deal and the Giants have edge with the sJ lawsuit but they aren’t going to be taken to the cleaners by Giants tiger. When does Bud get off his butt and get the owners and lawyers in the room?

  6. @Dan, noticed that as well. Looks like Wolff & Co. are scrambling to keep the SJ pipe dream alive.

  7. Don’t know if it’s a pipe dream anymore Shuck. Not if Wolff is right about the territorial rights being granted to the Giants contingent on them moving to Santa Clara. If he’s right, and has proof, which he’s claiming he does, the Giants argument just took a HUGE hit since they obviously didn’t move to Santa Clara and have no intention of doing so. This could be just the out any fence sitting owners who didn’t want to “strip” the Giants of their rights needed. Since the Giants never should have had the rights to begin with.

  8. This statement is not directed to owners in my view. Why would you negotiate with 30 billionaires in public. You don’t. This is obviously about focusing print and radio media on the terms of how this mess happened and a message to Johnson/Baer that they don’t hold every card and that negotiations have to be reasonable. The question is what brings them to the table? I think arbitration as ML stated is best way. But when does Bud get off his butt to get them to do this?

  9. Be interesting to see if the press runs with this like they did Madden’s non-news. Because unlike Madden’s unsubstantiated BS this actually has a huge piece of info in it that completely changes how this situation is set up. Wolff now has a BIG piece of ammo to bring to the table.

  10. The pipe dream is that the A’s will be an Oakland longer than 5 years, even if the TR’s are upheld.

  11. @Briggs, if it passed by the legal department, it sure didn’t pass by a journalist or editor.

  12. If the MLB records do state that the rights were contingent on the Giants moving to Santa Clara, could the Giants have obtained their stadium loans with false information, and this whole delay was to protect them until the loan is paid off?

  13. “The pipe dream is that the A’s will be an Oakland longer than 5 years, even if the TR’s are upheld.”Why? What evidence has suggested the odds for going to another market or contraction are greater than staying?

  14. “God, I’m sick of this rich old cracker. Please die in a fire.”

    Classy.

  15. It’s been said already, but I’ll say it again:
    .
    “MLB-recorded minutes clearly indicate that the Giants were granted Santa Clara, subject to relocating to the city of Santa Clara. ”
    .
    That is completely substantial, and every MLB owner needs to be informed of this. In all reality, the Giants’ T-rights to Santa Clara county are illegitimate. If the issue went to arbitration, it would be ended very quickly, with the Giants T-rights to SCC obliterated. Poof!!
    .
    And this is stuff we all have been familiar with. Wolff has said this in a number of interviews. It’s nice to have it writing, as an official A’s statement.

  16. eb, because as Oakland supporters acknowledge, Bud Selig doesn’t want them there. The only thing this three year back and forth has convinced me of is that regardless of what we think… MLB doesn’t want the A’s in Oakland.
    .
    If they did, they have had plenty of time to say, “It’s viable to stay. Get something done.”
    .
    And, yep, it is just my opinion.

  17. How is Coliseum City not a pipe dream. For the sake of all A’s fans, and as a fan who is legitimately concerned about losing my team out of the Bay Area, I wish it wasn’t.
    Victory Court is unaffordable, so what is the counter-proposal? A complex that costs a whole lot more?
    Unless I am missing something, it’s like I go into McDonalds and can’t afford a Big Mac. So what do I do? I order 20 Big Macs. This whole Oakland posturing is odd.

  18. While the subject to relocating to Santa Clara is new to fan discussions, internal MLB discussion has likely been well aware of this since the beginning. Nothing about this really changes the fact that MLB/Selig need to make a decision, get the owners to vote then make amendments to the MLB Constitution. In other words, the only thing that’s changed are the bystanders’ understanding of the situation.

  19. By the way, is this the actual language about TR in the A’s statement? It seems like something we all have known, but if this is actually in the document, that’s huge. And why has it taken so long for this language to get out?

  20. BTW: Whether the A’s move to SJ or stay in Oakland, the Bay Area should be a shared territory.

  21. Why not this arrangement: The A’s can move to San Jose in 2018, once the mortgage is paid off on ATT Park. Or do the Giants really expect to have the right to ban San Jose from ever having Major League Baseball right through the Second Coming of Christ and the Rapture?

  22. Watch KNBR completely ignore this. Or spin this into “A’s growing desperate as contraction looms!”

  23. A’s can tell the Giants “Look, if you want to go to arby over this, the minutes of that fateful day T-rights was transferred will come to bite you in the butt… So, take this chump change and be happy you’re getting anything at all”

  24. This was a very informative piece on the secret world of MLB negotiations. It looks like the Gnats ownership has some egg on their face.

    But why now?

    Wolff let Selig run rough shod over the A’s for 3 years without a peep, but an op-ed in the NYDN is worth blowing up over and exposing your strategy?

    I like that the A’s have finally shown their balls in public, don’t get me wrong, but was this Wolff finally losing his cool or what?

  25. ru, it’s probably because that one statement by Madden had started a snowball that was running out of control publicly and may have been influencing people behind the scenes (which I suspect was Madden’s or his “source’s” intention). This puts everything back on track and puts all the cards on the table. The A’s have the high card on the table right now.

  26. I wouldn’t say Lew Wolff is getting desperate, I’d say he is done waiting.

  27. This is great from another perspective. All along, Lew Wolff has played the nice guy, patiently allowing the process complete, and generally keeping quite about it. This press release is new action, and indicator that he is now ready to press the issue, and he has ammo to do so.

    • This is great from another perspective. All along, Lew Wolff has played the nice guy, patiently allowing the process complete, and generally keeping quite about it. This press release is new action, and indicator that he is now ready to press the issue, and he has ammo to do so.

      I think it’s important not to sensationalize the press release. It is what it is. It starts by addressing the recent story spawened by Bill Madden that did the rounds. It denies the claims of said story then goes on to provide a refresher of the current state of events. Fans/media personalities can spin/fictionalize this into a scenario where the A’s are getting more aggressive, but there’s nothing really new offered here. the press release is simply denying the Madden story.

  28. And the public back-and-forth surely must get Selig’s attention. He can tolerate complaining by fans on the issue, but as soon as this becomes “he said, she said” challenging that harmony within the Lodge that Selig holds so dearly, maybe it’ll wake him from his slumber and really crank up the heat on that front burner.

  29. I disagree Briggs, the fact that the A’s are publicly responding is an important and new development.

  30. This entire issue looks fishy to me. There is little doubt that Wolff (Like the Giants and MLB) has access to some of the best lawyers money can buy. Which means if the story is true, they either had to be aware that they could move to San Jose despite what the Giants think, and chose not to. Or they are total morons who are unaware what was in the contract, or both are true, and thus Wolfe is Selig’s lap dog. In any case, it is handing victories deserved or not to the, Giants, Angels & Rangers, at the expense of the City of Oakland (Who if the A’s left, could focus in on keeping the Raiders) the A’s & their fan base,

  31. “the Giants opened a specialty store in the middle of the A’s market (Walnut Creek).” The Giants are also advertising on the A’s home station 95.7. Have the A’s ever advertised on KNBR? I can’t remember that ever happening.
    I think this statement was more about assuring possible allies of a SJ move, as this release was given right after last night’s meeting. Maybe some key people/investors heard the Madden report and saw the meeting and were asking questions?
    Either way, doesn’t the situation still boil down to the A’s trying to get the votes from the other owners or they pay an ungodly price to the Giants?

  32. eb, if the rights were subject to the Giants moving, no. The Giants no longer hold the exclusive rights to SCC and all that remains is for MLB to formally revert the rights back to shared territory as it was before the meeting in the early 90’s. No money would need to exchange hands for that to occur. It wouldn’t take a vote of the owners to enforce that as it was stipulated in the agreement 20 years ago.

    • The Giants no longer hold the exclusive rights to SCC and all that remains is for MLB to formally revert the rights back to shared territory as it was before the meeting in the early 90′s. No money would need to exchange hands for that to occur. It wouldn’t take a vote of the owners to enforce that as it was stipulated in the agreement 20 years ago.

      That’s not true. The MLB Constitution is the governing document. It doesn’t indicate any sort of condition underwhich the Giants have SCCo. Of course the MLB Constitution can be amended to suit whatever Selig/the Lodge want, but just because the Haas/Lurie agreement was conditional doesn’t mean MLB has to honor that condition today.

  33. @Dan If the wording is so cut and dry, why has MLB not made a decision already? They’ve undoubtedly seen all of the written documents that are pinnacle to this situation. Selig wouldn’t need to work out an agreement between the A’s and Giants or among MLB owners, like he has been supposedly trying to do.

  34. @eb and @Dan – See what I said above:
    “If the MLB records do state that the rights were contingent on the Giants moving to Santa Clara, could the Giants have obtained their stadium loans with false information, and this whole delay was to protect them until the loan is paid off?”

  35. San Jose is not getting the team…

  36. @Joel – Thanks for that awesome analysis of the situation. I was on the edge of my seat in anticipation of every word. You explained it so well, and I can’t see how you could possibly be wrong.

  37. Joel, enlighten us with your reasons. Bud called?

  38. Briggs is right. Santa Clara County is codified as G’s territory. For that to be undone it requires a vote… However, as ML has pointed out countless times it will be Selig who orchestrates a vote (should there be one) and if he does it will be a slam dunk. It is pretty well established as a pattern over the past 20 years.
    .
    It is very clear (as Henry Schulman pointed out) that Selig is in the process of negotiating a settlement between the teams. San Jose will happen if he wants it to, and if he didn’t want it to happen he certainly wouldn’t be pushing the two sides to come to an arrangement.
    .
    My feeling is that the Madden piece everyone is making a big deal out of is a Giants plant piece. They are going kicking and screaming. I think we are near the end of the MLB portion of this saga… Next up a vote in San Jose.

  39. @Jeffrey – The release might be the beginning of the team’s push to educate the people of San Jose before the vote. I would like to think that if an agreement was made between the two teams, the Giants would stay away from creating any negative press for the A’s. Perhaps they will comply in a sense, but and do it through proxies like Madden instead.

  40. The Madden piece isn’t a Giants plant, it’s a Hal Steinbrenner plant. Look at it from his perspective: If MLB runs over the Giants, what’s to keep them from running over the Yankees when the Rays ask permission to move to Jersey?
    Well, you say, the situation is totally different here and the A’s should be allowed to keep the Bay Area a two-team market. Yes, it is. But that’s not how Steinbrenner sees it. The Mets and Phillies may or may not feel the same way. The only other market where this is relevant is L.A., the Angels will side with the A’s because they could use the extra revenue from away games, the Dodgers might go either way.
    A’s should win by 25-5 minimum.

  41. MLB’s Constitution cannot be amended whenever Bud so chooses, this is not a dictatorship. If Wolff wanted to sue, he certainly had the opportunity (Or at least spoken up before now). It is almost like the A’s have allowed themselves to be screwed over time and time again (Maybe that is why they have not had a new facility of their own since 1914). Examples include: Bowie Kuhn not letting Finley sell players, Mount Davis, giving Santa Clara to the Giants, and not getting out of Oakland. I wish the organization would play “Hard Ball” instead of playing “Money Ball” and announce they are leaving Oakland for San Jose after the Coliseum lease ends.

  42. Briggs and Jeffrey are right. The MLB Constitution is the operative document.
    .
    Assuming the A’s characterization is correct and the original understanding clearly made the T-rights contingent, that would give them a Legal argument. Contracts can sometimes be reformed for reasons such as “mutual mistake” (i.e. all parties overlooked something that was meant to be included).
    .
    However, the A’s would have a massive burden of trying to prove this, especially after all these years. It’s usually pretty much of a long shot argument. And remember, the A’s are prohibited from suing MLB or the Giants.
    .
    So, this fact, if true, is mostly useful from a PR and balancing of the equities standpoint (e.g. convincing other owners and/or arbitrating the dispute, if it comes to that).
    .
    Anyone who thinks this is earthshattering news that has been overlooked by now is mistaken. I can assure you, at this point the A’s lawyers can probably recite relevant sections of the MLB constitution and those meeting minutes by heart.

  43. Joel = Larry Baer….

  44. Thanks for the insight Joel. You should post more often. Very informative

  45. 35 miles further away is in bold.

  46. 95.7 is basically calling the A’s liars pretty much saying if this was true they would have moved there years ago Gotta love the a’s station that kisses giants ass.

