According to East Bay Express scribe Robert Gammon, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums spilled the beans on the date of the MLB panel’s forthcoming report. Monday is the big day, apparently. That jibes with what I had heard privately. Update: Gammon reports that the report will be delayed a week (Matthew Artz reported the same last week).
Over at the A’s Drumbeat, Vlae Kershner is laying odds. For entertainment purposes only, of course.
Longtime broadcaster Amaury Pi-Gonzalez, a longtime Fremont resident, doesn’t think his city has the mindset to get a ballpark deal done.
Let’s keep all of this in perspective. One city will “win” this recommendation, but will have a long way to go towards having/keeping the A’s. The others will be DFA’ed for all intents.
newballpark.org 
Saving the best for last:
“Dellums also said yesterday that he recently sent a follow-up missive to Selig, urging him to favor the Oakland sites over the Fremont locale, citing the need to promote urban growth in order to address the effects of climate change. Dellums said he noted to the commissioner that a Fremont ballpark would result in more long-distance car trips by team fans, thereby adding to greenhouse gas emissions.”
Maybe we’ll get lucky and the comissioner won’t drag his feet about making a decision on the panel’s findings.
This just made me spit Lemonade all over the place. Thanks a lot.
we’re going to be visiting to Coliseum for a long time people.
I’m alway curious as to who says what, and why they choose to say it when they do.
Why would Dellums, and presumably the other mayors, get a heads up on when the report will be released?
Why choose the day after the Super Bowl to release the report?
I have no answers, I’m just curious.
Whatever the case, I’m just glad we’re making progress in getting a new ballpark built.
FC,
Perhaps as a courtesy, MLB gave all party’s involved a heads up when the report would be released; SJ, Fremont, Oak, A’s, Giants. Since Selig/MLB supposedly gave both the Giants and A’s a “gag order” regarding territorial rights in December, we can all guess where this one’s going on Monday.
Sorry Tony, I’m not following you. Then again, I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed. Where do you think this is headed?
FC,
Just my own personal opinion; Selig “ordering” Wolff and Neukom not to talk about territorial rights tells me that the deal is being hammered out (through the committee) to work out a move of the A’s to SJ. I don’t think Selig/MLB tells the A’s and Giants anything if the status quo were to remain in effect. Adding to this is the fact that Oakland is doing nothing on the ballpark front and Fremont has years to go (and millions of dollars/screaming NIMBYS) before they could consider NUMMI.
Thanks Tony.
I’m not so sure a deal is being worked out between the MLB/Giants/A’s. If a deal was being worked out, why was Baer so surprised when Stone told him the panel was meeting with San Jose? Also, any kind of deal would put a boat load of money in the Giants’ pocket. Why would a team staring at that kind of money low ball their franchise player in contract talks? If the Giants knew they were going to be getting money either from the A’s or MLB, they wouldn’t have put themselves in the PR nightmare they’re currently in with Lincecum.
My hope is that MLB makes SCC a shared territory, with no compensation to the Giants.
FC,
I agree with the shared territory/no compensation idea. If anything, the Giants could get a gauranteed franchise value and/or gauranteed annual revenues through 2017 (sunset of $20 million annual debt payments).
Personally, I think the whole Bay Area should be shared territory.
Even better idea LS! Off topic: Tim Brown not being a first ballot Hall of Famer is a travesty!
Lol at Dellums’ “missive.”
In the list of things that MLB cares about, “the need to promote urban growth” and “greenhouse gas emissions” are probably near the bottom. I’m sure they’ll find the missive very persuasive.
Also interesting that the panel was described as “reviewing the A’s proposed move to San Jose.” Sounds different than the original description of “reviewing options for relocation within the A’s current territory” or some such nonsense.
No kidding. Dellums would have been better off saying nothing. It makes it look like Oakland has no clue.
I like the A’s renting AT&T Park (while Cisco Field is being constructed) idea. Get our team into a real ballpark faster! MoMo’s across the street would like that one to.
Actually Tony,
I think Lew Wolf should hold a press conference and announce that the A’s will, in fact play at AT&T, while building their park, without first consulting the Giants…
Remember when Bob Lurie, former of the Giants held a press conference saying they would be playing in the Coliseum while they were building their new park during one of their failed stadium drives? That was classic…
Bud Selig vehemently opposed any notions of having the Brewers’ new park built in downtown Milwaukee, even though the mayor and many other people were strongly for it, so you can imagine how open he would be to Dellums’ argument.
So Fremont it is. Selig must also be against a downtown San Jose ballpark. What Dellums says about the effect on the environment makes perfect sense. The fanbase is in Oakland, Contra Costa, and SF. Perhaps we should ask what President Obama thinks about this. What would president Obama think about the White Sox leaving Chicago to get farther away from the Cubs? I suspect the President would greatly sympathize with Oakland on this issue. I think Barbara Lee, Senator Boxer, Senator Fienstein, and Mayor Dellums should take their case to Washington should the shenanigans many of us expect, come to fruition. Instead of helping a city which has supported this franchise for over 40 years by investing in the current renaissance, this ownership and MLB are ready to turn their backs on Oakland. So much for promoting baseball in urban America. MLB needs to be taken down a notch from their arrogant perch. Selig is playing with fire.
