The Reckoning in May?

Update 3:45 PM – Slusser just tweeted that the issue will not be on the agenda even though Wolff has requested it. And the beat goes on…

Susan Slusser reports that the A’s are putting territorial rights on the owners meetings agenda next month. Will we finally get a resolution? We just might.

Back in December I had heard that ownership had the option to put the matter on the February meeting agenda. For whatever reason that didn’t happen. My guess is that the acceleration of the Dodgers’ sale and bankruptcy resolution came somewhat unexpectedly, which forced the A’s back onto the backburner once more.

There is an inherent amount of risk to making this move, as a vote could go against Lew Wolff and John Fisher. The big unknown is whether this vote is being shepherded by Bud Selig, who generally tries to build consensus before doing anything. Considering how long this has taken, anything’s possible. If this goes according to Selig’s M.O., he probably has both the votes and at least some kind of framework in place for a deal to compensate the Giants, whatever that is. If not, Wolff could lose and be left with no other option than to work something out in Oakland.

Slusser cites the Tracy Ringolsby article that we mentioned here last week, along with the threat of a San Jose antitrust lawsuit should the vote go against the A’s and San Jose.

Either way, I’m glad we’re finally getting somewhere with this. It promises to be a very exciting and newsworthy next couple of weeks. I’ll be back from San Diego the day before the meetings start, so I’ll be able to give it the attention it deserves.

P.S. – If you’re wondering whether or not a vote will actually be taken, just remember that the executive council had a report presented by Selig’s 3-man panel during the winter meetings. If the owners didn’t have the information necessary to vote on the issue before, they most assuredly do now.

114 Responses to The Reckoning in May?

  1. daniel says:

    BS in 2001 . I heard it on 95.7 today.

    I watched 32 years ago the Kansas City A’s move to Oakland. They hurt the Giants badly. They never really did very well themselves. It was a horrible mistake.”
    - Bud Selig, 6/2001, annual congressional baseball, Washington, D.C.

    BS will let the A’s slowly die . Lew and Fisher have a decision to make: sell or move the team to somewhere else, not SJ.

  2. eb says:

    @Jeffrey “A development like Coliseum City wouldn’t even begin construction until 5-7 years from now.”
    Why do you think it would take that long to get started building?

  3. daniel says:

    BS on youtube in 2001 too.

    horrrible mistake

    the A’s hurt the G’s badly

  4. RC says:

    @eb- Are you more optimistic about Coliseum City? What kind of time line would you put it at? I was thinking 2018.

  5. Jeffrey says:

    eb, because that has been the pattern with other mega developments all over the place. How long did LA Live take? That’s what it is patterned after. How bout the Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn? (This was announced as a plan in 2003 and will open in 2012).
    On top of that, it is very complicated by both the number of moving pieces and the overall cost. It might move faster if the Warriors and Raiders (or A’s, but we all know that ain’t happening) get behind the project, but without those key anchor tenants to help push it along it will take a while.

  6. Jeffrey says:

    G & G and John Sports… Whoever you are, stick to one name. And is there a reason you need to post from a proxy server in Witchita, KS?

  7. Jeffrey says:

    Daniel, so you feel like a quote (from more than a decade ago) trumpeted by everyone on the OAFC web site since it was made is more important than everything that has transpired since? Interesting…

  8. RC says:

    @daniel- Thanks for the link, that is interesting that he would single out the A’s like that. Still, I’m not sure that that changes anything. The A’s still need a ballpark, and I don’t think BS has the ability to kick them out of their own territory. As for SJ, I think that it depends on how you look at it. If he hates having the team in Oakland, he may like SJ better since the two teams would be 45 miles apart- not unlike BAL-WAS. Who knows what he thinks.

  9. RC says:

    @ Jeffrey- I agree that there are a LOT of moving parts for Coliseum City and that it could take the better part of a decade to be built. And setting aside JLS for potential problems (though remaining unrealistically optimistic ’cause that’s a great location), what are we looking at here for plan C? What can we offer a potential new ownership group? The East Bay is a big place, surely there must be something

  10. dmoas says:

    The worst part of Coli City is that you’d almost have to have most of the “City” built up before you open up the new park in order to truly maximize it’s profitability.

  11. Tony D. says:

    @Daniel (who are these people?),
    BS quotes from 2001? Really? Perhaps Selig’s recent comments reported by Tracy Ringolsby have more relevance being that they were made in 2012? (Yah think?)

  12. Tony D. says:


  13. G & G says:

    Jeffery,I don”t know JS, but i have read his comments. As far as a “proxy server” i am not a very savvy computer user to know what that means. (maybe to old) but i have driven through Kansas.back to what this is all about.
    Daniel, i heard the same thing from the Commissioner today on the radio, what a bunch of BULL!!! the A,s hurt the stinkin Giants badly…Really…I guess we hurt them by winning 4 World Series, oh yeah one of them was a sweep against them. We will hurt them (hopefully) even more when they move to SJ.
    My biggest fear is if they do not get the OK to move to San Jose, then what? San Antonio? Portland?
    Las Vegas? if any of these happen i do not know if i could remain an A’s fan.

  14. Mike says:

    Well looky here:

    UPDATE: I am told that despite the A’s desire to get their stadium issue onto the agenda, it will not be added. Two sources have told me that wanting to get something on the agenda and actually getting it placed on the agenda are two different things, and MLB has no current plans to delve into the matter next month.

Leave a Reply

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

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