    My guess is either commissioner asked a’s to go through this process since MLB screwed up by not putting it back to normal. Or someone finally read the original minutes and just noticed how it was worded.

  47. Jesus Christ. The A’s can’t even buy good press. Their own network calling them out?

  48. Why isn’t anyone talking about the real news of the day? Cespedes is 3-5 with a no-doubt homer to left in his first game of the spring, albeit simulated.

  49. I suck at proofreading.
    .
    And there goes another one! Gammons just tweeted Cespedes hit bomb #2.

  50. “if this was true they would have moved there years ago.”
    .
    Which is not true. MLB Constitution trumps meeting minutes.
    .
    “Or someone finally read the original minutes and just noticed how it was worded.”
    .
    The chance of this is zero. The issue is, MLB Constitution trumps meeting minutes.
    .
    Also, from a strictly legal perpective, if there was a mistake in this regard the A’s may have lost their right to do anything about it by waiting too long, under the doctrine of laches.
    .
    At the end of the day, if Selig and 3/4 of the owners want this to happen, it will. If not, it won’t. It is very unlikely to be resolved in court.

  51. bartleby, while your reading legally may be right, the lodge is not a court of law, and the Giants have no ability to sue in a court of law.

  52. Those recorded “minutes” won’t trump the actual language in the mlb constitution. The 1990 amendment clearly gives the Giants exclusive operating rights as against all other teams in Santa Clara County. mlb const., art. VIII, sec. 8. 3/4 of the current owners would have to vote to change that language. art. V, sec. 2(b). Also, 3/4 would have to vote to allow the A’s to relocate. id.

    Reliance on the 1990 “minutes” sounds pretty desperate to me. I still suspect that Wolff and Fisher just are not offering enough. Haas made a bad business decision in 1990, hoping to cash in as the only north Bay team. Backfire. It happens in business. Wolff and Fisher understand that they must pony up to change things. Seems like it would be time to amend the const. to create a huge northern California shared territory (similar to NY, LA, Chicago). The 3/4 majority vote still would be necessary to permit moves within that territory, I believe.

    Anybody know why Charlie Finley took only Alameda and Contra Costa Counties as territories when he moved the A’s west? (I know why everyone overlooked Santa Clara County. I used to play in those orchards down there when I was a kid.)

  53. I had a thought the other day, and wonder if it wouldn’t light a fire under MLB’s ass. Have a south bay congressperson, say Zoe Lofgren whose district covers downtown SJ, bring up a challenge in congress to the anti-trust exemption (or threaten to do so) unless the territory is opened back up as shared. Whenever this has been done in the past MLB has caved like the Buffalo Bills in the Super Bowl which is why we have the Kansas City Royals and the Texas Rangers (ex-Washington Senators 2.0).

  54. So why do the A’s bring up the minutes now? They’re telling the Yankees, you don’t need to vote against it, there’s no precedent because all we’re doing is fixing a screwup.

  55. Dan: Didn’t someone circulate a rumor at the end of last year that Dianne Feinstein had made such a threat to mlb, but on the Giants behalf?

  56. Just checked my phone for the first time today…WOW! This isn’t officially out of MLB but out of some media outlets (Madden, Maury Brown, etc), nonetheless, still bothersome: this STUPID notion that allowing the A’s San Jose would open up Northern NJ to the Rays and make ALL territories fair game. Again, just plain STUPID and strawman. Aside from the fact that the Bay Area is unique, why would a change in the Bay Area territories HAVE TO set some kind of precedent? IT DOESN’T! All future relocations could simply be looked at on a case by case basis, not contingent on what happens with the A’s. Besides, I don’t see a city of one million in northern NJ offering to build a baseball palace for the Rays. If that ever occurred, then it could be looked at based on its own merits. As for the rest of that STUPID notion, out of all the current MLB teams that have new or renovated ballparks, who’s itching to move to LA, CHI or NYC once MLB grants the A’s San Jose? I rest my case. Go A’s and Go San Jose!

  57. No. Feinstein’s only threat recently was in regard to the Niners name. And she never followed through (undoubtedly someone reminded her a large portion of her support base financially is in Silicon Valley).

  58. I didn’t say Feinstein actually made the threat; it was a rumor that got passed around the blogs. In other words, such threats are always possible. It would take a heavy hitter in DC to get anything really going, however.

  59. So I said this in the “The last Bill Madden post” thread.

    “…Anyways, now for this article that Bill Madden wrote, mark my words, it will be a blessing in disguise! This issue needs a national spotlight to get MLB’s attention on the matter. I’m sure this issues has/is being discussed in great length behind closed doors, but that’s the problem. If the media is not talking about it, MLB can always put the issue on the back burner because it’s not a “priority”. Look at the Dodgers, once the LA media blew up the whole McCourt divorce thing, how quickly did MLB resolve the issue relatively speaking? I know that the Dodgers issue is not as complicated as the A’s but that’s not the point. Regardless of what Madden wrote it got national and MLB’s attention. We need this no matter what the outcome is.”

    This is a good thing. Selig does not want any sort of fighting in the media. Hopefully this will end soon with the A’s approved to move to SJ. I’m ecstatic to finally see the A’s stick up for themselves, looks like our A’s are slowly getting thier mojo back. SanJoMojo maybe? lol

    @Dan…Hey easy there on the Bills man lol :)

  60. I voted against a publicly funded ballpark for NJ in the 80s, a vote that failed spectacularly. There is no public funding and no site for a NJ ballpark, unless somebody wants to stick one in the vast confines of the Meadowlands parking lot. New Jerseyans have been loyal to the Yankee$ for a century and, for National League fans, the Mets for 50 years. Ask the failing Devils and the soon-to-be-former NJ Nets how successful they’ve been in prying away fans from the New York teams that were there 60 years before they were. The Devils won 3 championships and have a brand new rink and attendance is still abysmal…The Yankees once threatened to move to NJ themselves. Didn’t happen.

    • @all – I’m told that there’s much more to the minutes. Wolff only chose to reveal that part because it’s clear the Giants leaked and are playing the FUD game. Is this the start of a trend of being louder?

    • The Devils won 3 championships and have a brand new rink and attendance is still abysmal…

      While their attendance is not great, it’s far from abysmal. They still get 86.6% of capacity. I’m sure the Rays would be happy to improve from 55.4% to 86+%. Even if you go by raw numbers, the Devils average 15,259 for a 3rd tier sport with a more successful competition nearby (Rangers), compared to the Rays 18,878 for a 1st tier sport with no nearby competition. That’s not too shabby.

      Now I’m not saying that moving a team to a state where the largest city has a population of 100,000 less than Oakland is a good idea… just that the Devils aren’t doing that bad comparison-wise.

  61. God I hope so. I’m tired of the passive approach. It doesn’t work with the Giants and we’d be sitting right here in 10 years with nothing to show for it if the A’s sit idle and wait for Bud.

  62. Wow, actually that makes a lot of sense. I’m sure 20 years ago Haas’ lawyers told him to give up the A’s shared rights to SCC only if the Giants actually move there. So who is the idiot that started writing in the constitution that the Giants own the rights to SCC? Or is that BS too?

  63. I couldn’t stand listening to Lund and Urban. They sounded like a pair of un-informed teenagers.

  64. @Dan “bartleby, while your reading legally may be right, the lodge is not a court of law, and the Giants have no ability to sue in a court of law.”
    .
    I’m not sure what your point is, this seems to be exactly what I’m saying. Others on this thread were suggesting that the A’s already have the right to move or that this was game changing new information. I’m saying it may be valuable for purposes of persuasion, but that I’m sure all the affected parties are well aware of it, that it has limited legal utility, and that ultimately the matter will be decided by MLB.

  65. What the heck does a Giants store in Oakland have to do with the price of tea in China? I am sure Wolff would be allowed to open an A’s store in SF or San Jose if he wanted to do so.

    RC, check out article vii, section 8.

    http://www.bizofbaseball.com/docs/MLConsititutionJune2005Update.pdf

    It clearly states territorial rights for each team. The minutes don’t really matter. It is in the MLB Constitution and it has been since before each ownership group owned their team.

  66. @all: Who would you say the intended audience of this press release is?

    A frame is worth a thousand words.

  67. @ Ted – thanks Ted. It’s weird how the constitution shows emphasis on SCC being Giants territory. Still, the minutes are important because it shows that the A’s never formally gave up those territorial rights.

  68. You buy a team you buy everything that has happened with it. So the minutes do matter. While it was not turned back to normal. It doesn’t mean there is no value to it.
    ..
    Can the warriors avoid some of the sexual harassment stuff that happened during Cohan’s ownership because it happened during the previous ownership. No, then there would be a lot of transfers just to avoid problems.
    ..
    I know it’s not the same situation, but just saying you can’t say previous stuff that happened during an ownership doesn’t matter. There won’t be suing anyway by either side to not anger anyone over anti trust. It’s also not new information to the team obviously, but it is definitely breaking news to public opinion….

    95.7 is just horrible on the whole situation it’s like it’s 680 defending the giants or something. Also the comments about Cespedes with two bombs in a simulated game can’t be because I heard on 95.7 he is no where near baseball shape and can’t swing a bat.

  69. The A’s had no choice but to give up any claim to the SCC TRs when the constitution was amended. (Apparently, to that point no one had rights in SCC, but operating rights in the other counties had been assigned. Arguably, the A’s didn’t really give up anything; they simply acquiesced.) And remember, with or without revisions to TRs, 3/4 of the teams have to approve any “relocation.”

  70. Someone here has a direct line to LW. Of this I have no doubt.

  71. You guys are missing the point. The point of Wolff’s comment (and the Giants’ leaks) has been to create a perception of value of T-rights. As usual, the Giants say it’s priceless, plus they want to equate their situation with the East Coast big markets. They have some backers. The A’s say that the situations aren’t comparable, and that the change can be made in a way that doesn’t adversely affect the big markets. While neither is outright naming a price, both are clearly hinting at the value.

  72. @columbo, obviously Mr shuck-o. The unstoppable love is nauseating.

  73. @Columbo – I do, but I’ve never called him on anything. And we haven’t spoken since last year.

  74. @ Ted:

    Page 15 of the MLB Constitution: “…provided, however, that with respect to all Major League Clubs, Santa Clara County in California shall also be included.”

    I find the wording there to be rather key, especially the part about “respect.” We’ll see where all of this leads to soon enough, I’m sure. There’s a been a huge uproar this week regarding the subject and I doubt it’ll just disappear.

  75. @ ML – I respect you, believe me. You’ve done exceptional work on this blog for many years so don’t take that as an insult or a sleight. If anything I’m pissed that nobody from the Oakland side has a direct line to an insider over there and can do the same thing. You are a person with integrity and you know how to develop business and make others look good. That is a compliment, by the way. I can tell.

  76. As far as 95.7 is concerned, wait until Townsend is on this evening. I’m sure he’ll be on the A’s side of things.

  77. @ ML – No problem. I just might “warm up” to the idea of SJ Athletics….maybe. Bottom-line…. I love the A’s…..period.

  78. RC, I too am interested in the minutes as well as minuted from any subsequent MLB meetings that discussed Santa Clara County territorial rights including the minutes from the meeting that ratified the constitution in 1990. I have a hard time believing a mistake was made and overlooked by the A’s and others.

    Xootsuit, that is an interesting point. I have been wondering if the A’s ever had rights to Santa Clara County.

    ML, I don’t get the feeling that the Giants want to settle at any price.

    • @Ted – No, they don’t want to settle. As I’ve written before, prior to Bob Lurie’s interest in Santa Clara County, the county was not assigned to either team, though SCCo’s proximity to either team required one team to ask the other’s permission. That’s what Lurie asked of Haas, which was the first step on the road to now.

  79. @ Ted
    Nothing was missed, just not disclosed publicly. Today you got a cookie. There may be a bakery to follow.

  80. Remember also what Peter Magowan said late last year about the assurances re SCC mlb (including Selig) gave to the consortium that bought the Giants in 92. The “minutes” are a sort of response to those early 90s promises. (And neither trumps the actual language of the const.) Anyway, this PR fest has been going on for a while, with both sides spinning their arguments out. I agree that everyone involved must be bargaining ferociously in private. I don’t think it’s possible, however, to determine what’s going on privately from these publicity bursts. I wonder if temporal terms are on the table. Maybe the Giants want both money and fairly long delay before the new stadium opens in SJ.