Nav—I had made a decision that it was best to ignore your ridiculous posts but I can’t resist….sure–Oakland is the center of the universe and Obama has no other pressing issues to deal with—he will slip the A’s move to SJ right in between the economy, a few wars, health care and his declining popularity–speaking of declining popularity you think Boxer doesn’t have a few other things on her mind right now other than where the A’s are moving? Just what she needs to do is piss off here SV constituents—You see lady Di running around over ‘9ers moving to SC—nah–she’s a bit smarter than Boxer–and Dellums…..yeah—where the A’s play is going to have a significant impact on climate change…..me thinks he’s using again…
I’m not saying that at all. I’m just saying what’s right and what would President Obama think about what Wolff, Fisher, and Selig are planning to do to Oakland. The problem is, many here don’t care about ethics and what’s right or wrong, as long as they get the Oakland A’s to relocate to San Jose. And, yes, having more traffic on our highways, when Oakland offers a central location near the fanbase, is bad for our local environment.
Since your not implying anything help me out with your threat that Selig is playing with fire….iwho is this directed at? And quit your ethics bs—your pompus when it serves your point but you ignore the fact that the A’s moved to Oakland, the gints moved to SF, on and on and on—moving 30 miles down the road is not only ethical is logical to keep the A’s in the Bay Area—
First of all, having the Oakland Athlethics cease to exist is a whole lot more than just “moving forty miles down the road.” You sound like Lew Wolff. This is a statement from someone who is completely clueless about history, tradition, and loyalty. You think Oakland Athlethics fans take the demise of their Oakland A’s as a trivial transportation inconvenience? How do you think President Obama would react if his beloved White Sox were to move forty miles south of Chicago so that they would be farther away from the Cubs? That’s the real BS!
Who gives a f*** what Obama thinks—he’s not an A’s fan—you have now moved away from speaking on behalf of all A’s fans to speaking on behalf of Obama—and interesting how you quickly drop your ethics claims— little hard to stand behind that one isn’t it nav—and to claim that i am clueless about history and tradition—amazing–personally I advocate that when they move to San Jose that they return to their history and tradition and adopt the original colors that they wore when they were in Philly–
I go to dinner, and this gets out of hand. Ridiculous.
I hope you went to dinner in a central location close to the foodbase, celebrating tradition and history, and rewarding the restaurant for loyalty.
I have it from reliable sources that Marine Layer went to dinner at Francesco’s in the “absolute center of the Bay Area” last night.
and Madera is very near the ” absolute center ” of California . So I say Lew, move the A’s to Fresno, and you will draw equally from the entire state !!
and Madera is very near the ” absolute center ” of California . So I say Lew, move the A’s to Fresno, and you will geographically draw equally from the entire state !!
.
Better yet, the population center of the country is located very close to Kansas City.
I say move the A’s back to KC (history! tradition!), and have 300 million people as the fanbase!
Bravo!!
Clearly, 300 Million people is enough to support 2 teams
They already have the Royals. Why don’t we just leave the A’s in Oakland where they belong?
Because Oakland cant build them a ballpark, nor provide the infrastructure necessary for a privately financed one, nav.
That’s why…
plrraz, no city alone can build a new ballpark for the A’s anywhere in the Bay Area and Oakland’s city government has already made it very clear that the city will be able to provide infrastructure improvements for a privately financed one.
No, OA, they have NOT :
“made it very clear that the city will be able to provide infrastructure improvements for a privately financed one.”
They HAVE thrown out a bunch of sites at the last minute, in desparation, after doing NOTHING for the past fifteen years, except bring back the Raiders.
TEASE! Not happening today: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/92510/archives/2010/02/08/breaking-news-report-on-as-move-delayed
Because Oakland has a long history of not supporting the team, despite consistent on-field success and repeated world championships, even in years when it had what was then considered one of the better venues in baseball, and even in years when it had “owner love.” Because with the construction of AT&T Park, the prospect of adequate support in Oakland has only gotten worse. Because the East Bay as a region does not have the corporate base required to support the premium seat sales necessary to fund a privately-financed ballpark.
What Oakland needs to do if they lose the A’s is lobby for ending the anti-trust exemption which MLB now enjoys. I just heard Senator Feinstein on KCBS speaking about the health insurance industry and their regional monopolies which hold citizens hostage to exorbitant premium increases. MLB needs to have that anti-trust exemption taken away so that every city will be able to compete for a baseball franchise. Oakland needs to free itself from any territorial rights claims from either the A’s or Giants. MLB is going to regret messing with Oakland.
What good would that do, Nav?
If the A’s relocate elsewhere in the Bay Area, primarily because Oakland was unable or unwilling to come up with a realistic plan to keep the A’s in Oaktown, what makes you think another team would want to relocate to Oakland.
It’s interesting that you state that “Oakland needs to free itself from any territorial rights claims from either the A’s or Giants” when the Territorial rights issue is the ONLY major obstacle keeping the A’s from relocating to San Jose immediately.
“MLB is going to regret messing with Oakland.” Can you elaborate on that, cause the last time Oakland “messed” with another pro sports team was when it fought the Raiders move to Los Angeles, and they lost in court, big time.
Try being a bit more specific as to what will happen to MLB if they “mess” with Oakland.
Oakland has a right to be free of any interference from any league or any city in retaining or recruiting pro sports franchises. Oakland should be able to stand on its qualifications of being centrally located to the 7 million residents in the Bay Area along with having an available sports complex. If the market isn’t there as many of the San Jose folks suggest, than you don’t have anything to worry about. Oakland needs to free itself from any claims and any restrictions to recruiting any sports franchises. MLB can’t say they don’t want Oakland, while at the same time, hanging on to Oakland. That isn’t fair, now is it? The anti-trust exemption should be challenged, and will be challenged, should Oakland lose the A’s to San Jose. Every city will become a free agent without any interference, collusion, or territorial claims.
