Comments on: San Jose and SC County officials working out ballpark land deal

By: duffer

duffer — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:08:25 +0000

Tony D and Steve are both spot about the Giants owners’ group. The Giants opposition to the A’s move to San Jose is so whacky there is likely no legal precedent behind it. In a two team fanbase situation, it is quite certain that no pro sports franchise has ever attempted to block the other team from moving further away – this must be a first in professional sports.

Even if the giants were somehow able to defeat the MLB ATE in court they would still lose – the ATE would no longer be able to protect the giants opposition to the A’s move. If the Giants challenge the A’s without challenging the ATE, their attempts would be feeble and likely not be much trouble to defeat. An out of town organization such as the Giants, meddling with San Jose and the A’s in Santa Clara county and in a Santa Clara county courtroom, would have a difficult time appearing legitimate. There is plenty of precedent backing the A’s though, there have been plenty of NFL franchise relocations, the Raiders for example, which have successfully relocated their teams.

By: Tony D

Tony D — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 04:41:28 +0000

@anon,
All this “pain” we’re currently going through will make Cisco Field that much sweeter. Yes, its probably 5+ years away, but I’ll take an announcement and fresh bash of renderings in the interim. Downing cold ones while viewing 360 Architects renderings on this site? Sounds good to me

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:21:09 +0000

Admittedly, I’ve been watching the Gnats games with my buddies, and I am ashamed to say it but I am jealous. I am jealous that they have a wonderful park they call home, while we continually have stupid press conference about vaporware proposals. I am jealous that they sellout all the time, generating enough revenue to keep their marquee players long term. I am jealous because the fans only concentrate on the game and get to enjoy it without any distractions. I am jealous because their fanbase is united even with all the stupid pandas, beards, and tainted milk crap, while we continue to alienate / berate one another because of where we live at. This WS is sickening me but making me open my eyes of how truly shitty this whole situation has become….sigh.

By: Briggs

Briggs — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 19:34:41 +0000

Lewers? A’s nerd humor. I love it! Just made my day, no joke.

By: Gabe

Gabe — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:34:06 +0000

Okay, if they have to pay market value, it would be an extra $7 million? Lew Wolff would write a check for 7 million if it bought him a green light to build. If Bud (or the owners ) say “go ahead and build,” and the lawsuit posesmore than a temporary setback, I bet ownership just ponies up $7 million (better than the $10 million they paid for a dozen starts from Ben Sheets). Problem solved, “Stands for SF—I meanSJ” is dissolved.

By: Tony D

Tony D — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:33:21 +0000

BTW,
if you ever want to disgust and humor yourself at the same time, read the comments thread over at Sfgate. What a bunch of “Lewsers!”

By: Tony D

Tony D — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:19:54 +0000

@Briggs,
Your opinion brings up an interesting point: the almost 3.5 year delay in getting a decision from Selig/MLB. WHEN the deal for San Jose is announced, that will be the secondary big news of the day: what the hell took so long?! With the exception of perhaps RM, none of us know that answer. I have some theories just like everyone else: uncertainty on the SJ land deals (as of now the entire plot STILL hasn’t been acquired), Wolffs ability to finance Cisco Field and the remaining mortgage on AT&T Park. Whatever is delaying the decision aside, don’t think lawsuits will play a big role here on out.

By: GoA's

GoA's — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:18:13 +0000

@steve- the SF gints are suing now under the front organization of Stand for SJ—their focus would be on the development of the ballpark, acquisition of remaining parcels etc—I’m not implying that they would be successful but no doubt they will delay the start of construction—check out how developement lawsuits impacted Petco for nearly 2 years–

By: Briggs

Briggs — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:55:07 +0000

Tony D.: Whether there’s an actual lawsuit following an MLB decision or not, this entire saga has been nothing but a delay. 2012 is nearly complete. Whether MLB made a decision 3 years ago or 3 days ago, it doesn’t change the fact that something– whether it’s a lawsuit or the threat of one– is delaying this project as you read this. Saying there won’t be delays while we’re in the midst of a giant delay is craziness. In closing, I think the people not putting their hopes into one city or the other are the most relaxed.

By: steve

steve — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:52:19 +0000

I have yet to hear a viable answer to the questions: Who would the SF Giants sue? What would their claims be?