I last wrote about a new ballpark revenue model almost exactly three years ago. Back then, I had estimated that the A’s could net $24 million more per year, after revenue sharing. One thing I did not focus on was the possible gross revenue the team could realize, which would be $44 million more than at the Coliseum. Little did I realize that the delta could become even greater over time.
Minnesota Public Radio called up Forbes and the usual gallery of sports economists to get an idea of how much the Twins have benefited from Year One at Target Field. The answer: $50-70 million more than 2009 at the Metrodome, perhaps more. That figure is based mostly of gross revenues from the stadium, before the team has to hand over its share of revenue sharing and get its piece of the central fund.
Curious about how a similar effect could be applied to the A’s in new digs, I re-ran the numbers. This time, with the 2009-10 drop in revenue, I figured the difference would be vast, but I had no idea how vast. The current model looks like this:
There is some debate as to what the A’s final revenue is. Forbes said that in 2009 it was $160 million, $155 million for 2010. Lew Wolff said that the number for 2009 was $130 million. Lacking a look into the A’s books, I’m splitting the difference for illustrative purposes. That puts final revenue at $149 million and gross local revenue at $86.7 million. Now for the future model:
In this case, the new gross local revenue is a whopping $160 million, while final revenue is slightly higher at $170 million. This is because the A’s will be able to deduct debt service and a host of other expenses as part of the “Actual Stadium Expenses” deduction against revenue sharing allowed in the CBA. Interestingly, it creates a situation where the A’s would continue to be revenue sharing recipients instead of payers, to the tune of $20 million. This is mostly due to rising revenues league-wide, as the average annual revenue per team is approaching $200 million (thanks, Yankees). The best way for the A’s to stop being revenue sharing recipients under the current CBA would be to ink richer TV and radio deals.
It goes to show how the A’s aren’t just being left behind on the revenue front, they’re getting lapped. Repeatedly. Going back to the gross local revenue figure, note the difference between the future and current models: $74 million. And it could be even greater, since the numbers don’t account for in-stadium merchandise sales. Those sales all get counted the same in the long run, but it’s all about when they get counted. Every year the A’s count on their windfall coming in December, after all of the books are closed. The rich teams get their windfalls throughout the year. November when thousands upon thousands of large season ticket deposits are made. Merchandise sales when purchases are made. Millions of advance tickets, often sold well before Game 1 on the schedule. Plus the various sources that come in during the season. There’s a constant, predictable, heavy stream of dollars that makes it much easier to project payroll and operations.
(The next couple of paragraphs are not for the purist A’s fan or Oakland partisan. You have been warned.)
With that in mind, I’m starting to think that if/when the San Jose move is confirmed, in the ramp-up to the ballpark opening the A’s will unveil new alternate uniforms, hats, perhaps even team colors, all with the idea of capturing the San Jose audience dollar while the iron is hot. There’s no official “O” hat for the team now, but you can bet there will be a second “SJ” hat when the time comes. I’m not too keen on this, and I worry that the team will go D-backs crazy while attempting this. I sure hope they rein this in.
Beyond that, I would also expect that once the confirmation is made, the A’s will open up and sell “Oakland” as much as it can in a sort of “get it while you can” manner. Those nods to history that fans criticize the team for not honoring? You’ll see it. And it will be for sale. It reminds me of the latest episode of Mad Men, in which Don Draper rebounds from losing a major tobacco account by buying a full-page ad in the New York Times. In the ad he swears off tobacco accounts forever, shocking everyone in the office, Madison Avenue, and the public. The motivations for both are anything but altruistic, yet completely shrewd and understandable. They also hold a great risk of backfiring. At least in the case of Mad Men, we’ll pretty much know what happens next Sunday night.
newballpark.org 
Per Chuck Reed via Athletics Nation, decision should be soon.
I’m fulling prepared to see the A’s morph into an unrecognizable franchise if they relocate to San Jose. It’s one of those things where you have to take the good with the bad. I’m sure everyone has their own reasons for being an A’s fan, whether it’s because because they grew up in the East Bay, got hooked in by Moneyball or just have a soft spot for hard-luck cases.
I know there’s strong anti-Giant sentiment amongst some A’s fans because of money-envy or ballpark-envy or just whatever. The contradiction waiting to happen is how they’ll react once the A’s revenue starts picking up and they even sign a could bloated free agent contracts they shouldn’t have. I might be dwelling on this too much, since most baseball fans are casual fans who don’t care to discuss dollar amounts and lengths of contracts (and I don’t blame them). So, the average A’s fan might not even care what the A’s morph into if they move to SJ. For me, I’m curious but cautious. Honestly, I like the A’s how they are but I realize their current “condition” is less than desirable and definitely no sustainable. With either Oakland or San Jose, change is inevitable.
@briggs: Good point. I like underdogs. Moving to the new stadium and territorial rights claim, along with disagreeable Bonds/Kent era, totally changed my attitude toward the Giants from moderately positive to can’t stand them . Suspect with the A’s, I won’t be quite as into it if they move to SJ because they won’t need me as a fan as much as they do now.
@baycommuter
Agreed. Baseball is entertainment. I like an underdog story. What happens when the A’s telling a different story?
I don’t claim to be a 3rd generation A’s fan. I picked up the A’s by choice because they’re a team I like to see succeed. I like the way their financial limitations keep their backs to the wall and requires them to make gutsy personnel decisions. In baseball, players change. Owners and executives change. Uniforms change. Team colors change. Ballparks change. Cities change. Unless you’re bound by some unspoken familial oath, people are essential free to choose whichever team they like for whatever reasons they want. Just speaking for myself, I don’t know how I’d feel if the A’s because a team I no longer felt good about standing behind. Honestly though, I’m not going to dwell on it much. Anything can happen.
RE: D-Backs frequent uniform revamps. I’m a fan of their current color scheme though, they have gone nuts with the whole thing. Their first generation of uniforms were hideous so those HAD to go. The second generation was a modest improvement but ultimately, their current color scheme suits them well and make for good looking merchandise. On the other hand, the Rays have also gone through 3 generations of uniforms. Their first gen uniforms were also hideous followed by a nice improvement with their second gen of uniforms. Their current shades of blue scheme is embarrassingly boring and generic. If I had to pick the greatest current offender of merchandising overkill, I’d say the Rangers.
Now you’re talking RM! ;o)
Maybe the A’s go with the Giants model: the “G” hats for Spring Training and “SF” hats for the regular season.
