The enemy of my enemy is my friend, Part Deux

Shortly after Commissioner Bud Selig convened his three-man panel to figure out what to do with the A’s, all sorts of political machinations started happening. That included then-Oakland City Attorney John Russo (now City Manager of Alameda) penning a lawsuit threat against the A’s. I wrote back then:

What recourse do the Giants have, then? They can try to go to bat for Oakland, even though they have no history of doing that previously. Even though, in moving to China Basin, they’ve actively siphoned East Bay fans away from the A’s. Even though they’ve held a regional hegemony for decades. It wouldn’t be hard to posture themselves as saviors of baseball in Oakland – no matter how strange that sounds – as it wouldn’t require much effort and could be done in a sort of stealth mode. It wouldn’t be difficult to get a few letters from prominent pols in order, so no problem there either. The best part is for the Giants is that it works. It paints Wolff as a villain and Oakland as a victim, despite the backstory’s greater complexity.

Eerie, no?

Now we have word from the Trib that Jean Quan has met with Giants ownership. That wouldn’t be the first time. Perhaps it’s completely altruistic, in that they’re instructing her on how to put together an AT&T Park-style stadium deal, the kind that Clorox CEO Don Knauss is pursuing. (Knauss also had a lengthy interview with KQED.) Then again, this is the same Giants ownership group that may have pulled a power play to kill the Piccinini-Dolich group’s chances to buy the A’s, because the Giants didn’t want an Oakland-based group owning the A’s:

More likely, Piccinini suspects the San Francisco Giants ownership had a hand in convincing Selig to make sure the deal never materialized, especially since Selig has called the A’s move from Kansas City to Oakland “a terrible mistake.”

“I can tell you there’s an executive with the Giants, who shall go unnamed,” Piccinini said. “I ran into him at a Warriors game. He said, ‘I hear you’re getting involved with the Padres. We want you in San Diego; we just didn’t want you here.’ “

Speaking of Piccinini, he’ll be available soon if he wants to deal with the struggle to be an owner again. Piccinini is part of the Moorad group who were teased the Padres, only to have the rug pulled out from under them. Moorad won’t be able go after another team, knowing that there are permanent veto votes against him within the Lodge. Much of the rest of the Central Valley base of the ownership group should be available, and they could pull in another frontman – Andy Dolich, perhaps?

If Piccinini’s right, the Giants don’t care for the A’s in Oakland or anywhere else in the Bay Area. That makes it frustrating to see Quan consult with the Giants. The Giants aren’t doing the City of Oakland any favors. Just because they may have a somewhat allied interest (keeping the A’s out of San Jose) doesn’t mean they are allied.

If Quan’s smart, she’ll ask for some of the SF sponsors that Oakland will need because as much as the East Bay wants to puff its chest out , the pickings are slim. The Chron 200 is an annual list of the Bay Area’s largest independent, publicly-traded companies by revenue. Generally these are companies with revenues over $100 million annually. Some private companies, like Bechtel, or subsidiaries, like Matson (Alexander & Baldwin), and nonprofits (Kaiser Permanente) are excluded. Distributed by region, San Francisco has 19 of 200, with 5 in Marin County and 26 in San Mateo County. Santa Clara County has 102, or 51% of the list. Oakland has 3 companies on the list, the East Bay in total has 38.

Chron 200 list by city/county-region

If you combine SF, San Mateo, and Marin Counties, you get 50 companies. That’s not significantly greater than the East Bay’s 38 – or 40 if we include Kaiser and Matson. Straight up it would appear that there’s enough corporate strength in the East Bay to make a privately financed, $500 million ballpark happen. But the Giants’ argument for years has been that they needed the South Bay to finance AT&T Park. If that’s true then there’s a logical incongruence at work. Either the South Bay was required and there’s no other way but to include them, or the South Bay wasn’t required and the strength of the West Bay is enough. So which is it?

Also, check out the imbalance of companies in the Giants’ designated territory and the A’s. The Giants have over 75% of the Chron 200. The A’s have less than 20%.

