Oakland Mayor Jean Quan is having caviar dreams on a canned tuna budget.
Quan finally agreed to an interview with The Game’s Chris Townsend, though he had to travel to Oakland City Hall to do it. I listened to the exchange intently, looking for some semblance of consistent messaging throughout. For the most part the message was consistent, but probably not what the teams and fans are looking for.
Quan continued to tout Coliseum City as a massive development stretching over 500 acres that could attract 32,000 jobs, major hotels, corporations, and anywhere from one to four pro sports franchises. That’s right, four. When Townsend pressed her on what she meant by that, she said that the City was looking at teams outside of the current three tenants.
In the wake of the Warriors’ announcement that they intend to build a new arena in San Francisco, East Bay backers are already talking about luring either the Sacramento Kings or San Jose Sharks to Oakland. Oracle Arena is built for basketball, not hockey, so the Sharks are out of the question. The Kings are a more intriguing proposition since Oracle is miles ahead of ARCO/Power Balance in terms of modernity and amenities. However, you can bet that Joe Lacob and Peter Guber would fight tooth and nail to keep a second team out of the Bay Area. Even if the NBA were to allow it, the Lacob/Guber ownership group would get a tidy compensation check from whomever brought a team to Oakland. You can forget about that being the Maloofs since they’re broke. David Stern has also stopped Larry Ellison twice from relocating a team to San Jose, so you can glean from those vetoes that Stern considers the Bay Area a single-team market. Remember that Oakland’s gambit is to replace Oracle Arena with a new one if the Warriors stayed. There is zero chance of anyone building an arena in Oakland if the Warriors are in SF. They’ll just soldier on with the current arena, which again is a perfectly fine venue from a technical standpoint.
As for the A’s, Quan revealed a couple of things that are quite germane to Oakland’s efforts going forward. She seems fully committed to Coliseum City in whatever form it takes. When asked about a site in downtown Oakland, she said that if Clorox CEO Don Knauss wants to move in that direction and can figure out how to pay for the extra cost, it shouldn’t affect Coliseum City adversely. She didn’t exactly dismiss Howard Terminal or Victory Court, but by now she has to be fully aware of the nine-figure costs associated with either of those sites, which makes them quite difficult to develop. For that she deserves a lot of credit – Oakland’s advantages are that it has land and a potentially easier process to develop venues. The flipside to that argument is that Oakland’s not as desirable or coveted as SF or San Jose, so there’s a very good reason why it’s easier or more available.
Beyond that, Quan may be getting a bit too starry-eyed for her own good.
As long as we have one huge sports facility [plus] we will have a much bigger convention center than we currently have in downtown Oakland.
That sounds like a pivot to me. If Quan and the City are pivoting it’s probably no coincidence that AEG is on board to manage the complex and provide consulting for the next phase of the Coliseum, which would be to have something along the lines of what they are planning in LA: retractable roof stadium, arena, and convention center in one location. Maybe AEG will get a team to relocate there, maybe they won’t. What they can do is influence both LA and Oakland by shaping development there. It worked in LA, and it sure looks like it’s moving in that direction at the Coliseum. Two years I wrote about re-using the Coliseum for a convention center after teams vacated. It sounded preposterous back then, but it could make sense with AEG steering things. Though again, it’s important to note that AEG has never shown much interest in baseball. AEG could decide that it would be best to use as much available land as possible for a top-notch convention center. A large convention center can easily take up a greater footprint than two stadia side-by-side.
The “one huge sports facility” term has me intrigued. Now the thought of Cowboys Stadium doesn’t sound quite as far-fetched since it would be part and parcel with the convention center. The key would be the flexibility of the stadium. If you want to go full-bore crazy, Oakland should shoot for what Doha, Qatar is doing with one of its 2022 World Cup venues. Called Doha Sports City Stadium, it’s a retractable domed affair with movable seating decks and facilities built into the roof, not a mere steel or fabric shell.
Inside the 65,000-seat Doha Sports City Stadium, which is planned for a 2017 completion date.
The project picks up where Japan’s Saitama Super Arena left off, doubling SSA in size and scale (UNLV has a similar proposal to SSA). Let’s be clear about what DSCS is: $1.5 billion in state oil profits to be used for a showcase venue that could conceivably be used for a future Olympics gig. And if you think the picture above is nuts, save your jawdrop for the next image.
Exterior view. The stadium is only a part of the extremely large development, with ancillary features all under the "single" roof.