Oh yah, re: new possible color scheme for the A’s, Sharks teal green and gold would look nice.
ML, what is “Central Revenue”?
@ Tony D.
If the A’s move to SJ, an SJ cap will be used in some capacity. Just my speculation, but I’d say they’d be used for BP but maybe also as an alternate regular season cap. Ultimately, I don’t really care unless it’s hideous. I could see an SJ cap working when they go with the same coloring scheme as their black caps (black base, white lettering with green & gold trim). Remember the first black alternate uniforms from 2000 with the black base, then green lettering and white trim?
I thought those were pretty ugly, but I’m in favor of the current black uniforms. So, my feelings on any “San Jose” uniform or “SJ” cap will essentially comedown to its execution.
@fc – Central Revenue is derived from non-local sources such as national broadcast deals, merchandise sales, and league-wide sponsorships.
A SJ hat? I’m most definitely done with them if they go that route. This once proud. scrappy franchise won’t even be recognizable. Might as well change the entire color scheme with no hint of any green and gold.
Thanks ML. Do teams share in this equally?
@fc – Yes. Most of it comes from the national TV contracts signed with Fox, ESPN, and TBS, though recently it has also included rising revenues from MLB Network and MLB Advanced Media (Internet).
@jk
I can’t support this with documentation, but my speculation is that Charlie Finley moved the A’s to the Bay Area (maybe even specifically the East Bay), but not specifically Oakland. The 1950’s and 1960’s was an era of rapid expansion and relocation. Owners saw new markets opening up and hastily assisted in renovations to Minor League parks to hold them over until a Major League caliber ballpark was ready. Oakland/Alameda County had the Coliseum ready to go, so it made sense to move in there.
From the sound of it, it doesn’t sound like you’re going to budge on whole pro-Oakland stance, and that’s fine. Whatever floats your yacht. Though as I see it, it’s not about Oakland vs. San Jose. The A’s have been a Bay Area team for 42+ seasons and a move to San Jose would be a simple geographic adjustment to position the team for long-term success in the Bay Area. It’s not like they’re moving out of state. Marketing gimmicks like an “SJ” cap are just a part of the game. There are Giants fans who don’t necessarily embrace the post-2000 Giants’ marketing attack, but if “Pandamonium” and “Orange Fridays” means more $$$ and thus more post seasons, they’ll take it. The Bay Area historical lineage of the A’s only dies when fans stop caring. I don’t think that’ll happen, but that lineage will be weakened if enough fans take your stance and abandon the team. It’s your choice.
What would be wrong with an SJ hat jk? It’s not like it’s unprecedented for the A’s seeing as they wore “KC” on their head during their tenure in Kansas City. I think an SJ or an O cap for that matter would make a great alternate as opposed to the crap black hat they wear on the alternates. Heck it might even make a good away hat. As long as they keep the gold billed home hat all is well.
If San Jose is confirmed, does anyone have any idea if the A’s could begin selling San Jose merchandise prior to their last day of operation in Oakland? I’m sure that’s one of the first things that’ll be asked if San Jose gets the nod. Aside from increased revenue, brand recognition and acceptance could be huge (really huge) in establishing a fanbase for generations to come.
If the A’s do ultimately move do San Jose I think the city and current owners of the franchise should recognize the history of the team. In it’s 109 years of existence, only 13 years has the team’s cap scribed the city’s initials. That would be during the Kansas City Athletics days. But if you look at during the their time with Philadelphia (54 years) and Oakland (42 years and counting) the cap has always been scribed in a “A” or “A’s”. That would be 96 years of the same cap donning the “A” or “A’s” letter. In the end it would be a business decision but I would be surprised if they did not face any opposition from baseball historians and commissioner.
OT: ML, we lost our ‘Home’ link in the INFO box. Probably went away when you removed the Bill King voting link.
Ugh… No teal please. I’d like to see the A’s add two shades of gold, well use the shade they already have and add a color similar to the 49ers gold. They would then have 5 colors to play with, forest green, black, yellow gold, tan gold, and white.
From reading all the posts and messages in the past few months, it seems like everybody on this blog is expecting the team to move to San Jose. I thought the A’s still need the MLB’s Blue Ribbon Committee to recommend San Jose, a 75% vote from MLB owners, and to win a San Jose city election. That sounds like a lot of steps and things can veer off course. Like many here, I am a San Jose proponent. However, I’m still sort of a newbie here so can anyone enlighten me on why most people on this site (including the blog editors) are “expecting” a move to San Jose?
Jeffrey,
FWIW, “Deep Pacific Teal” is more similar to “Forrest Green” than the old Sharks teal blue.
Heck, if you look at the Sharks current uniforms you see a striking resemblance to the A’s color scheme.
Perhaps, suggesting cooperation between the A’s and SVSE, this is intentional?
@LS – Fixed.
@Chris – I’m not at the point where I expect everything to happen in San Jose’s favor. However, I feel that it is necessary to analyze and highlight the background details and rationale if certain things occur. By no means do I think this is a done deal, if that’s what you’re asking.
I hate the black. Black is a Giants color. We don’t need black. I know it’s a popular color these days and lots of other teams- the Royals and Mets come to mind- have added it for variety and marketing purposes, but why do we have to follow the fad? I know Charlie Finley wasn’t thinking of the Northern California hills when he changed the A’s colors to green and gold while the team was still in KC, but those are the colors of the Northern California hills and thus very appropriate for the A’s to wear. If it were my choice, I’d darken up the gold- like the 49ers gold- and stick with the Forest green. An SJ hat is fine as an alternate or BP cap, but I hope they stick with the classic A.
I like the current black alternate cap. I even bought one so that I can give my traditional gold-billed cap a game off here and there. Regarding the rebranding/coloring mentioned in the article above, I’m all for it as long as it doesn’t completely ignore the “Green & Gold” motif. Admittedly, those aren’t flattering colors as blue, black or red especially for dudes, who’ll be the primary target demographic.
That said, I’m not entirely opposed to adjusting the green to more closely match the Sharks. It’s not my first choice but black, grey and white uniforms with green/teal(ish) & gold trim doesn’t sound that bad. Sometimes uniform makeovers work out, sometimes they don’t. Remember those gold & blue Astros uniforms from the late 1990’s? If it doesn’t work out, they can always revert to the “tried & true.” Also, sometimes you need to change things up so you can appreciate the past. I still prefer the burgundy Phillies motif over the current/traditional cherry red. They’re still the Phillies. The A’s will still be the A’s.
