Several hours ago I listed to the latest installment of Dale Tafoya’s Athletics After Dark podcast, this one featuring Ray Ratto. Ratto thinks that the San Jose stadium plan is near death:
The “Blue Ribbon Committee” is a fraud. The territorial rights argument is a fraud. This is about one thing and one thing only, and it’s always been about this: Do the A’s have the money to put a shovel in the ground? If they had the money to put a shovel in the ground, we would’ve gone to Bud Selig and said, “We’re ready to go now.” And then Bud Selig can either tell the committee to produce a report or he could just go without it and start harvesting votes if they really want this to happen. I think it is incumbent upon the A’s to show that they’re ready to go right now and the fact that they keep saying, “well we haven’t seen the blue ribbon report…” You know what? That’s due diligence and you’re supposed to do that. If you’ve got that stuff down you’re already working at that.
…In the current economic climate, where you really need help from cities and states to get buildings done if you don’t want to go into your own personal debt. I think that the idea of a San Jose stadium is really fading. It may be dead at this point. It’s taken too long for the A’s to get what ducks they have in a row, in a row. So I think the problem here is the A’s needed more help than they let on and now they’re stuck.
The bedeviling thing about how MLB works is this black hole of information around Selig. We know a lot about what San Jose is doing, we know a decent amount about what Oakland is doing. We have Wolff and his media campaign, we have responses from Neukom and Baer. The only thing we don’t have is the really important stuff. We don’t know what Selig’s, and by extension the other owners’, motivation is. To fill that void, Ratto theorizes that money is the problem. Which it may be, none of us have a financing plan in front of us.
But unlike the territorial rights issue or the progress of environmental impact reports, there is absolutely zero data or precedent to back up Ratto’s supposition. He is quite literally going on a hunch, making the analytical leap that it must be the money and everything else is a sham.
That makes little sense when you consider the following:
- The Giants have been spending millions on preserving T-rights to the South Bay over the last two years. They bought a majority share of the SJ Giants. They’ve been redoubling marketing efforts in the South Bay. Their stance on T-rights has gotten more hardline with the passing of time. They’ve threatened legal action – not directly, through intermediaries. No organization goes to this much trouble if they don’t believe that something major is at stake.
- They don’t call Selig “Slug” for nothing. The man is interminably slow when it comes to big decisions and is more than willing to say the sky is green when it is obviously blue (his remarks about competitive balance are a good example). This one’s a very big one since it involves something the big market owners consider sacred. I’ve said before that Selig isn’t going to act until at least one of these cities has all of their ducks in a row. That means the site, legal/political clearances, everything. San Jose isn’t there yet. Oakland isn’t there yet. And the Grim Reaper is coming fast for cities. Plus there’s the possibility that upcoming CBA negotiations will come into play, especially because the biggest debate will be about revenue sharing. If you’re Selig, why would you lift a finger until this other stuff shakes out? I wouldn’t. I guess you can call me “Slug” too.
- The money is a lot more “there” than “not there.” Wolff hasn’t been afraid to say when money is an issue – look at what’s been happening with the Quakes. He also hasn’t been afraid to bail on a project when it couldn’t work out financially, as was the case in Fremont and Oakland. Is it all locked in and under contract? Probably not. The timing of the hiring of Darrin Gross to the business side of the A’s may be a clue. Wolff hired David Kaval under the same auspices with the Quakes last year, and now we’re a few months away from groundbreaking. And let’s not forget that Cisco and SVLG are nothing to sneeze at.
- This stuff takes a long time to pan out. Peter Magowan took over the Giants in spring 1993. It took four years to get a ballpark deal in place and another three to build it. Magowan never had to worry about complications like T-rights. San Jose has been handicapped by the T-rights debate, which has strung the effort out to five years to get to this point (though there were two silent years). Ratto makes it sound like either Selig or Wolff can just forcefully say, “Make it so,” and things start happening, chop-chop. That’s not reflective of how this works. It’s an ugly, dirty process, borderline corrupt (if not outright) at times.
This post is yet another case of devoting nearly 1,000 words to something that was not news, merely a theory from a columnist. Who knows, maybe Ratto will be proven right in the end? If not, I suspect that when a groundbreaking ceremony occurs at Diridon this very interview will be played over the loudspeakers, an audio version of the “Dewey beats Truman” moment. Tech writer John Gruber calls it claim chowder. I’ll just call it a hunch.
newballpark.org 
Ratto is a Frisco columnist who does not want San Jose getting Major League Baseball, no?