  81. @xoot

    I love the PMc comment that he had his crayons and construction paper in tow when LW told him that SC was not on his radar – at the Fairmont.

    Bingo on the $$$ and delay – napkin deal.

  82. Marine Layer,
    It is odd that Santa Cruz, San Mateo, Marin, Alameda and Contra Costa were all assigned to one club or the other but not Santa Clara, at least until it was written into the MLC.

  83. I decided long ago that of all the shows on 95.7, the wheelhouse is the one I least have time for.

  84. Ted: I’ve been trying to sort out the SCC history. I think this is how it happened: The Giants must have had received operating rights to the coastal counties when they moved west in 58. For some reason, Finley only got Alameda and Contra Costa County operating rights when he followed. Why? Who knows.

    Corrections welcome.

  85. Some of you act as if T-Rights can’t be changed/altered JUST BECAUSE they’re currently etched in the MLB Constitution. Well, for starters, prior to the Giants moving from NY to SF in the 1950’s the Bay Area was considered Red Sox territory (due to the SF Seals being a minor league affiliate of the Bosox). In the late 80’s, the Giants current territory was EXPANDED (i.e. changed) so that they could build a ballpark in Santa Clara (later SJ). Finally, the Orioles broadcast territory was compromised ( i.e. changed) to allow the Expos to move from Montreal to Washington DC. So yes, THEY ARE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION…and?

  86. As I understand it, there was no such things as MLB territorial rights until the late 80’s. Prior to that the two leagues (AL/NL) set the operating territories for the teams within in their league and they could overlap.

  87. I guess this is lew wolff’s smoking gun

  88. i want the santa clara county t-rights outright. i dont want to share with the giants. then they’d for sure set up billboards right outside cisco field. i get sharing SJ territory when both teams play equidistance from it but when one team actually plays in san jose then its totally lame for it to have to share “territory” with a team that plays in another city

  89. Why settle for NJ? Rays should move into a ballpark in midtown Manhattan!

  90. This current A’s organization is pathetic.

  91. The mlb constitution can be amended is 3/4 of the teams vote to do so. Also, a team can relocate from its current ballpark if 3/4 of the teams vote to allow it relocate. That supermajority is the problem for the A’s.

  92. This battle of the press releases is ridiculous. Unless it resolves fairly quickly in favor of the A’s moving to SJ, isn’t this crap going to be a distraction for the A’s players as the season starts? The Giants players probably aren’t even paying attention to ti.

  93. What kind of geography is that? SCC is 43% of their territory? What a crock of …

  94. re: While their attendance is not great, it’s far from abysmal.
    …Devils rank 24th in attendance, despite championships in ’95, ’00 and ’03. Sharks, who haven’t come close to a championship (and its certainly looking like they won’t this year, either) rank 18th, but are at 100% of capacity.

    • Devils rank 24th in attendance, despite championships in ’95, ’00 and ’03. Sharks, who haven’t come close to a championship (and its certainly looking like they won’t this year, either) rank 18th, but are at 100% of capacity.

      The Sharks have had plenty of success recently. They’ve won the Pacific Conference 4 years in a row, won the President’s Trophy in 2009, and played for the Western Conference Championship just last season. Sure they haven’t won a cup, but they’ve still had one of the best teams over the last 5 years (and I’m saying all this as a LA Kings fan…).

      But the Devils haven’t been as good the last few years, they didn’t even make the playoffs last year. And they have to compete with the Rangers (who are playing great this year), Flyers (who won the Atlantic conference last year and played in the finals 2 years ago), and possibly even the Islanders for fans. The Sharks don’t have to compete with anyone. Were the Seals still in Oakland, things would probably be different for the Sharks. Also, look at the Avalanche’s attendance (where the Devils moved from), it’s only marginally better. That’s why I’m saying comparison-wise it’s not that bad.

  95. …It’s obvious the Giants-A’s feud has gone all-out public and Selig doesn’t have it under control anymore. Maybe a few people will realize the idiocy of giving the Giants veto rights over whether San Jose can have Major League Baseball…Time for Congress to get involved and get rid of the anti trust nonsense

  96. I find it hilarious that some of the Oakland-only folk left on this board are openly defending the Giants position and their stupid rights. Is that all you got left?! Anyhow, good to see the Giants are remaining pure assholes in the press. @#$%& them! And who ever said the A’s didn’t have 3/4 votes? I want facts, not some bullshit quote from Bill Madden. Overall, remove the aforementioned and its looking very good for San Jose!

  97. Population of SF, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Marin, Monterey, San Mateo: 4,235,000

    Population of Alameda and Contra Costa: 2,559,000

    Pretty fair…

  98. OK, Oakland-only folks. We know Oakland can’t/won’t help pay for a ballpark. Please name for me which banks are going to issue $500 million in debt for a ballpark in a depressed area with a poor record of corporate and fan support. It’s hard for people with solid credit to get a $300,000 mortgage these days and you expect banks to just fork over $500 mill for a venture as risky as a privately funded ballpark in Oakland? Name the banks, please…

  99. ^ Take away SC, and the Giants territory has just over 2.5 mill, exactly what the A’s have. Makes sense that it wasn’t assigned exclusively to anyone in the first place.

  100. Actually, both the tone of the A’s press release and the fact they felt a need to issue it strongly suggest they do not expect a favorable decision from MLB on t-rights any time soon. This reeks of desperation.

  101. By the way, it doesn’t matter if MLB “reaffirmed” those rights four times or if Wolff/Fisher bought the A’s knowing about the rights. Fact of the matter is is that MLB included San Jose when it began studying the A’s options in the Bay Area over three year’s ago. Oakland and then Fremont didn’t get it done for the A’s. San Jose is now the only option for the A’s to remain in the Bay Area. Larry Baer himself stated they would cooperate with the committee and its recommendation. The A’s will find the way to San Jose.

  102. Simon,
    Your dead wrong in your assessment, and that’s not an opinion. They’re merely responding to the bullshit from the weekend and Bill Madden. Setting the record straight sounds like desperation? Yeah, whatever you say (sarcasm).

  103. It does not set any record straight.

    MLB has not made a decision NOT to allow the A’s to move? Who said it had? Not Madden. The point is MLB does not need to make a decision. And that favors the Giants. It is the A’s who need to force a decision on the issue, and they are obviously nowhere near that point.
    .
    Minutes from 1990? That is laughable. There were two separate major leagues back then. Later the leagues merged and adopted the MLB Constitution, which spell out each Club’s t-rights. All 30 teams reviewed, approved, and signed the MLB Constitution. There are no strings attached to the Giants’ exclusive rights to Santa Clara County (except they can’t block another team’s minor league affiliate from playing there).
    .
    These guys aren’t fooling anyone. If Wolff had some special understanding with Selig, or some other reason to think a favorable decision was about to be issued, do you think for a second he would issue a press release like this?

  104. I’m having trouble understanding folks who believe the Frisco Giants should have veto power over the people of San Jose. Which country was this again?…

  105. Jeffrey,
    I cannot find the article and section in the MLB Constitution that grants broadcast territorial rights to the Orioles or any other team.

  106. It’s a minor point but if the seals were still in Oakland, the Sharks would have never been. Because it is a non traditional hockey market, they NHL has declared the B.A. as a one team market. The issue came up with the proposed arena in SF- the one where the Warriors might move to in the future.

  107. Ezra: I want the Devils to succeed. But who can forget them winning the Cup in ’95 and then almost moving to Nashville? And now, they are facing bankruptcy because of their arena debt, no? The Devils’ financial problems in Newark provide a lesson for the A’s not to follow in Oakland – building on their own dime in a questionable market….FWIW, take away the Devils’ automatic sellouts when the Rangers come to town (like last night) and Devils attendance would be even worse than it is…

  108. pjk,
    What did the “people of San Jose” do that got vetoed by the Giants? I certainly didn’t vote to give the A’s a spot in my city.

  109. Ted, the Constitution provides that broadcast territories may be assigned from time to time by the Executive Committee. For whatever reason, broadcast areas are far less protected than territorial rights. And yet Angelos still got compensation, though his t-rights were not affected by the move of the Nats to DC.

  110. I could easily see that Selig told the A’s to release this statement. If he has any plans of giving the A’s permission to move to San Jose. It helps for public opinion and other owners if it appears as righting a wrong instead of stealing someone’s territory. The reason to have the A’s come out with it and not him is so it looks like he hasn’t sided with one team or another before the vote has taken place. Keeps his hands cleaner to the public and makes things look like their just doing the right thing when giving the A’s the green light to San Jose.

  111. Simon,
    No revisionist history allowed my friend! Why are the minutes “laughable”? The T-Rights exist for only one reason and no amount of reaffirming or leagues being separate/combined changes that. Look, I know you’re rooting hard for those rights to be upheld (which I personally find shameful), but I guess that’s your right to feel that way.
    As for the A’s statement today, It’s really quite simple. Bill Madden put out some bullshit over the weekend, the spineless Bay Area media ran with it (minus Purdy and a few others), and Wolff found it necessary to set the record straight. That’s the truth and you can’t argue otherwise (unless of course one’s head is in the sand). Despite the going back and forth and the past few days, we are right where we were on Friday: no decision and (yes) the Giants still have exclusive rights to SCCo/SJ…for now. Stay tuned!

  112. I do agree it was a mistake building the new arena in Newark (although I don’t think them moving to Nashville would have been any better, the Preds have struggled for a long time to get up to the attendance numbers they get now and at the time there weren’t really any other better options to move to). And no team should follow their lead in that regard. I think it would’ve been smarter for them to have waited and joined the Nets in building the arena in Brooklyn.

  113. The only reason the territory like that is in the constitution is because the giants needed it there for the vote. Santa Clara required it for the vote. To say the minutes matter don’t makes sense since that was the basis for why it was in the constitution. It’s like some are saying the construction was created and giants were given sc since they already had it from the vote. No the constitution was amended because of the vote, so the minutes absolutely matter especially in the eyes of other owners who will be the ones voting on changing it back.

  114. It’s like a pissing match between jk-usa and pjk, except we don’t have to hear about Oakland’s culinary renaissance. This is SO exciting!

  115. Tony, why is it shameful to hope that the Giants legal rights to Santa Clara are protected? The Giants built a successful franchise with those rights as part of their business plan. Why should they suffer to help the A’s who have done nothing for themselves up to this point and who want to abandon their city.
    What did Madden get wrong?
    What does Wolff’s point about him allegedly generously allowing the Giants to build a Giants store in the East Bay have to do with setting the record straight?

    Mike, I am not so sure that was the reason for the rights being placed in the Constitution but if they were temporary why did they remain in the Constitution for 22 years through multiple revisions?

  116. There was a 5-10 year period where Giants still hoped SC was in play even after the failed vote. Then when they finally got their new stadium, no one was thinking about the south bay, so it wasn’t brought up.
    Then when the A’s went through both ownership changes during that period no one was focused on getting it changed you just had owners that wanted out.

  117. Yeah this is more about convincing the NYC teams (and whoever) that this isn’t the same situation as the Rays moving to to suburban New Jersey. There is at least the history of SCC being neutral and that perhaps the Giants never should have gotten SCC rights in the first place when they didn’t move there. Any sort of wiggle room helps the A’s. And any moron with a map can see that the Bay Area is unfairly divided between the two teams, if the Bay Area should be divided at all. So considering the rather poor options for the A’s, if the owners can see that this is a unique, desperate situation, the A’s will get approval. The other owners are gonna get sick of the revenue sharing year after year. Frankly, I’d be surprised that they didn’t have the votes already. I can’t think of too many teams who would be against a reinvigorated, profitable A’s club (other than the Giants, of course). And despite all of the Giants doom and gloom, the BRC has all of the facts straight- the small percentage of fans with season tickets living in SCC (I heard <10%), actual number of corporate sponsors from SCC, etc.. After a while, it's just gonna look like the Giants are cock blocking.

  118. There shouldn’t be any “legal” rights because MLB’s anti-trust exemption is a sham. Granted under the premise that MLB is not really a business. Anybody think MLB is not really a business? Alex Rodriguez makes $27 mill a year but MLB is not really a business? Congress should grow a pair and get rid of this nonsensical anti-trust exemption. The Giants obviously are terrified of competition and hide behind the t-rights nonsense, which is enabled by the sham anti-trust exemption. I’ve already contacted my Congress person and asked why nothing is being done about this. The rest of you should do the same…

  119. @Ted…

    “What does Wolff’s point about him allegedly generously allowing the Giants to build a Giants store in the East Bay have to do with setting the record straight?”…well that’s easy, Woflf is pointing out the that the Bay Area should have shared TR rights and the fact that the Giants are harping about them but yet don’t follow them is more to Wolff’s point.

