Yesterday we had news of the SJ Giants-led citizen group making its comments. Today we have the City Attorney of San Francisco, Dennis Herrera, expressing “grave concern” over a change in territorial rights and how it could affect the city financially (letter in PDF).
What’s really happening is that the SF Giants have launched a two-front war on the San Jose effort and the A’s through use of proxies, the city and the minor league team/community group. It’s an extremely clever way to fight a battle, especially when you know you have no direct course of action within the confines of MLB.
The best part? Herrera mentions “binding agreements” five times, but cagily doesn’t mention that the agreements are only with the Giants, not MLB. To wit:
And the City made its commitments with the implied understanding that Major League Baseball would continue to respect the Giants’ territorial rights.
Maybe a lawyer can tell me how binding an “implied understanding” is.
Next, Herrera lists the various financial interests the city has in AT&T Park and the Giants, including:
- Ground lease for the AT&T Park land, currently $1,577,439
- Parking lot A rent: $2,000,000
- Possessory interest tax revenue used to repay the TIF fund meant for surrounding area improvements.
- Admissions, parking, sales, and other taxes.
The important thing to note here is that this is a derivative take from what the Giants are arguing. Essentially, Herrera is saying the trickle down revenue from having the Giants at China Basin will be harmed if the A’s move to San Jose. Herrera is threatening a lawsuit, but the real question is, “How can the City prove it will be harmed?” Some questions to ponder when considering such a legal action:
- How much of the fanbase really is in the South Bay?
- How much of that subset would eliminate or significantly reduce attendance at Giants games?
- How much of the affected fanbase would be replaced by additional availability in the immediate area (SF/Marin/SM Counties)?
- How much of the affected fanbase would be replaced by East Bay fans who would be adversely affected by an A’s move?
The most interesting thing is that Herrera doesn’t say exactly who the city would sue. MLB? The A’s? San Jose? All of them or some combination? If you really want to get down to brass tacks, a tampering charge could be leveled at all three. Then again, would Herrera be arguing about tampering with an implied understanding? That doesn’t sound like all that strong an argument to this layperson.
If SF really wants to move forward on this, it’ll be the baseball equivalent of assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand: it’ll set off even greater costly, pointless legal actions. An antitrust action would almost certainly come from the South Bay against the Giants and MLB. That’s just what everyone needs, more taxpayer money going down the drain (SF would retain outside counsel for this). Really, it’s not surprising, considering that the kerfuffle is emanating from the Worst Run Big City in the U.S.
Parting thought: Despite the bluster, there may be another angle to this. If the point is not so much to kill the move as it is to negotiate a revenue guarantee for the Giants via the city, this is a good first step.
newballpark.org 
Anyone want to change their vote on what the MLB panel is expected to recommend…? Seriously, find it fascinating that the city of SF is arguing that its revenue generating machine is at risk while the other effort sponsored by the BIG gints says that there isn’t any revenue from having a MLB team (in fact would lead to a loss of jobs?) and therefore SJ shouldn’t be pursuing building a ballpark….MLB and Bud have brought some of this upon themselves by taking so long to address the issue…..but since they didn’t there shouldn’t be any changes…just more drama by the SF gints—which may backfire on them all together—
Yeah now I’m certain they’ll vote for SJ.
“And the City made its commitments with the implied understanding that Major League Baseball would continue to respect the Giants’ territorial rights.
Maybe a lawyer can tell me how binding an “implied understanding” is.
—-
You and I only have an “implied understanding” that the our 1st amendment rights will be respected. There are mechanism for the government to revoke them, temporarily or permanently. Yet most of us expect the government will always respect our freedom of speech, religion, etc. The MLB Constitution is intended to offer a similar sort of protection to the teams and cities making contractual agreements.
The MLB Constitution is not an agreement between the league and any City Government. Not even implied.
And SF contributed 5% of the total investment to build AT&T Park.
This is complete nonsense.
“You and I only have an “implied understanding” that the our 1st amendment rights will be respected.”
It’s not implied, it’s explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution can be amended. Amendments have been repealed. You live your life _expecting_ to have the freedom of speech, but it is legally possible for that right to be removed. The city is making a sound argument here. A Constitution should not be amended unless under extreme circumstances because people make important decisions bearing in mind what the Constitution says at the time.
Pulling Constitution talk into this is a bit of a stretch. This is a much smaller, more local issue. Is there a contract or not? That should guide the debate.
TPS,
Just stop already while you’re way behind!
“The MLB Constitution is intended to offer a similar sort of protection to the teams and cities making contractual agreements.” NO ITS NOT! What hat did you pull that crap out of!?
Actually no. There are mechanisms in place to suspend certain rights in times of war. But the Constitution has a Theological component to it that asserts that these rights are self evident and endowed upon humanity by their Creator.