PJK…are you tech writer paul krill?
I agree with Ratto … SJ is dead in the water. Wolff should stop complaining about Oakland and MLB not letting him build and sell the franchise already!!!
RM,
I agreed with almost the entire post…except for the first portion about the Giants “spending millions” to preserve their T-Rights. Respectfully: “They bought a majority share of the SJ Giants,” all that means is that they’ll get a little more scratch out of the A’s (or MLB) for relocating their minor league club, it doesn’t make the T-Rights more solid. “They’ve been redoubling marketing efforts in the South Bay,” They’ve always advertised in the South Bay, so I don’t necessarily get this one. I’d argue they’ve increased advertising throughout the Bay Area (especially with the WS win), but marketing is immune from T-Rights. “They’ve threatened legal action,” I don’t have to tell you about the MLB Constitution, and I don’t think MLB will allow one of its clubs to work around it by going through groups such as Better Sense San Jose. That “legal threat” will be put to rest when a deal is struck. And Again, T-Rights while considered “sacred” have been changed and altered many times in MLB’s past. If you go by the MLB Constitution and the fact that teams have relocated before, then you could say Ratto is spot on about the T-Rights.
Didn’t Wolff just tell Susan Slusser that funding was in place for a ballpark in San Jose?
Wolff said that funding for any stadium approved in San Jose is in place. “We’re prepared to build the stadium,” he said. “We have the funding, the equity, the sources of revenue.”
@fc – Yes. Later in the interview, Ratto says he doesn’t believe Wolff.
Scenario 1 – Wolff is bluffing and playing Oakland and MLB to finance the stadium for him. Doubtful since he hasn’t talked to the city in ages and almost built one in Fremont.
Scenario 2 – Ratto is smoking the crack as again trying to get a reaction from everyone., Fremont was almost built, and the designs for Cisco field at Diridon have even been started. Heck, does is Ratto even aware who Fischer is and how much $$ he has as well?
This issue is and has always been about TRights. The ProOaklanders aka closet Giants apologists would like to spin it every which way they can to shoot down that notion as it uplifts VC/JLS/wherever for them, as delusional as it is.
Evidence that he’s full of crap (from Twitter):
cuppingmaster
@RattoCSN what evidence do you have that Wolff is lying with regards to San Jose’s readiness?
@RattoCSN
Ray Ratto
@cuppingmaster No evidence. Just a firm belief that if he had his $, he would have forced action from MLB. Says he has $, nothing happens
cuppingmaster
@RattoCSN Or that baseball timelines are just looooong and sloooooow.
RattoCSN Ray Ratto
@cuppingmaster Not this slow
@ML – Slightly off topic, but do you find it interesting that Keith Wolff is taking on the Quakes stadium? Maybe its a precursor to him taking over future responsibilities for the A’s?
@ST – Keith Wolff is doing both. He lives in the Bay Area so he can handle the day-to-day stuff.
Ray Ratto is a sports writer, not a journalist. I’m not implying that there is any hierarchy, just that they’re different. Ratto relays directly observable event and embellishes them with his interpretation of what the manager/player was thinking. He’s not digging for specifics, interviewing multiple sources, and collecting evidence to support his pieces. As a columnist, he writes on topics like why new head coaches will succeed or fail. That’s fine and all, but they’re not necessarily news articles so his statements on the Diridon ballpark are just his thoughts based on his understanding. A columnist will take an absolute stances whereas a news journalist (for legal reasons) has to use terms like “reportedly,” “suspected,” etc. because unless something is absolute fact, you can’t treat is as if it is. Point is, Ratto is taking a absolute stance because he was asked a question. He’s not concerned with taking on the investigation and getting to the bottom of things, so it is what it is.
Ratto is doing his job when people talk about him, visit CSN to read his stories and watch CSN shows where he guests.
I’m sure at some point he’ll flip sides if it would rile up enough people to visit the site and watch the shows.
ML, is Selig holding up the BRP report to use as leverage in the player negotiations? There was that Yankee talk about contracting the Rays & A’s, citing the lack of a “newballpark” for either. The A’s park is all cleared internally in Bud’s head, he just wants to play the chip to get a better deal for the league.