Sadly,
Nav has declined to answer the questions I posed.
Also lacking are any specifics as to what Oakland can do if MLB “messes” with them.
It’s blatantly unfair for Oakland to be locked out of pursuing pro sports franchises considering Oakland’s central Bay Area location and existing sports complex. Oakland has the right to sue for its independence from MLB territorial claims along with any claims from the San Jose Sharks, the NHL, the San Jose Earthquakes, Lew Wolff and MLS.
Or… assuming they lose the A’s… they can push for the 49ers/Radiers to take over the Coliseum, a remodel and the Super Bowl.
That would eman the Santa Clara stadium doesn’t happen and the games the Earthquakes play that require a big stadium would presumably be in Oakland.
Or/and follow through on the Victory Court/JLS thing for a new basketball/concert arena.
It is true that JLS needs something more to make it what it could become and a baseball stadium is just one option.
The city could prioritize getting a street car system to link downtown with JLS with a transit option.
If the Warriors are playing at JLS it opens up the possibility for the shopping/entertainment area in the Coliseum parking lot that was pimped on Zennie Abraham’s blog.
Wouldn’t that sort of approach be more likely to bear fruit? I mean, rather than just suing the crap out of everyone.
I like those ideas Jeffrey. Although, I doubt the Warriors would want to leave their current renovated arena. How about an arena for the Sharks? Oakland needs to get something out of this, if it loses the A’s. Oakland can’t be completely shut out of baseball, soccer and hockey. The central location and the great transportation system would allow fans from every corner of the Bay Area easy access to all of those sports. As it stands now, people in the North Bay are pretty much shut out of hockey and soccer.
Well,
The people of the North Bay aren’t necessarily packing in A’s games at the Coliseum now are they. Meanwhile, Sharks games are packed to the gills! Tells yah a little something something now doesnt’ it.
Yes, that the Sharks are the ONLY hockey team in the Bay Area and that the A’s play in a terrible stadium with poor management.
Not to mention the Sharks are the only major professional sports franchise in the South Bay.
Ummmm, what about the Earthquakes?
Ummm yeah, what about the Earthquakes??
bartleby, Oakland supported the A’s better than San Francisco supported the Giants. Bud Selig saved the Giants for San Francisco, I expect him to do the same for Oakland.
No he didn’t. McGowan saved them for San Francisco at the 11th hour. Selig was all set for the Giants to move to St. Pete.
COUGH! Apples and oranges…COUGH!
To the post at 4:10 that is.
And I hope the restaurant you went to the night before didn’t yell at the current restaurant to get their own customers and to stop stealing theirs.
Chicago is not exactly analogous to the Bay Area… Chicago is bigger, has less sports teams etc.
And, green and gold should stay with the team no matter where they play. Just like it did when they left KC.
I love the references to Kansas City and Philadelphia when the situation in Oakland is completely different. Kansas City and Philadelphia were made whole again with new MLB franchises. Oakland on the other hand will lose MLB for ever if the relocation to San Jose is approved. This is what makes theft by neighbor so insidious. San Jose is proposing to shut out Oakland from ever having a baseball team again. That’s the difference. MLB just expanded to Oakland. Kansas City and Philadelphia are happy with what they now have.
….kinda like Oakland did to SF and SJ when the Warriors moved—–we all learn from our neighbors—how insidious of Oakland
You really think having the “Golden State Warriors” playing in the “Oracle Arena,” and wearing “San Francisco” uniforms while having the arena in Oakland directly linked to the SF skyline in their website, constitutes Oakland taking the team? It’s more likely that Oakland is being USED for their state-of the-art arena without getting a single benefit. Why don’t we have the Golden State A’s playing in San Jose and wearing their “Oakland” uniforms? How’s that grab you if you want to use that as an analogy to the current situation.
Talking in circles is fun. Like riding the tea cups at Disneyland. Though, both make me want to puke.
.
The delusions keep escalating.
How was Philly made whole again with a new MLB franchise?
How did MLB expand to Oakland?
Why is it that you’re OK with Oakland stealing another city’s team and moving it more than halfway across the country, but you’re not OK with someone moving the A’s 45 miles within the same market?
.
Why don’t you run for office somewhere on the platform of nonsense that you’ve been spouting here?
Connie,
Philadelphia was made whole with the Phillies and Kansas City was made whole with the Royals. Also, Oakland built the Oakland Alameda County Coliseum without any guarantees of getting a team from anywhere. San Jose on the other hand has been conspiring with Lew Wolff and who knows who else, to get the team to commit to leave Oakland before they BUILD anything. San Jose should have built a ML ballpark without a commitment years ago just like Oakland did before the A’s and Warriors came to town. You all get excited about EIRs but that’s pocket change compared to what Oakland did back in the 60s.
The Phillies predate the A’s in Philadelphia by almost 20 years (1883 vs. 1901.) What the hell are you talking about?
The A’s renting AT&T Park?????
When hell freezeth over.
Vlae’s odds stink. I would, though, bet you, ML, that your last paragraph will be wrong, either because one city will not have won, or because the others will not have been DFA’d. Probably both.