So the implied understanding here is that any government which suspends those rights is no longer legitimate and therefore has no authority.
There is no God given right for the city of Oakland to have sole possession of the A’s. Sorry Nav.
Can you say ABSURD!? How low will the Giants organization and SF go to try to keep the A’s from moving 50 miles further south of AT&T Park? And when will MLB come in and give Neukom and Baer a “time out?” Works for my daughter! Simply put, SF and the Giants have no case. You would think with all of this nonsense that all of the 41,000+ in attendance at AT&T Park were San Jose citizenry, and that all of the corporate sponsors were Silicon Valley company’s; forget the inconvenient fact that 75% of Silicon Valley corporations polled by the SVLG didn’t do any business with the Giants. And forget the inconvenient fact that, as Steve Kettmann alluded to, all hard-core Giants fans in Santa Clara and San Mateo County’s would remain Giants fans regardless if the A’s are in San Jose or not. By the way, doesn’t the City of SF have more pressing problems to deal with then the A’s moving to San Jose?
With the city of San Francisco now actively involved in preventing SJ from getting the A’s, the Bay Bridge series @ Cisco Field is going to be quite interesting.
it won’t be the bay bridge series anymore 😛
more like the Interstate 101 series now.
I’ve always like the Battle of the Bay title more or Bay Area series.
still have that 1989 world series patch “Battle of the Bay” …
Battle of the Bay… my bad. I still have the T-shirt.
Hey can still be the Battle of the Bay—reaches down to San Jose and in fact they have just restored the boat ramp in Alviso
Go John,
There’s no Bay Bridge in San Jose therefore no Bay Bridge series. However, there will continue to be a Bay Bridge series between Oakland and San Francisco. Let’s face it, San Francisco will sue MLB and San Jose, and Oakland will also sue MLB and San Jose. If San Francisco is complaining about financial loses, then what about the millions in potential economic development that this conspired move will cost the City of Oakland. MLB is in for a very hard time if they approve this relocation of the Oakland A’s to San Jose when there are at least two great viable sites in Oakland close to their fanbase.
Also, keep in mind that Senator Feinstein lives in San Francisco and can’t be real pleased about watching these teams playing musical chairs with various cities. Senator Feinstein has already gone on record as opposing the Forty Niners move to Santa Clara. Senator Boxer lives in Oakland and is a huge Oakland A’s fan. How do you think she must feel watching these attempts at pilfering Oakland’s baseball team? Let’s also not forget that there’s a good possibility that the next Governor of California will be a resident of Oakland. Jerry Brown still lives in Oakland. I haven’t even mentioned Congresswoman Barbara Lee and former Congressman, and now Mayor, Ron Dellumns.
MLB and San Jose are barking up the wrong tree if they think that the Oakland A’s are somehow the Montreal Expos. The fans in the Bay Area and Northern California have spoken. The politicians, along with East Bay business community are speaking loud and clear. We don’t care how many corporations you have in San Jose, Mayor Reed. This is OUR team, and we will not roll over for you. Sir, your since of entitlement is appalling. Keep your hands off of the Oakland A’s.
Nav, respectfully, you don’t own anything and neither does Oakland. What grounds does Oakland have for a lawsuit? What legal binding agreement is being broken by moving the team to San Jose? What grounds does San Francisco have for more than a letter? They have filed nothing.
What has Senator Feinstein’s disapproval done to the progress in Santa Clara? Did it stop it from getting City COuncil approval to go on the ballot? What has Senator Boxer’s disapproval done to the MLB stadium committee? Did it stop them from talking to Fremont and San Jose?
I love the passion you have for your home town, but stop pretending you speak for A’s fans far and wide. It is old.
You are right about one thing, though. There is some serious barking up the wrong tree going on here, but it isn’t MLB or the A’s owners doing it.
Jeff, why do you keep implying that Oakland A’s fans are ambivalent about this proposed relocation to San Jose? It’s clear from the responses to the Let’s Go Oakland site, and the number of petitions signed to “Keep the A’s in Oakland.” that many more people want the A’s in Oakland than want the A’s to relocate to San Jose.
Also, the history of how we’ve gotten to this point along with possible collusion between MLB and San Jose, is what will be looked at very closely. Oakland has a very good case to claim that the Blue Ribbon Commission set up by Bud Selig to delay the vote on the sale by Steve Schott to buyers brought in by the City of Oakland per signed contract by all parties, is what may eventually lead to the loss of a potential economic catalyst for the City of Oakland. Lew Wolff and his associations to Steve Schott will also come to the forefront. And yes, the heavy weight political pressure does have an effect.
Nav,
Why didn’t they sue back then instead of pressing the A’s to stay in Oakland through their lease? The only thing Oakland pushed for in the Blue Ribbon Commission days was for the A’s to stay through 2004. Seems like that sort of happened.
