One of the problems I have with Lew Wolff pleading his case in the media is that it gives the media plenty of fuel for columns – columns that are almost invariably anti-Wolff. Such is the case today, with a Bloomberg article followed up by a rejoinder by Tribune columnist Gary Peterson. None of it moves the conversation forward, and it creates a cloud over a team at a time when all teams should have unfiltered hope on their side. You’ve got pro-Oaklanders and most local columnists on one side and Wolff, Beane, and the national columnists on the other side. And there isn’t much room for convincing either.
Peterson has plenty of good points (the beer size scandal) and some bad ones (the non-existent big development in SJ), but he makes one rhetorical mistake in comparing Wolff to Charlie Finley. In no way is Wolff as cheap, colorful, or rebellious as the maverick Finley. MLB wouldn’t have a Finley in the current era. As much of a mixed bag as Finley was, his honeymoon in Oakland may have ended as early as April 18, 1968. That was the date of the second ever home game for the Athletics in Oakland. After a sellout, 50,000+ crowd on opening night, game two brought in a whopping 5,304, most of those probably season tickets. Out of curiosity, I did a check of every first and second home game ever played in Oakland, and the results are only marginally better, sometimes worse.
Bold/italic figures indicate doubleheaders. Blue years are in Kansas City, Green years are in Oakland. Home games played outside of Oakland were not counted. Data source: Baseball Reference
There’s a story – possibly apocryphal – of how Finley said that he made a mistake in moving the A’s to Oakland when he saw the crowd for that second game (that may be how Selig got the basis for his famous quote). To be fair, BART was under construction. On the other hand, traffic was not nearly as bad on the Nimitz, then also known as Highway 17. Seriously though, 5,304? And less for the second games the next few years? The Haas era bumped things up, but even then the A’s had two years whose second games had four-figure crowds. Increased season ticket sales this year should ensure that a <10,000 crowd won't occur this year. Still, no matter how much Oaklanders and columnists despise Lew Wolff, hate alone won't save the A's. Showing up just might. I know that many of you will be there on Opening Day. What about the following day?
newballpark.org 
How much do you think the day of the week of the second game of the season is on plays into this?
@James – Most of the time it was a Tuesday or Wednesday. Sometimes it was a Friday or Saturday.
LW is just pleading his case. You can’t blame him for trying to make a business case for it in a reputable magazine and trying to get broad support, rather than just having him and Beane and a small cadre of South Bay boosters. Put another way: with or without him saying anything, the same people will rebut the move to SJ anyway.
Question. How will SJ be the magic bullet that fixes this problem? Taking pot-shots at Oakland isn’t going to fix things any more than people taking pot-shots at Wolff.
@Dinosaur Jr. – Not taking a potshot at Oakland per se. We’re all A’s fans which means we’re all responsible.
Ok. But how will SJ fix the problem?
@Dinosaur Jr. – San Jose has shown a history of supporting its teams well, whether major or minor league. The corporate base, which Wolff says he has locked up for the financing part, is the other key factor. Need both to compete in this day and age.
No offense but outside of the Sharks I don’t see this history of strong support, and the Sharks only need 17,000 a game. Not gonna say that SJ will fail, but there is no indication of long-term future success in SJ. A stadium in SJ can very much draw 12,000 in 5 yeas just as much as Oakland. Its hard to predict what will happen.
@Dinosaur Jr. – San Jose deserves a shot at the very least. I’d prefer that it’s not at the expense of Oakland, but three teams in the Bay Area is not likely.