I’d also bet that there will not actually be an announcement on Monday, though I’m less certain on that one.
You don’t like my odds, Seminole, nobody’s stopping you from publishing your own set.
That’s a great idea. The colors and uniform of the Oakland Athletics belong in Oakland.
your world nav—your world—-your gonna be a busy boy meeting with Obama and suing all these guys—good luck man—-
I think it would be cool if the San Jose A’s used the Philadelphia colors. Blue & white match more closely to the Sharks and Earthquakes colors than green & gold.
last thing and than I will let it go ML so it doesn’t get any more ridiculous–green and gold were colors that were brought to Oakland from KC–they didn’t originate in Oakland—ok—I’m going back to my policy of ignoring Nav’s posts—just really pisses me off sometimes–
“– green and gold were colors that were brought to Oakland from KC–they didn’t originate in Oakland–”
.
Better yet, they were completely owner-specific. Charley Finley was an Irishman, hence the green. I guess the gold was something he was seeking, but really never found in great quantity in KC or Oaktown.
Not a Peter Gammons fan but he has a nice little write up of some A’s history and present. Where does this team go in the future? Gammons thinks it’s San Jose or out of the area.
Interesting Footnote – Believe it or not President Obama admitted at the All-Star Game last July that he was an A’s fan back in the early 70’s when he was living in Hawaii. The A’s were doing really well in 1970 through 1975 and some limited television games were broadcast in the Islands. Thus, he was drawn to their success and the fact that there was not much baseball on TV in Hawaii. Here in the Bay Area back in the 1970’s the A’s televised some limited (yet fuzzy) games on Channel 44 and Channel 20. Now I’m dating myself, but that brings back some precious Monte Moore memories.
I love the idea of going back to Blue and White. I also understand that the new Ballpark will possibly bring back some things from the past, e.g. maybe some special things from Shibe Park, and possibly the mechanical rabbit with the basket on its head that rises from the ground to give the homeplate umpire fresh baseballs. Haven’t heard if Charlie “O” The Mule is due for a comeback though. I can’t wait.
Great article by Gammons (Peter that is). R.S., I say the A’s go with the current teal-green and gold of the Sharks.
I like Green and Gold. If they did change the uniform colors, however, I’d want em to go back to this design.
Great, President Obama is an Oakland Athlethics fan. I know he wouldn’t approve of this.
I’m going to write a letter to President Obama explaining the history of the Oakland Athlethics situation and what is currently being proposed by ownership. As a fan of the Oakland Athlethics while growing up in Hawaii, he deserves to know the truth about what’s going on in the Bay Area in regards to the future of the Oakland Athlethics. The Oakland Athlethics share many similarities in their situation with his Chicago White Sox. Let’s see if the President, who is a huge sports fan, takes an interest to what’s going on in Oakland.
I can see the executive order coming…
.
Finally, a realistic and constructive proposal.
Please do that.
Send a copy to all the potential GOP presidential candidates as well.
.
Was, not is.
And that was a long time ago.
Are you really so incapable of reading comprehension, or are you doing this just to piss everyone off? Of course, these two choices assume that you are of sound mind, and you keep giving us reasons to believe otherwise.
.
Give it up, nav. History has passed you by, the ferry has sailed, and the train has left the station. All your rants, half truths, flat-out-lies, and irrelevant red herrings won’t change the situation, no matter how many times you keep repeating them.
Finally the humorous and jovial Connie Mack that I love. You were sounding a little bitter in your previous posts. First of all, President Obama was about ten years old when the Oakland Athlethics were winning three consecutive World Series titles. He lived in Hawaii at the time and the Oakland Athlethics were one of the few teams he was able to watch consistently on television because of the proximity to the West Coast. These were the young formative years of the President’s life. I became an Oakland A’s fan at precisely the same period of time. We’re about the same age so I understand how these formative years can influence someone’s lifetime affinity for a sports team. The fact that the Oakland Athlethics were so dominant and successful during that time, should tell you that there’s a very good chance that President Obama has a soft spot in his heart for the Oakland Athletics.
Holy crap – is it just me, or is anyone else shocked by Nav’s age? By his behavior, I honestly pictured a late teenager.
Lemmiwinks… epic
I was thinking the same thing. Of course, he refuses to meet anyone at an A’s game so they could sit and chat and drink a beer, so we really can’t be certain.
NO CHANGING COLORS. Green and Gold is unique… almost every team has blue.
agreed
I remember channel 44 and Monte Moore! Those were the days! Green and gold are the colors you see when you look out at the hills surrounding the bay area. They should remain the A’s colors regardless of which (bay area) city we land in.
Oh man, I love the rabbit idea. Too funny. As for going back to the Philly colors, I think it would be great, even if the team stays in Oakland. I’ve heard on several occasions from people who don’t wear the current memorabilia b/c they don’t like the colors (ever noticed how most or the A’s memorabilia you see people wearing around town is not green and gold). The new park will be an opportunity to reinvent the team’s image, and a color change would be very symbolic. Perhaps those turn-back-the-clock days with the uniform giveaways were a test run?
Here is the link to the gammons article
Apparantly not. Here it is again.
Gammons:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100205&content_id=8029562&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
From the Tri-City Beat blog:
UPDATE: Our Oakland city reporter writes that his understanding is that the committee won’t offer its findings to Selig until the week of the 15th, and that the report won’t include a recommendation.
just as I thought, nothing to see here.