Jeffrey,
I can respect the opinion of someone not wanting the A’s to leave Oakland. As for Navigator however, well…all of his blather is completely irrelevant at this point. As a former “A Team” member once said “I pitty the fool!”
They’ll sue and they’ll lose thanks to baseball’s anti trust exemption. MLB is free to designate its territories thanks to the exemption. San Francisco be damned.
One other thing; I’m pretty sure much of the MLB committees work will deal with a team in San Jose and whether it will have any negative effect on the Giants and their revenue. As noted above, SVLG helped them out with the corporate sponsorship part. And the “loosing fans” component appears to be utter nonsense also. But if, and it’s probably a huge IF, a MLB team in San Jose would somehow affect the Giants bottom line, expect some sort of gauranteed revenues or franchise value for the G’s (see Expos/Nationals/Orioles saga). Also, would someone tell the City of SF that the territorial rights to SJ/SC only exist because the Giants were supposed to relocate themselves to San Jose. Nonsense at its finest!
It has been said that implied conditions and covenants are not favored; (1) the implication must arise from the language used or it must be indispensable to effectuate the intention of the parties; (2) it must appear from the language used that it was so clearly within the contemplation of the parties that they deemed it unnecessary to express it; (3) implied covenants can only be justified on the grounds of legal necessity; (4) a promise can be implied only where it can be rightfully assumed that it would have been made if attention had been called to it. Citing Cousins Inv. Co. v. Hastings Clothing Co. (1941) 45 Cal App 2d 141, 149; Witkin Summary of California Law, Contracts Sec. 794(2).
Remember the reason/purpose for the T-rights in the first place: “To prevent some other team from moving to SC County while the Giants tried to move there.” There has been no writing or agreement that has changed this initial premise other than the self-serving attempts by Neukom and Baer to misrepresent what the facts are. Here with Herrera’s letter and attachments, we find out the first time the actual document that they are trying to argue is the glue between the original T-rights and the continuing enforcement of same doesn’t even come close to touching on the subject. It’s silent, It’s vapor, it’s their argument, it’s not there….there is NO THERE THERE!!!!
Nowhere in any of the documents attached to Herrera’s letter is there any express agreement related to the territory. We’ve heard Alan Selig state the territory rights would be respected (but that could mean anything including a payout). We’ve also heard Nuk’em and Baer misrepresent that the “territory rights were re-affirmed” during the approval of ATT, but nowhere can anyone point to a document. Maybe MLB has some other documents that have an express re-affirmation, but they haven’t been published thusfar.
I really believe that the attempts to claim the Nov. 26, 1997 NL letter was somehow a reaffirmation of the T-rights is a non-starter. If you believe Alan Selig, the Giants don’t have to go that far. He has already said they will get “something” for them. If their argument is the Nov. 26, 1997 they will lose, and this is mere posturing. If there is something more, we will see it soon.
RM’s question about who the parties to a lawsuit would be is a good one. In order to sue a party needs to have “standing” and they need their case to be “justiciable.” I think with only speculation about some potential loss of revenue the City lacks justiciability or in other words, they have no damages, thus they have no case.
Need to Connect the Dots for Damages
If after an A’s stadium was built in SJ and there were real damages that they could prove, as in lost revenue directly tied to the SJ ballpark, and the loss of revenue was somehow damaging SF, then SF would possibly have standing and their case would be justiciable. Until then, their case is moot and wouldn’t survive an early motion to dismiss. This also assumes a summary judgment motion brought under MLB’s anti-trust exemption wouldn’t be granted. Two big hurdles for SF and/or the Giants.
I think RM has is correct at the end of the post wherein he states this is probably just posturing and a reminder that the Giants will need to be paid for their T-rights being removed. Remember the 32,000 seat stadium now is going to be 36,000. There is probably a few good reasons that MLB wants the extra 4,000 seats in SJ….possibly to help finance the Giants payoff. Think about it.
Your post beat mine and the theme is the same. Your is much more detailed, but I’ll post mine anyway
Let’s asssume SF is correct that MLB’s approval of the transaction documents between the Cty and the Giants is some kind of guarantee of the Giants financial interests contained within those documents. I don’t think it is, but let’s assume they’re right. Of the financial interests explicitly stated in the transaction documents, only the lease, rent, and tax revenue to repay the TIF are actually mentioned. The three items are paid directly by the Giants to the city. I can’t imagine a situation where the Giants would be so adversely affected by an A’s move south that they would refuse to pay those funds. However, if that was the case, we’re not talking about a ton of money so why not placate the city? MLB and/or the A’s could easily insure against losses incurred by the city should the Giants fail to meet their financial obligations (lease, rent, TIF repay).