@Dinosaur – How will SJ fix the problem? Main issue is revenue generation and not necessarily gate receipts. If you parallel what the move from Montreal to DC did for the Expos/Nats, thats probably what you can expect. While you intentional omit the Sharks for SJ, you fail at citing how a new Oakland ballpark will revitalize the hardly existent corporate and fan support. And with a development model of either public funding (Al Davis anyone) or private (who’s paying again?), Oakland seems like a lost cause.
not just early home games too did the a’s have low attendance figures. i was a season ticket holder in the early 2000s and when the a’s were on their way to their 4 straight playoff appearances, they didn’t draw much for many of their late sep/early oct regular season home games. 2001 in particular when the a’s had that great second half and they could draw 20k on many weeknight games late in the season.
not to kill the a’s fans entirely, would like to see how the team across the bay attendance was pre at&t and pretty sure they too had a large difference from regular season opening home dates to their second home game of the season.
do think any new park will help the a’s especially if they are a winner. some bring up the pirates as an example of a new park not helping the team at the gates but pit is an extreme case where they’ve stunk for close to two decades now. i don’t see why if the a’s get a new park in sj or oak and they are competitive in most years and in the playoffs on a regular basis that they could draw 25 or 30 thousand easy on average for home games.
main thing for sj like it’s been mentioned is the corporate sponsors that would come and would be huge for the franchise as a whole both on and off the field and that’s why some certain team which shall remain nameless doesn’t want the a’s to move there. if they’re not getting that south bay money, they certainly don’t want the a’s to get it either and come close to equal footing in terms of bringing in the corporate support which the a’s lack big time at the coliseum.
Why does Lew do this? How does this help sell season tickets in Oakland? I am going to go to a couple of games, but truly don’t understand the point of this Bloomberg article. A’s attendance has gone done 10,000 since Fisher/Wolff bought in. I think fans should go see their team, but Lew’s interviews do not help the bottom line. And it helps sow the seeds of discontent and conspiracy theories. I have to agree with Peterson, the interview is “whiney”
Dinosaur Jr. (great band by the way) No matter how you slice it… Attendance in Oakland has been pretty underwhelming. That is the known quantity.
.
Does it change appreciably in San Jose? I’d venture to bet yes, if only slightly. And even if it is only slightly, the quality of revenue (more high end ticket purchasers in the form of large businesses) will make the bottom line improve significantly.
.
We won’t be 100% sure one way ro the other.
.
For the record… I am buying season tickets this year. 22 games. I plan on buying them in either Oakland or San Jose going forward.
This is the same “all in” mentality that Wolff used in Fremont. He bought all that land and in the end, there wasn’t the type of support needed to get the job done. Why can’t Lew stay quiet like Fisher? As an A’s fan, I wonder what the other MLB owners think of Lew’s tactics? Is he taken seriously by other owners? I am a Raiders fan. You all know that many players don’t come to the raiders because of Al Davis. Tony Dungy told Vick not to come to the Raiders. I also wish Al would just STFU, hire a GM and sit quietly in his Owners Box.
@jeffrey. I’m also a 22-game holder, and plan to continue in either city, although I might get priced out of the good seats in San Jose. Still, I’m for a move there, San Jose just seems like it will have better overall revenue and corporate support, which will allow a higher payroll and to become more competitive in most years. Look at the resale value of Sharks tickets vs. Warriors tickets.
Actually support LW going to media to offset the gints constant whine that they own SCCo and misinformation they supply as to how important it is to their financial health—what else should he do–stand on the sidelines and let the gints control the message? You have a commissioner that by all accounts can’t seem to figure his way out of the situation–we are nearly 2 years into the “study” when bs himself opened the door to SJ—bs is the one who needs to step in and put a gag order on this issue for both the A’s and gints—but hey that would be leadership—
Season tix holder here also–but in all honest—if the door to SJ isn’t opened this is it for me—because Oakland isn’t going to happen and I’m not willing to spend my money on sitting in the Coli with no plan in place for a new ballpark—always be an A’s fan —just wont be a season tix holder
@GoA’s – I agree. A gag order would make a lot of sense.
@GoA’s/David – Agreed on a gag order.
As GoA’s alluded to, Mr. Wolff was merely responding to the trash that Baer put out on KCBS. You can’t knock him for defending his position and calling out the Giants. I truly don’t believe Mr. Wolff seeks out the media to state his position (it’s more likely the other way around). But at the same time he’s not just going to sit around and let nonsense from the Giants fly without response. Again, interesting that he singled out Baer and hinted it wasn’t Neukom who was fueling the fire.