Perhaps the report won’t include an outright “recommendation,” but I can see the report outlining the financial truth’s of MLB in the Bay Area: a MLB team in San Jose wouldn’t undercut the SF Giants revenues or fanbase, a new ballpark for the A’s (along with Silicon Valley corporate support) would go a long way towards getting the team off of revenue sharing welfare, making the team a contributor to MLB coffers rather than a recipient, which city (in terms of land, political/business support) has the best shot of getting the A’s a revenue-generating new ballpark sooner rather than later/never, etc.
Boy, we have a lot of people here who know when this report will come out; nothing official however from the “lodge.” Let’s just hope we hear something this month.
At this point I am just hoping the report mentions the A’s!
LMAO
I’m going to write a letter to President Obama, explaining to him how un-ethical and un-American the Giants territorial rights to San Jose are. I mean, C’mon! We live in the land of freedom, and a major US city is currently banned from pursuing a MLB franchise*. Obama would be appalled by this situation and would certainly want SJ to be “liberated” from the Giants. OK, just kidding; I’m not going to write such a thing, just wanted to highlight the absurdity of such an act. Sorry R.M., couldn’t help it.
*hopefully subject to change within the next month.
You have a point Tony, just not at Oakland’s expense.
Nav, God bless your little heart. I think you are completely crazy but I have to admit you’ve given me many a laugh on this board. Like the time you argued that its actually the SF-Oak-Berkeley Bay Area and that San Jose wasn’t part of it. Or like when you said downtown San Jose’s sole homicide meant the whole area was unsafe for a ballpark. And now a letter to Obama. Hahaha. Priceless!
Let’s not forget the argument that the Coli neighborhood is comparable to Fenway or Wrigleyville because (a) if you’re willing to drive a mile or two after the game you can shop luxury cars, and (b) you can visit Northern California’s most profitable In N’ Out Burger.
Why not buy a Lexus and enjoy a good burger after the game?
For good burgers, go to Hegen Burger (if it is still open) before In n Out.
Pacifico,
It’s good that we can laugh some times. Let’s not take ourselves so seriously all the time.
Speaking of homicides, unfortunately there was one yesterday in an abandoned church just across from the proposed ballpark at the Diridon site. It’s sad, that this stuff can happen anywhere.
No, OA, they have NOT :
“made it very clear that the city will be able to provide infrastructure improvements for a privately financed one.”
They HAVE thrown out a bunch of sites at the last minute, in desparation, after doing NOTHING for the past fifteen years, except bring back the Raiders.
The Giants astroturf group, “Stand for San Jose,” which is really “Stand for the Giants assinine territorial rights”, has been noticeably silent recently, Maybe Selig ordered the Giants to stop the nonsense while all this gets hammered out.
Dellums says he’s been told the panel will submit their findigs/suggestions in one week. WTF! Can it be this hard to make a decision?
It is when Oakland probably wasn’t telling the Blue Ribbon Panel everything. Like the fact they pulled those sites out of their butts in Oakland.
Interesting quote from the Matthew Artz report:
“(Fremont Mayor) Wasserman said a major developer told the city than the NUMMI site “isn’t worth two cents,” right now, because no developer would take on such a gargantuan project in this market. So the property would have to be parceled out, which the city doesn’t want to do.”
A refresher: let’s remember why the committee wasn’t formed in the first place; “to thoroughly analyze all of the ballpark proposals that have been made to date, the current situation in Oakland, and the prospects of obtaining a ballpark in any of the communities located in Oakland’s territory.” It was NOT formed, as currently reported by the East Bay media, after receiving a letter from Dellums asking the league to take another look at possible ballpark sites in Oakland. Funny how San Jose wasn’t mentioned initially, yet MLB has already met with SJ Pols three times. Just saying.
I meant “was formed,” not “wasn’t. Oops!
Please, please! DO NOT call yourself an A’s fan if you choose to support only one stadium which most of you seem to only support the San Jose site. You cannot call yourself an A’s fan by doing so. If you are truly an A’s fan you would support any site regardless of the city and what they are doing in order to obtain the A’s.
I support all three cities and their endeavor to get the A’s moving out of a crumbling coliseum. I support Oakland’s sites, Fremont’s site, and San Jose’s site. I just want the A’s to have a new stadium in which to play in with their newly acquired players. All these sites that have been proposed as the A’s new home all look good, and is suitable for a new stadium. I’ll let the city and their citizens decide whether or not they approve of that stadium, but do not speak for them.
So let me repeat, DO NOT by any means, call yourself an A’s fan if you solely choose a side (city) and their endeavor.
TAF–A’s fan—season tix holder—and yes–I support the San Jose site–I want a new ballpark in my lifetime and 15 years and zero progress other than 2 potential sites, and a $20M/year hangover from the last remodel of the Coli tells me Oakland doesn’t have the leadership or resources to get it done—-so PLEASE—don’t tell me I’m not an A’s fan because I support a ballpark in San Jose–because they have the best chance of actually getting it done-
I was reading the Biz of Baseball yesterday and came across something interesting. Here is an excerpt from Maury Brown’s latest chat:
1:32
[Comment From Anthony Salazar]
“Where do you see the Oakland A’s in a few years? They need a new stadium, the question mark has been where. Oakland waterfront, Oakland downtown, San Jose, etc…it’s another political hot topic, and factor in the territory rights of the Giants in Santa Clara County. Man, I wish they’d get it settled already.”