I don’t see any mention of fourth financial interest listed by the city attorney (Admissions, parking, sales, and other taxes) in the transaction documents. If MLB and/or the A’s decide not to insure against any losses listed in the fourth financial interest, I don’t see how a lawsuit to recoup those losses would hold much merit. Not only is are territorial rights not stated anywhere in the transaction documents (i.e. “implied understanding,”), but no mention of benchmarks for attendance, parking, etc.. are listed either. Any lawsuit would first have to argue that MLB is responsible for any loss of those financial interests based on an “implied understanding.” It would then have to prove that a) those losses exist, and b) the losses are a result of a territorial reversal/sharing. I thought MLB teams don’t like opening up their books? Seems like quite a stretch.
Outstanding post R.S.!
I agree, it is probably all just posturing. Those 4000 seats would still need to be filled, which might not be a problem on certain days, but certainly those 4000 seats would be empty most of the time. My impression of the extra 4000 seats was for analysis of more cars and people in the EIR, as a sort of worse-than-normal scenario.
Nice post LS,
Never thought of the worse-than-normal angle. This would definetely blow out of the water the argument from the Stand for San Jose folks that the EIR is flawed and not taking into consideration worst case scenarios (traffic, noise, etc.).
I’d find it amusing beyond words if San Francisco ultimately kept the A’s in Oakland. This particular strategy won’t work, but mobilizing a SWAT team of NIMBYs just might.
Fremont showed that NIMBYs are obviously the first option, as they can derail even a slam dunk deal (what many thought at the time). San Jose was proactive in working with residents most severely impacted, though. The Diridon site is not a nuisance in many backyards. These current tactics (astroturf activism and lawsuit threats) are secondary and tertiary options…and it shows.
Totally Agree!
amusing…? if you think that the gints strategy is to keep the A’s out of SJ you have a pretty limited scope. They know that the odds of anything happening in Oakland are really low….keep the A’s out of SJ and you have pretty much sealed yourself as the only Bay Area MLB team at some point in the not so distant future. Sorry..but as an A’s fan I don’t find it amusing….it pisses me off and should piss off every A’s fan who wants to see them stay in the Bay Area.
At the very least cock blocking the A’s out of the South Bay will ensure that the A’s aren’t a threat financially for several years because Oakland didnt get their ducks in a row soon enough. The a’s can absolutely make it work in Oakland, but its going to take a long while
I can see both sides. While I’m not sure if its their primary motivation, you do point out a scenario that A) is entirely inconceivable and B) that the Giants would be upset about. It reminds me of an old economics professor I had who used to say that the last thing a capitalist wants is competition.
Go A’s, the Giants have been consistent from day one on their territorial rights. They had no say when things looked like they were headed for Fremont. What makes you think that they’re banking on nothing happening in Oakland. If the Oakland A’s build a ballpark in Alameda or Contra Costa Counties the Giants have nothing to say about it. The only people stopping a ballpark from being built in Oakland are Lew Wolff and John Fisher. If these individuals would have spent a fraction of the money and time that they’ve spent looking just about everywhere BUT Oakland, we’d have our waterfront ballpark by now. Isn’t strange the the enemies of Oakland Athletics fans are Lew Wolff, John Fisher Bud Selig and San Jose politicians, while allies of Oakland A’s fans are the San Francisco Giants, the City of San Francisco, and fair minded baseball fans from all over the Country. Personally, as a long-time Oakland A’s fan, I can no longer stomach Wolff or Fisher. They’ve done far too much damage already. They’ve burned too many bridges and have lost the trust of many Oakland A’s fans. Wolff and Fisher should no longer be the face of this franchise.
Wolff and Fisher are not selling. I repeat. WOLFF AND FISHER ARE NOT SELLING. Bringing it up in every comment isn’t going to make it happen. Stop the insanity.
Are you so naive as to believe that the Giants and SF are actually “friends” of the A’s? For the love of reason, do the freaking math. Clue one- “Follow the Money”.
As a long time A’s fan I can no longer stomache Oakland only fans v. A’s fans—
Fisher and Wolff aren’t “A’s fans”. San Jose is not building this park for the A’s, they’re building it for San Jose. There aren’t any saints to be found anywhere, just get used to it.
tps—your world….
“San Jose is not building this park”
True, A’s ownership is.
Yes, amusing. If San Jose is taken off the table, the A’s odds of remaining in Oakland are anything but low. The grass isn’t greener anywhere else in the country, especially in this economy.
Would San Francisco like it better if the A’s were gone entirely? Sure. I’d also like it if Russian River Brewing decided to give me a lifetime supply of Pliny the Elder, but that probably isn’t going to happen, either.
The fans in the Bay Area and Northern California have spoken.
Those fans have voted with their feet and their wallets, staying away from A’s games in droves, to the degree that the team is now last in major-league attendance.
.
Actions speak louder than words.
OK guys let’s calm down and not be so emotional. Personally I would love to see Wolff and Fisher sell the team to someone committed to keeping the team in Oakland and being a part of the fabric of the east bay community. In the same way the Haas family committed to the community.