In terms of season tickets at the Coliseum, being that I live so far away, I can only attend about 3-4 games per year. But once they announce Cisco Field priority seating/season tickets are tied to purchases at the Coliseum, I’m getting my season tix even if I can’t make that many games. I’m sure many here will do the same as well.
“Why can’t Lew stay quiet like Fisher?”
I noticed that Forbes can’t even find a photo of Fisher for their “Richest People in America” list.
Lew Wolff, You’re Living All Over Me.
Most teams have a large drop off from opening day to the second game. In that aspect, the A’s are not unique. The Tigers, for example, sell out all opening days, but the second game is in the 5,000-8,000 range unless it is on a weekend or against the Red Sox or Yankees.
The Sharks are a direct sign of San Jose being able to support the A’s.
Between the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL which is the least popular in this country? Hockey by far….that is not even an argument…..Yet in a non-traditional hockey city like San Jose the Sharks do really well and are beloved despite years of playoff failures.
Then take into account Santa Clara County is one the richest counties in corporate support and affluent people in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States#100_highest-income_counties_by_median_household_income_.282000.29_.5B4.5D
Santa Clara comes in at 19th in the nation in median household income despite having a population of 1.8M people while being compared to other counties in the US who have 40k in population and yet still are able to “hang”…..that in its own right is astonishing.
Lew Wolff sees this and wants to tap into this sub-market of the Bay Area that has only a hockey team in the general area.
Instead people expect him to share the same sub-market with the Giants 10 miles away who have the best ballpark in MLB and leave Santa Clara County on its own 50 miles way from SF and 35 miles away from Oakland?
That does not make sense from a business standpoint and it is flat out wrong.
The A’s will end up in San Jose one day but it is going to take a major lawsuit and a Supreme Court ruling overrturning the 1922 decision to give MLB an AE because they were considered a “game” and not separate businesses.
Ask the NFL, NBA, and NHL about their experience trying to get an AE in this day and age? Enough said….
A Supreme Court Ruling? I want some of the stuff you’re smoking.
I’ve skimmed through all the Giants figs for the first two games, and they’re not too impressive either. They did pack them in their first year in SF in 1958, getting capacity crowds at Seals Stadium with 23,448 and 22,735. But it was against the LA Dodgers. Most opening series were against the Padres, and they were often below 10k more time than not.
Some more sample years:
1960 (first year at the new Wonderful Stick): 42,269—17736
1961(2nd ” ” ” ” ” ): 41,426—7583
1968 (when A’s come to the Bay Area) :35,774—7844
1970 :30,933—4399
1971 29,844—-3588
1986 :46,638—3540
1990 (the next year after WS with the A’s); :52,872—24,846
The last 3 years at the Stick:
1997: 41,996—8099
1998: 55,370—10,021
1999: 57430—15795
The Pacbell years have been great for attendance for opening series. They’ve sold out every opening day, and have gotten as little as 35,795 to sell outs on the 2nd day. That can happen at a VC park I’m sure.
I tried to go back and get some idea of how public Angelos was relative to the Expo’s move to DC–looks like he also had quite a vocal public stance in opposition to this—doesn’t look like bs ever tried to shut him down either—
I have no doubt that a VC park would do well attendance wise. The big question… how are you gonna pay for the parcels and get the corporate support to fund the park? Has anyone actually come up with a plan that doesn’t involve randomly shouting out names of places that -might- be interested?
Outta curiosity, how many here are going to either Opening Night and/or the 2nd game? I went to Game 2 last season. I’m looking at pictures I took on my phone. It’s almost funny when you can see break in “Plaza Infield,” and “Plaza Outfield” ticket holders. Needless to say, the “Plaza Infield” seats were empty with the “Plaza Outfield” seats relatively well filled.
.
On Wolff/Fisher, I still feel that A’s fans are lucky to have them. Could they be supporting the team and fans better? YES! Fisher’s money was/is used to just keep the team afloat until the ballpark issue is resolved. Sure, I’d love to see some GAP-brand sacks of money thrown into the A’s organization. A’s fans have a legit argument with accusing them of using the Montreal playbook on Oakland, but the goal is building the A’s a Bay Area ballpark. Do the ends justify the means? It definitely isn’t black and white.