NO TEAL!!!! But why should I care, if i’m not going to follow them to SJ anyways?!
GO PHILLIES!!
Chris, it’s probably has as much if not more to do with Oakland seemingly no longer being a realistic option than thinking San Jose is a certainty. But if Oakland isn’t an option any longer (which it likely isn’t) then San Jose remains the ONLY option left to keep the team in the Bay Area. That and San Jose seems the best of the options currently available to the A’s and to MLB overall.
@Chris, We don’t presume that the A’s will be in San Jose. Most of what we write about follows news cycles. There has been a whole lot of news over the past year and much of it has really been favorable to the San Jose cause.
.
At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised by any outcome.
@Dan–it also helps that BS and LW were frat buddies, do the secret handshake whenever they meet, and both kind of hate Oakland.
@Chris
San Jose is by no means a done deal (T-rights, public vote, land acquisition, private financing, etc.) so most posters here appropriately phrase their posts as conditional statements.
However, a few posters use a very definite tone. Some are probably just stirring the pot. Others are probably just misspeaking or making premature assumptions. The WASHINGTON Nationals? GOVERNOR Schwarzenegger? Whether it’s sports, business, politics or life, anything’s possible.
please keep the green the way it is. if they’re gonna change it to a green, change it back to maybe the classic kelly green. the a’s i think are the ONLY TEAM in mlb that now uses or wears green as a primary color, rays changed their unis from green to the blue which probably 2/3 of teams use as one of the main colors. i posted recently that i hope the a’s go to a yellow/gold uni top, heck why not yellow/gold caps too. all yellow/gold with possibly the “A’s” in green.
if/when the a’s move to sj, yeah we’ll probably see a “SJ” cap along with road grey “san jose” unis also.
Here’s a good site showing most of the team changes since they moved to Oakland from color scheme, logos, unis and etc.
http://www.sportslogos.net/team.php?id=69
I have a few clarification questions:
Did the MLB BRC ever publicly release a mission statement?
If MLB covers some of the expenses of a special election in Spring 2011, wouldn’t this forbid the Giants’ ownership group on spending a dime on a campaign to oppose an A’s ballpark in SJ?
Briggs, according to original press release:
.
Commissioner Bud Selig announced Monday that he has appointed a committee to thoroughly analyze all of the ballpark proposals that have been made for the Oakland A’s, the current situation in Oakland and the prospects of obtaining a ballpark in any of the communities located in Oakland’s territory.
letsgoas-personally, i hope the a’s adopt an aquamarine green and gold color scheme similar to the jacksonville jaguars or the sabercats. IF (and that a big if) the A’s go to SJ, they should inaugrate the new arena and city with all new colors and unis!
Chalk me up among those who would rather not see a change to the color scheme. I’m cool with an SJ cap (say for the road uniform to match San Jose across the shirt) but I hope they keep the green and gold.
jk-usa: seriously, i think the only “hater” in this forum is actually you in that you hate anything that is NOT Oakland. I think most if not all people here don’t hate Oakland at all, but just completely indifferent to the city and its people. most, if any animosity is sparked by the “rebel” city attitude that you continually demonstrate because of being in the shadows of SF and now possibly, SJ. really, its kool you like your city, but all this me vs. the world bs is getting tiring and does nothing for the A’s stadium cause (which you yourself had previous admitted that it is looking more and more like a pipedream).
Thanks, Jeffrey. Do you know if an official press release is posted anywhere?
any color close to “teal”, sorry just not buying it. teel is a color trend that came in the early to mid 90s with teams like sharks in the nhl, jags/panthers in the nfl, and hornets in the nba and imo should stay there.
i’d much rather than change the colors back to blue and white like the phi days than adapt anything close to a teal color scheme.
I have to laugh at how nearly every commenter has run off with the sidebar.
Kelly green, California gold and wedding dress white
i thought it was fort knox gold.
@ML
Would any additional parking structure be built with SJ redev dollars? If so, what’s the likelihood of the A’s seeing a slice of that pie? If Oakland is ruled out by MLB and SJ gets the nod, wouldn’t the City of San Jose have the upper hand in negotiating the flow of revenue from any ancillary services such as parking?
@Briggs – Probably not. I’m leaving something out that I expect to happen with the move – SVSE buys a piece and shares parking revenue. Perhaps it won’t be as much as I listed. It’s a difference of $4-5 million.
I am completely against leaving Oakland, but I can’t believe some people would consider dumping the colors. Green and gold makes the A’s individualistic in baseball so why change it to less original colors? The only thing I think they would change was the away Oakland jerseys to San Jose obivously, and different home alternates maybe. If they want to keep fans who are against leaving, completely changing the look of the unis is a bad idea. A big deal to pro-Oaklanders is the history and tradition they have had in Oakland, slowly erasing what made this franchise unique seems sacrilegious.
To JK USA:
I admire your passion for Oakland and keeping the A’s in Oakland; I suspect you’re a Raiders fan as well. I hope that both teams -along with the Warriors – will remain in Oakland but I doubt this will happen.
I agree that the two communities are NOT interchangeable; they are markedly different. In any other market – let me repeat this – in any other market the fans would have rightfully abandoned this team; the fact that they still draw even 10,000 fans testifies to the passion for the team.
Re: uniforms; all I know is that the ‘new’ black and luminiscent/opaque yellow/gold is awful.
RM,
Did you mean SVSE buys a piece of the A’s? Dammit Rhamesis, I know you know a lot more about what’s going on then what you’re allowed to talk about.
It’s all good brah! Being a former military man, I can respect confidentiality.
Tony it’s not a stretch to think SVSE might buy into the A’s even if he doesn’t know anything specific. They’ve already bought into a small piece of Lew’s current San Jose based team the Earthquakes. Seeing as the A’s are planning to be their neighbors Diridon and will be sharing a parking structure it seems likely they’d at least consider a minority partnership at least equal to what a single guy Billy Beane got.
@Tony D. – I don’t have any inside info. It makes sense in the long run for them to be minority owners and share in the wealth and control over the venue. It’s no great shakes for the A’s.
@ST–are you Briggs? Because when I click on your highlighted “ST”, something with Briggs comes up.
It seems like Briggs is a bit kinder to me than Briggs is. Oh well.
@68 A’s fan–I agree that still getting a low of 10k isn’t too shabby for an ever changing roster in a subpar facility. They barely averaged that in their great years in the early 70’s. The late 70’s were horrific, averaging under 4k a game in 1979. I went to games where they barely had 1000. Flagging down foul balls was fun and good odds you’d get one that game..lol.