@ru155 – That’s been brought up monkeyball and others. It sounds plausible until you start to look into what the owners and players would be fighting over. So far there’s nothing from a dollars/cents standpoint that MLB would consider using the C-word over. This post from a couple weeks ago may provide some insight.
Ot – TK’s take on Sacto move: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2011/03/04/its-all-related-anaheim-the-kings-the-warriors-and-yes-maybe-an-nba-team-in-san-jose . Unlike Ratto who a sensationalizes things out of thin air, Kawakami usually has some data to back up his speculation. I’ll ping off of him for his take on the A’s as he’s not so rah-rah like Purdy.
I sent a link of the Curt Flood Act and the provisions that subject MLB to Anti-Trust law around Franchise relocation to the City Council and the Mercury News.
The response I got was “astonishment” by both parties as they had never seen this before.
T-Rights are in fact against Anti-Trust law and this applies to MLB because of the Curt Flood act that subjected MLB to Anti-Trust laws in certain areas.
On the contrary as Congress put in provisions subjecting MLB to Anti-Trust in certain areas and Franchise relocation is one of them.
In 1998 when this was passed no one thought much of it because everyone thought it related to labor matters and free agency. This plus the fact there has not been precedence in the past of one team moving into another team’s so called “Territory”.
The Giants/A’s is the first time it has ever happened in MLB hence another reason this was never brought up.
The Mercury News and City Council have informed me they are looking into this into great detail and if I am right MLB T-Rights are in fact a direct violation of Anti-Trust law….They will let me know the results next week….I will post what they tell me for all of you.
Therefore the Giants nor MLB hold any claim to San Jose and the A’s could have moved there years ago….I feel for Schott and Hoffman as had they known this they would have fought this in court years ago with the City of San Jose.
Now San Jose has cause and evidence to prove they in fact do not belong to the Giants nor MLB.
My prediction is that the Mercury News will blow this up all over the place in the next 1-2 weeks and the City of San Jose will call Bud Selig informing him of this and “threaten” an “Anti-Trust” lawsuit blowing up T-Rights for the entire league.
Selig will trip out and inform the other owners of this and in order to preserve T-rights for the other 28 owners they will vote the Giants of the island and thus pave the way for the A’s to come to San Jose…The last thing Selig wants is for T-rights to be blown up for the entire league as he says it has always been held “sacred”.
Lew Wolff will not have to pay any money to the Giants nor a relocation fee as he is moving his team 30 miles south in the same market. Relocation fees only apply if you move the team outside the general market.
The A’s are coming to San Jose guys……You will see this blown up in the next couple of weeks and Bud Selig will save face to the entire league by granting Santa Clara County to the A’s.
San Jose A’s in 2015!!
Or Selig and the other owners will change the Bay Area to a “shared territory” all around.
Sid,
Nice post. Don’t think it will come down this “nuclear option” because this thing will be settled the MLB way:
A’s to SJ, SCCo shared territory, Giants get a little scratch, Anti-Trust still intact….EVERYONE’S HAPPY!
Hmmmm….
.
.
.
Curt Flood Act
Sec. 27a. – Application of antitrust laws to professional major league baseball
.
.
.
(b) Limitation of section
No court shall rely on the enactment of this section as a basis for changing the application of the antitrust laws to any conduct, acts, practices, or agreements other than those set forth in subsection (a) of this section. This section does not create, permit or imply a cause of action by which to challenge under the antitrust laws, or otherwise apply the antitrust laws to, any conduct, acts, practices, or agreements that do not directly relate to or affect employment of major league baseball players to play baseball at the major league level, including but not limited to –
.
.
.
.
(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;
.
.
.
The way I read this is that it would have to be the players or persons representing the players who would have to make a court case if they feel that T-rights are hurting their rights under the Curt Flood Act. I’m not a lawyer nor played one on TV but I don’t think it’s all that cut and dry. I think MLB’s lawyers would make the case that franchise relocation don’t directly relate to the rights the players have under this particular act. I will have to read this over again to make sure I’m reading it correct. If Sid is right, the Yankees and Mets should be sweating bullets. That’s why I don’t think San Jose would have that big of a case.