I suppose that the attitude here is that if this is going to cost $2 billion, might as well go all the way. Something like DSCS would certainly give Oakland the “one huge sports facility” that Quan alluded to.
…
Meanwhile in San Jose, the City is quietly building up its case and legal team for a potential attack on baseball’s antitrust exemption. The call for such a lawsuit has only gotten louder in the last several weeks as the team continues to languish with no direction in sight. San Jose is not going to sue as long as Lew Wolff continues to follow MLB’s process. The buzz will only get louder. I’ve even heard that legal proceedings may not cost the City much if anything. We’ll see if that actually happens. I wrote last week that as long as Selig doesn’t make a decision, there’s no trigger for a lawsuit since Bud Selig can say he’s continuing to study the matter. That could be a big reason why Wolff’s position has been “any decision is better than none” since either a yes or no could provide a jumping off point for Wolff.
Wolff supposedly met or is meeting with Don Knauss today, according to the Chronicle’s Susan Slusser. Maybe they’ll share Diamond Level seats for tonight’s Yankees game. Maybe Wolff will host Knauss in the owner’s suite. Knowing what we know about what both sides want, I don’t expect any earthshaking news. If I hear something I’ll be sure to update this post accordingly.
Update 5/26 7:37 AM – BANG’s Joe Stiglich has this regarding the Wolff-Knauss meeting:
A’s co-owner Lew Wolff confirmed that he met Friday with Clorox CEO Don Knauss, who has been outspoken about wanting to keep the A’s in Oakland.
Wolff declined to share what exactly the two discussed, other than to say he enjoyed the chance to talk with Knauss.
“I think we had a nice dialogue,” Wolff said. “We just exchanged some ideas. That’s all I want to say.”
There you have it.
…
BTW, I’ll be tailgating at today’s Yankees game. If you want to drop by and chat, reply here or via Twitter. I’ll provide location info once in the parking lot.
newballpark.org 
I listened to the interview of Mayor Quan yesterday. I was not overly impressed with anything I heard. Frankly, I thought she dodged the tough questions. Also, it seems like a lot of the conceptual analysis for Coliseum City is hinging on it being a huge convention center. The only thing I have heard mentioned to make Oakland an attractive convention location is low airfares into the airport. I really wonder if that is going to be enough to draw the type of traffic they will need to make the plan successful. Between Mascone, Santa Clara County (which incidentally will be right across from the New 49ers Stadium), and San Jose Convention Center, is there really enough demand for another convention center? People go to LA for Celebrities, and Hollywood, they go to Vegas for shows and gambling. There are other draws to get people to bring their conventions to those cities. I am not trying to bash Oakland, and if anyone can make it work, it is probably AEG. But I really think Oakland has an image problem in the rest of the country, which is going to make the Convention Center thing tough. I think they need to overcome that before anything else will succeed.
Lure the Sharks to Oakland? Seriously?
re: In the wake of the Warriors’ announcement that they intend to build a new arena in San Francisco, East Bay backers are already talking about luring either the Sacramento Kings or San Jose Sharks to Oakland. Oracle Arena is built for basketball, not hockey,
…Could it be that the East Bay backers don’t even know that the current arena won’t work for the NHL?
you couldn’t find any worse of a site in oakland to even “dream” about that massive of a project. it’s a shame there isn’t a site at this time that is realisitc for any new sports venue to be built near or around downtown/waterfront of oakland. the benefit you get with thousands of fans coming to the downtown/waterfront area has been missing all these years with 2 or 3 pro teams playing in the oakland city limits. it was posted maybe a month ago but the plan for building the coliseum west of lake merritt. instead of where it’s currently built, i could only imagine how the city’s image and business community would’ve been different over the past 3-4 decades if the venue was built in that part of the city where it would’ve been the best site both on and off the field for the teams playing there, the fans, and the city itself.
…
coliseum isn’t happening.