I noticed that too. I figured everyone who clicked ST would have their own name appear. Nope, ST is not me.
JK – No, I’m not briggs…for some reason my system cached the website as Briggs….I can as easily change it to JK-USA….see it now. And trying to argue that a less than mediocore 10k is acceptable talks about how low of a bar you’ve come to accept…
10k is understandable with the state of the stadium issue. Many people don’t want to go to the park and give their money to an owner who shuns the city and fanbase. After the pretty good attendence in the early 2000’s what a shock that it has been declining since Wolff was an owner. Add that to the fact the coliseum is dumpy, and that the team has been lousy since the last playoff run. It’s really discouraging for loyal fans to know you want to move, and make it obvious that you hate where you are. So yeeah 10k isn’t acceptable, but certainly understandable.
Seriously guys, if this is just going to turn into another he said/she said about attendance, I’m going to start deleting comments.
ST–Please change that and leave my name out of it. I don’t find that very funny.
Keep the green and gold. I never noticed it until Baskin Robbins had the sundae cap promotion, but Oakland is the only team whose cap currently does not contain the colors black, blue, or red.
yeah i mentioned earlier that the a’s are the only team that uses green. probably the only team that uses any kind of gold/yellow too.
ML, I know we’re getting way ahead of ourselves, and this is off topic, but I always thought it would be a good idea for the Sharks (SVSE) to take on part ownership of the A’s. Now I have no idea as to how much knowledge Mr. Jamison and his staff have of MLB, but it sure seems like they have the smarts to put together a winning front office. In addition, unlike the A’s, they seem to have the admiration of the local media.
Briefly: I offer the San Diego Padres as an example of what happens with drastic uniform changes.
The brown n’ gold used to be as iconic as the green n’ gold, but once they swapped it for the myriad of colors today they “disappeared” into the general noise of MLB; nothing about their unis stick out in a (for example) retail environment.
I’ll have to find the article/comment/whatever, but their biggest selling item are the brown/gold “retro” uniforms.
No color changes to the uniforms.
Are enough teams really going to willing to modify territorial rights for a mere extra $9 million contributed to the revenue sharing pot each year by the A’s? When thinking about this question, I couldn’t help but remember a comment made Lew Wolff on an A’s broadcast a few weeks back: (paraphrasing) “the commissioner is always right. I’ve never dreamed of voting against him.”
@GoJohn10 – I’m not sure the A’s will be a significant payor, but it’s about them not having to accept revenue sharing. All the teams want to keep as much of their revenue as possible. About T-Rights, I’m honestly not sure how many of the owners care inasmuch as it doesn’t affect them. You can see why maybe the Angels, Mariners, Rangers, and Giants will vote no. But the other teams? It’s just money for them, which brings us back to the first part.
@GoJohn10
My take: I assume they’d only modify the T-rights if a suitable ballpark site & financing structure couldn’t be worked out in Oakland. That said, if Oakland is ruled out and San Jose is the only Bay Area option, what’s the alternative to San Jose? I don’t have access to any teams books, but simply looking at surface level indicators like attendance and TV ratings, the Nationals and Rays haven’t fared well as expansion or relocated franchises. This recent history doesn’t bode well for an A’s relocation. At a glance, any time you can get a franchise into the black, the rest of the organization will benefit.
Tangent question: Hypothetically, could a team looking to depart a 2 team region sell their T-Rights to the other team as motivation to leave? Probably not, I know. But what I’m getting at is that if there’s equity in T-rights and a team can be compensated (as many assume the Giants will be) for the transfer of particular T-rights, what’s to stop a team from buying out a neighboring team?
lga, the Pirates use gold as well.
Briggs, I don’t think the Commissioner or the other owners would be down for T-Rights sales. If I remember correctly, the teams don’t actually own the rights. They are granted by MLB.
@LoneStranger
Exactly. I don’t think MLB would allow T-rights to be sold between teams either. What I’m getting at is how a monetary value can be accessed for a particular territory. It seems to be the general consensus with writers that the Giants will be compensated in some capacity. Territories are defined by MLB and doesn’t really exist beyond the scope of MLB operations. So, if T-rights aren’t a commodity to be bought and sold, how can a team be compensated during the process of redrawing territory boundaries? Just more or less a rhetorical question to chew on.
and it’s all speculation because only MLB has the specific figures on which to base that sort of decision, but answer probably lies somewhere in the circulation of revenue sharing
Nic, there is one very glaring exception to what you said about the Padres. The Sunday uniforms they’ve been wearing since they moved in to Petco are both glaring and do stand out over all other uniforms. No one else wears camo uniforms with green caps.
Briggs, I don’t really know. About the only thing I know the T-Rights do is allow the team to move within their area, and conversely, keep other teams out. They aren’t restricting media or promotions, so what other use are they?
I guess if they just make sure that no other team is going to up and move next door, then the home team has a sort of ‘first dibs’ on the fans within their area. I could see it being important since most fans gravitate to the team nearest their location. That’s got to be how they describe the worth.
All,
Regarding TRights; remember that the A’s already exist in the Bay Area market…
This isn’t about the “Vancouver” A’s relocating to SJ and “invading” the Giants single-team market.
40+ years of the Giants/A’s coexisting with each other. And why do the Giants have sole possession of TRights to SC/SJ?
Rick Tittle on KTRB 860 (XTra Sports) is talking quite a bit about the A’s stadium situation this morning. Tittle has a theory of his own. He believes that no amount of compensation is good enough for the Giants and that the Giants will wait it out until the A’s decide to leave the Bay Area. However, I thought that Billy Beane and ownership are expecting a decision from the BRC committee soon. If the BRC does indeed recommend San Jose this off-season, does it mean that the Giants’ compensation amount has been decided as well?
@tony d.
Indeed, the A’s and Giants share a market and it’s most definitely not about Vancouver. But moving in closer, it’s not about sharing a market, it’s about redrawing territory lines which is only relevant because the A’s and Giants share a market. We don’t know the details of the Giants gaining Santa Clara County in 1992 other than that it happened. Was MLB involved? Definitely, but we just don’t know to what capacity. Was there any monetary transaction? Did MLB have to dictate any terms? We don’t know. MLB may operate under slightly different principles than it did in 1992, but the purpose and intend of T-Rights still serve the same purpose then as it does now.
