Forbes has Giants twice as valuable as A’s

Forbes came out with their annual overview of The Business of Baseball, and if you’ve followed this site or other sports economics sites much you won’t be surprised by the results. The A’s, stuck in limbo, have the lowest valuation of any of the 30 MLB franchises at $321 million. The figure hasn’t quite caught up with Forbes’ pre-downturn, 2008 valuation of $323 million (which may have factored in a future in Fremont). Despite this, the number is up 5% over last year. Some other numbers and extrapolations:

  • The Yankees are worth the most at $1.85 billion, followed by the Dodgers at $1.4 billion (based on current franchise bids).
  • The Angels ($656 million) and Giants ($643 million) follow the Dodgers as most valuable on the West Coast.
  • Aggregate value of all franchises is $18.1 billion. The A’s account for only 1.77% of this total currently.
  • A’s revenue is estimated at $160 million, roughly in line with last year’s amount. This includes revenue sharing, if you’re asking. (I assume that Lew Wolff may quibble with the figure a bit.)
  • Player expenses for the A’s are listed at $81 million, slightly more than the 50% “salary cap” that we frequently discuss here.
  • The blurb on the A’s page questions what team president Michael Crowley does. Besides saying no, I wonder that myself sometimes.

A closer look at how the valuations for the Giants and A’s breaks down yields some additional insight.

Stadium and brand make up most of the difference

The big takeaway is that for the first time, the Giants are considered twice as valuable as the A’s. It’s reflective of the constraints the A’s are under, as well as the team’s lack of promotion within the market(s). To their credit, the A’s have a much more permanent media presence than they had in the last 20 years. It’s still a long climb out of the cellar. The team’s stadium value would probably be double in a sold out new ballpark, and the brand value could see a similar increase. Sport would see a drop due to less reliance on revenue sharing. Market’s a tougher question. Clearly, that number could double if the A’s were allowed to build in San Jose, but it should also go up appreciably if they built something new in Oakland. Some back-of-the-napkin math has me estimating the team’s value in a new ballpark in Oakland at $400 million, San Jose at $450 million.


92 thoughts on “Forbes has Giants twice as valuable as A’s

  1. The A’s value would certainly skyrocket with a new stadium but that is still a healthy increase in value over what Wolff paid for the team and I see that he took almost twice as much profit as the Giants owners did last year.

    • @Ted – Not sure if you realize this, but most owners buy teams to run baseball teams, not to flip them for a profit. Read my Lew Wolff interview series (right side) and you’ll see quotes to that effect.

      As for the profit angle, that’s mostly a function of payroll. They were ready to get Beltre or Berkman, which would’ve cut into profit big time. Neither signed so that went to other things. Contrast with the Giants, who could’ve made a huge splash at the trade deadline. Instead they got Carlos Beltran, made the Mets pay for him so that they could preserve their own profit, gave up Zach Wheeler, and still petered out, not making the playoffs. In both cases, the teams were looking to spend wisely.

  2. The Sharks president used to bash these Forbes sports team earnings numbers, which are based on guesswork rather than any access to books or actual accepted accounting practices. If we did our taxes the way Forbes does these reports, we could just guess the numbers and send those to the IRS.

  3. @pjk – Yes, we’ve heard your rant about this before. Based on the numbers being guesstimates, the individual team figures probably aren’t within the statistical margin of error. That’s not Forbes’ fault. The leagues won’t publish anything. That doesn’t mean the information isn’t valuable, it just needs to be taken with some grains of salt. It’s still good insight. The aggregate numbers are close to what MLB reports in its press releases, so there’s something to what their doing. Forbes isn’t simply throwing numbers against a wall.

  4. RM,
    is there any way you could present the market “value” attributable to city and market size of NY, LA, and CHI. since those markets are shared unlike the Bay Area, it would be interesting to see how much the other two-team market franchises are “hurting” do to not having a gerrymandered market.

    • @Tony D.

      Not sure if it’s what you’re looking for, but here’s all 6 teams together in one table:

      I find it surprising Dodger Stadium is valued so highly when it’s really not that great of a stadium. I guess the surrounding land bumps it up? There’s also a huge difference between the Yankees and Mets Market Values. Although the Mets probably are lower because of the Madoff scandal.

  5. pjk, I am OK with ballpark figures and I trust Forbes to do a decent job and getting close. The owners are never going open their books to the public.
    ML, The Wolff interviews were the first thing I ever read on this site, great stuff there. According to Forbes the A’s have made a very nice profit every year that Wolff has owned the team in fact they have collected more profit than the Giants in that time but I suppose both teams have spent similarly relative to their revenue and team value and while profiting almost equally.

  6. @Ezra,

    I’m guessing Dodger Stadium gets good marks for its capacity and generally strong attendance, as compared to the Coliseum.

  7. @Ted – Funny, you would cite how successful the A’s merely on the basis of profit?! Let’s examine that for a sec. Just for fun, imagine that you were the Gnats and ate out every night at the finest hormone infested restaurants, had a new multimillion dollar house, and were so immensely popular that you had your own radio and cable station, yet made a a measly sum of $8 million. And now, lets pretend that I was the A’s, did the usual subway/taco bell/jack in the crack diet everyday, lived in a rented run down shack shared with a crappy roomate and in a neighborhood where everyone considers me the necessary inconvenience, yet I made $14 million dollars because i wasn’t too proud to ask for handouts from all my coworkers. Who would you say is more successful and would live a more sustainable existence? Can you imagine what would happen if i made the same amount i did now, yet decided i wanted the same lavish lifestyle as you, bought a spanking new house, indulged in those same eateries, and decided that my ego was too much to beg for money. Do you think I would still net even in the same vicinity as you? Fact is, to their credit, the Gnats have a lot going for them and the A’s , as much as they look decent on paper, can barely sustain the levels they’re at now without some food stamps and charities from others. Putting aside your Gnat bias for a sec, could you see how the A’s are trying to get out of the perpetual cycle of handouts and trying to sustain themselves on their merits? If anything, the Gnats are a victim of their own success, as they paved the way to show how a club can privately build a stadium and be successful. The A’s want to mimic that model in a city that for the better part of 20+ years was considered shared.
    It’s kind of funny that pro-Oaklanders have civic pride up the ying yang, yet SB Gnatty Gint fans have none whatsoever….lol

  8. @Ezra,
    Thanks. WOW! The Yankees and Mets share the richness of the NY market (no fighting over Manhattan), and yet the Yankees market value is three times that of the Mets. How is that possible? Shouldn’t they be the same? Kind of throws a huge wrench into the Giants argument that SCCO has a lot of value to them, in which they can’t “loose” to the A’s. Sharing SCCO, as well as obtaining Alameda and CoCo, would ensure the Giants the same or greater market value then what they have today. Thanks again Ezra.