I’ll credit JQ for this one item; in politics a positive vision that is persistently sold to the public can sometimes buoy a Pol’s position. When that vision can capture the public’s imagination, even if the vision is not viable, it can change the conversation in a direction that is beneficial to JQ and the like minded. Can she sell it and make it a pivot point for her administration? It sure seems she is climbing too steep of a hill to overcome a public’s sense the project is pure pie in the sky. Maybe I am wrong but I sense that most know this is a project that requires far too many ‘things’ outside Oakland’s abilities. But for argument’s sake let’s say this isn’t a lot of hot air by a sinking politician. 1) As a guess I would say Oakland would need to kick in 75% of the project $$$ for it to become reality (75% is just a guess). Can Oakland somehow kick in 1.5 billion? 2) Will the anti CC parties not gather en masse to fight this colossal business only expenditure of city $$$? Will a strong majority of the Pols pull together to overcome the massive amounts of I’s to dot and T’s to cross in a ‘what’s best for me’ environment? Will any of the sports franchises get behind the project from the get go and patiently wait for it to materialize? Will businesses with size and clout get fully behind it and stay the course with it?
I think it is fair to say “wow!” that would take a galactic effort in diplomacy, number crunching, PR and time/effort . But if JQ could somehow, someway do it? She would go from everyone’s punching bag to a serious player beyond just city politics. To successfully lead a project of this size and this many hurdles would give her clout and reputation that could move her into the state political game.
I’d be shocked if SJ Pols actually went through with a lawsuit. But, as ML eluded to, if a law firm did it largely pro bono, it would take it from ‘not happening’ to plausible (though still unlikely). It remains unlikely because Reed and those on his team have to be careful what they put their efforts behind. Powerful unions are waiting to beat him over the head in the media. Any cost to the city will be trumpeted by the unions as a waste of taxpayer money (an argument that may not be all that far from the truth). Further, any actions in general can also be deemed a waste of time and weaken Reed’s position. However, what would make the specter of a lawsuit much likelier is Reed calling the unions in and saying “look, I need you on board. In return I guarantee X number of new member for Union A and Union B and Union C”. That has about a zero chance of happening but from a pure business standpoint it would be a win-win for both sides.
On a more abstract level, the mere talk of a lawsuit by multiple top SJ officials is a very solid negotiation tactic. We saw what it did for Tampa Bay and there is no reason to believe The Lodge has any more of a backbone now than they did then. As ignorant as I am on the subject of AE/TR/the law, it seems pretty clear the only way a lawsuit loses is if a court rules “MLB can do anything they want due to the AE”. That’s the only way they win. Anything short of that where a court weighs the nuances, the court would be hard pressed to say the Giants TR is even close to fair (given how they received TR, given that all other 2 team markets are shared, given that they are moving significantly further away from the Giants Stadium).
As I and many have said before, this is all about LW at this point. It is obvious after this long that BS is good with the status quo. It’s up to LW to stop being the good Lodge member and press the issue/ force a vote. If he does that, LW first needs to coordinate with SJ. LW and SJ will want to have well known and powerful attorneys conspicuously/publicly awaiting the outcome. It will give those owners on the fence a little extra impetus to vote for LW/SJ.
pjk, I wouldn’t read much into it regarding the Sharks. Between the technical impossibilities ML mentioned, and the sweetheart lease and management deals the Sharks have in their far newer downtown arena in San Jose there is no chance they’d consider moving to the ass end of Oakland.
Update 5/26 7:37 AM – BANG’s Joe Stiglich has this regarding the Wolff-Knauss meeting:
There you have it.
…
BTW, I’ll be tailgating at today’s Yankees game. If you want to drop by and chat, reply here or via Twitter. I’ll provide location info once in the parking lot.
Not sure if I can get to the parking lot (I want my calender and will get there early to get it) but I will be in section 316 – yes, the mostly tarped 3rd level – if anyone wants to say hello, scream, whatever. Row 6. I’ll be wearing my yellow Kurt Suzuki jersey that they gave out last year.
I would like to see some details about the San Jose A/T challenge. The case would not be a straightforward A/T Sherman/Clayton Act case I don’t even see San Jose as a “competitor” in a market for federal A/T purposes, but perhaps there’s a theory. Again, I would like to see it. The rules regarding standing to sue and what’s often called ‘antitrust standing” are designed to minimize the number of plaintiffs who can sue under the Sherman and Clayton Acts.
.
Compare the two lawsuits that followed after the Giants deal to move to Florida fell through. A couple of the thwarted investor/purchasers of the team sued in Penn. federal court (their home state), and their argument for standing and competitive injury etc. looks pretty strong. The Fla. AG, guy named of Butterworth, brought another case in Florida state court. The government’s lawsuit, however, was not seeking damages or injunctive relief on A/T grounds. The AG simply wanted to establish authority to serve the equivalent of civil supboenas to investigate potential violatiions of FLORIDA’s state A/T law. The Penn. and Florida courts famously ruled early on that the A/T exemption only applies to baseball’s reserve clause.