Concerning the decision of the MLB BRC, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that the territory lines be redrawn without the exchange of current or future revenue.
@GoJohn10 – It’s not really about the extra money paid into revenue sharing. It’s the local revenue picture that matters. Revenue sharing only accounts for 31% of a team’s local revenue. More than double the in-stadium revenue ($62 million vs. $136 million) will get the owners’ attention in a positive manner.
@Chris – The the idea that the Giants won’t negotiate and want to drive the A’s out of the Bay Area isn’t new and is quite popular. It’s possible that Selig wanted to wait to see if the Giants would budge, but they haven’t. Ergo, the panel and its findings. The danger of the Giants not negotiating is that they don’t have a say in compensation. It’s a gamble, and if I were the Giants, I would do the same, knowing that the A’s moves wouldn’t materially affect me much.
Rick Tittle is an East Bay guy through and through. It’s nice to see someone on the radio stick up for 510. At the same time, Chris Townsend is a South Bay guy who has been a lot more sanguine about an A’s move. That’s how it goes.
Briggs, actually we know alot of what you’re saying we don’t. Yes MLB was involved, no money did not change hands as the Haas family had no problem “giving up” the rights since the Giants were moving to Santa Clara at the time. And to anyone’s knowledge there were no terms attached which is why the Giants still have the rights today. In all honesty they should have attached a time limit on it if the Giants didn’t move, but they didn’t.
the only “pro a’s to sj” guys on the radio are probably townsend who lives in sj and ftiz on 680.
shocker fitz would say yes, doesn’t he know who helps writes his checks?
we’ll probably hear more opinions within the next 6 months with the election coming up in spring. gotta think after ALL THIS TIME, that the panel is going favor sj.
alderson a few years ago said one of the biggest mistakes he made as a major player in the a’s org was not to put a clause into the tr issue back in the early 90s when the a’s essentially gave them away where those tr rights would go back to the way they were if no park was ever built.
Townsend has openly said on the air that he would like to see the A’s to stay in Oakland.
@Ralph – If you’re counting Townsend as an Oakland-only supporter you’re fooling yourself. He’s going to say the diplomatic thing first.
I’d like to see the Giants’ numbers on their revenue generated from Santa Clara County. Aside from broad metrics likes Dugout Store revenue and ticket sales to SCCo residents, there’s probably something on potential revenue from SCCo.
Outreach programs like Junior Giants and Mathletics serve at least two purposes: They’re forthright community services and they plant the seeds of future fans. Giants know how much I’ve spent on their programs/services in SCCo. A point the Giants could argue is the impact the A’s would have on their outreach investments in SCCo.
.
@ Dan: Absolutely, we’re not aware of any monetary exchange for granting the Giants T-Rights over SCCo. The main thing I wanted to convey is we don’t know the details behind this 1992 event between the A’s and the Giants. Perhaps the Haas ownership anticipated MLB inevitable decision? As I said at the end of that comment, it’s possible that MLB mandates the Giants grant SCCo T-rights to the A’s without any monetary compensation.
It’ll be interesting to see what will be KNBR’s involvement should the A’s be granted access to SJ. As Letsgoas points out, Fitz is the only one who has come out in favor of the move. Will KNBR use its 50K watts to help persuade SJ voter?s to vote against the ballpark?
@ML – I’m not. I’m just saying what I heard.
@Ralph – You heard what you wanted to hear. Frequently throughout the season, someone would ask Townsend about staying in Oakland and his reply was often (I’m paraphrasing here), “What about keeping them in the Bay Area? Is that extra travel time that bad?” He lives in San Jose. He does his radio show out of San Jose. There are plenty of Oakland-only people in the media. Tittle is one. Townsend is not.
Something to consider: What impact would a KTRB/A’s media voice have on a possible public vote in San Jose? It’d come down to how many listening undecided A’s fans are San Jose-registered voters.
.
Regarding KNBR, It’d be fascinating if political ads and/or OpEd pieces were played on the air. Considering MLB offered to partially fund a special election and KNBR shares a close business relationship with the Giants, MLB could likely try to steer clear of compromising the democratic process—or at least giving that appearance. Then again, who knows?
@ML
Could you either talk a bit more about the stadium debt deductions or at least point me to where in the CBA to find them. Also, have you heard any rumblings about changing the items in the upcoming CBA relating to stadium debt (deductions, debt service rule, etc.)? Thanks.
@gojohn10 – There are only two mentions of the term “Actual Stadium Expenses” in the CBA. On page 105:
I’ve never seen a copy of the FIQ (Financial Information Questionnaire), so I’m not privy to every single item that qualifies as a deduction. However, there was a lot of talk during the development of New Yankee Stadium that the Yankees would get to deduct all or the vast majority of expenses associated with operating the stadium. If not for that provision, the Yankees and Mets would not have been so willing to get private financing, and the same applies to all other teams who claim the deduction. It could change over time, but given the lengthy debt service of both NY ballparks and the likely debt service in a new A’s ballpark, I don’t expect it to change. Of course, debt service is only one of the many deductions. Any and all costs associated with operating a ballpark are included, thus the distinction between terms.
townsend also said many times during the season that he wouldn’t mind walking to the park from where he lives in sj 81 times a year.
guessing he lives close by near downtown sj. he does some if not most of his pre/post game a’s shows from his house, as he does his national syndicated night show i know he’s aid he has a studio at home so it’d be great for him both personally and in a business sense with his work and home locations being so close.
@ML – I didn’t “hear what I wanted to hear”. First off I didn’t listen to his show all season long, I got into it around the last two months of the season. So I don’t know what he has said the whole year. The time im refering to, someone brought the topic up, and after the call ended he said, “I would like to see them stay in Oakland”. The reason he said after was something like, “because they are apart of the fabric of the community”. So I’m not just hearing what I want to hear, ofcourse he wouldn’t mind a park walking distance from his house, but he did say he would like them to stay. I will repeat, I havn’t listened to every show and answer he has had on the matter, this is just what I’ve heard. I’m not for one minute calling him “Oakland only”, I’m simply quoting what I heard him say. But thanks for accusing me.
@Ralph – So how is what calling what Townsend says politically expedient not accurate? Good lord…
@Marine Layer – If the Giants’ strategy is to not take any amount of compensation for t-rights and to wait things out until the A’s leave the Bay Area, can’t MLB bully the Giants and say “here’s your x amount of dollars, now take it and shut up” ? I firmly believe that is what the Giants are doing. There has to be some way around it.