  9. @Anon “@Ted – Funny, you would cite how successful the A’s merely on the basis of profit?!”
    Yeah, and just a few nights ago he was telling us how the Nats and O’s were struggling, underperforming failures despite being two of the most profitable teams in MLB.

  10. @Tony D. You’re welcome. Glad to help.

    @ Joe Sure, Dodger Stadium should be worth more than the Coliseum, but worth more than the new modern ballparks?

    Looking at the market values of all the 2 team regions together, I think it’s easy to see why the Giants want the A’s out of the bay area. Even the 2nd tier teams of all the other regions have a higher market value than the Giants. The funny thing is if the Giants had just stayed in New York, their value would probably be around the Yankees value (as the Giants had been in NY longer than the Yankees, one would presume they would have equal or greater popularity and the Mets wouldn’t exist).

  11. Thanks for the snapshot Ezra.
    The disparity between the Mets and Yankees is astonishing (though the numbers are a guess and need to be taken with a huge grain of salt – I’d bet the disparity isn’t that large). Obviously the product (winning), the experience (the Stadium and surrounding area’s ‘stuff to do’), the marketing (media presence, how often the team is thought of and how they are viewed by the area) become super important in the two market team.
    Looking at the numbers, it is understandable the Giants are playing serious hardball against the A’s going to San Jose. This is a once in a generation opportunity for the Giants. A 25% jump in value (assuming half the A’s value would ultimately move into the Giants column) and the Giants wouldn’t have to spend one extra dollar on player salary or new stadium experience (and probably not much in marketing — evidenced by how little of a marketing presence they had in the south bay prior to the ‘A’s to SJ’ threat became possible). The Giants must be licking their chops! They know they just need to block the A’s from going to SJ and chances are much better than 50% they will ultimately get that 25% jump in value. Good for baseball fans in the Bay Area? no. Good for the Giants organization and, likely, increased player payroll (meaning good for Giant centric fans)? Probably.

  12. @Ezra,

    I’m confused by the Dodger Stadium valuation now that I looked at some of the other teams… odd that Fenway is only about 60% as valuable as DS, and AT&T as well, for that matter. I wonder if they used the debt on the stadium (or lack thereof) as a major part of the valuation? Even still, it’s unusual to see the new parks pale in comparison.

  13. Anon, I never said that the A’s were successful, I said that Lew Wolff makes a lot of profit off of the team. I have plenty of civic pride, enough to know that San Jose and doesn’t need the A’s.
    Bartleby, didn’t you argue that the Nats and O’s were successful because they were profitable like the A’s? I never argued that any of these teams were strong, in fact I have called them all weak.
    Ezra wrote: “Even the 2nd tier teams of all the other regions have a higher market value than the Giants.” That is a good point that illustrates what a weak two team market the Bay Area is. If the A’s market value goes up would that most likely lower the Giants market value?

    • @Ted

      That is a good point that illustrates what a weak two team market the Bay Area is.If the A’s market value goes up would that most likely lower the Giants market value?

      Even if the A’s moving to SJ would reduce the Giants market value in half (which I doubt would happen), the Giants total value would still be 13th, which is still in the top half of the league. I think that rather than the Bay Area being too small for a two team market, NY and LA are too large for just being two team markets. But it’s probably too late for a team to ever come in and take away a meaningful amount of market share from the Yankees or Dodgers (or at least it would take many generations to do so) anyway. So I guess in comparison to the other 2 team markets, the Bay Area is too small. But for the A’s, there is nowhere else they can move that would be better than the Bay Area.

  14. @ Ted – again, you noted the disparity in profits between the Gnats and the A’s. Why would you cite this? Just so that it makes LW look like he makes a profit? And what does that illustrate? That the A’s at 116 wins to cost ratio is one of the best managed team in the country in terms of their wise expenditures? Or are you now saying that the A’s are indeed in need of a lifeline in order to survive as you keep contesting? It’s really hard to figure out your stance, since it keeps changing from post to post.

    Regarding civic pride, as much as I rag the pro-Oaklanders, I have to give them props that they’re very passionate about their city and what the loss of the A’s may mean to it. You however, seem to rather support a SF team trying to hold the city hostage from an investment of $500 million that would generate additional jobs and revenue, not to mention the national attention due to a major league sport facility. I’m not saying you don’t have any, but i think your allegiance to all things Halloween decorated comes first and foremost over everything else regardless of where you reside, work, or play. I guess you’re the type that If someone went to your house and said they’d fork over a million bucks to renovate your barren backyard so that you’d get at least 100K annually, you’d give them the middle finger on the account that you have an rotting pumpkin patch in the backyard that reminds you of the Gnats….

  15. Anon, my point was simply that no matter what happens Lew Wolff is doing just fine with his A’s investment. What the A’s need isn’t my problem or the Giants problem but I think that San Jose is more of a want than a need.
    San Jose doesn’t need national attention that a baseball team would bring and I am not sure how many good jobs a baseball stadium would bring to San Jose.

    Did the hatred of the Giants start with the territorial rights thing does it stem from some sort of inferiority complex over your A’s?

  16. I could care less about territorial rights ted- I have alwats hated the giants, and always will…..

    if the giants think people like me will ever root for that team if they drive our A’s out of the bay they are dead wrong…..I would rather show up to every SF-LA game in dodger blue just to piss off giants fans

  17. @ Ted – i see you responded with your typical circular arguments that doesn’t contribute anything to the discussions. LW knows he’s doing fine with his investment, but he would also like it to grow for the sake of the fanbase as well as his management. Yes, he could easily languish perpetually at the E.Coli Mausoleum and pocket the revenue checks, but he has fought tooth and nail for a new stadium going so far as buying ~40 million dollars worth of properties in Fremont beforehand.
    And SJ doesn’t need the national attention, yet SF and the Gnats do? You cited before that you can envision a downtown ballpark bringing in revenue to the local business (as the Sharks do), but now concentrate on “how many good jobs” instead? Talk about being myopic. This is the kind of thinking from your prototypical ignorant Gnats fans that made me turn from rooting for both Bay Area teams long ago. I cannot associate myself to smug arrogant bastards that still haven’t figured out the A’s have won 4 WS trophies to the Gnats 1, but hey…i have an inferiority complex… /rolleyes

  18. @ JC – My favorite baseball team are the A’s and whoever’s playing the Gnats! 😉

  19. @Ted – Per the revenue sharing plan, the Bay Area is the only two-team market in which one team “pays into” the pool while the other “receives”. Since the two-team markets are expected to be the strongest, that means the Giants are effectively subsidizing the A’s right now. It’s been like that since 2002. The Giants and their supporters (including you) are arguing for a continuation of this subsidization plan by restricting access to Santa Clara County, as opposed to the A’s getting a chance to remove themselves from having to be subsidized. The choice is the Giants’: either continue the hegemony and subsidization of the A’s or free up access and money for both teams to compete within the Bay Area.