    “…why did they remain in the Constitution for 22 years through multiple revisions?” on paper we have territorial rights, in reality its a shared market. So basically it’s been out of sight out of mind.

  120. BTW, it is shameful only because if the Giants get their way, the A’s may very well leave the state. As a pro Oaklander, is that really worth the risk?

  121. There is nothing in the Major League Baseball constitution that declares any operating territory to be exclusive to any assignee. The language simply says:

    “Sec. 8. Operating Territories. The Major League Clubs shall have assigned
    operating territories within which they have the right and obligation to play baseball
    games as the home Club.

    (a) National League. The National League Clubs shall have the following operating territories:
    …San Francisco Giants: City of San Francisco; and San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey and Marin Counties in California; provided, however, that with respect to all Major League Clubs, Santa Clara County in California shall also be included;”

    That part about “provided, however, that with respect to all Major League Clubs, Santa Clara County shall also be included” is about as clear as mud. I think the A’s argument is that this vague sentence doesn’t parse without the meeting minutes for clarification, so the minutes themselves have to be read as part of the Constitution. If that’s the case, every time the constitution was “reaffirmed” the minutes were also reaffirmed.

    If the Gnats represented to their mortgage bankers that this document gives them exclusive rights to Santa Clara County, in perpetuity or otherwise, they committed fraud.

  122. Billionaire on billionaire violence. So, so sad…
    Next, they’ll be exchanging school yard insults like ” Oh yeah! Well, my bank account is bigger than yours…”
    If this whole situation weren’t so pathetic, this would really be funny or at least funnier than what it is now.

  123. Mike, the Giants announced plans for Pac Bell Park at it’s current location in 1995, the vote took place in 1996. In fact Magowan stated in 1993 that he wanted to build a great stadium in SF. I also don’t agree with the notion that the Giants “got their stadium”. The Giants built their stadium on their own with MLB’s help.

    RC, do you think some owners might not want to diminish a strong and well run franchise like Giants to help the A’s? There is no guarantee that a new stadium will get the A’s off of the receiving side of revenue sharing.

    PJK, letting teams move where they want whenever they want would not be good for MLB.

    Mossback, if the Giants don’t have exclusive rights to San Jose why haven’t the A’s moved down here? Why have a panel to decide on the matter? Meeting minutes don’t mean much compared to what is in the constitution. No one voted to ratify meeting minutes.

    RC, The A’s could make an effort to stay in Oakland if Wolff wasn’t dead set on San Jose.

    Stomper, I don’t think territorial rights extend to merchandise sales. Territorial rights to SCC have been part of the Giants business plan since current ownership bought the team.

  124. Ted: Which banks are going to provide $500 million in financing for a ballpark in Oakland – a depressed area with weak corporate and fan support? Which ones would even consider the risk?

  125. Lew Wolff should absolutely do everything in his power to get these rights overturned, making this a shared territory. Without SCC, the numbers population wise in the territory breakdown comes out to roughly 2.5 mil, very fair. But the Giants get a whole 1.8 million people because they are gifted the biggest one by the A’s to build a stadium that never happened. That is not right, fair or just in any way. They are getting the 43 percent from SCC because right now, the Giants are one of the premiere baseball franchises in all of baseball. The casual fan doesn’t really have a choice, sad to say. And by the way, wasn’t some of the great progress in this country because people dared to challenge the status quo? “He knew about these rights when he bought them.” Absurd on every level.
    My point? Damn, do I hate the Giants!!!

  126. PJK,
    Banks that realize Wolff and Fisher are worth billions of dollars.

  127. davey, Why is it absurd to say that Wolff and Magawan (and their investors) knew about territorial rights when they bought their franchises? The territorial rights are laid out in black and white.
    It seems like you are promoting the idea of helping the A’s by hurting the Giants. Why is that a good idea?

  128. Ted: So you mean Wolff and Fischer have to put up their personal fortunes as collateral because a $500 million ballpark in a depressed area will be a giant risk? I get the impression Wolff/Fischer are not willing to do this. Who’d of thought it? Nobody else has expressed any willngness to do it, either.

  129. @Ted The A’s have been trying to get a better ballpark for 16 years. It’s not like they wanted to be stranded in an ugly multipurpose stadium. The A’s have never drawn that well there even when they were winning 100 games a season. The need a new home. The Giants weren’t doing so hot either when they played in candlestick. They were halfway to Florida at one point. Don’t the A’s deserve a chance to be a “strong and well run” franchise too? Besides, if the Giants were such a strong and well run team, they would be able to withstand real competition. 7 million people is plenty for a two team market. But one team has TR over the only two major cities here and 4.5 million, and the other team has the leftovers. So how about some real competition? San Jose is an hour drive away- and that’s without traffic- it’s dumb to think that suddenly AT&T would be half empty just because San Jose built a ballpark. No, what really scares the Giants is that the A’s actually make this a two team market again. It’s greed, pure and simple.

    As far as the other owners- revenue sharing and especially retraction is very expensive. And there are no other good baseball markets. And definitely no markets with plans for a baseball stadium.

  130. Ted – you mentioned “legal” rights. Any “legal” rights are spelled out in the MLB charter and not in the courts. For instance, if you want to compare with other sports, the Raiders successfully defended their move to LA from the NFL. The only saving grace is the AE itself. As for your other comments, it reeks of Gnats bias, so i won’t even attempt to dissuade you on something that you still have no concept of (please do some reasearch on Baltimore and DC before spewing further KNBR blather). Let’s just put it this way, when and not if MLB makes the decision to allow the A’s to proceed to go south, a public vote will most likely be on the ballot for everyone to decide.

  131. “SF Giants respond to Athletics territorial rights statement by saying Fisher, Wolff agreed to territories when buying team.”…without a doubt a truly weak rebuttal to the A’s press release. That’s like Bernie Madoff saying “but your honor, my clients gave me their money and they knew the risks of investing.”

  132. RC- Why shouldn’t the Giants be greedy? They built their own fortune by building a ballpark in the town that is printed on their uniforms and they did it on their own.
    Over the past 16 years I have never heard any A’s owner say that they would build a stadium in the East Bay with their own money.

    If the A’s move to San Jose will it weaken the Giants? If it does it isn’t fair the Giants or good for baseball. A new stadium doesn’t guarantee the A’s will be revenue sharing givers but it will likely guarantee that the Giants over the next 25 years will give less than they do now.

    Maybe this isn’t a realistic two team market. This market has never done a great job supporting two teams like LA or NY.

  133. BTW – Did you note that in the Gnats propoganda er release, they never specifically mentioned that the Bob Lurie sold the team to new owners ont he basis of SC being part of their territory? Rather, the statement was that MLB reaffirms their territory instead. Interesting how this was cited previously but is no longer part of the discussion. My take on all of this back and forth is that there must of been some mediation meeting recently that took place and the Gnats again didn’t budge, thus leaking the “denial” to madden. Accordingly the A’s responded in kind today…so again, it rests all on the shoulders of the Bud and really not the rest of the owners…..

  134. @Ted
    It wouldn’t hurt the Giants, unless they are so lame and stupid and pathetic that they can’t compete for fan interest with a healthy and thriving A’s franchise, that they rely on keeping the A’s crippled. It is pathetic, because the Giants are so set – one of the best ballparks in all of baseball that they always sell out at hugely inflated prices, in one of the most beautiful cities in the world, in the middle of country’s richest corporate markets, bringing in the the 5th highest revenue in all of baseball. The simple fact is, the Giants will remain fabulously successful whether the A’s are in SJ or not. They have to be the dumbasses of the century to not remain on easy street, again no matter what happens with the A’s. But the Giants are making themselves the evil empire in the eyes of most bay sports fans (nobody in their right mind wants the A’s to remain this badly scewed), so maybe the Giants will be shooting themselves in their foot.

  135. Ted – the Nats moved from the worst venue in the majors to a shouting distance of the Orioles and now both teams are thriving and worth more in valuations. However, that is the extreme case where one team was not in the same country, let alone the same area. The A’s are actually moving away from the vicinity of SF. The move would basically entail the Gnats to take a portion of the East Bay (which is huger populace combined then SJ). But that’s a moot point. Again the reality is that the A’s and Gnats have been in the same area and thus territories for the beter part of 4 decades and only recently did it get carved up on the basis the Gnats were moving south (which coincidentally the “43% of their fanbase” denied).

  136. Anon, what do Baltimore and DC have to do with this situation? The Orioles have never had territorial rights to DC, their territorial rights consist of suburbs around Baltimore and do not extend over state lines. If the by some chance the owners eventually vote on this and 75% of them agree to rip away the Giants rights to SCC and the Giants don’t sue to stop them I will be there to cast my vote against public subsidies and traffic nightmares.

    Stomper, Didn;t Fisher and Wolff know the territorial rights situation when they bought the team and allegedly told Magowan they had no interest in San Jose?

  137. Ted: Yeah they built a stadium in SF after the people of Santa Clara said “thanks but no thanks”. Don’t give me that Oakland only crap. ——- “Over the past 16 years I have never heard any A’s owner say that they would build a stadium in the East Bay with their own money.”—– Well now I know you are just f*cking with me. Seriously? Have you ever been on this website before? Please do some research.

  138. By the way, it seems our SJ Councilman are starting to entertain the thought of a AE nuclear winter! Go Sam! From the Merc:

    Meanwhile, officials in San Jose said Wednesday they remain planted firmly in wait-and-see mode. However, city councilman Sam Liccardo, who represents the downtown area, for the first time raised the possibility of governmentally addressing MLB’s unique antitrust exemption, which permits the league to control franchise movement in ways other pro leagues cannot legally do.
    Liccardo said that if the antitrust exemption comes to be viewed as an impediment to free-market competition and economic progress, perhaps it should be challenged.

  139. Anon- What did Madden write that would have been leaked? I don’t know if there were any meetings but if there were I can’t imagine why the Giants would even show up. There is nothing to negotiate. Bud can’t give the Giants territorial rights to the A’s without a 3/4 approval by the owners.

    Jeff, there are only so many fans and corporate dollars in this market to go around. The Giants are “so set” because they did something for themselves while the A’s took handouts and waited for someone to give them something to improve their fortunes.

    Setting aside your feelings as a fan, what possible good can come to the Giants by giving the A’s SCC?

  140. Ted – Do you know your geography and how close DC and Baltimore are to each other? Did you know that Baltimore was given specific concessions for encroaching upon their territory by MLB? Do you know anything besides what you listen on KNBR? O.o So you really think it’s a bad idea for private a private investment of ~$500+ million dollars in SJ by Wolf that would spur on more city revenue to support additional police and fire personel, just because of you don’t like traffic and the fact the city needs to spend money anyway on an area designated as the new transit corridor to SJ? Really?

  141. Ted,
    You’re fairly new to this blog, so I’ll go easy on yah.
    FACT: A Silicon Valley Leadership Group poll of a few years back proved that the Giants corporate support coming out of Silicon Valley is WAY OVERBLOWN! Try only 15% of companies surveyed. FACT: the Giants have yet to provide any solid data on how many of their “hard-core” fans and sponsors in Silicon Valley would abandon them if the A’s were in San Jose. In FACT, those companies that do sponsor the Giants are on record as saying they would stick with the Giants EVEN WITH the A’s in San Jose. Now, knowing these facts, please explain your theory on how the Giants built a succesfull franchise with the T-Rights being a part of their business plan (this ought to be good!). For the record, the territory boundaries of the Bay Area don’t prohibit corporations, fans from crossing over, so even WHEN Santa Clara County becomes shared Giants fans and sponsors down here CAN CONTINUE to support them unimpeded.
    The A’s abandoned Oakland? It’s actually the other way around, but I won’t go there as Oakland is now irrelevant to this discussion.
    What did Madden get wrong? Selig, Wolff and MLB refuted his story big time and yet you’re still asking what he got wrong? REALLY!? WOW! (explains what I’m dealing with here).
    Schools out Ted!