The secrecy of the mystery ownership bidder is also a bit baffling. Lew Wolff has said that no interested party has asked him directly about selling the team. Instead, whoever’s interested has chosen to use back channels to engage Wolff – once. What is the point of that? If the East Bay coalition’s goal is to first work with the current ownership group to develop a plan to keep the A’s in Oakland, why have they never directly called Wolff once? They’ve gone semi-public twice in the last several months to indicate there’s an ownership group in waiting. Seems to me it’s a lot harder to put together a press conference than to call Wolff or arrange a meeting. For whatever reason, they haven’t done the latter. In the last comments thread, a question was posed, “Why doesn’t Lew listen to what these guys have to say?” I think the answer is that they have to present something to the man first. They’ve presented a plan to MLB three years ago that went unanswered. If they want to work with Wolff, they might want to first try to, you know, work with Wolff instead of posturing. It’s somewhat embarrassing that Mayor Quan has probably spent more time talking the Giants brass than the A’s. If A’s ownership is the enemy, don’t pussyfoot around it or hedge. Declare it and get to work. Otherwise it’s just another exercise in scoring PR or political points. And the only real winner in the end is the Giants.

154 Responses to The enemy of my enemy is my friend, Part Deux

  1. thisplanetsux says:

    “The Giants don’t care for you. They want the A’s gone.”

    Absolutely. And since the Giants currently have a legal claim on San Jose, refusing to even look at Oakland is the surest path to the team leaving. It’s a serious gamble. With our team. And in my book, when you have civic and business leader out in the public asking you to sit down and talk about other options that could prevent that scenario, only a complete a-hole says, “Nah, no plan B, either give me what I want, or I’m blowing the whole effing thing up and screwing all of you bastards.”

  2. Tony D. says:

    If San Jose was impossible (like most Oakland-only want to believe) and the Giants T-rights weren’t changeable, then 1) Fremont would have happened years ago, 2) there would have been no three year Bay Area study, 3) Selig wouldn’t be talking about working out a deal and, lastly, 3) WE WOULDN’T BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION! That was easy…

  3. Tony D. says:

    @tps,
    The complete “A-hole” has been the leaders of Oakland over the past 16 years: no baseball only renovations to the coliseum, Mt. Davis, no Uptown…NADA! Except for these once every few month press releases that don’t mean squat.
    Can’t wait for the official decision from MLB for a number of reasons: add not hearing from Oakland pols and biz leaders again (unless of course it relates to the Raiders).

  4. Dirty says:

    Again, this is debatable, but Wolff’s stance is he’s already LOOKED at Oakland with no success. The city didn’t have its shit together previously and they still can’t commit on a site. Stop saying the same things and come to the table with something tangible. It’s seems CC is a non-starter and the city abandoned VC.
    .
    On one hand, Oakland business leaders want to sit down with Wolff and talk. On the other, they’re publically pushing for new ownership. Forcing Wolff to talk and/or stating the A’s have no choice but to build in Oakland (one of the CEO’s was quoted saying that) is not conducive to creating and/or establishing a productive conversation.
    .
    Both sides are a-holes. But at least one of the a-holes has a plan they’re committed to, and once if ever the TR is resolved, has a reasonable possibility of producing upon. Oakland needs to stop telling the A’s they want them to stay. They already know that. It takes more than that.

  5. Briggs says:

    Knauss said Coliseum City isn’t their preference. I’m still listening…

  6. Nicosan says:

    Knauss Interview:
    They asked the question about where the does the $800-$900 million come from. The group of owners would be some individuals from the Bay Area and from Southern California. The group has not had a conversation with Wolff. He says that he sure that A’s are going to try to bring up the issue at the owners meeting, in some fashion. He wants to sit down with Wolff and Fisher, but basically they are not going to meet with them until MLB and the Owners decree that Oakland must be considered, which is to say SJ is out. Did you try to have a conversation with Wolff? No, they were respecting the process. They thought that by sending letters to MLB that that was their signal for Wolff to meet. They didn’t ever intend to contact Wolff/Fisher directly, as in I send you letter or so. They want Howards Terminal and Victory Court, they don’t think it is impossible to fund it, using the Giants financing plan. Lund and Urbs actually asking good questions, which surprised me.

    So the basics are they aren’t going to talk to Wolff/Fisher unless they come to them before a decision on TR is made, or a decision is made and its against SJ. They say they have two groups to fund the stadium and buy the team. They want Howard Term or VC not Coliseum, which would negate Coliseum City. It seems to me a bluff at this point because its all predicated on a negative decision by MLB. Now one could say that A’s in SJ is the same, but that is a lot more firm in terms of EIR, land acquisition and building. Why? because this group doesn’t want to build at CC.