The Curt Flood Act (the “Act”) states it applies only to employment matters. It then takes pains to state that franchise relocation is not considered an employment matter for purposes of the Act, and that the Act does not create any new causes of action relating to franchise relocation.
I see two ways this could be read:
(a) It changes nothing with respect to franchise relocation. MLB is still exempt from antitrust laws with respect to decisions on franchise relocation as set forth in applicable Supreme Court precedent. (Of course, the Supreme Court could potentially decide to overrule its own prior precedent on this subject just as with any other Supreme Court decisions).
(b) It implicitly endorses the antitrust exemption with respect to franchise relocation matters. In this case, Congressional action would be needed to lift the antitrust exemption with respect to franchise relocation; the Supreme Court could not do so on its own.
Just based on the wording of the statute, I’d say (a) is the stronger interpretation. However, I have not researched and do not know what case law might be out there which might be relevant to the interpretation. If the Supreme Court has weighed in and said (b) is the right interpretation, then (b) it is.
I don’t see any plausible argument that Congress intended to lift the AE with respect to franchise relocation. They seem to have taken great pains to make clear that was not the intent.
I would also say, if there was any argument that the Curt Flood Act revoked the antitrust application with respect to franchise relocation, it could not possibly have escaped MLB’s notice. I’m sure they have antitrust experts on retainer billing over $1000/hr (antitrust being one of the most highly compensated legal specialties) who can recite the Curt Flood Act from memory (and probably much of the relevant case law).
@TonyD–make everyone happy?Uh, not even close, dude. Maybe a bunch of you on here, LW and Mark Purdy, but the majority of the bay area feel the A’s should make it work in Oakland. Long time Oakland supporters like me will be dumped on, just to fulfill LW’s decade old dream to build in San Jose. I really resent this carpetbagger and am so sick of his whining crap lately.
@Sid – Not every thread is meant to be a sounding board for all of your antitrust lawsuit fantasies. Save it for when it’s topical.
OK, I read this particular section again and what I am concluding is that the law is saying that major league baseball players can’t sue MLB under anti-trust law concerning franchise location or relocation. The phrase “This section does not create, permit or imply a cause of action by which to challenge under the antitrust laws, or otherwise apply the antitrust laws to…” is the key here. It means that the major league players can’t use their collective bargaining rights under Curt Flood to sue MLB over aspects of the law that don’t cover the players and it lists the sections where these don’t cover. Having said that, it is not clear whether parties other than the major league players can sue MLB on T-rights under this act. Didn’t the 1922 Supreme Court decision already decided that? Wouldn’t Congress have to revisit that issue if they want to address T-rights?
.
Look, I can understand if some people think that they have a magic bullet solution to the T-rights issue. But if that’s true, I would try to put a team in Brooklyn by now. That’s the key test as to whether the Curt Flood Act overturns T-rights. I have no idea on what San Jose’s lawyers would conclude. If they make a radically different conclusion from me, then it would make for a very interesting story. Like I said, I am not a lawyer, although I did serve in a jury in a civil case. ;0)
re: the majority of the bay area feel the A’s should make it work in Oakland.
…I’ll bet a majority of the entire country felt the Dodgers should make it work in Brooklyn, But it wasn’t go to, so the Dodgers ended up in LA. I’d like the A;s to make it work in Oakland too. I just don’t see how they can when there’s no public funds and insufficient corporate support available.
jk-usa “the majority of the bay area feel the A’s should make it work in Oakland”
If you have any evidence whatsoever of this, please share. I’ve seen no polls on this matter, and suspect you just pulled this “fact” out of your rump.
The vast majority of people I talk to from all around the Bay Area are thrilled with the idea of a new, privately financed ballpark that keeps the A’s local, regardless of which city it’s located in. The vast majority of people are also realistic about the relative possibility of making the financing work in San Jose vs. Oakland (yes, including my East Bay friends). But I’d be the first to admit that “people I’ve talked to personally” are not a statistically valid sample.
And please don’t come back with some Navigator-like statement like, “my general sense of the comments on SFGate…”
i’d include myself on that list of a’s fans who just wants a new park built anywhere in the bay area.
the a’s org, players and fans deserve a new park and i still think even as a long life oaklander that it’d be easier to build it in sj than it would be in oak.