.
Soon after the Florida cases, courts in Minnesota considered a case somewhat similar to Butteworth (the AG wanted to use the STATE A/T law to prevent the sale of the Twins to NCarolina purchasers and needed authority to investigate the alleged A/T violations). The Minn. SCt ruled that the A/T exemption applied.
.
So maybe San Jose wants to mount a governmental challenge along the lines of the Fla. or Minn. AGs’ challenges. California has state A/T laws — the Cartwright Act. Those earlier A/T challenges, however, went nohwere, even after early success (the Penn. case settled, but I’ve never seen a description of the settlement terms; I don’t know how or why Butterworth’s invesigation fizzled). Indeed, the Minn. challenge led to a ruling in favor of the A/T exemption.
.
mlb does not want to litigate the exemption again, I’m sure. So I understand why San Jose thinks it can gain some leverage by making a threat. San Jose’s certainly getting some attention. But simply asserting “antitrust lawsuit” doesn’t amount to much of a threat, really. Just how does San Jose intend to sue? I really would like to know. Wouldn’t you?
To Marine Layer:
Interesting analysis of Mayor Quan’s remarks.
But my question to anyone is: why in the world would we need a retractable roof stadium? I’m a traditionalist of course and I don’t believe any NFL team should play in a dome or have a retractable roof.
And – just for the record – I’ve been in cold that would rival Minnesota’s cold. Finland.
A’s observer.
@A’s observer – We don’t need a retractable roof stadium. AEG, on the other hand, would love it for their convention business. Especially if they can figure out a way to avoid paying for it.
“A’s co-owner Lew Wolff confirmed that he met Friday with Clorox CEO Don Knauss, who has been outspoken about wanting to keep the A’s in Oakland.
Wolff declined to share what exactly the two discussed, other than to say he enjoyed the chance to talk with Knauss.
“I think we had a nice dialogue,” Wolff said. “We just exchanged some ideas. That’s all I want to say.”
Well, that’s anti-climactic. I wonder what Knauss will say.
Lure the Sharks out of SJ? Geez, she really doesn’t get it at all
@xootsuit- In the Twins case the team was trying to move out of state to North Carolina. I am sure those judges were quite biased as I am sure they did not want to see the only team in Minny to move….Bad example.
Especially in small states like Minnesota there are handshakes and back room agreements.
The Tampa Bay example is the one we should all be looking at. The Florida Supreme Court ruled the AE did not extend to franchise relocation and the next step was to have the Supreme Court hear the case.
What did MLB do? They paid Piazza and Namioli 16M (1993 dollars) to shut up and assured them an expansion franchise…hence the Tampa Bay Rays.
California is a far more liberal state than Minnesota and Florida and one could easily see San Jose having a good case in the State Supreme Court.
It has always been argued if the AE extends to franchise relocation or it is just for the reserve clause, marketing, etc…..
The fact the A’s sit 35 miles from the city they wish to relocate to and are being blocked by the Giants 12 miles away it is obviously anti-competitive behavior.
It is not like the A’s are crossing state lines to invade another team’s TV market like the Expos and Orioles. The A’s and Giants already share a common TV market and it is not like people in San Jose cannot watch the A’s on TV despite being in Giants territory.
In order to push Selig a lawsuit is the only way, he hates dealing with attorneys but in order to do so Wolff would have to be behind it 100%.
Chuck Reed said it the best that the A’s are making the a private investment and it is up to them if they wish San Jose to pursue legal action…..But it has a to be a team effort.
I just do not get why MLB would tell Wolff they want to increase the capacity of the stadium in San Jose, not come back with any East Bay solutions that Wolff missed, or take 1168 days and counting without any action?
It is obvious Selig will not do the right thing……sad he got a new contract as commissioner, I was hoping the next guy would settle this.
The Florida decisions don’t much move me. (To put it bluntly: Who cares what Florida law says?) And the settlement you’re talking about related to the Penn. lawsuit, didn’t it. Now that you mention it, I did hear about the settlement terms in that Penn. Piazza case. (The Fla. AG, by the way, tried to get another A/T investigation going later in the 90s, in an attempt to prevent mlb from allowing teams to move their ST ops to Az; the Fla. AG got slammed on that one, I think.)
.