@Chris… There is a way around it. 3/4 of owners have to support the change. If that happens, no compensation is required. None is required now, actually.
@ML – Are you really blocking my comment that proves my point? It didn’t show up, so I tried again and it said already posted. Either the page is acting wierd, or it is being erased.
@Ralph – Not blocking comments, as evidenced by your last reply showing. I don’t see any other comments from you from the last hour.
@ML – I don’t know why the hell it isn’t posting but here it is (if it works). After you basically accused me of, “hearing what I want to hear”. I decided why not hear an answer from the horses mouth. I always heard CT say he answers emails, so I asked him about his stance on the subject. He replied:
I said one thing and one thing only for 162 straight shows. I would like to see the team in stay in Oakland because they’re apart of the community, but this is a business and the A’s are going to do what they feel is best for their business. I NEVER said on any show that I want them to move to San Jose. We discussed many times what could be the better option. I want to see the A’s get a new park and I don’t care if you put it in Livermore. I do the majority of the shows from my home studio so it doesn’t effect me either way. Thank you for listening to the show and the support!!!
Best Regards,
Chris
Ratings for Nats games televised on the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network surged 136.1 percent in 2010, well ahead of the 94.5 percent improvement of the Cincinnati Reds, the second best gainer in TV ratings during the year. The Tampa Bay Rays, Oakland A’s and San Diego Padres round out the top 5 teams in ratings gain from 2009, according to statistics compiled by Sports Business Journal.
The Nationals actual rating for the 2010 season is another story. Coming in at 1.44, the Nationals’ average rating on MASN was the third worst in the Majors, higher only than the Los Angeles Angels’ 1.2 rating and the cellar-dwelling Oakland A’s 1.16 rating.
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2010/10/11/daily3.html?s=industry&i=sports_business
@ML – Ok forget it for now, I’ve tried it like five times.
I’m responsible for the increase in San Diego. I started watching the Padres games regularly after my move. I easily account for their year over year gains.
Poor dead horse!
All, let’s all remember some other things moving fwd. Territories, both geo and TV, have changed in the past when it was in the best interest of MLB.
See Expos/Orioles/Nationals saga and the NY Giants moving into Bosox territory (yes, the Bay Area!) back in 1958.
Also, MLB doesn’t favor one team over the other in this situation. They want to see two successful, financially sound organizations in the Bay Area, not just one.
Remember, it’s in the “best interest in baseball” clause of the MLB constitution, not “best interest of Giants and Bill Neukom.”
Lastly, Neukom isn’t “God” and has to play by the rules of “The Lodge” whether he likes it or not.
Think I meant to say “Best interest OF baseball clause,” not IN. Oops!
It keeps saying “Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!”. Even though it has never posted. Basically I emailed CT and asked what his stance was on the situation. I’m not even going to say his reply unless I can get the whole message in, and the blog isn’t letting me. Very odd.
@Ralph – The at times overly aggressive spam filter took your repeat posts and put them in the spam bin. One of them is now liberated.
That said, good response from CT. He’s being pragmatic about the whole thing.
@ML – Just to clear something up, im not trying to be hostlie or anything with this. I am pro-Oakland, but I don’t let that disregard facts. I appreciate that you are quick to getting the latest stadium news and insight for everyone to see and discuss. That “You heard what you wanted to hear” comment just rubbed me the wrong way. Side note, it’s pretty cool that CT stays on top of emails, I got the response about 20 minutes later.
@ Jeffrey – Thanks, that’s what I thought.
@Ralph… Did you notice how he said “I don’t care if they put it in Livermore.” He said that on the air too. The point is, Sure Oakland would be great, but anywhere in Bay Area is better than not in the Bay Area at all. I feel the same way he does.
@Jeffrey – Yeah I noticed, my whole point was that he actually said the part about Oakland and that I wasn’t just imagining that. But obviously he is cool with a new park anywhere in the bay, as you are.
What date is the winter meetings?
Owners meetings start Nov 17 in Orlando
Whatever the outcome from the owners meeting is there will be lawsuits across the board.
MLB is going to lose their Anti-Trust Exemption over this but it will ultimately pave the way for A’s to come to San Jose.
With the recent precedent with the NFL and American Needle along with the 1980s decisions around the Raiders and Clippers relocation…It is only a matter of time.
The Giants will sue through “surrogates” even though Bill Neukom knows full well as a Anti-Trust lawyer holding San Jose hostage is flat out wrong according to Anti-Trust law. They will sue regarding the EIR to use it as a litigation lever therefore delaying the ballpark being built and tying it up in court.
Neukom has zero respect for anyone but himself as most lawyers do and he thinks because of the AE he can act like a “spoiled brat” and get away with it.
The City of San Jose will counter sue MLB and that will spell “doom” for the Anti-Trust Exemption Bud Selig and MLB hold so dear to their hearts.
In reality if the City of San Jose sued MLB it would open up a can of worms and the Supreme Court would have to rule on this as it is unknown even if the AE extends to T-Rights.
it is against Anti-Trust law to restrict a business from free trade based on location. Neukom knows this full well more than any other owner but clings to T-Rights which are actually unconstitutional.
I will say though Neukom could be bluffing and perhaps he is speaking with the other owners trying to sway them in the other direction. But it doesn’t make sense as if the owners vote to free San Jose then he has lost all leverage for compensation….Neukom is either senile or has he gone stupid?? Perhaps both!
Lawrence Stone stated Steve Schott had 75% of the owners vote back in 2004 but BS shot it down because he was pissed off Schott did his job for him as a “consensus builder” therefore he never put it to an actual vote.
That forced Schott to sell the team to Wolff who “politically” has played his cards perfectly with BS and it forced a BRC to come out to the Bay Area to see for themselves that San Jose is the only option as if Oakland anything even “close” it would have proceeded already. Owner vote nor a BRC conclusion is needed to continue in Oakland.
Ultimately I think Neukom is bluffing and he will get “zero” from MLB and will stand there wondering why…..with only one person to blame…himself.
My 2 cents…
Neukom won’t sue. If he does he knows that just paves the way for him to, lose the franchise since per the MLB constitution they can take it from him if he does something as dumb as suing, and second it would just open SJ up for the A’s. Neukom has no recourse here except to play hardball up to the point they cut him the check, and in doing so make the check bigger.