  142. Ted – You’re drinking the KNBR kool aid again. Whatever Selig decides, the rest of the lodge will go along with. Unfortunately, he likes to build a unanimous consensus as evident by the Nats move, the Dodgers sale, the Houston ownership change and realignment, etc. Anyhow, that was my speculation that Selig / the BRC / or someone from the executive committee went to meet the Gnats to negotiate a settlement (see Purdy column), but they refused and purposely leaked it to Madden to try to dissuade public opinion on the matter. Now what would the Gnats gain by the A’s moving south? How about the entire East Bay that is just a stones throw away from them. That’s a populace of 4+ million and ideal given their present location.

  143. @Ted – It’s simple. The Giants pay $30 million in revenue sharing into the pool every year. The A’s receive $30 million. That makes the Bay Area the only two-team market in which one team pays into the system and the other receives. That is entirely because of the ballpark situation. If the A’s get San Jose, you know what happens? BOTH teams pay into revenue sharing, because they’ll be net-positive in terms of revenue. There are ways to protect the Giants while they continue to have the AT&T Park mortgage, and when that’s done they’ll have no mortgage and an extra $17 million per year to play with. You are advocating for the worst kind of protectionism imaginable. Do you realize that the Giants didn’t get the All Star Game immediately after the park was built because they chose to finance the park themselves? They were not a shining light, they were nearly a pariah. They made it work, and for that they deserve credit. But by no means do they deserve any special treatment that gives them an unnatural competitive advantage over any other team, whether it’s the A’s, Dodgers, or Pirates.

  144. In regards to the latest Giants bullshit statement, I’ll say this: It doesn’t matter that your history on the territorial rights is revisionist in nature. It doesn’t matter how many times MLB reaffirmed your “rights.” It doesn’t matter that SCCo represent 43% of “your” territory (whatever hell that’s supposed to mean). What really matters IS THE NOW AND THE FUTURE! What will make the A’s a succesfull franchise and be in the overall best interest of baseball. The answer to that is obvious: make SCCo a shared territory and allow the A’s to relocate to San Jose. Again, the best interest of ALL OF BASEBALL, not just the Giants. Enough from me on this thread. Until the next one…

  145. Sorry, just reading up on the first 50 comments or so on this thread..whew, what a day to go home late from work. But I think ML just nailed it…..it’s a specific leak by the Gnats to a big market newspaper team (New York) designed as FUD to dissuade public opinion. It all makes sense now why some schmuck in NY is even concerned about Bay Area sports….

  146. C’mon, no one listens to that much KNBR. This can’t be real

  147. Interesting that Sam is considering the nuclear option. It’s a definite way to get this done with a favorable resolution that’s for sure. Nothing makes MLB tuck tail quicker and fall in line than to threaten that which they hold most precious, the ATE.

  148. Been following this blog for years, and never realized the population disparity between the counties, especially consider that NO other two team shared marked splits them in this way. In what way could it anyone consider it even vaguely equitable, that one team exclusively gets a population base nearly 70% greater than the other?

    http://www.counties.org/default.asp?id=399

    Even an extremely biased Giants fan should be able to grasp this.

  149. Reading more on the topic now….one thing that SuSlu noted that was very interesting: the A’s press release was signed as “The A’s Owners”. Could it be that this Gnats leak angered not only LW but also Fischer into sending out this broadcast? I’m glad that the A’s are now taking on a much more tactful approach instead of their past passive ways…

  150. Mark Purdy’s Mercury News article was updated two minutes ago (10:30 PM). It includes some interesting quotes from San Jose Councilman Sam Liccardo regarding the city challenging anti-trust exemption. If things don’t work their way, the city will consider challenging it. I hope it doesn’t come to that but I’m glad that MLB’s anti-trust exemption has actually been brought up by a San Jose official.

    http://www.contracostatimes.com/top-stories/ci_20122327/purdy-owner-lew-wolff-turns-up-heat-giants

  151. Anon- If that piece of the East Bay is so valuable why are the A’s abandoning it? The Giants have had SCC territorial rights for half the time the A’s have been in existence, 22 years ago is not that recent.
    Baltimore never had territorial rights to DC, their situation is nothing at all like the situation here where the Giants have clearly defined territorial rights. If the Giants had wanted to build a stadium in Berkeley 15 years ago they would have been denied because Alameda is A’s territory.
    For the record I haven’t listened to KNBR for even a minute since the Madden story came out.

    Tony, the people who took that poll had an agenda, they want the A’s to move to San Jose so I don’t their poll to be unbiased. They chose who to poll and who not to. It really doesn’t matter what the Silicon Valley Leadership/Bring the A’s to San Jose folks say or want and it really doesn’t matter if the impact on the Giants is minimal. The Giants own the rights to SCC and they don’t deserve to lose a single fan or corporate dollar to the A’s. Also, hurting a strong franchise to give charity to a poor one is not necessarily good for baseball, for all we know the A’s will be like the Pirates or Orioles in their beautiful stadiums.

  152. Chris – i brought this up above as well, but thanks for posting the link! :) The last time a team/owner/city entertained the though of challenging the ATE was coincidentally back in 92′ when the same Gnats, who were denied a stadium in SJ/SC, entertained the thought of moving to St. Petersburg. To assuage the real and eminent threat to their precious ATE, they granted the new owners a franchise instead in the form of the Tampa Bay Rays and brought on new ownership for SF.

  153. Allowing unfettered movement by MLB teams would be very bad for baseball.

  154. Anon – Do’h! Didn’t see it – you even quoted Liccardo. Perhaps we should be happy the FUD piece came out. Now we know that challenging MLB’s antitrust exemption is something the city will consider and I’m very glad that this is out in the open. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong but I believe this is the first time we’ve heard anything from anybody from the city regarding antitrust.

  155. TonyD is right about the sfg not having the huge support from the south bay as they’ve said they had over the years. the poll done by svlg is a perfect example. what sf is really worried about and have said this many times before is that if they can’t have the silicon valley money that isn’t supporting them they certainly don’t want the a’s franchise to get any part of if which they will and even more with them moving to sj.

    they want the a’s gone, they don’t even want the a’s to be a close “2nd team” in the bay area be it in oakland and what they’d certainly be if they were to be allowed to move down to silicon valley. they like it the way it is now with the a’s basically being on life support with the lowest attendance and ratings in baseball while sfg is thriving and would continue to thrive even more if the a’s would leave giving the bay area all to themselves as the biggest one team market in mlb. an a’s move to sj would make both mlb teams franchise thriving in this area but again sfg doesn’t want to see that happen. they’re a bunch of greedy bastards who are cold blooded big businessman that “lefties” baer and the bowetie rail against politically.

  156. Ted – you continue to ignore the facts before you and show how much of the Gnats stench you bring to this forum:

    a. With a gleaming new ballpark that is 20 miles away from them, why do you think the A’s cannot attract a good fanbase, even when they came this close to winning the 06′ AL pennant? Why would you suppose the Gnats invested in a store in the middle of A’s territory (Walnut Creek)?

    b. If Baltimore never had DC territory, why did MLB rule that the O’s would be granted a guaranteed franchise value as well as having exclusive ownership of the majority of DC broadcast rights?

    c. SF. is considered Gnats territory proper as well as Oakland being the A’s. SC was considered to be shared domain, similar to the way the Angel/Dodgers, Mets/Yankees, WhiteSox/Cubs also have it in their respective shared markets. Why would the Gnats/A’s be any different? (this is more of a rhetorical question, so think for a second before spewing some Krukow “factoid”).

    d. So you’re saying you’ve never listen to the Gnats propoganda ton KNBR he past few years that this issue has been brought up? /rolleyes

    e. So you’re basically saying you disavow the civi and economic leadership of the south bay condoning a move to SJ that would both bring entertainment as well as economical benefits to the south bay due to your allegiance for all things Hallloween colored? Really? Do you work for Stand for SJ too?

  157. Please do not feed the trolls

  158. @ Ted – “Allowing unfettered movement by MLB teams would be very bad for baseball.” Again, do you work for, represent, or are affiliated with Stand for SJ? Why would it be bad? Do you see this as an issue in the NFL, NBA, and/or the NHL? Why did the federal courts strike down NFL’s injection on the RAiders move to the LA, yet grant exclusivity to MLB on TRs? Start thinking….i know you can do it….

  159. /sorry RC/Chris…i’ll refrain from commenting on his responses, but I have to add one more thing though:

    F U C K the Giants

    kthxbye….

  160. I can think of several dozen members of Congress who would relish the thought of sticking it to Frisco by repealing MLB’s special status. Bud better move his cotton candy butt in a hurry or things are gonna get real warm for it.

  161. It’s interesting how it seems it quickly went from having an opinion to now your coming across as a troll or someone on the Giants side.
    ..
    If anyone hangs out at warriorsworld at all, it’s starting to have a ” i appreciated the call” kind of feel to it.

  162. One last conspiracy theory though before logging off:

    1. MLB has a meeting with the Gnats attempting mediation/arbitration

    2. Gnats give them some ridiculous amount or tell MLB to F’ off

    3. MLB threatens to go to the other owners with this (again Selig wants a unanimous decision, not a majority or consensus due to how it may affect the big market teams.

    4. Gnats lawyer (as MAdden cites it) goes and leaks it the press

    5. Wolf calls his frat buddy Selig: “Yo Buddy, waddup with that ish from NY. It’s whack yo. I though you had my back, bro.”

    6. Selig in return responds: “Like oh my gawd, we like offered them oodles of cash, some radio and tv gigs, and even another all star partay and they totally dissed us like Vanilla Ice at a rodeo show. So we like told that Duke Neukum that i’d call my best friend friends in Manhattan, Hollywood, and Chitown and give them only our middle finger. Next thing you know, that wannabe reporter publishes that article. That is like so not kool, but don’t worry, I have 26/28 ready to go, but just have to get the remaining 2 before we go to vote, kay’? By the way, don’t tell John anything about this..”

    7. Lew in turn tells John, Billy, and Mike Crowley the lowdown from his call from Bud.

    8. John Fischer puts the smack down and says to publish the press release, specifically citing A’s ownership

  163. @Ted, allowing unfettered movement in MLB wouldn’t hurt them at all because it wouldn’t happen. Only two teams don’t have a new stadium or a historic park with huge fan bases. Not only that, but unlike the NBA/NHL (and even the NFL) there are very few MLB capable stadiums around the country and building them is very cost prohibitive. Hell, even in the leagues that allow that kind of movement, it’s happening at a snail’s pace and doesn’t happen often. There’s zero reason to uphold the Anti-Trust.

  164. letsgoas, do you really think the Giants would not take any kind of revenue or franchise value loss over the next 20 years if the A’s moved to San Jose and do you think that the A’s would automatically become just as successful as the Giants if they were just allowed to move to San Jose? Is there really that much of an untapped baseball market in the Bay Area?

    Anon, there is no need to be rude or to name call. I will remain civil and I will take you more seriously if you extend the same courtesy to me.
    a) The Giants opened a store in Walnut Creek to sell merchandise. I am sure the A’s would also open retail outlets all over the Bay Area if there was a market for their merchandise.
    b) Read the MLB Constitution, it clearly states what the territorial rights are for each team and DC was never part of the Orioles territorial rights. That is a fact that is easily confirmed if you just read article viii, section 8 of the MLBC. I sill link it again for you: http://www.bizofbaseball.com/docs/MLConsititutionJune2005Update.pdf Here is another article from BP that explains the Baltimore situation: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3854
    c) I don’t know why it is different but it is. The Giants don;t share their counties and the A’s don’t share theirs.
    d) What the heck does KNBR have to do with it. I am the one here who has read the MLBC, you haven’t. I inform myself through a lot of sources.
    e) I am a Giants fan and I live in San Jose and yes, I oppose those in City Hall who want to give the A’s land and let them build a stadium in my town. Where do you live?
    About unfettered movement, movement is bad for the NHL and NBA, teams move constantly and then other teams are moved into that market to replace them and most of these NBA teams that move aren’t thriving. Do you think it would be good if teams were allowed to move where they want when they want?

    Chris and RC, How am I a troll? I am a Giants fan and a San Jose resident so I have just as much reason to be interested in this issue as any of you. Are you calling me a troll because you disagree with me? Is this blog only meant for A’s fans?