Things are heating up very quickly…The MLB needs to make a decision quickly before things get out of hand…
ML, do you know or have access to the number of attendees from the south bay who go to Giants games? Jed York said that 40% of the season ticket holders for the 49ers are from the south bay. if the numbers are similar to the Giants you’d have to understand what would be lost to that franchise..
Oh god, now the Oakland-only folks are thanking San Francisco for what they think is more benevolent championing of their cause…
Oh god, now the Baseball San Jose group is pleading for new Facebook membership in order to stop the, “Giants in their misguided attempt to dominate and rule over San Jose residents and tax payers.”
At least that notion is rooted in reality.
So the notion that Facebook membership is important is rooted in reality? I guess Navigator isn’t as delusional as we thought.
The notion of using facebook as a tool to provide a forum to update your supporters is rooted in reality….think Obama…..thinking that MLB will be swayed by the numbers associated with a facebook group is not…
I was referring to the intentions of the Giants, which have clearly been misinterpreted by the OAFC crew.
the world has gone mad. Facebook, for crying out loud.
Interestingly enough, I wonder how this will play with the residents of SJ? It’s one thing to be ambivalent about a sports franchise relocating to your city. Quite another when another munincipality takes it upon itself to tell you what you can and can’t have in your own back yard.
be interesting to see how the construction trades in San Jose/Silicon Valley respond–30+% unemployment in their respective sector…an opportunity to put union workers back to work…and the gints are trying to block it….wonder how many of these guys buy gints tix—-would love to see a organized boycott of the gints by those who would gain from a near term ballpark construction project.
Nam, I really don’t care if it’s benevolent or not. I just appreciate any help Oakland A’s fans can get from anyone in keeping the team in Oakland. It’s unfortunate that Lew Wolff has put so much energy and money from day one in thinking of ways to relocate the Oakland A’s out of Oakland. He spent time trying to circumvent territorial rights to San Jose even as he was making claims of working on building a ballpark in Oakland. Lew Wolff and John Fisher are no friends of Oakland A’s fans. I consider them, along with Bud Selig, to be our adversaries. This goes directly to the question of attendance posed by Connie Mack. Do you think Oakland A’s fans want to line the pockets of an ownership which wants to take our money and invested in San Jose? Do you see the absurdity of your logic? I’ll take San Francisco’s help anytime. I’ll take Senator Feinstein’s help. I’m not proud when it comes to keeping our team in Oakland.
Leandre,
Football and baseball are apples and oranges. Football is a day-long event (usually Sundays) that draws from a large geographic area and is played 8 times per year at home. It’s not uncommon for Raiders season ticket holders to come from as far away as Modesto or Fresno. In the case of the Niners, the South Bay. Baseball, on the other hand, draws its season ticket base from within 20 miles of said ballpark and is played 81 times per year at home.
Also, for the sake of argument, let’s just say that 40% of Giants season ticket holders come from San Jose/Santa Clara County. That would come out to 16,000+ hard-core Giants season ticket holders from the South Bay who labor 81 times per year to get to AT&T Park. That’s called dedication and love for one’s team! You mean to tell me that each and every one of the 16k would all of a sudden become A’s fans/A’s season ticket holders if the team were in downtown San Jose? I’d say no. And how could anyone ever prove that would happen? YOU CAN’T! R.M. said it best; how could SF prove it would be harmed? THEY CAN’T! As R.S. stated above and below…NO CASE!
Further thoughts on Herrera’s shot across, err down I-280. Assuming arguendo that SF got by the summary judgment motion on the federal anti-trust exemption (not likely); they would presumably be suing MLB, San Jose, and the A’s for the following business torts and the elements that need to be proved are:
(1) Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations
(a) A valid existing contract (SF and Giants)
(b) Defendant (MLB, SJ, A’s) had knowledge of contract
(c) Defendant intended to induce a Breach of that contract
(d) Contract was actually breached or performance was rendered difficult
(e) Defendants’ conduct were the cause of the Breach
(f) and Plaintiff’s (SF) have suffered damages
(2) Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Advantage
(a) An existing economic relationship (SF and Giants)
(b) Defendants (MLB, SJ, A’s) had knowledge of economic relationship
(c) Defendants intended/designed to disrupt the economic relationship
(d) Defendants’ conduct actually disrupted the economic relationship
(e) and Plaintiff’s (SF) have suffered damages; and
(3) Intentional Interference with Right to Pursue a Lawful Business
(a) Defendants intentionally acted
(b) Defendants (MLB, SJ, A’s) intentional acts caused interference
(c) Plaintiffs have a lawful business (Giants)
(d) Defendants’ acts/conducts actually interfered with the business
(e) and Plaintiff’s have suffered damages
Herrera purposefully included the contractual relationship facts (between SF and Giants) to tee up these potential causes of action. However, if you carefully analyze each cause of action, SF is missing one or more elements from each one. In #1, they can’t prove elements c, d, e and f. In #2, they can’t prove c, d and e. And in #3, they can’t prove d and e. Each and every element must be proved in order to be successful or even survive a motion.