There was another A/T lawsuit in the 90s that you should look at, a class-action filed in a federal district court in Washington (state). The federal court ruled that the A/T exemption applied, I believe. So you have a few courts construing the exemption narrowly (limiting it to the reserve clause) and few broadly. No certainty, at all, right now.
.
And, no matter what — you need a plaintiff. The A’s can’t sue. Perhaps they can fund San Jose, but, my question remains: What’s the theory? Why does the city have standing? What competitive injury has the City suffered? Why doesn’t a reporter with some contacts get more information from the City about this new threat? (Previously, that ambitious SJ City Councilman threatened to go to D.C. to get congress to act — he didn’t threaten an A/T lawsuit.) So what has changed?
.
Finally, I had to laugh when you offered corruption and cronyism as an explanation for the Minn. decisions, and turned instead to Fla. for ethical, precedential guidance. I lived in Fla. for while, so maybe I’m just biased . . . .
RC: Just to be clear, in the interview Jean Quan never said anything about the Sharks moving to Oakland.
@ Bryan:
.
I, too, got the impression that Quan was not talking about hockey.
.
I think she was referring to the possibility of a MLS team in Oakland because I think she has mentioned the possibility of soccer at Coliseum City in the past.
@ Bryan/ Pudgie- Yeah that makes more sense. Thanks
@xootsuit- don’t you work for pillsbury? Assume you would have an idea of on what grounds…
There is absolutely no chance for a new convention center in Oakland period, either Downtown or at Coliseum City. They can’t even fill up the existing one. Plus a conventions center needs two or three adjacent convention type hotels. The existing airport hotels are to far away and not up to current convention hotel standards. I verified this with two leading real estate economics firms specializing in the hospitality industry. The market is dominated by San Francisco, which by the way has spare capacity.
A lawsuit should accelerate a solution on sharing the territory. I have a hard time believing the powers that be in MLB think the Giants are worth the legal effort.
this tr is all about two teams at this time. the a’s and rays. if tb somehow were to get a park built in tb, no other team would have to even worry about having another team move into their territory if the a’s were allowed to move to sj. heck if you were another city right now that likely wouldn’t face stiff a tr fiasco like with what bal/was and currently with the bay area, if you were lets say san antonio or charlotte which seem to be the two teams mentioned a lot as possible new relocation cities and you were looking for a mlb team wouldn’t you want the rays? that team is stacked with good young talent and a front office that has shown it can built up a franchise despite playing in the toughest division in the sport.
…
every team basically has a new park and with that decades of home security playing there. the only excepton i guess could be the blue jays who are playing in a 20 year venue that probably is too big in this area but i doubt mlb is gonna want to let their only non American franchise move.
…
it’d be stupid for mlb to not allow the a’s to move to sj. if god forbid the a’s weren’t allowed to move to sj, then i think mlb has basically shut it doors towards the silicon valley money that would really only likely come into play if a team were to move to the south bay because there isn’t gonna be another team that will be allowed to move into the bay area ever again. a’s to sj makes sense for everybody except for one greedy bastard runned of an org. i hope to god sj and or the a’s do go thru with this ate if they don’t feel mlb will give them the green light. maybe you’ll hurt some feelings and be looked as outcasts if such a thing were to take place but if you’re wolff and at his age and if your goal/legacy is to get something done in sj in terms of a park and sports/entertainment area in downtown with the park as the centerpiece, to hell with being nice and being friends with those in the owners’ lodge.
“”I don’t believe in having a partnership where you threaten other partners in legal action, and I’m not big on hiring attorneys to solve problems,” he said. ”
This is LW’s comment today. It sure seems like LW is going to remain a good Lodge member to the end — meaning either BS makes it happen or it isn’t going to happen.
@TW- it would be SJ to sue not LW- and while Mayor Reed says he will wait for to see what happens I would expect that if the A’s are blocked from SJ that the City will file a suit regardless of what LW says-
So, I guess LW has to make it clear again he is not interested in selling.
GA, my guess is nothing is done by SJ without LW on board. Moving forward no matter what decisions are made my MLB I am very skeptical SJ does anything on the legal front. But if LW is publicly making statements like this (essentially saying this is not how to do things), I would think legal proceedings are a dead issue (IMHO).