I get trying to answer Baer’s rant on KCBS. But, how is that going to help make a profit this year? How is that going to get more butts in the seat to see: DeJesus, Matsui, Willingham and the best bullpen in MLB? Wolff is going all in on his fight.
@David- LW has made no secret of that—it is SJ or bust—and what worries me as an A’s fan is what happens if its a bust–we know what the gints want–the A’s out of the bay area—if anyone here doesn’t believe that Neukom and his group know that Oakland is not viable from a privately financed ballpark perspective than they are living in a dream world–bs knows this also–
turning down SJ spells the end of the A’s in the bay area unless the public in Oakland picks up a few hundred million of the tab—even then the A’s would still be a small market team and remaining on the dole—–which some of the owners are starting to question why revenue sharing exists at all—
@GoA’s – I disagree with it being SJ or bust. Wolff is not good a poker. Also, there is no such thing as small markets, just small minds. The A’s have the 3rd richest ownership in MLB.
OK, David. Then tell us how an Oakland ballpark gets built with no private funds and insufficient corporate support. The only way I can think of is if MLB doesn’t want to deal with the PR shellacking it will take for leaving struggling Oakland and decides to have all the owners chip in to build the ballpark. That would work for me but it would be unprecedented.
By saying the A’s have the “third-richest ownership” you seem to be implying they should be willing to part with their billions and run the franchise as a money-losing charity. Even mega-rich Paul Allen, of Microsoft fame, would only buy the Seahakws if he could get a publicly financed stadium.
correction: Then tell us how an Oakland ballpark gets built with no PUBLIC funds…
re: Third-richest ownership. Maybe I’ll write some Silicon Valley CEO and demand that he buy me a Mercedes. He’s rich. He can afford it. And I’m entitled.
@David- do you expect the owners to give money to Oakland with no return expected? They didn’t become rich by making bad business decisions—and I would be happy to place a bet with anyone on this site that unless the Oakland public is willing to invest $200M a ballpark in Oakland will never happen—and if you can outline how a privately financed ballpark works in Oakland there are many of us A’s fans on here that are waiting for that information
…and $200 million would only be about half the cost. That would be enough to get a deal done, with owners still paying the other $200 million. But Oakland wants the ballpark for free. Other cities will come forward that are not in the Giants “territory” that will offer much, much better terms. San Antonio already almost snagged the Marlins – we can count on that city (which is bigger than San Jose) making a bid for the A’s once a Bay Area ballpark bid formally strikes out.
this is getting nowhere… thanks for the dialogue.
Wait, David, don’t go. You still haven’t explained how a park would be paid for in Oakland. How do you propose that the owners recoup their investment?
Apparently, they’re not supposed to recoup it. Just part with their wealth for the common good of A’s fans and the City of Oakland, I guess.
Okay you’ve made your point. It’s not David’s job to figure out the numbers. It’s LGO’s job. Leave it alone for now.
Seattle voters a few years ago passed a referendum that basically ensures that no sports arena will ever be built with public funds. Today, that city no longer has an NBA basketball team. There’s a lesson here for Oakland.
I’m a Music Teacher. I have never studied finance or raising money for HUGE developments. I coach baseball at the High School I work at and I’m all about baseball. My favorite team is the A’s. I own a nice house in a nice neighborhood (Crocker Highlands) I graduated from the Oakland schools, my kids go to Oakland schools and I am all about the advancement of my city. I hope all the SJ-Stadium folks can understand, why some of us are Pro-Oakland.
@Dinosaur- Look up the MLB anti-trust exemption that was granted in 1922. Then look up the NFL, NBA, and NHL on their failed attempts to get the same thing.
You will see that the Supreme Court incorrectly gave MLB its AE back in 1922 as MLB like the rest of the leagues are 30 separate businesses and not a “game”…..The Supreme Court has had decisions overturned several times over the years….Look that one up too.
There are zero territorial rights in the other leagues and relocation fees get shared amongst all the owners and not the teams currently sitting in the area another team is moving into.