    Note: Quotation marks are used because both teams pay in a percentage a local revenues and split up the total evenly. The Giants end up losing while the A’s gain as a result.

  20. Jon, I never paid the A’s much attention until they wanted to take territorial rights from the Giants and wanted to move into my town. The Giants and A’s aren’t baseball rivals except for in 1989. I hate the Dodgers.
    Anon, I don’t think San Francisco needs the Giants or attention from the Giants. Both cities stand on their own.
    Bars and restaurants would do better on game days, I certainly see that advantage for business owners but you mentioned jobs and I am not sure how many good jobs a stadium would bring.
    Other than the move to San Jose I just don;t care all that much about the A’s. I’ll watch some games just like I will watch other AL games when they are on television at times that the Giants are not but the A’s are just that to me, another AL team.
    Ezra, 13th in MLB is just not good enough, it is mediocre Astros and Twins territory. Why should the Giants take a step down at all? I actually feel for the A’s and A’s fans but not enough to want the Giants to suffer.

  21. ML,
    Could a stadium in Oakland get off revenue sharing and would a move to San Jose guarantee enough revenue to put the A’s into the contributor column?
    The Giants are going to be paying into revenue sharing as long as they have high revenue. The amount the A’s get won’t affect that greatly.
    If you weaken the Giants and they pay less into revenue sharing and the A’s take less couldn’t it just end up a net wash? Would having two teams in the middle of the pack for value and revenue be better than having one strong team and one weak team?
    Are you county BAL/DC as a two team market? I would guess that one or both of those teams are in the taker column.

  22. I gotta go guys, take care and I will check the replies tomorrow (actually later today, ugh).

  23. @Ted – My guess is no, not in the long run. Oakland’s and the East Bay’s corporate base isn’t strong enough.

    You take it as a given that the Giants will be weakened. I don’t think that will happen. It doesn’t have to happen, and if it actually happens the Giants can be compensated. Like your argument about selling the A’s, the Giants were bought for $100 million in 1993 and shares have been diluted with additional partners ever since. Whenever the Burns daughters or their heirs decide to sell, they’ll clear up to 10x their original investment. On the other hand, if there is no South Bay team there will be this huge, largely untapped market that won’t respond unless a team comes in. In terms of corporate support, the Giants have barely scratched the surface with Silicon Valley. There’s room for both teams to market there without restrictions.

  24. @Ted
    But that was an extreme example. I was pointing out that even if they lost half of their market value they would still be better off than the majority of other teams. So, how is that a sign that the bay area is too weak for a two market team? More likely than not, the Giants would not lose that much and still be in the top 10. Who knows, maybe if the Bay Area were completely shared like the other 2 team markets their market value might even rise since they could now add Contra Costa and Alameda as their territories (from an impartial business viewpoint, like Forbes has, which would you value higher: 2,559,296 people with most within a 30 minute drive or 1,781,642 people 45 min to 1 hour away). Are they gonna be in Red Sox/Phillies territory? No. But they aren’t now either. And either way, they aren’t suffering when they are doing better than most other teams (unless you mean suffer on the field, in which case teams like the Marlins have shown that, even with a low team value, you can still win the same or more number of World Series as everyone else, well except for the Yankees).

  25. BTW Ted, I’m glad you stuck around even after all the accusations in that other thread. You seem to be able to cary on a level-headed discussion, which is quite rare around here.

  26. @ Ted – follow the money trail….a $500 million dollar private investment for a national entertainment venue will produce jobs directly and indirectly. Skilled construction jobs including contractors, electricians, etc. will benefit short term. Long term, the influx of revenue to both business as well as the additional infusion to the general fund will mean more firefighters, librarians, police officers, etc. can also be hired/retained. Stop thinking so selfishly and look at it from the macro level for once. And in terms of whether SF/Gnats want/need the attention….interestingly enough, if the city didn’t furnish China Basin with the addiitonal subsidies necessary for them to privately built the team, they would be gone. So by extension, ya they wanted/needed each other and the national recognition that comes from a MLB franchise as well as a tier 1 metropolitan area. FWIW – I follow all the local sports, even if i hate the Gnats because 1) my friends are Gnat STHs, and they condone the A’s moving south BTW and 2) I’m a sports nut in general and like to be cognizant of all things happening in the Bay (Huff aka Rowland II, over Belt…really?) as I don’t want to be labeled as a naive, clueless bandwagon fanboi….

  27. @Ted,
    FWIW, SJ is my town to, and I want the A’s here! Also, who ever said the Giants territorial rights would be taken away? At “worst” for them, SCCO will simply be reverted back to shared status, thus they would maintain whatever unicorn value they claim on MY county. And as Ezra pointed out perfectly, if the entire Bay Area became shared, the Giants would also add Alameda and CoCo Counties to their value. Short of any of the aforementioned, MLB could always guarantee a franchise value via a compensation package (ala the Orioles). Moral to the story; MLB can do whatever the hell it wants, even guarantee that the Giants won’t be “hurt” with the A’s playing in MY TOWN!

  28. @GoA’s,
    I no longer visit or post at SJInside, but that piece you referenced was awesome. As my longtime Giants fan friends and coworkers would say “those territorial rights are @#$%& bull shit!” C’mon Ted, stop being a Benedict Arnold of our great city and join our fight for freedom! And you can still be a Giants fan to boot 😉

  29. Guys why does the value of Dodger Stadium confuse you? It’s the largest stadium in MLB, is in great shape, and most importantly includes ALL the land around it including all it’s parking lots and part of that hill outside center field. It’s easily the biggest piece of privately owned stadium property in MLB. Fenway Park by comparison only covers the ballpark block and that’s it. Frankly I’m confused more by why the A’s get any valuation out of the Coliseum. They don’t own even a portion of it.

    • @Dan

      Guys why does the value of Dodger Stadium confuse you?

      Um… because it’s a dump? Sure the new super expensive seats they added at field level are probably nice, but for the rest of the stadium they haven’t done any real improvements in over 20 years. The same seats I used to sit in as a kid are still there. They don’t even have cup-holders. The same urinal troughs are still in the bathroom. Not to mention the fact the site has no public transit option, the only way for fans to get there is to drive. And then if you are an opposing team fan, there’s the threat of getting severely injured or shot by good-for-nothings in the parking lots. That’s why I asked if the valuation included all the surrounding land/parking lots, which ML answered. So with his answer of yes, I think if you tore down Dodger Stadium the stadium value would probably still be about the same. And that answers why it’s so high (and also why Frank McCourt wants to keep that property, so after the sale I’d expect the stadium value for the Dodgers to dramatically be reduced).