1:36
“I wish they’d get it settled too, Anthony. If you’re Lew Wolff, you want San Jose, unless Oakland makes a waterfront location highly tempting (read: little to no ownership investment). The key to the A’s relo is the Giants, and I think if Bud had his druthers, he’d give Santa Clara Co. back to the A’s. It was their’s to begin with, after all. Problem is, you run into the “Angelos factor” which we saw with the relo of the Expos to DC. I think the Giants would sue to make it stop given the lucrative business and fan base in the region.”
It has been discussed elsewhere that the Giants can’t sue if the commissioner decides to open up the South bay for the A’s. Is Maury unaware of that point or does he know something we don’t? Usually I’d bet on the latter.
I love Twitter… Maury Brown is answering my questions via Twitter right now.
GJ10,
For all the knowledge Maury possesses of MLB and its “biz,” this is a case of “intellectual laziness” (Jeffrey, 2009?). For the umpteenth time, the Giants can’t sue MLB! Maury knows this! And this supposed “lucrative business and fan base in the region”? That likes getting thrown out a lot despite the evidence against such a notion. Again, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group poll of 2009 has blown the “lucrative business” idea out of the water, and “fan base” remains a huge mystery. Why this continued assumption that the relatively few Giants season-ticket holders from SJ/SC would all of a sudden become SJ A’s season-ticket holders is beyond me.
For the record, Maury was an ardent backer of the Giants territorial rights back in the early 2000’s, as he was a huge supporter of bringing MLB to his town of Portland, Oregon (nothing wrong with that). The hope? Giants/MLB would keep A’s out of San Jose, nothing would happen in Oakland/East Bay, and your A’s would relocate out of the Bay Area and become the Portland Athletics; the SF Giants dream come true!
Yo… not sure if he is wrong or not. In the post I put on AN it includes the specific language in the MLB Constitution which indicates teams must submit to the Commissioner for arbitration of any dispute. Maybe Rayburn’s Son or Bartleby (I think they are both attorneys) can provide a bit of color.
And on Maury’s website they wrote a long piece about the Orioles being appeased by Bud Selig despite the fact that they couldn’t sue the league and thus had no leverage.
I will say this, in another piece I wrote on AN I basically said the same thing Maury is saying… For the Oakland waterfront to be a slamdunk I imagine MLB is expecting them to do more than they would expect out of San Jose. In other words, they want Oakland to offer public financing, even if that hasn’t been stated expressly.
Either way… This drama is a bore. Time to hear about the future in a less tea leafy kind of way… C’mon Bud make something happen for crying out loud..
While anyone can file a lawsuit, I think the Giants are very unlikely to win one (or even get past summary judgment), for the following reasons:.
– The MLB constitution requires arbitration by the Commissioner as the sole and final dispute resolution mechanism. It also bars teams from suing each other or the league. Considered together with the antitrust exemption, these provisions are likely to be enforced.
– The MLB Constitution is a contract. However, it expressly provides it may be amended by 3/4 owner vote. Exercising a right expressly conferred by a contract is not a breach of that contract.
To provide an example:
Case 1: A manufacturer enters a contract with a distributor guaranteeing supply of goods for five years. In year two, manufacturer stops supplying goods. This is a breach of contract.
Case 2: A manufacturer enters a contract with a distributor guaranteeing supply of goods for five years. The contract contains a clause allowing either party to terminate on thirty days written notice. In year two, manufacturer sends distributor a letter terminating the contract. Thirty days later, manufacturer stops accepting new orders and shipping product. This is not a breach of contract; the manufacturer has exercised its express rights under the contract.
Amending the MLB Constitution to change territorial rights would be similar to Case 2: The league would be exercising its express rights under the contract, not breaching the contract.
Bear in mind, the MLB Constitution specifically states a team can be involuntarily CONTRACTED by 3/4 vote. The Giants would be hard pressed to argue they didn’t understand their territorial rights could be altered.
– Even if the Giants were somehow able to get in court, stay in court, and establish a claim (all significant hurdles), their presumptive remedy would be money damages, NOT specific performance (i.e. a court order preventing MLB from changing territories). In other words, a court would require them to prove economic loss and would award them only the amount of that economic loss. This can be problematic, as such damages are speculative and difficult to prove. Recall, the Raiders sued Oakland/Alameda County for over $1 billion – the incremental amount they claimed they would have made had all PSLs been sold as they were promised. The Court only awarded something like $30 million. Basically, the Court said “Yeah, it’s possible you COULD have made an extra billion, but its pretty speculative. We’re only convinced the amount you’ve proven you WOULD have made is around $30 million, so that’s all we’re going to give you.” This may have been a moral victory, but considering the Raiders probably spent tens of millions in legal fees, it was a crushing defeat from a business perspective. If you knew that was going to be the outcome going in, no way you bring that lawsuit.
As noted above, the Giants would face major hurdles the Raiders didn’t face in order to even get to that point. Since the best they could most likely get is money (and probably not even that), and since MLB will probably negotiate a compensation package anyway, I think the Giants will put their energy and resources into negotiating with MLB rather than suing. In so doing they avoid a lot of legal costs, ill will with the other owners, and probably come out better than they would in court.
bartleby–great post as usual–just curious—say that MLB upheld territorial rights prohibiting the A’s from a potential move to SJ—what realistic recourse, if any, would the city of SJ have against the gints considering there was no compensation for acquiring said rights?