Just on my own cursory understanding of the whole situation, I wouldn’t think Neukom would file a lawsuit against MLB via proxy or forthright. Historically, MLB franchise owners keep a united front and I’d expect them to continue to do so especially now because of the upcoming CBA renegotiation. The Giants franchise wouldn’t be taken away from anyone. Neukom is an appointed General Managing Partner. His skill set suggests he was likely brought in specifically for the purpose of negotiating an acceptable compromise over SCCo T-Rights for the Giants investment group. Win, lose or draw, he’ll likely be replaced once this San Jose ballpark saga has ended. For now, he’s simply the right tool for the job. Regardless of who gets SCCo, MLB’s BRC was assembled to resolve this internally and I bet that’s how it’ll be resolved.
The specifics may never fully be disclosed, but that’s common practice in corporations. Now, speaking of SF and SJ, I doubt they’d file a lawsuit either. SJ can’t sue a company for deciding not to move in. SF can’t sue a company for deciding to establish a franchise in a neighboring city. I’m not a lawyer though, so take that for what it’s worth.
Oakland should sue for the collusion the A’s and MLB have done. They have all the evidence, at least since 1999, when the very qualified ownership group was denied the A’s–the first in anyone’s memory a group has been denied who had the means. They actually overbid. Since then, it’s been one foot out the door for the team. And you wonder why attendance has been going down? If it’s SJ, it will get even more depressing at the Coli, and I may throw in the towel early.
The Piccinni group was not ” the very qualified ownership group” you make it out to be, jk-usa.
ML has a thread on this from the past, but IRRC, Bob Piccinni admitted that they would be running on a shoestring if they had been fortunate enough to buy the A’s, with no money to spend on players.
I went down to the last game of the year, and I had to laugh, as there was a sign next to the “Lew Wolff Hates Oakland” sign which had Charlie Finley lumped in with the Haas ownership as being “Winners”, conveniently ignoring the fact that he tried to move the A’s to Denver.
I am seriously considering bringing my own sign next year which will say: MR. WOLF, KEEP THE A’S IN THE BAY, SAN JOSE IS A’s-OK.
I have something to say…
I’ve mentioned briefly in the past that I get the privilege of chatting with Phil Matier about once a week while I’m at work. I see him, along with former mayor Willie Brown right before they do their morning segments on CBS. Neither one knows as much as I do about the A’s and their quest for new digs but I always ask them about it to see if they have any “inside info”…Last week when I saw them they brought over a guest, Larry Baer. I didn’t recognize him at first but once I heard Phil say his name I got all tense. I just knew I was gonna find out some inside info now, but it turned out he gave the same answer everyone is giving, “they have no idea what the MLB will decide.”…however, he did tell me some very interesting things. Apparently Baer, Neukom, and Co have records of Fisher signing a contract stating that “they would NOT persue Santa Clara county and that they would respect the Territory Rights of the Giants.” …he also told me that the MLB and the Giants are NOT working out a deal right now and he doesn’t know why its taking so long. I didn’t have a pen and notebook out so I cant give you guys exact quotes, other than the one I just mentioned about the contract and this one…” this whole thing is going no where fast.”…I understand that Larry is confident about the situation, just like Wolff, they both have reason to be. But this is what I got out of our very brief conversation:
1. The reason the MLB are delaying their decision is not because they are negotiating a deal with the Giants.
2. If the MLB grant the A’s access to SJ the Giants would sue based on the contract Fisher signed. This is obviously something Bud does not won’t because of how bad it makes the MLB look.
3. Having they A’s leave the Bay Area is not the Giant’s MO. Would they complain if the A’s left? Of coarse not but it sounds like they just won’t the principal respected. Its a messed up situation for the A’s but if any business man were in the Giants shoes they would do the same…
I’ve been posting on this blog since 2006, I consider myself to be one of the vets, along with Tony D, Rob, and Jeffrey. But not quite as long. I have meet ML personally and would not claim any false “sources” on this site. All I can say is this what Larry Baer told me to my face and you can choose to believe me or not, either way is fine with me…
(sorry for the horribly long comment, I don’t post as much as I used to so consider this making up for lost ground 😛 )
LeAndre… Larry Baer also said that MLB would never even look into San Jose… Those guys want the A’s gone.
@LeAndre–interesting stuff there.
@plrraz– total BS. They WERE qualified.Since 1999, Piccinni’s grocery chain has grown and his wealth has too considerably. BTW, LW wouldn’t change much in payroll if they go to SJ. He loves the Moneyball type ownership. Fisher, being one of the richest owners still runs things on a shoestring.
@Jeffrey: I understand why you feel that way, I felt that way up until last week. But after talking with him I honestly don’t think that’s what they’re trying to accomplish…I’m sure if the A’s wanted to leave, the Giants would be more than willing to show them the door, but I don’t think their gameplan is to force them out…If you think about it, the Giants have not done anything to jeopardize the A’s getting a new stadium within there own territory, even when Fremont was on the table the Giants never said a peep…Just because the Giants don’t wont the A’s to move within they’re territory doesn’t mean they want the A’s out of the Bay…if Fisher and Wolff were in the Giants shoes, they would do exactly what they’re doing, as well as any other business type.
LeAndre,
The only, I repeat ONLY, reason the Giants have exclusive T-Rights to SCCo/SJ is because they themselves were supposed to relocate down here…THAT’S IT!
And no amount of “re-confirming” changes this reality. Second, the Giants are in no way in charge of this situation; MLB IS!
And since nothing is happening in “A’s territory,” it’s in the best interest of MLB to free up SJ for Wolff and company. Fremont, Oakland, Pleasanton, Concord, Richmond aint happening for the A’s!
San Jose is! Would the Giants want the A’s out of the Bay Area…probably, but the A’s would probably want the Giants out of the Bay just the same.
Guess what…no one is going anywhere, so might as well make BOTH Bay Area franchises as successful and financially sound as possible, not just one. With that LeAndre, do you know the way to San Jose?
@LeAndre – I’m gonna have to call BS – not on you – on Larry Baer and his PR spiel. Think about it:
Then again, I could report what you heard from Larry in a post tomorrow, and we’d probably get enough questions and answers going between this blog, local reporters, the two teams, and maybe even MLB, to find out for certain. How does that sound?
Jk,
1) why should Oakland “sue for collusion” when they don’t even give a crap about the A’s? With them it’s all about my Raiders.
2) sorry to break this to yah, but MLB can choose whoever the hell they want to enter “The Lodge.”