  30. Yes, they don’t even own a portion of it but we’ve had numerous folks on this blog who want Wolff to spend millions fixing the place, even though he’s just a low-priority tenant (Raiders are the top priority).

  31. Well that’s a different issue pjk. Wolff should put a few bucks into the park to make it at least passable as a MLB venue. Yes he’s seen as a low value tenant, but the A’s also occupy the Coliseum more than anyone else having their offices there and hosting 81 games a year in the stadium. It’s not far fetched to ask that Wolff and Co pony up for a new paint job, maybe a few plumbing fixes, and tear down those damn fences they put up blocking the views from the concourse. You know, little things that don’t cost that much in the grand scheme but would make the Coliseum at least not a terrible place to see a game. It would be in their own best interests to do so both from an actual attendance POV and even more importantly from a PR/goodwill POV. Because like it or not, Wolff has a serious image problem in the Bay Area these days (even amongst people like my folks for instance who want the team to move to San Jose but think Wolff is a shitty owner).

    And sure you can argue that the Raiders should be involved in paying for some of it, but frankly, fuck the Raiders. They don’t care about the Bay Area, why should Wolff let their use of the stadium 8 times a year stop him from making his team and his fans experience a tad bit better? Never stopped the Giants ownership when they slapped some lipstick on the pig that was Candlestick in the 90’s despite the fact they shared the place with the Niners.

    • Never stopped the Giants ownership when they slapped some lipstick on the pig that was Candlestick in the 90′s despite the fact they shared the place with the Niners.


      It’s been two decades and non-Giants’ fans even remember this. When the solid green outfield walls went up with the new bleachers, Candlestick felt like a really ballpark again. The Fog Horn also went up around this time, right? Goes to show how a little effort goes a long way. Imma grownassman and I wanna deng fog horn or something at the Coliseum!

  32. @PJK: pjk: Does it matter if they own the place? Unless the the JPA or whoever is running the place these days says no, there’s no good reason not to throw some fresh paint on the walls. A new sign here, a gimmicky thing there could go a long way towards showing the fans they care about their ballpark experience.

    No matter where you stand on this whole ballpark issue, it’s pretty clear the A’s haven’t exactly put their best foot forward in recent years towards improving their fan experience.

  33. Fog horn may have been older. The first game I ever got my own tickets to as a kid was a Giants game via a promotion that Frosted Flakes cereal was running circa 1990. I wanted to see Candlestick because to that point it had always been this anathema my friends (who were all Giants fans) and my parents (who weren’t and aren’t) talked about but my parents refused to take me to. So I sent in for the promotional tickets (which were on Candlestick’s upper deck) and told my dad we were going. We showed up and per usual the fog rolled in and the field was no longer visible and the fog horn started playing. So it’s been there since at least 1990. It was the only time I ever took a game in at Candlestick.

  34. @Dan Higher capacity is a negative for the value of an MLB stadium, not a positive. There’s a reason why the Red Sox are one of the wealthiest teams in baseball, and why even the Yankees and Mets downsized their ballparks.

  35. Ezra, thanks for the kind words. About the Giants gaining the East Bay…If it isn’t good enough for the A’s I can’t imagine it will be good enough for the Giants and aren’t East Bay folks by and large already A’s fans?
    Anon, how many tax dollars will the stadium put into San Jose annually and how much will it cost the city annually? You mentioned a report the other day but you failed to provide me a link to the report so that I could take a look at it.
    San Francisco doesn’t need the Giants or the 49ers to be a world class “tier I” city.
    Tony, there is no way to guarantee that the A’s move to San Jose will not cut into Giants revenue or franchise value. San Jose does not need the A’s and I don’t trust Wolff and most in City Hall to not screw San Jose with the stadium deal.

  36. @Ted
    One would expect that the percentage of fans from the south bay that switch to the A’s would be around the same percentage of fans from the east bay that switch to the Giants. Plus there are all the untapped fans that don’t go to A’s games that the Giants could try to entice to come to them. And as Tony D. mentioned, the Giants wouldn’t lose Santa Clara county, just share it. Being the top tier team in the region, they will undoubtably still be able to pull in the large corporate sponsors they need.

  37. “One would expect that the percentage of fans from the south bay that switch to the A’s would be around the same percentage of fans from the east bay that switch to the Giants. ”
    If that happens to be the case, and the A’s lose the number of East Bay fans they gain in SJ, the franchise will be in pretty big trouble. The A’s need as many fans as they can get, judging by their poor tv/radio numbers. Losing East Bay fans and not still courting them after they possibly leave for SJ would be a huge mistake.

    • @eb
      My point was more about the number of flip-floppers from each region will be about the same percentage-wise. I’m not trying to say either side will have a net gain or loss, but rather things will average out initially. And then just like the Giants can try to entice new fans from the East Bay, the A’s will try to entice new fans in the South Bay.

  38. @ Ted – “Anon, how many tax dollars will the stadium put into San Jose annually and how much will it cost the city annually? You mentioned a report the other day but you failed to provide me a link to the report so that I could take a look at it.” Sorry, I’m not going to let you off that easy. You should research it on your own so you can make more informed opinions. Hint: there are many references in the Mercury News as well from the EIR study itself.

  39. @ eb – “If that happens to be the case, and the A’s lose the number of East Bay fans they gain in SJ, the franchise will be in pretty big trouble.” They could make up lost revenue in the corporate sponsorship, particularly when the Cisco naming rights gets kicked in. It’s not if the franchise can go any lower than it is already….can it? :X

  40. eb, there’s also the base of fans that don’t go to A’s nor Giants games because it’s too far away, but would if there were a team in SJ. One would hope that that would be a pretty substantial number. But like everything else, it’s a bit of an unknown variable.

  41. @Anon The whole point of getting a new stadium is to reignite the franchise. Basing all or most of your fan base in SJ and ignoring the established East Bay fans would make the A’s a localized regional team. Why would any ownership group that’s worth its salt be content with that? You see what a limited range of popularity the A’s have in the Bay Area as it is, why would you want to continue that, influx of corporate cash or not?