I find it almost comical Oakland pundits expected more out of the Knauss meeting. I mean this is the same Clorox corporation that threatened to invoke a poison pill policy when Icahn was rumored to buyout via hostile takeover, yet Knauss is trying to force his intentions on LW? /rolleyes
@TW- yo will never get LW on board to sue MLB- that will never happen- privately he ma tell the City to go for it but publicly.. Come on…he’s a pretty sharp guy– also- your comments about Reed being worried about unions- you realize that unions represent less than 10% of registered voters and the public has already passed measures to reel n the unions and I would fully expect that they do it again in a few weeks- not to mention that construction unions stand to benefit huge by building a $500M ballpark-:
And the same guy who moved a significant number of workers out of downtown Oakland and now is telling someone else to invest there- credibility issue if you ask me…
GA, how many union voters are in SJ does not mean they don’t have significant “pull” and significant ability to create “noise”. The unions may have lost and lose the election but they remain more than powerful enough to influence the theme of the MSM stories (whether that theme sticks with the public is another matter). Remember, the most of the bay area MSM likely will be on the side of the Giants/Oakland (by supporting the MLB position) at every step. An AT lawsuit could easily be painted as Reed wasting money and city resources to help rich people make millions of dollars while critical public safety services and services for the poor are being cut back..
To the other point, LW privately being on board probably will be sufficient with this caveat; LW is bound to be asked “if SJ wins the lawsuit, will you move to SJ?” and “if you believe lawyers should not be part of a business negotiation, shouldn’t you tell SJ you will not move there under these circumstances”. I believe Reed/SJ are further open to negative press if LW doesn’t answer those questions with some air of favorability to SJ.
Interesting article this past hour from the Oakland Tribune.
@Transic – I’m guessing that Oakland boosters won’t be quoting the reporter, Matt Artz, or Andrew Zimbalist for that matter. Devastating.
That letter to John Fischer by the Oakland-only crowd a couple weeks, which said the A’s can still draw from Silicon Valley, simply ignores the reality that getting to Oakland from the South Bay is a trek. Something to be planned out and which requires a mindset of “I’m going to drive 35 miles today” or “I’m going to drive 20 miles and take BART another 15 miles.” Corporate clients are interested in putting up with these inconveniences.
Corporate clients are NOT interested…
GoA’s — your attempt to insult is risible. I’m an interested third-party bystander to the A/T dispute. To put it bluntly, I just want ML to call Mayor Reed’s office and find out whether SJ has some specific idea. (ML is always the best single source for news and insight on these issues. The guy does great work, and I think he has real creditbility with a bunch of people actually involved in the disputes. The comments on ML’s blog are good, too. I’m just trying to contribute as much as die-hard Giants fan can . . . . )
This article is a little bit of a stretch in regards to the A’s situation; but maybe not. In 2010 the House of Representatives overwhelmingly went after the antitrust exemption of health insurers. They did it on the basis geographic allocation abuse. I believe the legal term is Horizontal Territorial Allocation? MLB is saying it has the right such agreements because of their exemption. There is at least this one example of a contemporary congress going after an antitrust exemption based on territorial allocation.
*****
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-24/politics/health.antitrust_1_exemption-repeal-antitrust-exemption-health-care?_s=PM:POLITICS
@xootsuit- why not have a journalist interview Larry Baer to gain a better understanding of why he would prefer to have the A’s build a ballpark in Oakland 11 miles from his rather than down in San Jose- 45 miles from him? We know that he is on public record for stating that the A’s should consider Sacramento- and when I asked our own Glenn Dickey why he hasn’t called out Baer for trying to force the A’s out of the Bay Area he claimed that Larry Baer was just kidding…kinda like when he was having lunch with Quan and strategizing about how to keep the A’s out of San Jose while behind her back was working with Gruber and team to move the W’s out of Oakland. That’s the real stor here that should be presented to the Bay Area public- Baer wants the A’s out of the Bay Area so he will own the media market by himself-and he knows byblocking San Jose he has a damn good chance of achieving that- btw- I am sure the folks at pillsbury would love some insight into what advice the city of SJ is gettingi in regards to a lawsuit- rather than have ML do that work for them I am sure they have other avenues…
goAs — you’re being absurd. “our Glenn Dickey”? You can have him. Anyway, there are many stories here. Most of the tales your tellliing sound a bit, uh, emotionally biased. adios.
just to be clear, I’m not defending Larry Baer or the Giants owners he represents. I’ve said from the beginning that some sort of seismic shift in the Giants organization occurred to oust Neukom. Neukom’s still working for the team, as is Magowan, for that matter, but not as a policy maker. So I’m interested in the Larry Baer machinations, too.
@xootsuit- be more specific- which “tales”?