  165. Hmmmmm…. It seems interesting that Giants refer to the population of Santa Clara County as 43% of their market, but they don’t actually mention how much of their ACTUAL fan base comes from there. Reminds me of Google talking about Google+ registered users rather than active users.
    .
    There is no reason to believe that the A’s moving to San Jose actually hurts the Giants. In fact, MLB would likely benefit from greater market penetration in a more affluent area while the Giants would continue to attract the more affluent fans from the inner East Bay for MLB.

  166. One problem with challenging anti-trust (and somebody correct me if I am wrong) is that A’s ownership has to be on board with the challenge. Lew Wolff and this A’s ownership group have been quiet/passive and generally don’t like disrupting “The Lodge.” Would Wolff step up to the plate and go along with a challenge?

  167. The difference in DC and Baltimore is that their defined territories do not touch. There is a buffer created by 3 unassigned counties. There is also none of the history of the two teams sharing the media market and fanbases.
    .
    The question for MLB to answer is “Does having the Bay Area assigned exclusively to the Giants and moving the A’s better for the league than having both teams in new facilities in the Bay Area?”
    .
    It is really obvious to impartial observers (the national media, including the writer from the NYDN) that the only team that really benefits from the current situation is the Giants.

  168. A’s ownership doesn’t have to be on board with a suit. They can’t even be party to the suit.
    .
    That said, the only way there would be such a suit is if San Jose brought it. I think San Jose, like all municipalities, has higher priorities right now.

  169. “Again, do you work for, represent, or are affiliated with Stand for SJ?”

    “I am a Giants fan and I live in San Jose and yes, I oppose those in City Hall who want to give the A’s land and let them build a stadium in my town.”

    Busted..I guess it was about time the Stand F(rom) San Jose trolls start spreading their viral FUD here…

  170. anon- agree 1000% with above sentiment….we hate you giants!

  171. Because you miss the point more than most and tend to repeat yourself a lot.

  172. @Anon Wow! Good call! I had forgotten all about them! Busted!

  173. @Ted,
    You’re a troll because you don’t know what the @#$%& you’re talking about!…but you’re acting/ posting like you do. Navigator, jk-usa …and now Ted. God I can’t wait till MLB makes SJ official! (OK, now I’m done with this thread)

  174. One last thing, the reason Baltimore was given majority ownership of a RSN that broadcasts the Nationals games as well as the Ories games is because that was o e of the key arguments that Peter Angelos was making against a team in DC. The Expos moving didn’t infringe on the Orioles operating territory, but it did I fringe upon the Orioles media market.
    .
    This is actually a bigger deal than the operating territory. Look at how the Rangers and Angels have turned their media markets I to long term revenue stability.
    .
    The Giants ownership group is coming off as horribly self centered in this mess. They are putting themselves before the league by trying to force the A’s into a market with a ceiling of “Kansas City like” which guarantees long term revenue sharing dependence. It is pretty absurd to argue otherwise.

  175. “Hmmmmm…. It seems interesting that Giants refer to the population of Santa Clara County as 43% of their market, but they don’t actually mention how much of their ACTUAL fan base comes from there. Reminds me of Google talking about Google+ registered users rather than active users.”

    Hmmmmm, kind of like a certain Facebook page that keeps trotting out a certain number as proof of a city’s viability, but the fact is there are only 100 or so people talking about it. Just about three people that trot out the same talking points all day.

  176. I wish this was facebook or twitter where I could “like” or “retweet” half your comments…you guys are positing great arguements

  177. Selig would be on his knees if SJ announces that they have just hired some anti-trust lawyers and will file a suit against MLB. Maybe SJ will fail but if they actually file, Selig will respond pronto.

    Settle it already, Selig must get a YES or NO vote now. Dragging it out does not solve the problem.

  178. Had to get this off my chest before I log off because farce BS groups like Stand For San Jose piss me off to no end.

    We all know that SFromSJ is a legal front for the SF Gnats that supposedly opposes “….public money not be used in an irresponsible way to profit a private business.” aka public financing / support of the A’s SJ baseball stadium effort. However, this same organization, spearheaded by Weyerman owner of the SJ Giants also received $1.5 million dollars in renovation for their won SJ Gnats stadium for waterproofing, field drainange, and electrical upgrades:

    http://www.sjredevelopment.org/inforMemos/MunicipalStadiumInfo120309.pdf

    There’s so much irony that they disapprove of public funding for the A’s, yet were granted the same for trivial things they could of paid themselves. Of course, they will never acknowledge this publicly and their misguided SJ sheep buy into this out of fear of police/firemen reduction and/or the lil’Gnats leaving…./rolleyes

  179. I’m willing to bet that “43% of their market” is not purely ticket sales. Someone from Santa Clara County could purchase merchandise from the Giants MLB website and they record their zip code for tracking purposes to inflate their market breakdowns. The appropriate question to ask would be “what percentage does Santa Clara County represent in ticket sales?”

  180. It’s a perfect time to remind ourselves who these a$$holes really are! Eat a d*ck SFromSJ!

  181. ML, given that the A’s and Giants appear to be far apparent in their negotiations, do you think there’s any chance Selig allows an 80/20 vote to take place? Do you think he would allow the A’s to rot on the vine while attempting to secure a unanimous vote? He may prefer that the two teams work out a settlement, however the situation may deteriorate to the point where some type of action must be taken.

  182. Stomper, you don’t have to bet that 43% represents ticket sales. The Giants point out that they are talking about population. It is ridiculous… By this logic, none of their fanbase comes from Alameda or Contra Costa County… Strange that they’d open a store in Walnut Creek, isn’t it? I mean, NONE of their fanbase comes from their, after all, why would they open a store where no one roots for them?

  183. *there, not their

  184. Isnt the 43% percent number they use just them dividing Santa Clara County Population by their total territory counties added together? Seems close from the numbers that were stated earlier. If so just give them everything north of here and tell them there you have more people. Hell throw in Alaska. ha

  185. yes if you ever saw the slvg poll done a few years ago where 120 members who answered 87% said they have no relationship with the sfg from either sponorships or buying luxury boxes. the 13% who said they did, 7 out of 10 said they’d also support the a’s also.

    so what do you think those other 120 who have no affiliation would do if the a’s move down to sj, i’d predict the majority would support the a’s and that’s what sf is worried about. no the a’s won’t ever overtake them in this area but they could compete financially a whole lot better and that may draw more fans to a’s games and watching/listening to them on air and that doesn’t sit too well for sf whos basically whored themselves to the bay area media to the point where they’re by far the clear cut #1 team in the market even surpassing the previous kings that were the 49ers. they don’t want two competitive well run mlb teams here in the bay area, they just want what they have now is almost near near full control of the market and if the a’s were to move to sj, that’d cut into their control. basically they’re a bunch of greedy son fo a bitch bastards who don’t want the a’s to compete in anyway here locally.

  186. Anon, I have been nothing but honest and polite in this discussion while you have been belligerent and rude. I have never heard of Stand Up For San Jose. I am a Giants fan and a San Jose resident and a systems engineer. You and Tiny don;t know hwat a troll is. I am here expressing my opinions and doing my best to back them up with facts and links. You have not done the same, you haven’t even read the MLBC that you are commenting on. Where are you from? What kinda stake do you have in all this?

    RC, I repeat myself when someone fails to get the point or see the facts.

    It is odd how rude and obnoxious some people get when they post anonymously on the internet. I guess it is easier to insult and name call than to actually argue facts.

  187. letsgoas, I agree with a lot of what you said there, of the Giants want to protect their market share. Why begrudge the Giants for good business decisions including masterfully working themselves int the media market?

  188. Folks, can we not call someone with whom we might disagree a troll? Talk facts and motivations, debate with some class. Otherwise I’m gonna have to start striking comments.

  189. @Ted – agreed, we should try to be respectful here. If I may explain some of the negativity, I think that most of the long time commenters here (while sometimes rude) are quite familiar with the facts (to the extent they are in the public domain), and it comes across as somewhat condescending when a new poster’s attitude is that they “fail to get the point.” For the most part, they seem to be rejecting your interpretations of events, as they seem biased, rather than some lack of comprehension that you assume. As to being “honest,” I wouldn’t presume to know, but when you say “I oppose those in City Hall who want to give the A’s land and let them build a stadium in my town,” it may come across as disingenuous, as the A’s aren’t being “given” the land, and whatever purchase discount they may or may not ultimately obtain, it’s a mere pittance compared to the half a billion $$ direct investment they will make in construction, and long term residual economic benefits thereafter. In economic times like these, a lot of people in SJ are excited about that, and to brush it aside over some partisan bias against the A’s seems rather petty. Remember, it’s “our” town too. In an earlier post, you asked Jeff to set “aside your feelings as a fan” – can you do the same?

  190. @Stomper: Isn’t online merch sales revenu split evenly betweem all teams, regardless of which team sells the most gear?

    @Ted: What kind of “fan” gives a flying F- what the franchise value of their team is going to be worth? Either Giants fans are more f-d up than I give you credit for, or sounds like you’ve got a stake in this other than just being a concerned fan and citizen. Hmmmmm

  191. @Ted
    You’ve basically been saying that the Giants should have total control of the market, that the A’s should remain crippled and have no right to try to better themselves, and you’re saying this to a bunch of A’s fans. Sorry, but that’s not “polite”.

  192. I think we should all remember that none of us (to my knowledge) are affiliated with either of these teams in anyway other than as fans. My favorite part of being affiliated with this blog, the reason I became a devoted reader, is the focus on fact and journalistic integrity.
    .
    Let’s keep in mind that we can disagree without being disagreeable. We can, and should, inform one another without demeaning each other. Behind our handles (which mine is my real name Jeffrey August) there are real people. Let’s treat each other like we are real people.

  193. First, some background:
    1) I am a Giants fan. Don’t shoot the messenger.
    2) I was raised in San Jose, I’m a graduate of SJSU. I was living in San Jose when you could still see across the valley on a still day, and the population of the city was below six digits.
    3) I’ve been following this stadium situation because I knew that something like this was going to happen to the Athletics the very second the shovels went into the dirt to construct Mt. Davis.
    4) I don’t live in San Jose now, but given the opportunity to vote the question of whether or not Cisco Field should be built, my answer would be a resounding “yes”, and I would encourage as many of my fellow citizens to do likewise. It will be good for San Jose, good for the valley at large, and good for MLB to get out of Oakland (again, don’t shoot the messenger).
    5) I believe there should be marketing parity between the two teams; the Bay Area is a two-team market, and MLB should start acting thusly.
    6) Stand For San Jose can suck a big fat johnson.

    Now, then…the problem that the Athletics face is that while there may have been negotiating documents and such that were bandied about during the ownership of Peter Magowan, possibly even back to Bob Lurie, those documents are not part of the MLB Constitution. So when we look at the other two-team markets, we see language such as…
    CWS: “Cook, Lake, DuPage, Will, Kendall, McHenry and Grundy Counties in Illinois; and Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana; provided, however, that this territory shall be shared with the Chicago Cubs franchise in the National League”
    LAAofA: “Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura Counties in California; provided, however, that this territory shall be shared with the Los Angeles Dodgers franchise in the National League;”
    NYY: “City of New York; Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland and Westchester Counties in New York; Bergen, Hudson, Essex and Union Counties in New Jersey; and that portion of Fairfield County in Connecticut located south of Interstate 84 and west of Route 58; provided, however, that this territory shall be shared with the New York Mets franchise in the National League;”

    The language for their National League counterparts is exactly the same, word-for-word, with the exception that the AL counterpart team is named.

    Only Oakland and San Francisco have separate territories within the same market. Unless and until that language is changed in the MLB constitution, the Athletics are confined to ALA or CC counties; barring those two options, they will have to leave.

    This press release skirmish has actually been helpful in some regard, in that it brings notice to the imbalance that exists in the marketing for the two teams; this imbalance, regrettably, is enshrined in the MLB constitution, and that is the first thing that needs to be changed. Until the Athletics achieve parity in their territorial description in the MLB constitution, nothing else is going to move.

    Which, to my personal regret and shame, is precisely the way the Giants want it to remain.

  194. See now, that was a well reasoned comment from a guy who is clearly illogical (just kidding SierraSpartan).
    .
    I remember when AT&T Park was being built as Pac Bell Park. I worked on 3rd and Folsom and I would walk down once a week to watch progress. I ROOTED for the Giants to get that stadium because I like having two teams here, even if the A’s are better.