  42. @ Ted “About the Giants gaining the East Bay…If it isn’t good enough for the A’s I can’t imagine it will be good enough for the Giants”
    The East Bay has insufficient corporate base to support a 2nd MLB team with AT&T Park only 12 miles away. However, it quite plausibly has enough to make up for whatever the Giants would lose to an SJ A’s ballpark. Although the East Bay’s corporate base is much smaller the South Bay’s, it’s much closer proximity to the Giants goes a long way to make up for that.
    Enough to support a team? No. Enough to make a nice supplement for a team that basically is already serving that geographic area? Yes.
    “and aren’t East Bay folks by and large already A’s fans?”
    Actually, there’s plenty of evidence that an equal or greater number of East Bay residents are Giants fans. It doesn’t really matter anyway, because hard-core fans are not where teams make money. Teams make money off casual fans and corporate customers (who are also casual fans).
    “Anon, how many tax dollars will the stadium put into San Jose annually and how much will it cost the city annually?”
    The biggest benefits of having a team will come in the form of a massive $500 million privately-funded stimulus, ancillary development resulting from the ballpark, and huge marketing benefits.
    If you want to try to hang a value on the ancillary development, consider the City has already spent over $1 billion of public money trying to develop downtown and the effect of the ballpark is likely to dwarf the effect of that money.
    If you want to try and hang a value on the publicity, consider that private businesses pay hundreds of millions of dollars just to get their names on the ballpark. The marketing value of having your “brand” (the city name) as part of the team name is exponentially greater than ballpark naming rights because the city name (or at least its initials) stays on the TV screen for the full three hours of every MLB game. Not to mention appearing in every newspaper in the country every day during baseball season.
    “San Jose does not need the A’s”
    The deal the A’s are offering would be a no-brainer for any city. However, San Jose’s unique combination of high population and economic strength paired with low name recognition means it is uniquely positioned to benefit. San Jose Airport provides a good example: Despite investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the remodel, SJC has been steadily losing routes to SFO, largely because of SJ’s lesser name recognition. If having the A’s helps SJ keep or gain just a handful of routes, that fact alone will probably justify the city’s investment.

  43. Anon, I thought we wanted to inform each other in these discussions rather than play games. I am going to go ahead and assume that there is no study that specifically lists the taxpayer costs and the tax revenue stemming from a stadium.
    Bartleby, I don’t buy this $500 million stimulus. First of all, the stadium overall should not cost $500 million dollars to construct and second, whatever money is spent to build the stadium isn’t going to all go into the pockets of San Jose businesses. What marketing benefits will the city reap? Companies pay hundreds of millions of dollars to get their name on a ballpark? The Phillies average $2.3 million per year for naming rights, the Tigers get $2.2 million, the Reds 2.5 million, the Indians get less than $700k and these are all long term 20+ year deals. I am not sure that airline execs are going to add more flights to San Jose just because a baseball team plays here.

  44. @Ted,
    Its not so much that the East bay isn’t good enough for the A’s; its more of a case of not being viable for a privately financed ballpark that’s reliant on massive corporate support (with the exception of Fremont, which for all intent purposes is northeastern Silicon Valley). As far as East bay fans not supporting the A’s in San Jose, that’s a bunch of bull. Loose fans from Union City north? Perhaps. But those from Tri-City and Tri-Valley will most likely become season ticket holders of Cisco Field SJ. Add in A’s fans like me in the South bay and Cisco Field won’t need any Mythical Giants converts to pack the yard. By the way Ted, going by what your saying, no Giants fans ever take BART or ferries from the East bay to AT&T Park; yeah, no way AT&T Park has hurt the A’s with casual fans from the East bay.

  45. @Ted,
    One more thing; I’m glad your opinion as a “SJ citizen” is in no way representative of the greater populace down here. Boy would we be in trouble! Go A’s and Go San Jose!

  46. @ Ted – if anyone is playing games, it is yourself trying to be intentional naive to all the facts around you. We gave you some slack as a noobie, but the more “selfishly” argumentative you’ve been, the more i would like to see to stop being a lazy brainwashed gnats fanboi and have you actually do some research (i’ll throw you a bone and cite “Economic Impact Analysis”) before blathering out unproven/false statements that parallel the Gnats propoganda to a tee.

  47. Tony, I wasn’t assuming that East Bay fans would suddenly turn into Giants fans, that is the opinion of some pro A’s to San Jose folks here.
    Anon, I have given you a lot of slack for being rude and immature with the name calling and baseless accusations about who I am, perhaps it is time you grow up. The EI report that was paid for by pro stadium folks cites 980 new, mostly seasonal and part time positions, it assumes that 20% of the materials and 25% of the labor would impact the San Jose economy. It also assumes that the 350 construction workers that will work on the project will be San Jose residents which seems like an odd assumption. Anyhow, thanks for leading me to the report, I will look it over more closely when I have time.

  48. @ Ted “Companies pay hundreds of millions of dollars to get their name on a ballpark?”
    Yes they do:
    Farmers Field* Los Angeles Farmers Insurance $600 million 30 $20.0 million TBD
    MetLife Stadium East Rutherford, N.J. Metropolitan Life Insurance $425 million-$625 million 25 $17 million-$20 million 2036
    Citi Field Queens, N.Y. Citigroup $400 million 20 $20.0 million 2028
    Reliant Stadium** Houston Reliant Energy $310 million 31 $10.0 million 2032
    Gillette Stadium^ Foxboro, Mass. Gillette $240 million 15 $8.0 million 2031
    FedEx Field Landover, Md. FedEx $205 million 27 $7.59 million 2025
    Minute Maid Park Houston Coca-Cola Co. $178 million 28 $6.36 million 2029
    University of Phoenix Stadium Glendale, Ariz. Apollo Group $154.5 million 20 $7.72 million 2026
    Bank of America Stadium Charlotte Bank of America $140 million 20 $7.0 million 2023
    Lincoln Financial Field Philadelphia Lincoln National $139.6 million 20 $6.98 million 2022
    Lucas Oil Stadium Indianapolis Lucas Oil Products $121.5 million 20 $6.07 million 2027
    Citizens Bank Park Philadelphia Citizens Bank $95 million 25 $3.8 million 2029
    M&T Bank Field Baltimore M&T Bank $79 million 15 $5.0 million 2017
    Great American Ball Park Cincinnati Great American Insurance $75 million 30 $2.5 million 2032
    Home Depot Center Carson, Calif. Home Depot $70 million 10 $7.0 million 2013
    U.S. Cellular Field Chicago U.S. Cellular $68 million 23 $2.96 million 2025
    Chase Field Phoenix JPMorgan Chase $66.4 million 30 $2.2 million 2028
    Comerica Park Detroit Comerica Bank $66 million 30 $2.2 million 2030
    Petco Park San Diego Petco $60 million 22 $2.73 million 2025
    Sports Authority Field at Mile High Denver Sports Authority $60 million 10 $6.0 million 2035
    CenturyLink Field Seattle CenturyLink $60 million-$100 million 15-20 $4.0 million-$5.0 million 2019-2024