  7. RC says:

    Wow the Knauss interview was eye opening. I’m so glad that Coliseum City isn’t their preference- that’s just such a mediocre plan IMO. And they said that they haven’t identified their potential owner, based out of Socal, out of respect for the process LW/MLB is undergoing. Not bad. I think the pro Oakland folks have reason to be optimistic…. unfortunately, if it isn’t SJ, you are probably looking at much longer than 3 years before getting a ballpark

  8. David says:

    fyi – Coliseum City EIR is preparing for 2 or 3 teams. If the A’s build in downtown Oakland, then the Raiders and Warriors will have a two team Coliseum City!

  9. Briggs says:

    Good interview, but Knauss was still using passive rhetoric. Saying a waterfront ballpark “isn’t impossible” isn’t exactly inspiring language.

  10. Nicosan says:

    @David, Knauss says they aren’t looking downtown, they want Howard Terminal or Victory Court.

  11. RC says:

    And yeah, unfortunately, the W’s seem even more likely to leave than the A’s

  12. RC says:

    Yeah, I get it, it is a lot of rhetoric, but at least the backup plan for a stadium isn’t “I don’t know”, there is a chance something could be done in Oakland.

  13. David says:

    @Nicosan – I consider JLS “downtown”, but point taken.

  14. David says:

    Knauss said they would prefer the VC and HT sites, but he didn’t negate the idea of building a baseball stadium at CC.

  15. Briggs says:

    Will Oakland slice the baseball park segment off their Coliseum City plan? How can this East Bay business coalition and Oakland work together when they don’t even agree on the site?

  16. RC says:

    Dueling waterfront parks or the A’s in SJ? At this point I am for whatever hurts the Giants the most. They’ve been nothing but complete dicks and don’t have the best interests of baseball in mind. They’ll do anything to keep their boot on the A’s neck, and if the A’s fail in SJ, I’m sure that they will rile up the NIMBYs around JLS. Don’t think for a second that the Giants really want the A’s to get a new stadium in Oakland, no matter how many meetings that they have with Quan.

  17. RC says:

    I think that they consider CC a last resort. That’s why it’s gonna take a long time- no one even knows which of the 3 teams actually are gonna be there. I can see scenarios for anything from 0 to 3 teams building there. Think 2019.

  18. Nicosan says:

    @David, Knauss :the Coliseum site is not the preference of the business group or the potential owner group. Then he moves on to say that if they could get a waterfront park at one of the two locations it would work. He didn’t say no but by speaking for 10 secs and moving on to HT or VC, he basically said that they aren’t looking to build there until a last resort. Neither of those two sites have EIRs, both would incur consider cost to buy property and do clean-up. The one that has EIR and would be on scale to cost and process with Diridon is CC, and they aren’t pleased with that site.

  19. Dude says:

    That interview makes me much happier. Look, if everyone can get past their city allegiances this is nothing but good news for us A’s fans. Knauss is basically saying that if Selig won’t get off his ass and do the right thing in SJ and if that leads Lew to sell, these guys have a backup plan to keep the team here. And even better, they think they can do it without hitching their wagon to this nonsensical Coliseum City pipedream. Maybe they can and maybe they can’t. Maybe SJ would provide a better revenue stream. Whatever. If Selig decides to bend over for the GIants, someone is willing to give it another try in the A’s current territory. That makes me feel much more confident in the team’s future in the Bay Area. I’ll put it this way: we have a strong option A if Selig will do his job. Failing that, we have someone willing to try a very good option B (assuming VC or waterfront). At the very least, that gives me hope.

  20. Nicosan says:

    @RC because Quan is mayor of the whole city and doesn’t care where the park gets built so long as it is in Oakland, however Oakland CRA is gone, so there is no funding from City for this. CC isn’t really a plan in my view, not with the lack of housing density in that area. To build something akin to LA Live you need demand and there isn’t much there. On top of that LA Live has lost LA quite a bit of money.

  21. Nicosan says:

    actually sorry, that was for @Briggs

  22. Anon says:

    OK – wtf again?! Events for the past year:

    JQ announces plans to investigate VC

    VC is stillborn before even the EIR is completed

    JQ starts pushing for CC and starts the EIR.

    JQ does a PR campaign at HQ with Knauss supporting her

    Now, Knauss notes his preference for VC/HT

    This is NOT a coherent, concrete strategy. It’s like throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. This is the shit cycle that has been happening for the past 15 decades.
    Oakland, you’re at bat in the bottom of the ninth with 2 outs, and down by 4. The plan should not be to bunt, GDI!