@Tony: no need to lecture me on the orgin of the Giants T-Rights, we’ve discussed it for years. I’m merely sharing what Larry Baer told me. I know the MLB are in control of the situation and Baer knows that as well. But apparently the giants have contracts signed by Fisher stating he wouldn’t persue SCC and if the rights are removed the Giants would sue on those grounds…I’m not saying the Giants would win or that they should sue in the first place, I’m just the messenger…The MLB do have the last say but tearing up a contract is not the type of thing Bud wants happening, hence the delay. This thing is not in anyones favor right now…Tony, I sence a lot of anger from you, I really hope one day we can be friends. I’m a lot like you, you know…I am to Oakland what you are to San Jose, I should start calling myself LeAndre T. : P
@ML–I think that you have a great idea–time to have LB address what LeAndre recalls about their conversation—I suggest sharing it with the press—
@ML: I don’t know the fine print of the contract. I’m not sure the contract was between the giants and the A’s I’m pretty sure it was within the contract Fisher signed to become owner. Maybe every person looking to be owner has some clause saying they need to respect the t-rights? Maybe the MLB had a feeling this might happen so they put it in the contract? I just think Wolff and Fisher knew how fragile the T-Rights are and that having the argument of not having anywhere else in the east bay to build would be enough to convince Bud to over rule it…but as we know he has been against it from the beginning, maybe that’s why? I don’t know. I’ll be sure to ask Matier about it if I see him again, I doubt I’ll see Baer again…as far as you posting a thread…do as you wish, I haven’t lied about anything, however I’m not much of a “source” and our convo was so brief I really didn’t get any re-enforcing detail out of him, you know what I mean.
if this “contract” is true or real, then why would the a’s spend all this time, energy, and money with the idea of moving to sj if they thought this contract their owner supposedly signed would be iron clad and held up in the long run.
i think wolff and company if this contract story is legit thinks selig and the mlb suits will find a way to throw it out in the end.
still can’t believe the city of sj is being held as a hostage between these two sides. don’t they have a freaking voice in all of this?
@letsgoas: My guess is Fisher and Wolff thought they could get pass the contract due to the fragile nature of T-Rights in general, they probably never expected it to be this difficult…Coliseum Village, Fremont, Fremont plan B, etc. rather if you believe Wolff and Co legitimately tried these sites or not, they have left the impression that they have tried to build in the East Bay and they’re betting on MLB allowing them to pursue SJ, what they are saying is their last option …
About the contract…guys I don’t know. Im not trying to pretend Im Barbara Walters here. I just know Baer told me they have record of Fisher signing a contract stating they would respect the T-Rights. I dont know anything else about it. Maybe there is more details in the contract that could work in Fisher’s favor that Baer never told me about? Maybe he’s really an asshole and lied to impress me in front of Mayor Brown? Maybe anything…
Just read your post LeAndre from 4:35; couldn’t read it earlier on my damn piece of crap Blackberry.
Contract between Baer and Fisher? When in doubt always resort to Steve “The Man” Kettman’s SanFranMag article from 12/09:
Wolff-“It’s not me that can move to San Jose, IT’S NOT THE GIANTS WHO CAN PREVENT IT.”
Fisher-“And Selig’s sales pitch (to buy the A’s) included a ballpark.” “From the moment we bought this team the most important thing for Lew and I was to build a new ballpark to keep the A’s in the Bay Area. Our conclusion is that the best opportunity to build a ballpark is in downtown San Jose.” Contract? Even if one existed, MLB’s “best interest of baseball” clause in its constitution would relegate such a document to toilet paper status anyway. Sense anger in me? You’d be angry to LeAndre if your city was (currently) banned from pursuing MLB and was being controlled by a franchise 40 miles to the north. However, very confident I won’t be “angry” much longer now ;o)…
hey LB obviously wanted to get this into the media if he is spouting it to “sources”—the utter disregard he and the rest of the gints ownership shows for the city of San Jose and what is in their best interests is phenomenal—all for putting this one in the media and letting LB try and spin his story quickly–
Last thoughts of the day on this Larry Baer “BS!” I’m sure Bob DuPuy/MLB met with San Jose officials three times just to remind them about the “contract” between Fisher and LB (LOL!). Also, “BRC” never exists if this phantom “contract” existed or had teeth. Good night all!
along TD’s line–so what contract was in place when Schott/Hoffman owned the team….and Fisher was part of the gints
Hey, ML or Jeffrey, I’m interested in your opinion about this:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16343142
@jk-usa – you can call “total BS” all you want, but it has been documented here on this very site that the Piccinni group would have run things on a shoe string budget and not had money to spend on players.
Marine Layer, you are way more versed on this than I, can you elaborate on this?
One other thing, jk-usa – Piccinnini may be wealthier now than he was in late nineties, but that is irrelevant; the facts remain that his group could barely cobble the money together for the bid.
I dont recall which group Reggie Jax was involved with in trying to buy the A’s, (Steve Stone?), but he as admitted that he was looking at relocating them to Las Vegas.
SJ redevelopment seems to be having more money problems
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16343144
but Wolff seems confident it will work out
New wrinkle in A’s stadium plan from the San Jose Merc
http://www.mercurynews.com/southbaybaseball/ci_16343142
Well that sucks. Not shocking, but sucks.
May not suck at all. Wolff seems anxious to buy the land. That means the land will be purchased by private money instead of public funds.
New post up in response to the Merc article.
Who are the Giants going to sue? MLB? The A’s? Is either of those possible given MLB’s standing vis-a-vis anti-trust law? The most interesting thing he said is (if it’s true) they aren’t currently negotiating. That could mean a lot of things. But I hope it means MLB is going to summarily rule against the Giants and they’ll get exactly what they deserve out of this, which is nothing.
Why would Wolff/Fisher ever sign such a contract???
Who would enforce it? The Giants are strange and it is very frustrating. I do not understand on if this contract was true then who made Wolff/Fisher sign it?
Were they not allowed to become owners otherwise? Did BS force them to sign it? Is this common practice with the other owners?
The Giants cannot sue the A’s directly because of the Anti-Trust exemption and I am sure Wolff/Fisher and BS know this. Regardless of the contract because then it would bring the AE into question and the Giants would lose badly in an Anti-Trust lawsuit.
Respect TR Baer says? Well how about the Giants respect Anti-Trust law and the City of San Jose plus their residents who want this to happen.
What Baer says makes no sense and if it is true then the Giants can try to sue the A’s and see their TR to the South Bay fall apart in court.