    Notes: Naming-rights partners may have additional deals that call for additional guaranteed spending that may or may not run in conjunction with the naming-rights contract. Those values are not included here. Excludes venues with a corporate name but whose naming-rights deal has expired. Facilities are home to teams of MLB, NFL and MLS teams.
    * Proposed NFL stadium
    ** Reliant has the naming rights to the entire Reliant Park, which also includes Reliant Arena.
    ^ Includes 15-year extension signed in 2010
    Source: SportsBusiness Journal research

  49. @ Ted – look at the macro level, not the micro. Read up on the Merc’s report and our city councilman’s comments about the sale of the land to LW and what means in revenue.
    People on this forum have hashed these old topics over and over again for the better part of 7 years. Yet you walk into a passionate A’s forum, brashly proclaim your selfish intentions, touting all things thre rosy Gnats glasses and how much of an inferiority complex we have, continually spew misinformed data that seemingly stems directly from the Gnats camp, and expect us to roast marshmallows and sing Kumbaya with you? O.o

  50. @Ted
    “Bartleby, I don’t buy this $500 million stimulus.”
    Of course not, it’s not convenient to your world view.
    “First of all, the stadium overall should not cost $500 million dollars to construct”
    Of course it will. The estimated cost when it was going to be built in Fremont was $400 – 500 million, and that was six years ago. The Marlins new park cost over $500 million. Granted it has a retractable roof, but it’s also a lot cheaper to build in Miami at the depth of the recession that it will be to build in the Bay Area, especially by the time they actually break ground. And of course, the real cost always winds up being a lot more than these estimates.
    “and second, whatever money is spent to build the stadium isn’t going to all go into the pockets of San Jose businesses.”
    Not all, but lots. San Jose is a spawling city of 1,000,000 people; a lot of the local contractors and tradesman they will need are based there. The city may very well negotiate a preference for local businesses into the final contract with the A’s. Plus, even workers for contractors based outside the city will be spending money in the city. And all of this money spent gets respent, and so on.
    “What marketing benefits will the city reap?”
    As I’ve already explained, every A’s game becomes a three-hour commercial for the City of San Jose. Either the name “San Jose” or the city initials will appear on the screen the entire game. Lots of aerial shots of the city. The name “San Jose” will appear in the box scores of every paper in the country every morning during baseball season. Companies pay hundreds of millions of dollars for the relatively few mentions they get just from having their name on the ballpark; having your name as part of the team name is worth way more than that.
    If you are a city which already has huge name recognition, like San Francisco, the value of this is less, though still significant. But if you are a city like San Jose which most people east of the Mississippi cannot find on a map, this exposure is priceless.
    Further, nothing sends the message “We are a big league city” like hosting an MLB team. Lots of cities can host an NBA, NHL or NFL team. Only the biggest and economically strongest can support MLB. Even for those other sports, landing a major league franchise is big. I can guarantee if you go to the Chamber of Commerce site for virtually any city with a major league team, especially the smaller ones, they promote the HELL out of this. Landing the Zombie Sonics put OK City on the map and known for something other than being the target of a terrorist attack. This stuff matters when businesses decide where to locate.
    “I am not sure that airline execs are going to add more flights to San Jose just because a baseball team plays here.”
    Not “just because a baseball team plays here,” but because of the name recognition a baseball team will help promote. It has been reported repeatedly that a big reason SFO is booming and SJC is struggling is because people from Europe, Asia, even the East Coast don’t have a clue where the hell San Jose is. They may be coming here for business at a location where SJC is the most convenient airport, but pick SFO just because they think of this whole area as an adjunct of SF and have only a vague idea of the geography. No one thing is going to reverse this problem, but arguably no single thing would do more to put SJ on the map than landing an MLB team.

  51. @ Ted “Companies pay hundreds of millions of dollars to get their name on a ballpark?”
    Ah, I left out the most pertinent example: “Cisco Field, San Jose, $120 million.”

  52. Anon, I never said that anyone here had an inferiority complex but I did question whether or not you do because of your immature and rude behavior.
    Bartleby, indeed, two baseball stadiums out of 30 managed to get $100+ million naming deals. Most deals are in the $2-3 million range. Cisco is reportedly willing to pay $120 million for naming rights? I suppose we will see if the stadium in San Jose ever comes to fruition.
    The Giants built a stadium during an economic boom for about $350 million and it was built on budget. Clearly the amount of “stimulus” for San Jose will be a small fraction of the construction costs. Why does San Jose need to feel like a “big league city”? That reasoning always seems like desperate BS to me. People in Asia and Europe have access to Google maps and will most likely know about as much about the A’s as they do today which is little or nothing.

  53. @ Ted – Ad hominem attacks won’t get you anywhere on this forum, especially with the typical regurgitated company line arguments and your continual ignorance on all topic matters ( I can’t believe that you don’t even know an agreement is in place with Cisco and this is since 2007 timeframe)

  54. @Ted,
    Don’t you have at least a little civic, hometown pride in yah? At least say you like the Sharks (?). And why can’t you be like the rest of Giants fans I know down here who want to see MLB come to San Jose? Oh well…

  55. Anon, Regarding the ad hominem attack accusations, you need to take a look in the mirror because that is your MO. Without a stadium deal there is no naming rights deal.

    Tony, I am plenty proud of my town. What does that have to do with the A’s?