GoA’s,
Sadly, off the top of my head I can’t think of a solid theory San Jose could use to bring a claim against MLB or the Giants. The normal go-to claim would be antitrust, but here MLB is shielded by its antitrust exemption. (Although I will caveat, I am not an antitrust expert). Notwithstanding what Navigator thinks, neither San Jose nor Oakland has any legal entitlement to an MLB team.
(Beyond the terms of an active lease).
Understand that neither has a right to a MLB franchise but seems that SJ is being restricted from benefiting economically when you have a company willing to locate in your city but not allowed to by an arbitrary designation of territories that was established without benefit or compensation—
GoA’s,
Territorial restrictions are inherently anti-competitive, and are regulated primarily under the antitrust laws. Sometimes they pass muster, sometimes not.
In manufacturing and other industries, vertical territorial restrictions are very common. Many manufacturers will assign exclusive territories to their distributors in order to prevent them from stepping on each other’s toes or creating confusion in the marketplace. If it is a competitive marketplace, such vertical restrictions are usually subject to a “rule of reason” analysis (e.g. does the arrangement “unreasonably” restrain trade). If there is sufficient interbrand competition, they will usually pass muster.
However, if the industry is a monopoly (like a major pro sports league), the bar for defending such arrangements is raised significantly. For this reason, the Raiders were able to win their antitrust case against the NFL and block the NFL’s effort to prevent them from moving to Los Angeles.
But Congress in its wisdom has exempted MLB from the antitrust laws, foreclosing the normal avenue San Jose might use to challenge the restriction. Were this not so, I think San Jose and the A’s would have a solid case. Unfortunately, I can’t think of another theory they could use. The fact San Jose might benefit economically by itself does not establish a cause of action.
If the Giants do go so far as to file a lawsuit, I believe it will be a bluff intended as a negotiating tactic rather than something they plan to press to a conclusion.
Jeffrey,
Here’s a line from the on-line piece “National Pride: Baseball returns to Washington” by Sarah Kellog, illustrating why the Orioles were appeased by MLB.
“(Peter) Angelos didn’t have any legal authority to fight it (Expos move to DC)” says Zimbalist, “He was just huffing and puffing. Baseball didn’t want a disgruntled owner, so they made a deal with him.” Sounds like somone we know out of SF. So anyhow, I stand by my claim that Maury is wrong.
Sorry Jeffrey, I confess that I don’t know how to post links here. Search the story by Kellog; it’s an interesting read on the Expos/Orioles/Nationals saga. It also gives insight to the workings of Irwin Raij, member of the current MLB Bay Area committee.
(a href= “insert link here”)> type something fancy (/a) replace the parenthesis with a less than sign and then a greater than sign in both cases and a link will magically appear
and here it is live and in technicolor
On my commentary on the relocation of the A’s and possibly suing…
There are multiple precedent setting cases for suing (or, threatening to sue) over territorial boundaries within league constitutions. The first (as was mentioned above) was Angelos and the relo of the Nationals. The location was not within the Orioles physical territory, yet, Angelos threatened a lawsuit based on dilution of television territory.
The other was the attempted relocation of the Phoenix Coyotes through the attempted bankruptcy sale to Jim Ballsilie.
In both these cases (or, in the case of the A’s potentially being granted Santa Clara Co. against the Giants’ will), the *threat* of a lawsuit is often times in play. Think about it… the challenge by the Giants would be against league territory as a whole. One would think this would fall flat, based on the Coyotes case. At the very least, the Giants could say that proper indemnification has not been met. All of this could give Bud second thoughts.
There is, however, the fact that the A’s controlled the territory to begin with.
Lastly… I’ve been an A’s fan all my life. My interest in the business side of baseball came when I was all of 9 seeing Harvey the Rabbit when the club first relocated to Oakland. None of that, however, cloud the analysis of the situation.
Maury—great to have your direct contribution–thanks—I have to believe that any lawsuit would be pretty weak given that not only did the A’s once have control over Santa Clara County, but that it was also given to the gints for ZERO compensation based upon the premise that they would move into SCC.
Sure the threat of it might make BS think twice but what are his options? Moving the A’s out of the area (gints would love this), contraction (tried that with the Twins and it didn’t fly), leave them in Oakland on perpetual MLB welfare….gotta believe that the best option is to open SJ and deal with the gints—-but than again who knows with Selig—I doubt that even a new ballpark in Oakland would take the A’s off the dole–
Anyone can threaten to sue. Navigator is on here every day, ranting about how the City of San Francisco, the Giants, the City of Oakland, the County of Alameda, Barbara Boxer, Barack Obama and the Bavarian Illuminati are all going to sue to prevent an A’s move. I don’t think he’s really striking fear in the heart of either Mr. Wolff or Mr. Selig.
The effectiveness of this as a tactic is tied directly to the strength of your underlying case. Most of the precedent, such as it is, points the other way. Peter Angelos may have threatened to sue to prevent the Expos move, but he did not actually sue, and the Expos did move. The NHL successfully asserted their right to control the relocation of the Coyotes (although the issues were very different in that case). The City of Seattle and Mr. Coffee had about the best one-two legal punch I can think of to keep the Sonics in town (a lease which expressly provided for specific performance, and a fraud claim to void the underlying sale of the team to Bennett), yet the Sonics still moved.