BTW City of Oakland has no legal beef here against A’s. Plenty of legal authority which would support A’s move to anywhere. The only contract or obligation between A’s and Oakland is a series of existing 1 yr leases which expire very soon (2012-13) and I have not heard that the A’s are breaching their lease obligations.
You da man Son of Rayburn!
In real life, sadly, you don’t need to prove anything in a case like this for it to plow ahead and cost 10s of million of dollars over many years. All you do is describe a relationship that went bad, and accuse the other party of intentially destroying the trust. The judge will then say, “My, it sounds like some shenigans might have taken place here… Let’s subpoena EVERYTHING and get to the bottom of this.” So, over the next several years, teams of attorneys gather up wharehouses full of letters, memos, agreements, contracts, press releases, emails, post-it notes, broken hard drives… and they depose scores, if not hundreds, of witnesses… The apparent goal is to give a plaintiff infinite access to any and all “evidence” in the defendant’s possession on the off chance that some smoking gun might be found. Maybe, in 5 or 6 years, if neither side has given up, you might get a trial out of it.
Question… are either of you lawyers? Because Raybiurn’s Son appears to have some fairly detailed knowledge on the topic and tps appears to have the same jaded view I have (i spend a lot of my time working with lawyers, but am not one).
I’m a defendant, as described, since 2004. Still hoping one day for a trial.
Sorry to hear that.
It doesn’t necessarily have to take years. Apple just got its summary judgement against Psystar in less than 18 months without significant additional discovery.
tps—so is that what happend in Seattle when Clay Bennett bought the franchise and moved it within a year to Oklahoma? This was after he had committed to a minimum of 3-years in Seattle to try and get a new arena. Oh by the way….there was an email chain that Mr. Bennett had developed where he indicated from day 1 that he had no intent on keeping the team in Seattle—remind me what happened it that case—oh that’s right—-nothing—and the team is in Oklahoma.
And just to add GoA’s,
The NBA doesn’t have an anti-trust exemption like MLB…and the team STILL moved to Oklahoma!
Rayburn, The delay on the vote of the sale of the Oakland Athletics to buyers brought forth by the City of Oakland, by the Blue Ribbon Commission will lead to economic harm to the City of Oakland if the Oakland Athletics are eventually allowed to relocate via a fraudulent delay of a legal and bidding contract. As a matter of fact, Oakland’s case would meet your outlined conditions. And, we still haven’t delved into Lew Wolff’s machinations as he claimed that he was working on a ballpark in Oakland just before the lease agreement with Oakland and Alameda County. Statements implicating Bud Selig, Steve Schott and Lew Wolff are all on record.
Hey Nav, assuming you are right and there was a breach of contract in 1999… what is the Statute of Limitations on such an agreement?
What specifically did Lew do that was illegal?
Lew Wolff misrepresented his intention to Oakland and Alameda County in order to land a favorable lease, with a favorable time frame. We already know that Lew Wolff was attempting to get territorial rights to the South Bay even as he was “working” on his ballpark in Oakland. This is all on record. Also, Bud Selig has already admitted that MLB delayed the sale to the pro Oakland group because ” Schott didn’t want to sell” Those are Selig’s words. This is fraud my friends. Schott would have had to sell the franchise at a discount to a local Oakland buyer per the contract with the City of Oakland. MLB delayed the entire process until the deadline was reached. This is how another South Bay interest, Lew Wolff, was able to get control of the Oakland Athletics. And here we are in 2009 with Oakland being threatened with the possible loss of an economic catalyst for their city.
….”loss of an economic catalyst for their city” …that has been seriously mismanaged by the city of Oakland….pretty hard to hide that fact…
I don’t understand your fact pattern. It appears misguided and inane. Moreover, Lew spent considerable time, energy, and dollars studying Oakland sites (Fact). He got little cooperation from the pols who were obviously more concerned with the Raiders (Fact). Lew has ample evidence in this regard which was all turned over and analyzed by the BRC (Fact). BTW the BRC has met with SJ 3 times and counting contrary to published reports (Fact). If someone wanted to they could delve into the SJ Public records due to new Sunshine Ordinance requirements for all meetings involving city department leaders, etc. at City Hall.
Lew, huh?