  23. eb says:

    New ownership in a waterfront Oakland park would be beyond beautiful. I’m very curious who this potential ownership group consists of. Anyway, it’s all wishing at this point, we’ll see what the owners meeting brings.

  24. Anon says:

    ….typo…15 years not decades. :X

  25. thisplanetsux says:

    Anon, you forgot the steps in the 15 year process where A’s South Bay ownership groups respond, “Nah, we’re not interested… No we’ll handle it ourselves, don’t bother… No, we can’t make that meeting… No, we won’t support that… No, we won’t be at that press conference… No, that’s too small… No, we need like 100 acres… No we won’t be commenting on that… No we’re leaving, bye… No, we’re no longer interested… No, it’s impossible.. No, it can never happen…”

  26. dmoas says:

    @Dude, I’m not sure you can get terribly excited about that plan. They’re basically saying they’re using the Giant’s stadium plan. Which, in theory, sounds great and gets a lot of nods. The problem? It’s the current plan for SJ too. So if Wolff & Co. are already committed to using that funding model for a new stadium, don’t you think they have a good grasp as to how the money using that model balances out? SJ isn’t a slam dunk (far from it) both logistically and financially. And if that’s the case for a place that has a lot more money readily available to make it profitable, it stands to reason that the margins in Oakland are going to be a lot smaller.
    .
    And now we have yet someone else drawing lines on a map without any sort of plan as to how you’re going to force multiple businesses located inside those lines to move? So we’ve got smaller margins AND a more costly plan. I’m not going to say Knauss’ ideas are DOA, but it’s far from anything to get excited about. Keep in mind, having a stadium is no guarantee that they’ll be making enough money to compete. And when you look at the rest of the AL West and baseball in general, the team’s financial status quo is anything but acceptable and sadly that’s all that we’re seeing so far in Oakland stadium planning.
    .
    Can it be done in Oakland, absolutely. But let me ask the question. If the end result of a new stadium in Oakland is more people in the seats, BUT less overall revenue (because they’re using whatever gains to pay the stadium off), is the current low budget/constant player turnover worth it?

  27. jeff-athletic says:

    dmoas
    What you said – that’s exactly why SJ is by far the best option. When looking at all the variables, it’s the only site the pencils in for paying the debt, and at the same time make the A’s profitable enough to be off revenue sharing and at the same time have enough money to develop, maintain, and acquire top MLB talent (rather than the constant rebuilding churn born out of have a rock bottom budget).
    .
    And that’s exactly why this has taken 3 years, rather than an up front “no”, and exactly why Selig is actively trying to broker a deal.

  28. Anon says:

    @ TPS – Read more, talk less. Oaklanders keep on forgetting that Schott actually won $16 million dollars from Oakland/Alameda in court for destroying the Coliseum and impacting the A’s by the monstrosity that is Mt. Davis.

    Oakland stadium “proposal” obituaries:

    Oakland Alameda Coliseum RIP 1966-1995, Al Davis
    Uptown RIP 2001-2002, Jerry Brown
    Coliseum North RIP 2004 – 2005, Ron Dellums
    Victory Court RIP 2011-2012, Jean Quan
    Coliseum City 2012 – ????, Jean Quan

  29. eb says:

    San Francisco had a longer list of failed ideas before AT&T finally hit the nail on the head. They were also trying to get a new park for as long, if not longer than the A’s have.

  30. thisplanetsux says:

    Well, one thing doesn’t seem to pencil out for the South Bay: POPULATION

    If the Giants hold on to a reasonable piece of the fanbase they already have in the South Bay, there will be fewer people to become dedicated A’s fans within 20 miles of South Diridon Station than perhaps any other ballpark in MLB. I’m not seeing much expansion to the east, west or south of San Jose, so the only fix for this problem might be significantly increased density inside San Jose proper. Is that on the agenda? Aren’t there any slow-growth, no-growth factions in the South Bay? I know there’s a faith that Lew Wolff has factored this out and can replace the tiny market size issue with big bucks from corporations, but I’ve been disappointed before by well known, convincing developers who turned out not so good at predicting how well a project will do after the doors open, so I’m not so anxious to just, “give San Jose a try” on his say so.