I don’t know what it means to say “the challenge by the Giants would be against league territory as a whole.” If you mean the Giants would be challenging the League’s fundamental right to assign territories, that would be an extraordinarily foolish thing to do. The only thing which prevents the A’s from moving to San Jose in the first place is the league’s right to set territories, and the only reason that right is enforceable is because MLB is exempt from antitrust laws. Without the antitrust exemption, you have basically the same case the NFL brought to prevent the Raiders from moving to LA – and lost. If MLB does not have the fundamental right to assign territories, it’s game over for the Giants, hello San Jose A’s.
And again, even if the Giants did sue, even if they didn’t get kicked out of court because of the MLB arbitration clause and covenant not to sue, even if they could establish a claim (despite there being no breach of the league constitution), all they’re going to get is money. I frankly question whether they could even get a preliminary injunction which would delay the A’s move while a lawsuit went forward, let alone prevent it entirely. Injunctions are extraordinary remedies, normally granted only when money would not make the plaintiff whole, which is not the case here.
Here is the decision the Giants would have to make:
(a) We can sue the league, possibly get kicked out of court immediately and have to arbitrate before a PO’ed Bud Selig, alternately spend years of time and effort, invest tens of millions of dollars, incur the animosity of our business partners, watch the A’s most likely move anyway, and take the risk of getting nothing. Or,
(b) We can take a nice fat check from the league, get this thing over with quickly, avoid major transaction costs, keep our partners happy, and eliminate any risk of getting nothing.
The Giants may or may not rattle sabres a bit, but I will be very surprised if they file an actual lawsuit.
Bartleby,
Neukom has been a MLB owner for what now, little less than a year? Anyhow, he was voted in by all the owners, including Lew Wolff. I imagine during his initial discussions with Bud Selig the issue of the A’s and San Jose came up. MLB does not allow owners in it’s ranks who won’t play nice. With that, Neukom knew (and knows) full well that he has to play by the rules/decisions set forth by the “lodge” and is not allowed to act like some renegade. MLB told him in December not to talk about the territorial rights; he has abided. If, or when, the decision come from MLB re: the A’s and SJ, he will abide once again. Good to see Maury here also!
Maury, you rock. I love your website. What the hell is going to happen with the Beavers?
A very funny (and educational) “imaginary conversation” between Wolff & Selig from Tri-City Beat blog:
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2010/02/08/lew-bud-and-the-oakland-as-of-san-jose-and-fremont/
New EBX item about JLS sites. Some owners not willing to sell, some willing, some expensive relocations, spector of eminent domain and lawsuits, and shockingly one owner says “I haven’t heard anything from the city, all I know is what I read in the paper.”
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/making-room-for-the-oakland-as/Content?oid=1600161
Bottom line nothing has happened in Oakland since they threw their 3 sites on the table in early December–another 2 months without even due diligence to gauge interest of landowners and potential cost to acquire the property?? Come on–in the meantime SJ is getting ready to release its revised EIR report—while no one knows what the BRC report will contain one city continues to stand around and do nothing while the other moves forward—-vision and leadership are definetely not in Oaklands favor-
The Victory Court site doesn’t necessarily have to relocate Peerless Coffee. The area consists of the city owned Oakland Fire Department Training Center, Caltrans land, a storage facility, an old railroad right-of way, and a very wide Fallon Street. There are ways to make it work without necessarily relocating Peerless Coffee. The Restaurant Supply may have to go however. It be one or the other. It doesn’t have to be both businesses. This site is far less problematic because there are only two major businesses affected. The Jack London North site is more complicated because of many smaller parcels and many more businesses.
The A’s or the City would need to build a ~1200-space parking structure adjacent to or near the ballpark. That’s part of the MLB’s infrastructure requirements. More than just one business will have to be moved.
Marine Layer, there’s already a new empty 1100 space garage right next to the Amtrak station at 2nd & Harrison. This is a five minute walk to the ballpark.
That garage is for the train station. A ballpark EIR will show how heavily new traffic will impact the area and that will require new parking, including what MLB demands. If JLS does experience a renaissance with the ballpark as a much-needed catalyst, the parking will be more than merely necessary.
Sadly Nav didn’t answer my question.
Predictible.
plrraz,
I believe I answered your question.
Sadly, Nav has declined to answer the question I posed.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/making-room-for-the-oakland-as/Content?oid=1600161
Don’t know if anyone say this, but it talks about the landowners at several of the Oakland “sites” for a ballpark that Dellums was touting a few weeks ago. Turns out many of the current owner would only sell if the “price was right” and several others won’t sell at all. So in reality, Oakland has no site for a ballpark unless they use Eminent Domain and force land and business owners out.
The owners who indicate that they would not sell are from the JLS North site. That is not the favorable site for Oakland or MLB. They have all made it clear that the Victory Ct. site is the lead candidate for ballpark locations in Oakland. The owners at that site all will possibly sell for the right price. I even like the idea of working in some sort of deal between Peerless Coffee, the A’s and the city of Oakland which would allow them to be the official coffee distributor for all games and events held at a Victory Ct. ballpark.
The ones they specifically list were from the north site, but the article indicates there are owners at both sites who will not sell. So again, the city of Oakland currently has no sites.
You’re sooo right Dan! FYI, it’s always best, for the “story,” to get a positive spin; hence talking to land owners who are willing to sell or at least be open to selling. No need to talk to those who will not sell; It would only further confirm that “The O” has no sites (except maybe for the Coli parking lot).