  195. Good points Sierra Spartan.

    However, the minutes are actually very explicit (look at SJ merc Purdy article), and they took place prior to the amendments to the constitution. Thus, the amendments can be nullified, because they were improperly carried about and violated stated agreements. If it went to arbitration, this is probably what would happen. This is something that actually has precedent in law, politics and institutional constitutions. Just look at Prop 8 – a California constitutional amendment that was ruled unconstitutional (US constitution) by the supreme court.
    .
    The MLB constitutional amendments, even though they violated the explicit agreements as recorded in the minutes, probably went through without challenge because:
    a) Walter Haas died
    b) The A’s organization were in an okay position back then and did not want to get in the way of the Giants building their new stadium.
    .
    But in retrospect, people on all sides should have done their due diligence back then. And MLB should subsequently correct the original egregious mistake.
    .
    Thus, people saying that the MLB constitution, in regards to the Giants SCC T-rights, is iron clad, are mistaken.
    .
    The minutes, and what they explicitly state regarding the T-rights, are actually extremely substantial – legally, and in the court of public opinion.

  196. Me too, Jeffrey. Never been any kind of Giants fan at all — in fact, I’ve actively rooted against them most of my life. Yet I was ecstatic when the Florida move fell through and they built PacBell. I could see it was good for the entire region to keep both teams, which is far more important than my personal team loyalties. I’m glad to see a couple of Giants fans chiming in who see it the same way.

  197. @Al..yes i believe so but, but merch sales revenue is not the point. After rereading my post from last night I think my understanding was wrong. Late night posts are sometimes tricky…lol

    Anyways, now I think I’ve got it…The Giants are saying “The population of Santa Clara County alone represents 43% of our territory.” which I assume is the breakdown percentage of their 6 counties. My point is how many of that 43% actually represent into real ticket sales? That’s the $1MM question!

    Read that line again very carefully…”The population of Santa Clara County alone represents 43% of our territory.” This means “potential” However, to the casual observer, someone can interpret it as saying 43% of fans in attendance are from Santa Clara County. Which is completely false.
    The A’s press release hit the Giants very hard, however, the Giants also chose their words carefully too. Both press releases were trying to sway public opinion and the Giants made it sound like no one would ever go to their games again if the A’s move to SJ. Hopefully the casual observer caught that!

  198. @ jeff – Probably don’t want to go down the Proposition 8 rabbit hole, because then we start getting into issues of whether the judiciary is functioning as a co-equal branch of Guvmint (IMHO it ain’t), and we get into thorny issues such as basic human rights and things which trump the written document and get more into the realm of the moral.

    We’re talking business here, not morality, and the problem that the Athletics have is that those “minutes” weren’t put into the MLB constitution, and therefore they have no actual standing at this time. It’s much like going into the U.S. Supreme Court and arguing that the Federalist Papers should trump the written word in the Constitution. We’d like to think that the Federalist Papers were a guide to the Constitution (indeed, they were), but they were not what was agreed to amongst the Several States. Those who saw the need have been able to change the US Constitution on 27 different occasions; and thus the change can be done with the MLB constitution as well.

    The easiest path going forward is for the Athletics’ ownership to cobble together a 3/4 coalition to change the MLB constitution to have the OAK/SF two-team territorial descriptions match those of the other three two-team markets; hell, toss in Solano, Sonoma and San Benito counties for good measure. This is something the A’s can do on the basis of fairness and parity, and it would absolve the Steinbrenners’ concern about the prospect of other teams (like the Rays or Royals) plopping themselves in the swamp of New Jersey without prior approval, and it’s politically much more palatable to teams like Philly or the other two-team markets.

    Waving about the minutes like a bloody rag is a losing argument, IMHO; I think all here can agree that Mr. Haas made a bad business decision back in the day, but the way to fix that is to concentrate your aims on the best interests of baseball – which are served by constructing the San Jose stadium – and by making sure that all two team markets have mutual parity. Sure, that vote may end up being 29-1, but the only way SFG fights coming out on the losing end of that fight is to either close up shop or take on the antitrust exemption on their own hook – neither of which they are going to do.

  199. @Sierra
    Agreed – don’t want to go down that prop 8 rabbit hole. It was just an example of a constitutional amendment potentially reversed.
    .
    And your analysis of making the territory fair, and in fact expanding the territory (adding counties) and keeping the territory iron clad (in terms of other teams moving into the area), all in the “best interests of baseball” is probably the best tact, because it would be enough to placate the likes of the yanks and mets.

  200. All that matters is that the Giants paid money for SC County rights when they bought the team.. The A’s paid less money for the team because they didn’t have those rights. Ownership is about who paid for what. The Giants paid more, they get more.

    Period!

  201. The last 11 comments are some of the best points on this, hopefully everyone that’s been paying attention reads them.

  202. @martin
    The Giants did not pay for the SCC rights.
    .
    From Purdy’s article in the merc:
    .

    “The minutes to that meeting, the A’s statement said, “clearly indicate that the Giants were granted” the territorial rights “subject to relocating to the city of Santa Clara.” That’s where the Giants planned to build their own South Bay ballpark until county voters rejected the plan, which called for tax increases.
    .
    Those 1990 MLB meeting minutes, it has been learned, also contain a passage that indicates the Giants’ rights to Santa Clara County took effect only if the new stadium was satisfactorily completed. With that assurance, the A’s owner at the time, Walter Haas, agreed to give away his franchise’s shared rights to the South Bay without compensation.”
    .
    That is extremely substantial, and is very much a basis for nullifying the MLB constitutional amendment that granted the Giants T-rights to SCC, or at least modifying them. Quite simply, the conditions for the T-rights, as agreed upon by all parties, were not met. This information about the explicit agreement, as recorded in the MLB meetings minutes, invalidates the amendment.
    .
    Quite frankly, it shouldn’t come to a vote by the lodge, or a decree by Selig, or some sort of compensation deal for the Giants. The amendment that grants the Giants T-rights to SCC should be removed immediately.
    .
    An agreement is an agreement.

  203. Jeff that is not correct. The Giants ownership changed in 1992. When the new owners bought the team, the price was higher because it included SC County rights. If those rights didn’t exist, then they would have been able to negotiate a lower price for the team.

    In the same way. The current A’s ownership was able to buy the A’s for a low price because they didn’t have those rights.

  204. @ martin – here is where the phrase, “best interests of baseball” kicks in.

    It’s already been established that SFG pays into the revenue sharing fund approximately $30M per year. Conversely, the Athletics currently draw something on the order of $30M per year. One could almost state that SFG is paying $30M per year to OAK to remain in its current hellhole of a stadium.

    The differential in the market valuations between the two teams on the Forbes 2011 list is $150M (SFG is $230M, OAK is $80M). I fail to see how raising OAK’s market value negatively impacts SFG’s market valuation.

    That plus not having to fork over $30M per year kinda makes this a no-brainer for me in dollars-and-cents, but I fear that the folks at 24 Willie Mays Plaza aren’t thinking entirely with their heads on this one.

  205. @ Martin And Giants’ ownership bought the teaming knowing that T-rights to SC County could be terminated at any time by vote of the other owners for ZERO compensation. If they paid a significant markup for those rights knowing that (and I don’t believe they did), they are idiots.
    .
    Termination for convenience clauses are routine in business contracts. If you were purchasing a business which is heavily dependent on a major revenue contract, the difference between having such a clause or not is huge. If you have a five year revenue agreement with no T for C clause, that’s five years guaranteed revenue. If you have a five year revenue agreement which can be terminated at any time on thirty days notice, that’s thirty days guaranteed revenue. The purchase price for the business will reflect this difference.
    .
    This is one of several reasons why the Giants’ arguments don’t hold water. The T-rights may have been enshrined in the MLB Constitution, albeit by mistake. But so are the provisions that say those rights can be terminated at any time without compensation.
    .
    Even considered in the light most favorable to the Giants, and even ignoring any earlier agreements/meeting minutes, there is no way the MLB Constitution can be construed as giving the Giants ironclad perpetual rights to SC County.

  206. My last comment was posted at same time and didn’t see Martin’s comment about the made up info that Giants paid more for it. There is no proof of that and if they did that there own problem and no one else. That’s like me buying a house and I choose to pay more because the neighbor is so nice. If he moves away I can’t blame someone else if I feel I lose value. I chose to buy it because I felt that gave it more valuable. Just like the Giants didn’t own SC, they had temporary control and got to keep it with complatetion of a stadium in SC, which never happened.

    If a reasonable amount of time passes you lose your window to complete your end of the deal. That time has passed and now should be reverted back.

    Also Bartley, great post.

  207. George, I appreciate your feedback and you make some fair points. I am definitely biased as a Giants fan and concerned about them being able to keep their payroll up in the top 1/3 of MLB but I am also concerned about how much the A’s are really willing to pay. I know that Wolff says that he wants to privately finance a yard but until they get to the point of an agreement I am skeptical. Regardless of the economic impact of temporary construction jobs that come from a stadium and the part time concession, ticket and usher jobs I still don’t like the idea of a city subsidizing billionaire owners that rake in huge profits year in and year out. Also, as someone who had to commute from West San Jose to Fremont for more than a year and who still does business up there I wonder how the heck fans that live between Fremont and Richmond are going to get to an evening game and how people that live in San Jose but work up the 880 corridor are going to get home at night. It is currently a 45 minute to an hour commute from 880 and Decoto to 280. How the heck is it going to work without any public transportation options from anywhere in the East Bay?

    Al, I care about revenue and franchise value because it directly affects what kind of product the team puts on the field. Isn’t the reason you and other A’s fans want a new stadium is primarily to increase franchise value and revenue so that the A’s can spend more money on payroll?

    Jeff-Athletic, the way I see it. The A’s want something from my favorite sports team and from my city. I would rather they do it on their own in their home town. I do understand why that might upset some A’s fans.

    Sierra Spartan, You say that you “believe there should be marketing parity between the two teams; the Bay Area is a two-team market, and MLB should start acting thusly”. The Giants and A’s were in a similar situation as far as stadium and attendance and the Giants ownership worked hard to better their franchise through hard work and commitment, they lost more money than any team in MLB in the late 90s building up towards the opening of Pac Bell Park and they worked hard to position themselves well in the media. Why should they be punished for that? Why should they be forced to come down to a point where things are even with the A’s? I also am not sure that a new stadium will get the A’s out of the revenue sharing hole.

  208. @Ted- no, I primarily want a new stadium because without one, the very survival of the A’s- at least in the Bay Area- is threatened. As A’s prez Mike Crowley put it, that’s the grand slam the Giants are aiming for.

  209. Al, I understand why you would feel that way. I think the A’s could exist with a stadium in Alameda County if they were willing to try but I don;t think Wolff has ever been interested in making a real effort to make that happen.