  31. dmoas says:

    @TPS Really? REAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLYYY???? You don’t think having a stadium right next door to Pac Bell is significantly more problematic than having one 45 miles away? 90%+ of the bay area population is a casual fan. The only thing that’ll matter to the casual fan is convenience of getting to the ball park.

  32. McB says:

    @TPS this is a weak theory. Last year I went to about 8 giants games, and about 3 A’s games, even though I really dislike the Giants and really like the A’s. Why? I live in San Francisco. If you build it, they will come.

  33. Tony D. says:

    Could not have said it better myself dmoas. Perhaps Wolff and Selig have a better grasp of this entire situation than TPS…yah think!?

  34. Dude says:

    dmoas – I wouldn’t say I’m terribly excited (and my calling it a plan was overstating it at this point). Just encouraged that someone is willing to be a backup if Selig screws us. The main problem with SJ is we’re reliant on Selig to make it happen. I don’t trust that guy at all. His (in)actions could very well lead Wolff to sell the team at some point. If that happens, I’m encouraged to hear about someone local who is willing to at least give it a shot. Who knows? Maybe they know someone or something that Wolff doesn’t that will make it possible in Oakland? Otherwise, we’re kissing the team goodbye. When relying on Selig, you sometimes have to really want to see any encouraging signs.

    And to answer your last question: I’d say it would be better than what we have today, but far short of what I want to see happen.

  35. thisplanetsux says:

    dmoas, let me try to be succinct. The problem with being 45 miles from SF and Oakland, is that you are 45 miles from SF and Oakland. In terms of population proximity and transit options, San Jose will need to be a 5’8″ power hitter. And I think that is essentially the expectation of Lew Wolff and those with faith in him. As for convenience, neither China Basin, nor South Diridon will be truly convenient for as many people as Victory Court would be, Coliseum City a bit less primo, but still pretty good.
    McB, I’m not sure what your point is. I lived in San Francisco and I NEVER went to the Giants games because simply, I’m an A’s fan. But I’m not a casual fan, so either our experiences combine to prove nothing, or maybe you were making the point that you’re one of dmoas’ casual fans who will just show up any ballpark near them whether they like the team or not, and that’s just that, who needs to specifics, QED (or something like that)?

  36. Larry E says:

    RIP MCA of the legendary Beasty Boys :(

  37. bartleby says:

    “If the Giants hold on to a reasonable piece of the fanbase they already have in the South Bay,”
    .
    Obviously, they are concerned about their ability to do this, making this a shaky premise at the outset.
    .
    ” there will be fewer people to become dedicated A’s fans”
    .
    As has been discussed ad nauseum before, this is the group of fans that contributes the least to the bottom line. 5,000 premium seat sales is worth more than 10,000 “dedicated” fans. 20,000 casual fans is worth more than 10,000 “dedicated” fans. Hard core fans (and this is most of the people posting on this board) may not want to here this, but they are not the prime consideration when it comes to the financial health of the team.
    .
    “within 20 miles of South Diridon Station than perhaps any other ballpark in MLB.”
    .
    As has been shown here before, the number of fans within 20 miles of Diridon is roughly equivalent to the number of fans within 20 miles of the Coliseum. The notion that people in the South Bay won’t go to an A’s game because they are die-hard Giants fans is completely unsupported.
    .
    “I’m not seeing much expansion to the east, west or south of San Jose, so the only fix for this problem might be significantly increased density inside San Jose proper. Is that on the agenda?”
    .
    Actually, yes, especially in the downtown core and around transit stops. And the south of San Jose is part of the long term plan for growth.
    .
    “Aren’t there any slow-growth, no-growth factions in the South Bay?”
    .
    Of course, as there are everywhere. But the twenty mile radius around Oakland is just as built out as San Jose, if not more so.
    .
    “I know there’s a faith that Lew Wolff has factored this out and can replace the tiny market size issue with big bucks from corporations, but I’ve been disappointed before by well known, convincing developers who turned out not so good at predicting how well a project will do after the doors open,”
    .
    I’m guessing a lot of those developers were playing with someone elses money. In the professional sports world, that’s almost certainly the case.
    .
    “so I’m not so anxious to just, “give San Jose a try” on his say so.”
    .
    He has data you don’t, and it’s his money at risk. That makes his opinion on this a lot weightier than yours.

