Comments on: Challenges Facing Howard Terminal

By: thisplanetsux

thisplanetsux — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:52:46 +0000

Has something changed that makes Howard Terminal even remotely possible with Wolff/Fisher in charge? I mean, even if the City and MLB and the corporations involved put something feasible together, isn’t this simply 100% guaranteed NOT to happen as long as Wolff/Fisher own the A’s?

By: LoneStranger

LoneStranger — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:04:31 +0000

@AG – To clarify your understanding of T-Rights, they only affect stadium location. They don’t do anything to block marketing. The A’s could open up a store across the street from AT&T Park if they wanted to.

By: AG

AG — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:16:23 +0000

@Stanley:
Yes, you are right about the issues regarding the SJ site, but I could see a great ballpark being built there a lot faster than in any place in Oakland. The main reason is the OWNER wants to build it in SJ, not in Oakland, and he should have that right. I just want to see shovels hitting the dirt like in Santa Clara for the Niners, so the A’s can play in baseball only stadium somewhere here in the Bay Area.

The Giant’s front office is being greedy for not even bulging on the territorial rights issue. The A’s Haas ownership did the right thing for baseball when they gave the Giants the territorial rights to Santa Clara County for free in the early 1990’s. The Giants wanted to build a ballpark in SJ back then, but it never came to fruition due to ballot measures that were voted down. Giants now want crazy money for the territorial rights, which is completely greedy on their part considering they’re making money hand over fist there at AT&T park. Plus, I agreed with Lew Wolff about the territorial rights for Santa Clara County should have been conditional on the Giants moving to SJ. It is ridiculous MLB wrote it into their constitution leaving the A’s with only two counties in the Bay Area. Lew Wolff has made it clear that he just wants to share the territorial rights to Santa Clara County with the Giants and not make it exclusive to them. Just like the Giants have the right to put a Giants Dugout in Walnut Creek, which they have done, the A’s should be able market anywhere in the Bay Area.

I would like to see Bud Selig educate all the MLB owners about the history behind the territorial rights and show them how lopsided the boundaries are for the two Bay Area clubs. After hearing the Steve Henson radio interview yesterday, Selig will also need to educate some of the MLB owners that the A’s potential move to SJ would put them 45-miles further away from the Giants. Selig should then let the owners vote on the issue, so we can all move on from the nonsense.

By: pjk

pjk — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:19:36 +0000

Oakland-only folks cling to the territorial rights thing as the savior of MLB for their city. But as long as there is no $$ to pay for a ballpark in Oakland and no place to put it, anyway, there will be no savior. Eventually, other suitors will come forward, just as Sacramento already has, if San Jose continues to be banned. A 46-year-old football stadium will not remain the A’s permanent home.

By: Nam Turk

Nam Turk — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:16:15 +0000

I’m sure the A’s would kill to be comparable to the Mets or Angels right now. At the moment, they’re more like the…Philadelphia A’s.

By: Baynativeguy

Baynativeguy — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:24:21 +0000

@Stanley: The A’s consistently had great records from 2000-2003 and made the playoffs each year. They also had consistently low to mediocre attendance and yet weren’t owned by Lew Wolff. You must be remembering the late 1980s but that was a long time ago.

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:20:37 +0000

Really, none of us have much of an idea what Bud’s ultimate goal is here. I was listening on the radio yesterday and there was talk of how some owners thought San Jose was closer to San Francisco than Oakland… Yikes.
.
All I know, as a fan who has done a lot of research on this stuff, is that should the A’s get a new stadium in San Jose, or Oakland, they will still be the Mets, Angels, or White Sox of the Bay Area. They always have been (unless our only measure is attendance). And honestly, that is just fine with me.

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:18:53 +0000

Also, you must have a short memory. It wasn’t that long ago that the A’s were the top team in this market. Consistently outdrawing the Giants and putting a better team on the field every year. This stuff ebbs and flows. So a statement like, “the Giants own the Bay Area right now and will continue to own it as long as the A’s stay in Oakland” is just hyperbole. The same stuff the “Oakland-only” crowd gets accused of doing on this board.

20 years is not that long ago? LOL. That's more than half my age haha. Curious, since you are also so sure about the viability of Oakland as well as it's "proposals", would you also condone guaranteed attendance and luxury box sellouts by the city and county (a la the Raiders deal)? I've asked this from other pro Oakland folks (Lakeshore, Anonasfan) and have not received one response even though they are so vocal about how feasible a stadium in "pick your regurgitated proposed Oakland area" would be.

By: pjk

pjk — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:52:04 +0000

Oakland-only advocates cling to those territorial rights as the savior of baseball for the city. But if there is no money and no site in Oakland, then there won’t be any savior. Eventually, the team will be relocated to a more accommodating place. Sacramento has already put in its pitch and surely knows the score (San Jose: banned from MLB, Oakland, no $$ and no site). Other cities will come forward, too, once they know they have a rare chance to snag as precious commodity as an MLB franchise. The existing football stadium will not be the permanent home of the A’s.

By: xootsuit

xootsuit — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:49:11 +0000

@SS, you write: “It wasn’t that long ago that the A’s were the top team in this market. Consistently outdrawing the Giants and putting a better team on the field every year. This stuff ebbs and flows.”
.
Well, the mlb world has changed a lot in the last two decades, and the ebb and flow are subject to new influences. The Giants bounced back from the 94-95 strike with a team that began to draw, even in Candlestick, and they went into the new park in 2000 a winner. That was a great combination. They’ve been to the WS twice since then, and the team’s popularity has steadily increased. The million people who flooded the streets of SF after the 2010 WS only suggested the scope. Similarly, the daily SRO crowd at China Basin these days is only part of the success story. TV revenue is huge, and the increased fan base generally is impressive. The Giants have money to spend, and they do, and not just on payroll.
.
Meanwhile, the Moneyball era was famous outside Oakland late in the day, after the book was published. Crowds at the Coliseum were dwindling; Wolff et al bought the team and the rest is history, which you all know more about than do I. Die hard A’s fans are great baseball fans–but they’re an ebbing popoulation. I know these anecdotes don’t conclusively prove anything, but they’re true. In spring 2011, when the Oakland Little League kids showed up for their earliest practices, before team uniforms were distributed, most of those kids wore Giants hats. Every time I go to a Giants/A’s game at the Coliseum, I see a middle-aged father in shorts and an A’s hat herding two or more kids wearing Giants hats. . . . The Giants are marketing for the future, almost as coldly as was the villain in Chinatown, Noah Cross. (“The future, Mr. Geddes. The future.”)
.
The Giants, of course, aren’t superior; they’re just operating in the business world of baseball differently than are the A’s current owners. The A’s need to make some huge efforts on several fronts if they want popularity flowing back in their direction. I said weeks ago that a Cubs/WSox coexistence is about the best the A’s can hope for going forward. But even to regain that much presence, the A’s need to start competing.