This is why the Giants argument is severely flawed……If MLB did not have an AE the A’s would have moved to San Jose years ago much like the Kings are about to move to Anaheim with no resistance.
MLB is playing by their own rules that is not right, they should play by the same rules all the other leagues play by….That is what most people call “fair”.
My theory is if the City of San Jose sues MLB since the teams cannot sue each other and erodes their AE with the arguments I have presented above plus a plethora of others as well……they would win hands down and Selig would go down in shame, this plus the Giants will be the most hated team amongst all the owners.
My bet would be if it went to court the other owners would step in and vote the Giants off the island just to avoid a lawsuit where their treasured AE is lost…..A settlement of some type….The kind of settlement that the Giants refuse to negotiate at present.
Only way Oakland gets a stadium done without public money is as I stated before MLB subsidizes the stadium for the A’s…which is unheard of since the owners already hate giving the A’s 40 million a year in revenue sharing as is.
San Jose is best place for the A’s fiscally speaking and the fans would be out there in herds as the city wants the A’s but most importantly as ML points out the “South Bay Business Interests” want the team too and are willing to help get a ballpark built in San Jose….Not Oakland.
I’m pro-Oakland, too. But with insufficient corporate backing in Oakland an no public investment, there is almost no chance a ballpark can get built there. San Jose at least would have a chance if not for the idiotic “territorial rights.” When I go to Oakland Zoo and see plaques dedicated to the A’s for supporting the zoo exhibits (ie, the animals), that means something. But now that the A’s need Oakland’s support, all we hear is campaign rhetoric about “spending not one dime for the A’s” and city managers getting fired for merely trying to come up with a downtown ballpark site. At this point, I’m very pessimistic that the A’s can remain in the Bay Area. The Giants’ plan is working to perfection.
@David- I don’t live in either SJ or Oakland–so I don’t have an allegiance to either city—but I am an A’s fan who wants them to be successful in the bay area for many years to come–this shouldn’t be about the cities of either SJ or Oakland but rather about the A’s—and what is financially best for the A’s so they can get a new privately built ballpark and compete. So while I appalaud your enthusiasm for your city of choice I feel you are missing the point of why the A’s need to move to SJ—when you remove the emotion and you look at it logically SJ is really the only option if you want the A’s to stay in the bay area—
Is anyone going to Opening Night?
I’ll take a look at Opening Night. Can’t commit right now.
@Briggs – This will be my seventh opening day in a row. And probably my seventh second day that I do not attend.
@David – I totally respect where you are coming from.
I will be at opening night
Sid, just for the record, you are mistaken about MLB’s antitrust exemption. Whether the Supreme Court would consider reversing the AE, which it also upheld in 1972, has been a moot point since 1998. When Congress passed and Bill Clinton signed into law the Curt Flood Act, it eliminated the AE for collective bargaining matters but specifically enshrined it into Federal law for franchise relocation matters. So the only way to overturn it now would be an act of Congress.
I’m going to opening night. Can’t wait!
I used to only go the day after opening night because I would try my damnedest to be at the park when crowds were expected to be small. I’m through with that phase of my life. Opening night it is!
I’ll be at opening night!! A’s all day!!!!!
@Simon- That is because the case in 1972 was based on the reserve clause for players. It did not include a municipality, city, or county being involved like I am stating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_v._Kuhn
What Bill Clinton signed in 1998 was that MLB labor practices were subject to Anti-Trust law and it had nothing to do with Franchise relocation. It was a moot point then because MLB had already granted free-agency to its players by then.
The article also states that the Supreme Court if MLB ever again had their AE challenged they would see it removed to put them in line with the other professional sports leagues.
Now, if the City of San Jose were to sue and win as it would seem based on the Supreme Court’s comments…..then Congress has to get involved as a member of the House of Representatives who represents Santa Clara County would step up and get this done…..Too bad for Curt Flood Congress does not care about individuals.
Then at that point the Senate would have to vote on this as well because California is involved as a state…..I doubt the President would have even a chance to veto this since it is not a bill….This last part I am not sure on.
Personally I do not think it would get that far because if San Jose were to sue then in that particular case MLB would settle this long before that ever happened.
