Comments on: Official: Tarps for original upper deck (West Side) to be removed for ALCS & World Series

By: Makhan Singh

Makhan Singh — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:49:23 +0000

Really sad that the bickering had to start that quickly after such a great season.

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:28:27 +0000

Can’t wait for this shit to be over…

By: Marine Layer

Marine Layer — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 19:34:14 +0000

@Stanley Stanson – No, but that hasn’t stopped the City from progressing as if negotiating with MLB is the primary option. That is what it negotiated for with its PR push, and that’s what it’s getting. It’s presenting sites to MLB. It’s exchanging information. It’s communicating with the commissioner. They’ve done an endaround ownership, and this is what an endaround gets you.

By: Stanley Stanson

Stanley Stanson — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 19:19:59 +0000

ML, first of all, Oakland is talking to a three person committee, none of whom is an MLB employee. Second, it’s clear the committee doesn’t have any mandate to negotiate anything.

By: Stanley Stanson

Stanley Stanson — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 19:15:55 +0000

@pjk, from what I understand, according to people who know how the Commissioner works, publicly announcing your intent to purchase a team when it isn’t for sale is the exact opposite way to be successful in becoming an MLB owner.

Additionally, is the city of Oakland supposed to negotiate this complex transaction with a group who doesn’t own the team, doesn’t know how much it will pay to get the team, hasn’t looked at the books of the team it intends to buy? I can’t imagine any good business person doing this without understanding the economics fully.

By: Marine Layer

Marine Layer — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 19:12:14 +0000

@Stanley Stanson – Oakland has a counter-party. It’s called MLB.

By: pjk

pjk — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:55:09 +0000

Stanley: So why hasn’t Oakland brought forward someone willing to both buy the team and pay for the ballpark? Someone willing to pay for the whole thing and go public with these intentions? Don’t you think Selig would love to hear “I’m so and so and I’m willing to spend more than $1 billion to keep the A’s on Oakland. I have the financing all set. And I’ll put it in writing.”

By: Stanley Stanson

Stanley Stanson — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:38:39 +0000

@Jeffrey, the reality right now is that you have to have a counter-party in order to develop a ballpark. Who should Oakland negotiate with re: building a new ballpark? I think you would agree that you can’t negotiate against yourself.

By: pjk

pjk — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:34:17 +0000

Yes, we all know San Jose’s mega-strong corporate backing negates the need for any city money to pay for the ballpark.

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:18:00 +0000

David and pjk, can we just stop with that stuff? We all know the answers.