  210. @Ted “I know that Wolff says that he wants to privately finance a yard but until they get to the point of an agreement I am skeptical.”
    .
    As I understand, they already have some kind of a term sheet laying this out. Also, committing public money to the stadium would require a public vote. This has already been presented to the public as “City provides discounted land and infrastructure, A’s pay construction costs.” Reneging on that now would be a sure route to losing the vote.
    .
    “Regardless of the economic impact of temporary construction jobs that come from a stadium and the part time concession, ticket and usher jobs I still don’t like the idea of a city subsidizing billionaire owners that rake in huge profits year in and year out.”
    .
    The $500 million of construction jobs may be one-time, but that’s a huge stimulus that would pay dividends for several years.
    .
    Also, the economic impact is not limited to that. Despite the fact that it is part of an economic powerhouse and the tenth largest city in the U.S., San Jose is virtually anonymous to much of the rest of the country. Getting an MLB team would benefit San Jose more than almost any other city by really putting it on the map. This would pay dividends in all kinds of ways, from helping lure more flights to SJC, to bringing more corporate offices and residents downtown. Just look at what AT&T Park did for SOMA, or Petco Park did for downtown San Diego. San Jose has spent over a billion dollars trying to rejuvenate downtown; an A’s stadium would likely accomplish as much or more than that effort at a tiny fraction of the cost to the public.
    .
    Also, almost every big business gets some kind of public subsidy to relocate. If you look around downtown SJ, almost every building built there in the last twenty years got public funds. It’s a matter of doing a cost-benefit analysis; you have to look at the specific numbers.
    .
    “Also, as someone who had to commute from West San Jose to Fremont for more than a year and who still does business up there I wonder how the heck fans that live between Fremont and Richmond are going to get to an evening game”
    .
    The same way South Bay A’s fans currently do, except they’ll have a much easier time of it because a lot of East Bay folks work in the South Bay and because the traffic is all going in the other direction.
    .
    “…and how people that live in San Jose but work up the 880 corridor are going to get home at night. It is currently a 45 minute to an hour commute from 880 and Decoto to 280. How the heck is it going to work without any public transportation options from anywhere in the East Bay?”
    .
    A lot of East Bay fans will skip weeknight games and just come on weekends, as many South Bay fans do. In any event, the number of commuters adversely affected by this will be less than the number affected by the current situation.
    .
    “The A’s want something from my favorite sports team and from my city. I would rather they do it on their own in their home town.”
    .
    They want something from the Giants that they gave to them, for free, based on an unfulfilled premise. They want something from San Jose that will be FAR outweighed by the value of what they give back. And they will be doing on their own pretty much to the same extent the Giants did.
    .
    “The Giants and A’s were in a similar situation as far as stadium and attendance and the Giants ownership worked hard to better their franchise through hard work and commitment,”
    .
    Great, then let them compete based on that hard work and commitment, and not based on an artificial and un-American constraint on competition that is the result of a historical accident and would be illegal but for an ill-reasoned Supreme Court decision from 80 years ago. Should be start granting McDonalds territorial rights to keep Burger King away as well?
    .
    “Why should they be punished for that?”
    .
    It’s not a question of punishment, it’s a question of unearned, unjustified reward. Why should they be subject to special protections against competition that no other MLB team has?
    .
    “Why should they be forced to come down to a point where things are even with the A’s?”
    .
    It’s highly questionable whether that would happen. It’s entirely likely that whatever the Giants lost in SC County would be partially or entirely offset by gains from the East Bay. Meanwhile, they would be relieved of a significant amount of revenue share. The main reason they are resisting is not that they are likely to be significantly harmed, but rather an opportunistic attempt to drive one of their partners out of business.
    .
    “I also am not sure that a new stadium will get the A’s out of the revenue sharing hole.”
    .
    That’s crazy talk. Modern MLB economics are driven by premium seat sales, and Silicon Valley is one of the richest markets in the country for that. Recent projections show that the A’s would become a major contributor to revenue sharing.

  211. @Ted
    They don’t want anything from your favorite team or your city. They want MLB to allow them to build a stadium themselves (where there is the land available for purchase, and it’s economically viable for a privately financed stadium, both of which are lacking in Oakland/East Bay), and compete fairly. The ability to compete fairly is not taking something from your team, unless you consider keeping the A’s uncompetitive is a God given right and possession for your Giants, not to ever be taken away.
    .
    And you are saying that if the A’s move to SJ, it will hurt the Giants revenue. Hmmm, really? Do you really think the Giants wouldn’t be able to sell out AT&T anymore, or attract corporate clients? If so, that’s pathetic. Really. Are they just so lazy and incompetent that a healthy, competitive A’s would cause them to never sell out AT&T anymore, and lose their corporate clients. Wow. Just wow. And anyway, they have all the advantages right now, and they still fail to build a watchable, half way decent offense. The Giants front office must really suck. And, it’s not the A’s health that influences that, it’s the Giants laziness and incompetence that is the cause of their failures.
    .
    You are absolutely saying that only the Giants should be allowed to compete in this market, and the A’s should remain crippled, or removed, or contracted. You just don’t get the concepts of free enterprise, open competition, and general fairness.
    .
    I’ve seen lots of comments by Giants fans both here on this blog and many other places, and the vast majority of them think the Giants should just let the A’s go to SJ, receive a compensation check, and then get better because they would then have to work to compete. In fact, most of the Giants fans commentators have said they want the A’s in SJ, because they want the Giants front office to work harder to compete, and then get better.
    .
    I like to compare this to Internet Explorer 6. Remember how badly that browser sucked? It sucked because it had 95% of the market, and Microsoft got complacent. Then Firefox got popular (and was vastly superior). Then a bit later, Chrome got popular (and again, it too is vastly superior to IE6). Then MS said “oh shit! we have to compete! We better get off our duffs and build a better browser”. And that they did. IE7 was a little better, then 8 was much better, and now 9 is pretty darn good (I still prefer Firefox or Chrome, but think IE 9 is good too). It’s the same way with the Giants. They are now extremely complacent (other than trying to block the A’s), particularly after their fluke 2010. They are resting on their laurels, and are afraid to compete. The A’s moving to SJ would be just the kick in the pants they need. You should embrace it. Don’t settle for Giants complacency.

  212. Bartleby, Good post. I think Wolff and Fisher should pony up fair market value for the land in San Jose. They can afford it and their business which has been very profitable in Oakland can afford it. I am not sure that the capital of Silicon Valley needs PR, I know that leaders in San Jose have had this odd inferiority complex for years and I find it to be ridiculous. San Jose will never be San Francisco because it is a city of lowrise business parks and suburban sprawl.

    I have friends int he entertainment and restaurant businesses in San Jose and I know that the A’s would help them but I still wonder what that is really worth to the city of San Jose overall.

    About the commute, there aren’t very many fans attending A’s games in Oakland and I would guess that most of them come from the East Bay. The current East Bay A’s fans will want to go to games as well as new fans. When was the last time you drove from Oakland, San Leandro, Union City or Fremont to San Jose around 5 or 6 in the afternoon? It is a nightmare.

    I brought up the point about the Giants being forced down to a level equal to the A’s as a response to Sierra Spartan’s comment about the need for “marketing parity between the two teams”.

    About the a new stadium being a guaranteed way out of the revenue sharing receiving end for the A’s…The Pirates and Orioles have two of the three nicest state of the art stadiums in MLB and both of those teams are big time revenue sharing takers. A new stadium doesn’t guarantee success.

  213. Jeff-Athletic, I consider territorial rights to be MLB Constitutionally guaranteed rights rather than God given rights.
    Do you think that the A’s will not take potential Giants fans and sponsors if they move to San Jose? Isn’t that part of the reason they want to move there?

  214. Pittsburgh and Baltimore are not remotely the same, economically speaking, as San Jose.

  215. @StandForSJTed- San Jose paid millions more for the parcels of land, but guess what? Real estate is depressed right now, otherwise I would sell my house for a million bucks as its property value used to be. Furthermore, if you want to press with on with this argument of paying for fair value, do you know how much the Gnats received in subsidies for Pac Bell Park? Think about it for a second. And if given the chance, wouldn’t you want to invest a few millions into an unused property to recoup a $500 million dollar private investment by others that will continually bring in additional million in city revenue (see http://baseballsanjose.blogspot.com/2012/01/stadium-for-san-jose.html)? Either answer these truthfully or give that crap about paying for “fair market value” already….it’s an old tired argument that has no basis and the city leaders recognize this.

  216. ” I am not sure that the capital of Silicon Valley needs PR, I know that leaders in San Jose have had this odd inferiority complex for years and I find it to be ridiculous. San Jose will never be San Francisco because it is a city of lowrise business parks and suburban sprawl.” – I have never known a true SJ resident that has ever said such a statement….

  217. Anon, grow up and learn how to participate in a conversation without the insults and name calling.
    How much did the Giants receive in subsidies?
    That link looks like a indictment of poor business decisions made by the city and I wasn’t for the city acquiring the land in the first place.
    I was born at O’Connor hospital, raised in Cupertino and have lived in San Jose for over 17 years.

  218. Ted, San Francisco threatened to sue MLB of they let the A’s move because they floated bonds to help with the construction of Pac Bell Park. Is this news to you?

  219. Jeffrey, I know that the Giants are using the stadium debt as part of their argument to keep SCC TR

  220. @ Ted – So if it’s a poor business decision that benefits the Giants, it’s okay? Yet, if it’s a sound business decision for the A’s then it’s total crap? That’s nice you have lived in SJ for 17 years as i have double that # here in the South Bay. However, your tone and attitude doesn’t come off at all as a local.

  221. Ted, ” The A’s want something from my favorite sports team and from my city . I would rather they did it on their own in their own home town.” San Jose is closer in proximity to Oakland than S.F. so why should the Giants have any priority to your city which you share with approximately one million other people?? Oh, I know because of their so-called territorial rights, let’s examine the origin of those rights. I’m from Santa Clara where I was very active in trying to bring the Giants to Santa Clara in 1990 being both an Giants/A’s fan. Contrary to reports in the media San Jose and Santa Clara had separate elections that year regarding the initiative to fund the Giants new ballpark using a tax increase. The vote in San Jose was close but failed while Santa Clara voters agreed to finance the stadium using a utility tax (Santa Clara owns its own electricity ). Santa Clara also agreed to sell the Giants a large area of land at a small fraction of its value. Also, I was part of a group called the South Bay Giants Alliance who worked on getting thousands of signatures on petitions that were sent to the Commissioner and all the M.L.B. owners to save the Giants in ’92. Only the South Bay worked to save the Giants in the eleventh hour of ’92 and only Santa Clara offered financial support to the Giants. The current Giants owners were fully aware of that yet they turned down Santa Clara’s generous offer and completely financed their ballpark in San Francisco. Talk about biting the hand that tried to feed you, then turning around and trying to prevent that part of the Bay Area, including the largest city in Northern California, from having an M.L.B. team. Every time I hear one of the Giants owners talk about honor, morals and their love for baseball I start to gag. My father used to be head of Bay Area Little League and I remember him saying, “If you really love baseball you want it to be as fair as possible for respect of its fans and the integrity of the game.” As far as your skepticism about Wolfe is concerned, San Jose will be very fortunate if they get the A’s, they will increase the city revenue and unlike the Niners in Santa Clara, the A’s aren’t asking for any financial support.

  222. @Ted
    The A’s would take a bunch of the casual fans in SJ, but not the hardcore fans, who make up the lion’s share of people from SCCO who actually attend games at AT&T. Also, the Giants would loose zero of the corporate support from SCCO, as the coalition of Silicon Valley corporations that wrote the letter to Selig encouraging allowing the A’s into SJ also pledged their continued support of the Giants (of the ones that are current sponsors and luxury box users).
    .
    Add to that the fact that if the A’s went to SJ, the Giants would stand to gain more East Bay fans.
    .
    The simple fact is the Giants would experience little or no impact is the A’s moved to SJ. And they know it. The simple fact is, both teams market to and draw from all of the bay area. The simple fact is the completely share the media market, with Giants having built a meida empire. The simple fact is, the Giants are afraid of open, fair competition. The simple fact is, the Giants are making a power play to either keep the A’s badly crippled or force them out. And that is not good for bay area sports fans, and very bad for the people and economy of SCCO.
    .
    Sorry dude, the world does not revolve around the Giants. Why should the area continue with something that is bad for the A’s, bad for MLB, bad for the economy (stopping development of a world class ballpark), bad for bay area sports fans (again, stopping the development of a world class ballpark), all to protect the Giants. This is asinine, ridiculous.
    .
    Just like Jenkins said in his piece (a total Giants homer, by the way) , regarding the T-rights issue – “I hope the Giants get crushed”.

  223. @Noreen
    Excellent points. The Giants basically played the people/governments of Santa Clara and Santa Clara County, and left you guys with a hefty bill. The City of Santa Clara should sue the Giants for reneging on a promise and leaving them with a big bill. Also, San Jose is intimating that a lawsuit challenging the anti-trust exemption is a possibility. I’d also like to see an organized boycott from both the fans and corporations of Silicon Valley. Hit ‘em where it hurts.
    .
    Never mind the A’s. The Giants are giving the proverbial middle finger to San Jose, Santa Clara, Santa Clara county, and bay area sports fans. The Giants hubris and greed is astounding.

  224. Don’t think Ted can say a damn thing now. Excellent posts all! I can clearly tell you as an SJ native and soon to be resident that Ted’s view is in the extreme minority; we can all be thankful for that.

  225. @David. And so far, he’s still honoring that. He has, after all, waited years for MLB tell him what their wishes are.

  226. David,
    The past is the past. For the rest of us, its all about the future, and its looking bright for the A’s. Feel free to join in if you like.
    By the way, watching an A’s game on CSNBA sucks big time! @#$%& the Giants!

  227. Not sure where the question of honor comes up- he is getting ready to build a new stadium- final approval just received- all good in Earthquake land- btw- Larry E looking to buy the Grizzlies and move them to San Jose- interesting- he’s not giving up either

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