If the Supreme Court were to overturn the MLB AE in this day and age for the City of San Jose then Congress would push it through no problem if that is necessary.
The Supreme Court’s comments are very telling and they regret not stripping MLB of the AE back in 1972.
I’ll be there Opening Night as well. For anyone that’s down, we could grab a beer before the game. It’ll be nice rooting for the same team.
@Sid, the Curt Flood Act narrowed the scope of the antitrust exemption but specifically provided that Congress did NOT intend to subject to antitrust law any matters related to franchise relocation, relations among the clubs, relations between the clubs and the Commissioner etc. Here is the statute: http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/hist490/FreeAgency/curtfloodact.htm In light of that, there’s virtually no chance that any court would take it upon itself to try to “repeal” the antitrust exemption. An antitrust suit in the San Jose/A’s saga is a nonstarter.
@PJK: guessing that you are being honest, it is great to know that you are pro-Oakland; I will continue to respect your comments for a park in either city, whether I agree with you or not. I feel however, that your concerns regarding managers being fired, and city officials not wanting to spend money on the A’s, is simply a Jerry Brown-as-mayor thing…a thing of the past, that is. Mr. Brown was raised in politics–he mentioned in the media–as not putting sports first. Whether people blame Shott/Hoffman or Brown, Jerry said enough words that made it clear that he didn’t give a rat’s behind about a new stadium for the A’s; especially considering the blight and serious issues that the Uptown District was experiencing at the time. Now with Quan as mayor, albeit a late start for the EIR, it is in progress and a much bigger push. If SJ doesn’t put the initiative on the ballot within the next 7 days, waiting until November and maybe beyond, they are simply giving Oakland more time. True, Oakland cannot stop, and I hope that Doug Boxer’s extra time away from the planning commission can help make a difference. As I mentioned before, it will be a very interesting month for Oakland, hoping that no RDA funds are stripped by–who else–Jerry Brown.
Quan also has said – no general funds for the A’s. So where does the money come from? In San Jose, a major corporation is ready to commit $120 million on naming rights? What do we have in Oakland? (The football stadium where the A’s currently play has no naming rights sponsor, even with the double-season exposure of both football and baseball teams that a corporation would get for purchasing these rights.) Oakland’s electing of such an anti-sports mayor like Jerry Brown has consequences as far as keeping the teams.
PJK. The 120 Mil was a a figure given by Cisco due to a LAND transaction in Fremont, no money figure has been mentioned so far in San Jose. You also seem to have this obsession with Gen. Funds being spent on sports, like how dare we tell billionaires how to spend their money, yet is perfectly OK to tell cites to prioritize sports over schools, libraries, safety, etc
Just tell me where the money comes from to build the stadium if there’s no general funds, redevelopment funds or private funds available. A simple question. So, do you expect billionaires to be like Santa Claus and just give Oakland a stadium simply because they are rich? It’s not going to happen. If the attitude is let the billionaires build the stadium and lose BigTime $$ doing it, then the A’s days in Oakland are surely numbered, similar to how Seattle lost the Sonics after refusing to spend public funds on an arena. (I’m betting Oakland’s libraries and schools won’t be any better after the A’s leave.)
PJK are you reporting with facts or just going along with your own assumptions?
You’re answering my question with questions. Just tell me where the money comes from if there’s no general funds, redevelopment funds or private funds available? From billionaire owners acting like Santa Claus? Highly unlikely.
1. There are no general funds available anywhere, any place. Drop that argument now.
2. If Moonbeam gets his way them yes Redevelopment funds are gone. But if a compromise works out then Oakland has the bonding capacity to make it happen. In San Jose’s case they can sell off land. (even though the last effort fell short)
3.Private funds are 100% dependent on ownership.