  56. Tony, I have enough civic pride that I don’t think San Jose needs Wolff and the A’s.

  57. @Ted “indeed, two baseball stadiums out of 30 managed to get $100+ million naming deals.”
    You don’t think that might not have something to do with the fact most of those naming rights deals are at least 8-10 years old? Or the fact that not all teams have built new stadiums, which bring higher rights fees?
    “Most deals are in the $2-3 million range.”
    A little disingenous comparing my aggregate to figure to an annual one, don’t you think? (BTW, the Phillies deal is actually $3.8 million per year, not $2.3 as you stated, and totals $95 million). And you really think the NFL deals are not at all indicative of the value naming rights can bring?
    “Cisco is reportedly willing to pay $120 million for naming rights?”
    Yes. And clearly that’s our best comparable. And if the ad value of getting your name on the building is $120, I’d say the value of getting your name on the actual team is worth at least double that, if not more. $240 million isn’t a bad return on the $7 million land discount you’re bitching about, is it? And that’s not even counting the other benefits of the deal. And the fact that, while naming rights deals expire, the “San Jose” name on the team is likely to endure for as long as the team remains there.
    “The Giants built a stadium during an economic boom for about $350 million and it was built on budget.”
    Great. That was close to fifteen years before the A’s are likely to break ground; that figure reinforces my belief the A’s will never get it done for less than $500 million. And while the Giants may have come in on budget, the Niners are already up $150 million over their projected cost and they haven’t even broken ground yet.
    “Clearly the amount of “stimulus” for San Jose will be a small fraction of the construction costs.”
    Clearly why? Whether or not a San Jose company wins the prime, lots of San Jose subs and materials suppliers will benefit. And although I disagree with your apparent belief that only a “small fraction” of construction costs will be spent in San Jose, even if that were true the net impact to the San Jose economy could easily be more than $500 million. To understand why, you can read up on it here.
    “Why does San Jose need to feel like a “big league city”?”
    It doesn’t need to “feel” like a big league city, although that would be nice. It needs to get out the marketing message that it already IS a big league city. That message brings in new businesses, new office towers, puts tenants in the Sobrato Tower, fills up the new luxury condo towners, brings in lots of new bars, nightclubs, and other entertainment attractions, and yes, new flights at the airport. And all the ancillary economic activity and tax revenue all of that brings.
    “That reasoning always seems like desperate BS to me.”
    So, your argument is that new ballparks didn’t bring in lots of ancillary economic activity to China Basin, downtown San Diego, or LoDo in Denver?
    “People in Asia and Europe have access to Google maps”
    That may be, but not all of them use them when booking trips. It has been reported several times in the Merc that the name recognition factor is a big part of why travelers tend to choose SF even when logistical factors would seem to favor San Jose. I’ve encountered this phenomenon first hand several times, where visitors from the East Coast book themselves to SFO for no particular reason (which pisses me off if I’m the one that has to pick them up).
    “and will most likely know about as much about the A’s as they do today which is little or nothing.”
    Not true. American sports teams have fairly wide recognition outside the U.S., and it’s increasing all the time. I personally would never have heard of Tottenham, England, if it didn’t have a soccer team. And anyway, this certainly isn’t the case in North America. Americans are geographic illiterates; I meet people from the East Coast who confuse Silicon Valley with the Central Valley. Having an MLB team will go a long way toward rectifying this.

  58. Bartleby, the NFL and MLB are too different to compare.
    Who is going to get $240 million? You lost me there. San Jose is not a corporation.
    If the A’s can’t get a stadium done on budget it will be due to corruption or ineptitude. I would say that there is a fair amount of dishonestly and corruption with the 49ers Santa Clara stadium project.
    Since Pac Bell was built has there been 50% inflation on construction labor and materials? That seems pretty steep.
    If they build the stadium, the steel isn’t going to come from San Jose and neither will a vast majority of materials and the workers will be living all over the place.
    I don’t know that a ballpark brings corporate headquarters to San Jose or new residents it seems like a heck of an assumption. How much housing and corporate tenants did Oakland Coliseum bring that area of Oakland?
    I have never heard of Tottenham England.

    I realize that there will be some benefits for San Jose if the A’s move here but I think the benefits are greatly exaggerated by many.
    Check this out:
    “Our conclusion, and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if any, positive effect on a city’s economy,”
    “The net economic impact of professional sports in Washington, D.C., and the 36 other cities that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area,” Humphreys and Coates noted in the report.

    Click to access coates.pdf

    The part about EIRs and the multiplier affect are pretty interesting.

  59. @bartleby Tottenham plays in London…

  60. London I have heard of, but not because of a soccer team.

  61. @Ezra Technically yes, but that’s a little misleading. It used be a municipal borough of London; now its part of one of the outer boroughs of London.
    My basic point is, I’ve only heard of the damn place because of its soccer team, and then in spite of my best efforts to ignore anything soccer related.

  62. Like China Basin or Sunol-Midtown

  63. @Ted To my knowledge neither China Basin nor Sunol-Midtown have separate government structure. Tottenham is part of a political entity called “Greater London,” but as I understand has it’s own separate political structure (or at least the borough it is now a part of does). From the standpoint of an American visitor, I don’t think you’d consider it part of London proper, you’d consider it more of a suburb. Or more like one of the NYC boroughs.
    In any event, this is irrelevant to my example. It’s kind of like if a British citizen said “The only reason I’ve heard of Brooklyn is because of the Brooklyn Dodgers” and someone else said “The Dodgers actually played in New York City.” Well yes, technically, but kind of beside the point.

  64. @bartleby Um… not really. It’s not any more misleading than saying the Yankees play in New York. Sure, they play in the borough of the Bronx, but that is part of the city of New York. It’s the same with Tottenham.

    Although mentioning London soccer teams does bring up a good point: There are 5 Premier League teams based in London. And 3 in the division right below that, 2 of which have been in the Premier League (if you’re not familiar with how the English soccer system works, they have multiple divisions where the bad teams get sent to a lower division and the good teams get promoted to a higher one). That’s 7 London teams that have been in their highest sporting league. Why? Because they don’t have an anti-trust exemption and anyone can start a team wherever they want.

  65. @Ezra Misleading was probably the wrong word. But still beside the point. My point was I’ve heard of Tottenham because of its soccer team. It’s the same as if someone said “I’ve heard of Brooklyn because of the Dodgers” and some else said “Actually, the Dodgers played in New York.” True, but not really relevant to the point the speaker was trying to make.
    Or, if I said, “I was visiting my friend in Encino, and boy was it hot down there,” and someone else said, “You know, Encino is part of Los Angeles.” Well, okay, but it was still hot.
    I do wish I had used a different example and thereby avoided this tangent.

    • Comparing San Jose to Tottenham or Brooklyn aren’t exactly the same thing, which is what my point was. One is a city, two are parts of cities. Even if Brooklyn itself has a larger population than San Jose. I think a more interesting aspect to look at might be how has Anaheim benefited from having the Angels as the “Anaheim Angels” even if it was only for 7 years. And what have they lost now that they reverted back to the “Los Angeles Angels”

      I do wish I had used a different example and thereby avoided this tangent.

      But tangents like this are the best part of discussions. Arguing the same point over and over is what is boring.

  66. @Ezra I think Anaheim is not a great comparison because a big part of the marketing benefit for San Jose in being part of the team name would be greater visibility and becoming more of a destination. Anaheim already had a higher level of visibility and was much more of a destination because of Disneyland.
    Anaheim may have benefited to the extent the team name made people think, “Oh, Anaheim got the team name, therefore it must be a big city and/or focal point for the region.” I just think the upside was a lot less, because Anaheim is already well known worldwide for its primary industry, whereas San Jose is not.