Rayburn, Lew Wolff never met with the land owners at 66th & High Street. (fact) Lew Wolff spent tens of millions buying land and attempting to develop a ballpark in Fremont. (fact) Lew Wolff ran out his own deadline for Oakland even as he dismissed a group of Oakland political and civic leaders which he had originally asked for. (fact) Lew Wolff was attempting to secure territorial rights to the South Bay even as he was negotiating a lease with Oakland under the pretense that he wanted to build this ballpark in Oakland, (fact) Lew Wolff spent very little time or money attempting to do anything in Oakland.(fact) Lew Wolff has territorial rights to Oakland for his San Jose soccer franchise. (fact)
My God have mercy on your soul, Nav. You have clearly lost it. Happy Holidays.
Everything you outline sounds like MLB, Wolfe, and Selig maintained their end of the contract. They let it run out and then they sought a better deal elsewhere. This happens all the time in the business world. It’s generally understood that folks will act in their own best interests, hence the need for contracts in the first place. So what’s the problem? No court is going to take up the case just because a few advocates have a misplaced notion of proprietary rights.
ML and Jeff,
Isn’t the owner’s meeting coming up in January? I know you don’t like to speculate, but do you think there’s the possibility the panel will have it’s findings ready for the meeting, and we may actually have a decision on this matter, one way or the other?
It’s possible but wouldn’t expect it.
R.M.,
Also adding to the “how could the city prove it will be harmed” theme is the team performance aspect. It is my firm belief that if the Giants put out an outstanding product year in and year out (great pitching, playoff contender) that AT&T Park will be sold out and a major revenue generator REGARDLESS if a MLB team is in SJ or not. But let’s just say that after 2014 the Giants become, for some years, Pittsburgh Pirates-horrid (in the cellar, 20 games back of the Dodgers) and attendance and revenue drop. Is that because of the product put out by the Giants or because of an existing MLB team in SJ? Again, it couldn’t be proved.
I tell yah Rhamesis, that first GB Marzen at Cisco Field is going to taste mighty good after all this crap is dealt with and over!
Question: Do the San Jose Sharks and San Jose Earthquakes have territorial rights to Oakland? If so, anyone in San Jose whining about San Francisco’s territorial rights should stop. I’d like to see a pro soccer franchise in Oakland at some point in time. I’m hopping that the San Jose Earthquakes won’t claim Oakland as their territory. I’d also like to see a pro hockey team in Oakland in the future. I’m hoping San Jose won’t block Oakland from becoming an NHL city.
Go get ’em Nav—-prove the economic viability of both to their respective leagues, find a willing investor/owner and move forward. Bottom line is if it makes sense for the league than it doesn’t matter what the city of San Jose or any other city thinks….the league will operate in its own best interests.
I agree, It doesn’t matter what the City of San Jose thinks.
You’ll have to build two new venues to host new pro soccer and ice hockey teams. Oracle Arena is fantastic for basketball, awful for hockey due to its layout. The Coliseum is much too large for MLS, the lower deck would be sufficient. AFAIK the Quakes have rights to all of NorCal, not sure about the Sharks. Economically, none of this is happening anytime soon.
Funny thing is that if Gavin Newsom actually followed through on his desire to build an arena to lure the W’s back to SF, you’d be all over him and back to your normal SF-bashing. Politics makes strange bedfellows.
Marine Layer,
The San Jose Earthquakes have rights to Oakland? Hey, no one asked Oakland about this. We’re not a suburb of San Jose. How dare they claim us. I’m writing a letter to MLS asking them to release us from Lew Wolff’s claim on Oakland for his soccer franchise. This is so unfair.
Money talks. BS walks.
BTW, the Quakes do play a few games in Oakland every season. Perhaps you should lobby on behalf of San Francisco for being shut out of the deal. By all means, write that letter!
We’re not a suburb of San Jose. How dare they claim us. I’m writing a letter to MLS asking them to release us from Lew Wolff’s claim on Oakland for his soccer franchise. This is so unfair.
Of course not — you’re a suburb of San Francisco. Or maybe Berkeley. Both cities have higher population densities than Oakland, so that makes Oakland a suburb.
.
Nav, I have to apologize to you. I allowed you to annoy me because I mistakenly thought you were serious in your posts. Now I realize that you’ve been intentionally entertaining us all along by caricaturing some generic Oakland chauvinist/booster. You’re a regular Stephen Colbert, and Ithank you for that.
Connie Mack, Thanks for the compliment. I’m glad that you find my comments entertaining and amusing. However, I guarantee you that Lew Wolff, Bud Selig and the City of San Jose won’t be laughing when all of this muck gets stirred up. All we need to do is open up that can of festering worms and Bud Selig will find himself mumbling to a Congressional panel.
Connie Mack ,
Since Oakland has a population density of 7,209/sq mi and San Jose has a population density of 5,758/sq mi, I guess by your logic that does make San Jose a suburb of Oakland. Now I see how Lew Wolff’s territorial rights argument makes perfect sense. Brilliant!