@DJ Your point 3 is really the sticking point in the Oakland vs SJ debate. What happens if the current ownership isn’t willing to build the ballpark in Oakland because they don’t feel they can get an adequate ROI? Some pro-Oaklanders would say “they’re rich, if they aren’t willing to build it in Oakland let’s find someone else who will.” That’s great if such a person exists, but what happens if MLB won’t allow any ownership to build in Oakland because of the debt rule? If neither the city of Oakland nor MLB is willing to make up the difference finance a portion of the ballpark, then the only alternative would be to move somewhere else (refuse to use the “C” word). Assuming the TR compensation pencils out, SJ is where the money is to finance the ballpark.
…But the Giants won’t budge on San Jose and Selig and the other owners are too cowardly to fix that problem. So it’s “ladies and gentlemen, your San Antonio Athletics!” The Victory Court project has been public for about 4 months from now. Has any group of investors come forward willing to buy the team and build the ballpark privately there? Anybody?
@pjk — or, new ownership takes over the team, if Wolff/Fisher don’t want to work with Oakland.
David: So where is this new ownership group ready to spend $1 billion to buy the team and build the ballpark privately? As you point out, I’ve said all this before. Victory Court has been public for several months and I”m still not aware of any private investors ready to take on this project under the aforementioned terms. Wolff has been clear that he won’t build in Oakland, so if there are investors ready to build privately, where are they? “Working with Oakland” seems to mean an ownership group ready to lose many many millions of dollars just so Oakland can have a free stadium like Frisco got.
@pjk Why would someone come forward to buy the team? The team isn’t even up for sale.
@Simon, you are incorrect in your statements that (1) the Flood Act “enshrined” the antitrust exemption into law for franchise relocation matters and that (2) the only way to overturn it now is an act of Congress.
The Flood Act deals only with employment matters. It specifically states that it is no effect on any other matters (such as franchise relocation). So there is no statutory exemption. The Supreme Court (or, at least initially, a lower federal court) could overturn the AE.
… the team has been sold three times with the intent of keeping them in Oakland. It was leaked that Beane was going to cash out if the SJ dream, falls through. I wouldn’t surprised Wolff/Fisher bailed also.
@gojohn10–I would think that if there is a potential ownership group that is interested in buying he A’s and building a privately financed ballpark in Oakland they would make sure their intentions were known to anyone who would listen—especially bs—Larry E. had no problem making sure everyone knew he wanted to buy the ‘9ers (who never were for sale) and than the W’s before they went on the market–
I wish LW would put them up for sale TOMORROW and we’ll see if there’s any interest. I’ll bet several local groups will come forward.
LE is the king of the hostile takeover. Not every businessman like to show his hand as early as Ellison.
Are you people still holding out hope that Larry Ellison swoops on in and buys the team and builds Oakland a free stadium? Ellison’s next public expression of interest in owning a baseball team would be his very first. If that’s Oakland’s plan, then the A’s might as well pack up and head to the AlamoDome right now.
@David-help me understand why some potential ownership group wouldn’t step forward…especially if there could come a decision on opening up SJ in the next few months—now is not the time for Oakland to hold its cards close to its chest—
@pjk–LE wouldn’t be my first choice– Bob Piccinini would be. He’s a huge baseball fan and has much more money since 1999 from his growing grocery chain. He was pissed how he was treated by the Lodge, so I’m not sure if he’s still interested.
Does Piccinini have the cash on hand to buy the team and build the stadium? If not, he wouldn’t meet the qualifications of someone who could “work with Oakland,” does he?
LE was never mentioned as a serious suitor for the A’s outside of a few partisans on the internet.
i was not electing LE. I was just saying that he likes to be open about takeovers. I haven’t heard anything about him, showing interest in the A’s.
You can’t have a hostile takeover of a private company.
@Simon- Steve is correct above.
It states from the article you posted (Good info BTW)
SEC. 27. (a) Subject to subsections (b) through (d), the conduct, acts, practices, or agreements of persons in the business of organized professional major league baseball directly relating to or affecting employment of major league baseball players to play baseball at the major league level are subject to the antitrust laws to the same extent such conduct, acts, practices, or agreements would be subject to the antitrust laws if engaged in by persons in any other professional sports business affecting interstate commerce.