  38. Tony D. says:

    “He has data you don’t, and it’s his money at risk. That makes his opinion on this a lot weightier than yours.” DEBATE OVER! Leave it to Bartleby to yet again set another discussion straight. Next topic RM…

  39. RC says:

    Just the fact that AT&T (one of the best ballparks in MLB) and the Coliseum have their 20 mile radii overlap so much is exactly why Oakland is a tough spot to build, and the park should really be gorgeous to compete, like at JLS or someplace really nice, not the Coliseum parking lot. This is besides the fact that the two teams pull casual fans from almost the same population.

  40. bartleby says:

    “The problem with being 45 miles from SF and Oakland, is that you are 45 miles from SF and Oakland. In terms of population proximity and transit options, San Jose will need to be a 5’8″ power hitter.”
    .
    You persistently ignore the basic fact that Oakland must directly share its “population proximity” with another, more popular team. So you can take your “population proximity” figures, whatever you think they are, and cut them in half. At best.

  41. dknight007 says:

    i lived in SD for ten years and got to see plenty of Pads games within a 4 year span before I moved back up to the Bay.

    Petco has its goods and bads. The dimensions from center-right center field are terrible and it’s definitely a pitchers park. Most of the games I attended were terribly boring, but of course drunk people acting like idiots make it fun….to a certain extent. I love the walk way area behind home plate, what me and my friends called the Peanut Gallery, because you can stand behind home plate area and keep your beer on a standing area table and have a great view behind home plate to the outfield and eat peanuts and drink beer and not have to sit down. Love the exterior sandy marble structure at Petco though.

    Western Metal is cool and the first and third base sight lines area great as well. Right field is okay, but left field is weird. Good archictecture overall though.

  42. dknight007 says:

    The low fence idea they had in left fied, center field and right field for Cisco Field in Fremont is what I want to see used for Cisco Field in San Jose or if a new ballpark is built in Coliseum City in Oakland. It’s something different and visually appealing.

    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/cisco755.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/AthleticsBallpark.htm&h=378&w=679&sz=101&tbnid=zOo6sZFXPjNYPM:&tbnh=68&tbnw=122&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcisco%2Bfield%2Bin%2Bfremont%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=cisco+field+in+fremont&docid=OFlfFlrsAfc9VM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MxejT5SELaGhiQLo_ujZDA&ved=0CFMQ9QEwBg&dur=3619

    Compared to the kinda bland design and look of the outfield walls for Cisco Field i n SJ below

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f3/CiscoField3.jpg/295px-CiscoField3.jpg

    The ballpark design for Cisco Field in Fremont trumps blows the design for Cisco Field in SJ out of the water IMO.

  43. dknight007 says:

    RIP MCA of the legendary Beasty Boys :(

    ^^^^^^^
    A musical and lyrical legend along with the rest of the Beasties.

  44. Tony D. says:

    I guess no one bothered to tell those wealthy tech companies and thousands of Bay Area commuters that San Jose/Silicon Valley are 45 miles away from SF/OAK. Just saying…

  45. dknight007 says:

    The Giants are a bunch of greedy piece of craps and they are going to suck from here on out!

    Karma is a b**ch!

    The A’s will stay in Oakland or go to San Jose and they will remain in the Bay Area and THAT is the key for me!

    Too bad Giants, the A’s will remain in the Bay Area whether they like it it not! LoL

  46. dknight007 says:

    Dan says:
    May 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM
    dknight, Dublin has already said no to having the Raiders. They don’t want them in their city.

    ^^^^^^^
    Wasn’t that with the previous old short sighted lady Mayor?

    The new Mayor has vision is trying to talk to the younger City Council Members.

  47. Marine Layer says:

    @Tony D. – Stop declaring “next topic”. You’re not a moderator.

  48. Tony D. says:

    @RM,
    my bad RM. Just being humorous, not trying to tell you what to do. I’ll stop.

  49. John Sports says:

    Hey Booster,
    Great posts, really love your take on this ongoing saga about our teams need for a new Stadium.
    But if your looking for other people to agree with you on this Blog forget it. Most of them (not all) do not like to hear any other opinion other than their own. When you explain your opinion and they don’t agree they just ask you to leave. Tony D for example…I have to give him credit for one thing, He has to be the biggest optimist when it comes to the A’s and San Jose. He will spin any news on the A,s into a San Jose move. I think the A’s could break ground in Oakland, start laying out the forms, and he would say…Wow this is great news, I heard they are going to build the Stadium in Oakland and then move it to San Jose, then promptly go kiss his poster of Wolff and Fisher Good night. Keep up the GREAT posts.

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>