ML–had to smile the other night watching the W’s game (not sure what possessed me–they are that horrible)—wearing their San Francisco jersey’s in Oakland…oh .the nerve—
Yeah, that was a one time event for their hardwood classic series. I agree, It’s completely bush league, just like everything else that organization does. But they do play in a beautiful arena in Oakland, which despite what Marine Layer says, would be a great home for an NHL franchise. Also, the Oakland Coliseum has more than proven its prowess as venue for soccer. Lew Wolff needs to give up his territorial rights to Oakland for his San Jose soccer franchise. The San Jose Sharks also shouldn’t be allowed to hold Oakland hostage. We are not a suburb of San Jose. Oakland has a right to bring in a soccer or hockey franchise without any interference from San Jose interests. San Jose is really becoming a real lousy neighbor to Oakland. I thought San Francisco was bad but San Jose takes the cake for sheer greed and a sense of entitlement. In the past I’ve always felt a kinship with San Jose. Now I view San Francisco and Oakland as allies against South Bay greed.
Oracle Arena would be great for hockey – as long as 1/3 of the upper deck is okay with not seeing much of the rink. The Phoenix Coyotes moved out of US Airways Center for the same reason. Good lord, Nav, your inability to grasp facts out of blind allegiance is mindbogglingly grating.
Nav—go pursue Oakland’s right to soccer and hockey—action speaks much louder than words–no one here will stop your efforts—just as a reminder though–Oakland did have NHL hockey—remember the “Seals”….
If and when Oakland is serious about either league, I’d hope the Sharks and Quakes comply and allow neighbors to move in. Until then, it’s a moot point. The big difference is that this is already a two-team market in MLB, so only the franchise and not the parent league have anything to worry about. The NHL and MLS league heads would be as reluctant to split the Bay Area as the Sharks; whereas, MLB has been operating under such a situation for 42 seasons so only the Giants have anything to lose. I’m not saying that’s fair, but it’s the reality of sports business.
Nam,
If San Jose wants a team in San Jose they should lobby MLB to bring a third team to the Bay Area. Prove that you’re a separate market which van support a team on your own. We have three different and distinct markets in the Bay Area anyway. In Europe and South America large cities have two and three futball clubs in various areas of cities. We have over 7.6 million residents in the Bay Area now. If San Jose wanted its own team, I’d be all for it. It would be a great rivalry between Oakland, San Jose, and San Francisco. We need smaller club rivalries. Who cares about Milwaukee vs Oakland,or San Francisco vs Pittsburgh? Get your own team. Just don’t pilfer our team. Don’t build yourself up by tearing your neighbor down. Don’t fight over our slice of the pie, get your own. We are not going to just hand over our team just because your Mayor claims that your residents have more money than we do. Also, the idea that this is somehow just a fight between San Jose and San Francisco, and the city which is actually in danger of losing its team doesn’t really matter, is really demeaning to Oakland. If San Jose were fighting for territorial rights with the idea of opening up its market to a new team, that’s one thing. However, fighting for territorial rights in order to pilfer a team from a neighboring city, is a different matter altogether. Also, Oakland should get a release from Lew Wolff and MLS stating they will not claim Oakland as their territory if Oakland should pursues its own soccer franchise in the future. Oakland needs to get a legal release from Lew Wolff. Let’s get this in writing .
I guess it turns out that Lew Wolff is a hypocrite. Lew Wolff holds rights to Oakland for his San Jose soccer franchise, and yet complains and whines about San Francisco holding rights to San Jose. Unbelievable. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Who exactly is trying to bring a soccer franchise to Oakland? When there’s an effort, there can be a discussion.
Marine Layer, you know that’s not the point. The point is that Lew Wolff has territorial rights to Oakland for his San Jose franchise. This is absolutely comical. You couldn’t make this up if you tried. This is priceless. I would love to be the lawyer defending San Francisco from their claims of unfair territorial rights to San Jose.
Actually, that is the point. Lots of companies have defined sales and marketing territories in their respective industries. That is not inherently illegal and is common practice. In fact, MLS doesn’t have an antitrust exemption (unlike MLB) that allows a governing body to overrule franchise moves. So if you want to challenge it, go ahead. But be prepared that if you have no teeth behind the effort (money, support to bring in a new team) that no one will take you seriously. It’s a lot like your writing letters to the W’s front office about “Golden State.” I’m sure they went straight to the circular file.
Great. Now Navigator is going to start a Facebook page to bring the Sharks to Oakland and we’re going to get daily updates on the number of his fellow borderline retards who have signed up.
I long for the days when the comments section added something to the discussion, rather than a bunch of sane people trying to communicate with the internet’s unquestionably dumbest person.
Dude,
You’re obviously much smarter than us “borderline retards.” The floor is yours sir.
Get your own team. Just don’t pilfer our team.
.
What does “our team”refer to?
You don’t own any team, and neither does the city of Oakland.
.
Oops, there I go again, forgetting that you are just making fun of Oakland die-hards.