  67. @ Ted – you’re confusing me attacking your stance (“i’m a lazy selfish Gnats fan and i don’t care or bother to know any better), with how you’re trying to attack me (you feel inferior therefore you’re rude regardless of your points). Anyhow, I’m through with trying to educate you, as you’re too admittedly bias to care otherwise.

  68. @Ted Great report. I’m glad you’re working to increase awareness of how evil the Giants were to build a park at China Basin and thereby lower real per capita income in San Francisco. I think they should be punished by being stripped of their territorial rights.
    Look, the big flaw in that report as applied to the San Jose situation is that it’s based on studies of venues that were overwhelmingly publicly financed. It’s certainly plausible that sucking up $600 million of public dollars or whatever it was in DC will not pay back the taxpayers. It’s a totally different situation than when you’re talking about $500 million in private dollars and a $7 million publicly funded discount on the land. I agree you need to do a cost benefit analysis; the numbers just come out very differently in that scenario.
    The points about substitution effect and professional ballplayers taking more money out of the local economy than other entertainment businesses could be true, but are not relevant to any of the arguments I’ve made in how a ballpark will benefit San Jose economically. My focus has been on the stimulative effect of a massive PRIVATELY funded construction project; PR benefits leading to the attraction of more businesses, flights, visitors etc. to the city; and the massive benefits of downtown development a la China Basin/downtown SD. I have not been arguing that the actual operation of the team in the city will confer huge benefits in terms of jobs, etc.
    Bottom line: I think if those studies were focused on a cost/benefit analysis of the one privately-financed ballpark in the country, AT&T Park, they’d find it was a no-brainer for the public.

  69. Cato Institute? Really? Ted, FYI, Petco Park helped attract nearly $5 billion in private investment into downtown San Diego. No need to get into what AT&T Park did to South Beach/SF. Knowing this, you’d still think a PRIVATELY funded ballpark would be bad for downtown San Jose?

  70. Ted Said: “About the Giants gaining the East Bay…If it isn’t good enough for the A’s I can’t imagine it will be good enough for the Giants and aren’t East Bay folks by and large already A’s fans?”
    Then why did the Giants open a Dugout store in the East Bay? Clearly they thought they could gain something from it?

  71. At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more Giants fans in the East Bay than the A’s fans. I talking about practicing A’s fans, not ones that say they’re A’s fans, but haven’t been to a game in 5 seasons.


    The A’s have an up hill battle ahead of them as they try to win back fans. Culturally, the Giants feel like the Bay Area. The A’s are generic, and I’m saying that as a hardcore fan. Nothing about the A’s feels like Oakland or the East Bay or anything. They could be plopped anywhere and still be the same team. It’s their own fault too. They’ve spent a good portion of their 44 seasons here flirting with other cities in some form or another.

  72. @Briggs,
    I’d be flirting with other women to if my wife wasn’t giving me the time of day ;).

  73. @Briggs The A’s sport Oakland’s color scheme. They also have a history of rebellious players/70’s teams, which share the East Bay’s/Oakland’s persona. Also, many East Bay natives made their bones playing for the A’s, Ricky, Stew, Eck, Carney, etc. Even the Money Ball teams represented the blue collar, underdog East Bay. As of now the A’s feel pretty generic, but the A’s history has mirrored their home for quite a while, IMO.

  74. My bad, you get my point though. Replace him with Shooty Babitt or any other A’s player with East Bay roots.

  75. @eb – “The A’s sport Oakland’s color scheme.”
    The A’s had green and gold since 1963, five years before they moved to Oakland.

  76. Jemile Weeks is anything but generic though. Check out the A’s Drum Beat on SFGate for pix of the A’s arriving in Japan. Jemile is using his MacBook packaging as his carrying case. Dude can floss anything.

  77. @LS I’m aware of that. I’m just pointing that the city and the team share a color scheme. A pretty good fit, no?

    @Briggs Weeks and Cespedes both just look like stars. We know Weeks can play, hopefully Cepedes can as well.

  78. @eb re: colors

    I never realized that. Oakland’s city flag couple blend right in with the A’s color scheme. Ya learn something new everyday.

  79. Well since it looks like this thread is dealing with the economics of a new ballpark in S.J., I’ll begin with that first. Ted, it’s hard to believe that you don’t get the financial benefit for S.J. if the A’s move here. Could it be that you’re a hardheaded as well as hardcore Giants fan? San Jose would prosper tremendously especially since L.W. is picking up the tap which isn’t the case with the 49ers in Santa Clara. That’s why the 49ers move was so controversial where as the A’s move to S.J. is a definite win-win for the A’s and S.J. —- eb, Interesting that you mentioned Carney Lansford, who Santa Clara is so proud of, along with his S.C. Little League team, that played in the championship game of the Little League Word Series vs. Taiwan. You left Reggie Jackson, also an A’s out. I didn’t know the green and gold had anything to do with Oakland, I thought it might have something to do with Charley Finley’s Irish roots……………What I really want to address is the issue of the Giants so-called territorial rights. l live in Santa Clara where most of my life I’ve been a Giants/A’s fan and worked to bring the Giants here in ’90 and to save the Giants in ’92. Santa Clara was the only city in the Bay Area that voted to help finance the Giants in ’90 and sell them a large piece of land at such a minimal cost it would have been a giveaway . The South Bay was the only part of the B.A. that helped to save the Giants in ’92 with a group called the South Bay Giants Alliance I know this because I was part of that group. We collected thousands of signatures on petitions that were sent to the Commissioner and all the M.L.B. owners. Peter Magowen was fully aware of this and sent personal thank yous. The Giants refused Santa Clara’s generous offer and completely financed their ballpark in S.F. Now they’re blocking San Jose( largest city in N. California) along with the S. Bay from having a M.L.B. team. Isn’t that biting the hand that tried to feed you?? This doesn’t take into consideration the thousands upon thousand of Bay Area A’s fans who’d be brokenhearted if the A’s were forced to leave. The A’s have been an established team in the Bay Area for 44 yrs., they’ve won 4 W.S. during that time and whose history( Connie Mack) is one of the richest in all of baseball. I’ve been very upset to read comments on other sites(Giants fans,no doubt) that said the A’s should be contracted, something I wouldn’t wish on any team. How can anyone, who really loves the great game of baseball, possibly think what the Giants owners are doing is right and fair ??!

  80. @Noreen,
    OUTSTANDING! Alas, if the A’s are kept out of SJ proper (don’t think it will happen at this point in the game), Wolff and company will most definitely go back to Pac Commons/Fremont (no way does he walk away from Cisco, potential suite holders, Silicon Valley sponsors, and investors just because the Giants are selfish bastards). Fremont not a bad last resort if push came to shove.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.