From MLs transcript (haven’t listened to the podcast) It seems to me that Ratto is making two suppositions : 1) The Blue Ribbon Committee is a fraud, (a ploy to stall until conditions are right) and 2) That San Jose is dead in the water. based soley on the transcript provide here, the two ideas are poorly connected.
I think its not too much a stretch to wonder if the BRC is set up to provide cover for Selig/MLB while they wait for conditions to materialize either in SJ or in Oakland. The complete lack of insight into their opinion /concerns is bizzare and doesn’t SEEM to advance either agenda after months of investigation.
As to whether the plans for a SJ ball park are falling apart, that’s hard to say. There should be a greater sense of urgency with the likely changes in redevelopment funding, and the increased news coverage of San Jose’s quiet budget issues.
I think the point that Ratto is failing to communicate clearly is that this slowly growing urgency combined with Wolff’s insistence that the financing is set for a groundbreaking has strangely not elicited a response from MLBs BRC, and if they aren’t prepared to make a recomendation now, what if they wait untill to late?
Again, this still comes down to the owners. And I still think there are just enough of them who share one or more of the following sentiments:
1) That the A’s moving to San Jose will hurt the Giants,
2) That the region cannot successfuly support two teams consistently,
3) This opens the door for putting a 3rd team into NY or LA.
Whether or not these reasons are valid is irrelevant. If that’s what those owners think then perception is reality.
How do we know the BRC hasn’t given a recommendation that hasn’t been acted upon? At least not overtly?
.
The guessing games are getting old. Such is life as an A’s fan…
.
On the positive side, I finally broke down and got tired of waiting for Bd to say something and bought a 22 game package in the Plaza Level Infield. I’d encourage everyone who can afford a 22 game package (it is not that much to buy a package in the bleachers) to buy one.
.
No matter if you want to A’s to stay in Oakland, move to San Jose or (like me) just want them to stay somewhere within the 510, 925, 408, etc. the best way to ensure your particular vision comes to fruition is to show support at the gate.
.
As an added bonus, in my case, I get to teach my three moppets to keep score, spend 11 three hour stretches (and one six hour stretch?) with my brother. It’s winning. I must have Tiger Blood.
Justin NAILED IT! This has always been about who crosses the finish line first, gets all their ducks in a row.
Never has been about owners votes, third team in NYC, or Giants T-Rights. Rob, if I recall correctly, aren’t the other two-team markets shared territories?
And didn’t MLB just recently make a metro with the same population as the Bay Area a two-team market (Balt/Wash)?
LOL as always at your logic Rob!
My theory on the delay is very simple: MLB is waiting until the conclusion of the CBA to rule on San Jose because it doesn’t behoove them to grow the pie right before they negotiate how to split it. It’s a better negotiating posture to say: “Tampa Bay and Oakland are in trouble, and we don’t know how that’s going to play out” than “We just solved all Oakland’s problems and overall revenues are about to take a significant jump.” It’s not about threatening contraction necessarily; it’s just about leaving things uncertain. Seriously: How would announcing a new ballpark in San Jose help the owners in the CBA negotiations?
I don’t believe it’s about owners worried about “hurting the Giants.” It probably will hurt the Giants – slightly. They may go from doing “spectacularly well” to only doing “extremely well.” But the main reason they were doing “spectacularly well” in the first place was because they were first mover on a new Bay Area yard. An A’s move to San Jose just restores the original balance in the market – but at a higher level for both teams.
Also, bear in mind, a new A’s ballpark in Oakland would hurt the Giants as well – maybe more than one in San Jose. The A’s wouldn’t do well enough there to pay the bills on a privately-financed yard, but they’d still draw attendance away from the Giants.
Finally, it defies all logic to believe the owners would be so worried about an intra-market move hurting the Giants that they’d put the A’s in SoCal instead. Can any sane person really think an A’s move to SJ would hurt the Giants more than a move to SoCal would hurt the Dodgers and/or Angels? And how would a move to SoCal solve the T-rights social problem, given the Angels and Dodgers have T-rights themselves?
Tony, Wash/Balt isn’t a shared territorial rights market – it’s a shared TV rights market, which is different in MLB calculus. Also, Selig made the Nats give up a bunch of cash to the Orioles (more specifically, hand over TV rights at a discount) to make it happen, so any precedent there is in the Giants’ favor.