(3) any conduct, acts, practices, or agreements of persons engaging in, conducting or participating in the business of organized professional baseball relating to or affecting franchise expansion, location or relocation, franchise ownership issues, including ownership transfers, the relationship between the Office of the Commissioner and franchise owners, the marketing or sales of the entertainment product of organized professional baseball and the licensing of intellectual property rights owned or held by organized professional baseball teams individually or collectively;
What this means in “english” is that MLB is subject to the same Anti-Trust laws as the other Professional leagues and Franchise relocation is no different as show in section 27 paragraph 3.
It is very clear here that a Anti-Trust lawsuit would not be a non-starter but in fact a lawsuit with serious merit to it.
It states that franchise relocation is subject to the same anti-trust laws that the NFL, NBA, and NHL are subject to.
This is a pretty damn good loophole the City of San Jose can use as the other leagues do not have territorial rights as that is against all anti-trust law.
This is something that has been overlooked by MLB big time going into this. Would not surprise me if Selig has never read this knowing how “knowledgeable” he has shown to be.
If RDAs are eliminated that eliminates Oakland off the bat.
San Jose would be the only location with land and a site ready to go for a MLB stadium. If MLB balks then they are going to be sued at that point in time.
Selig is playing the waiting game hence his 2015 time table for a new ballpark to open up……It is going to be in San Jose.
ratto was on AAD and said he thinks the a’s to sj is almost a “dead issue”.
http://www.athleticsafterdark.com/
haven’t listened to it but ratto has said things without knowing the facts before. guess he knows he helps writes his checks eh.
Wow! When I read letsgoas post about the Ratto interview, I thought it was going to be 100% negative towards San Jose and VIVA SF! But after listening to it, I must say Ratto made a ton of sense! He called the T-Rights for what they are, COMPLETELY UP TO MLB!, and put the onus squarely on Wolff and San Jose to make SJ happen. Ratto seeing San Jose as “almost dead” has more to do with him doubting Wolff really has the financing for Cisco Field and the imminent death of the RDA’s, so there I’ll disagree with him. Other than that, great interview!
@All – I don’t entirely disagree with Ratto (make sure you listen to the whole segment about the ballpark). He’s considered most of the angles. However he keeps saying that Wolff doesn’t have the support or financing in place without anything to back it up, and that the T-rights debate is a ruse as if it’s some sort of kabuki theater. There’s nothing to back that up other than Ratto’s hunch. If there’s anything we know about this game, it’s that hunches don’t mean much.
@ML–“If there’s anything we know about this game, it’s that hunches don’t mean much.”
Except if it’s a hunch from TonyD, who believes his hunches are always right and it’s such an obvious no-brainer that the A’s will be going to SJ. Be patient, brotha…
Also, I’ve been to the Kabuki Theater in Japan Town in SF. Kind of pricey, but very nice. You pick and reserve your own seat for the movie.
@Steve and Sid, point well taken that “enshrined” is an overstatement of the Curt Flood Act’s impact on the antitrust exemption. It is a misreading of the statute, however, to say that it has no impact on the antitrust exemption.
To recap:
1. The Supreme Court originally ruled in the Federal League case that U.S. antitrust laws cannot apply to baseball because the business of putting on baseball games is not interstate commerce.
2. Subsequently, beginning in the late 1930s, the Court radically expanded the definition of “interstate commerce” and thus federal government authority to cover, well, just about everything.
3. Nevertheless in 1972 the Court revisited the Federal League case and upheld baseball’s antitrust exemption, on the grounds that it had been in place for decades and relied upon and therefore could not be reversed except by clear act of Congress.
4. In 1998 Congress revisited baseball’s antitrust exemption and narrowed it so that collective bargaining matters are now governed by antitrust laws. In the process, Congress specifically stated that it did not intend by that Act to apply antitrust law to franchise relocation or a long list of other matters.
Now, it is theoretically possible that the Supreme Court could decide to reverse its prior two decisions, but it isn’t very plausible given the Curt Flood Act. This would have to be the last arrow in San Jose’s quiver, as an antitrust suit would be nothing more than a desperate, long shot. It certainly isn’t the kind of thing that would keep Bud Selig and his highly paid attorneys at Foley & Lardner awake at night.