Wolff releases statement on antitrust lawsuit rumors

In case anyone was wondering if Lew Wolff was behind or approves of (tacitly) the recent antitrust lawsuit rumor (via the Chronicle’s John Shea):

20130304-170707.jpg
Draw what conclusions you will from that.

17 thoughts on “Wolff releases statement on antitrust lawsuit rumors

  1. Why do you have a SF Giants banner? :X

    As noted before, I think is more of a political posturing tactic by to try to force MLB to get off their glacial pace and do something. As Liccardo once told me:

    “I’d also like to believe that the threat of the nuclear option could be more effective than anything else we do.”

  2. Hi lew, this Berry…uugghh dude , nice guys finish last….u gotta get a lil mean if u want to speed up this San Jose move lew….

  3. Well, well, well…

  4. Killion and Ratto just weighed in on Chronicle Live. They apparently didn’t read the article they were discussing, because neither acknowledged Liccardo stating that the work would be free, contingent upon winning. Killion really towed the corporate line by saying this is such a horrible way of starting the season, this so horribly awful news. Ratto basically disregarded real world law and said Lew should only be politicking within the MLB realm, swaying the other owners. Kozimor provided the most knowledgeable perspective, merely as a host asking questions, but they both shouted him down. Pretty odd scene.

    As a side note, both pronounce San Jose as “Sannazay” and not “Sannozay,” so we know where they’re coming from.

  5. Why does anyone give a shit what Ray Ratto thinks about business/legal issues in any way, shape, or form?

  6. that fat pig ratto must be the most annoying writer in the bay. He has been trying to be like Scott Ostler but unfortunately the guy has no talent

  7. I didn’t John Shea’s article, so maybe I’ll revise this review after I locate it. But I bet you $100 it’ll stick: Shea’s an idiot scrambling to try to save his job. His “sheahey” twitter tag says a lot about him (especially for those of you who hate the Giants).

    Wolff’s response, translated: The mlb constitution, an agreement the A’s sign onto, contains an arbitration clause. The A’s cannot sue mlb or any team affiliated with mlb, in any court, without first blowing the mlb constitution sky high. Theoretically, an antitrust lawsuit might eventually set off that bomb. But we aren’t interested in that fight. In the end, it would ruin the value of our investment (we profit from the conspiracy, you know) and destroy the major leagues.

  8. Well, I looked at ML’s earlier post and reviewed the news reports.

    How many months ago was it I told you all that “standing” was the issue? I still say San Jose has no standing or antitrust injury to support a federal A/T lawsuit. Under the Cartwright Act (Calif. A/T law)? That’s an interesting question.

    Liccardo is a very smart guy. He knows he’s overstating his case, but he’s overstating for tactical reasons. Time to parse.

  9. What I wouldn’t give to see a panel on CSN with Koz, Ratto, Killion and Layer.

  10. Actually Suit…Wolff’s response, translated: We won’t need a lawsuit to get us to San Jose (gee, that was easy). In reality, the Giants can’t sue to stop the A’s from moving to San Jose either, and based on Baer’s rhetoric in the media, lawsuits aint happening!

  11. As I’ve said before, I think an agreement in principle has been made. When it’s finally announced, maybe some people will think Liccardo’s threat, as poorly reported by that Purdy character, had something to do with forcing the issue. If not, I can’t wait to see San Jose’s A/T complaint. San Jose competes against other cities in the Bay Area for a mlb team? Does your client own a stadium, as the LA Coliseum authority did in the Raiders case? No. So your client does not presently compete in the market you have identified? No, we’ve been frozen out by the conspiracy. Your client has been prohibited from constructing a baseball park? No, but . . . .

  12. @suit,
    I agree with the first portion of your post: the deal is pretty much done, just ironing out the actual compensation portion. What continues to amaze me about you is your continued support of San Jose being banned from obtaining MLB, and your rampant legalese to defend the Giants in this endeavor. But oh well, it won’t matter when we’re all sipping beers at Cisco Field in downtown San Jose. It’s gonna happen …

  13. You misunderstand, Tony. I’m not defending the Giants and I don’t care if the A’s move to San Jose. I’d prefer them in Oakland, but I don’t want to see them leave the Bay Area. I’m fascinated by the machinations going on — among Wolff/Fisher, mlb/Selig, SFGiants/SF, San Jose/Liccardo, and Oakland (poor Oakland). I also have a real interest in antitrust law. Combine all that and maybe you can see why I chime in.

  14. @suit,
    Alright, we’re cool. While you have an interest in anti-trust law, I don’t feel lawsuits should have any play in this endeavor because there are so many ways to remedy the A’s, Giants, San Jose “conflict” without going to court (IMHO).

  15. It kind of looks like there is a silent agreement that the A’s will be in San Jose by 2018. By not making a public, formal announcement of it, Oakland still can keep the team by coming up with public funding for a ballpark in the absence of sufficient corporate funding in the East Bay. But I wouldn’t count on Oakland coming up with any taxpayer funds for a ballpark. As long as Oakland’s stance is the city provides a slab of land the A’s take all the massive risks of financing the ballpark, then a ballpark in Oakland won’t happen.

  16. @ Tony – as much as I would like things to go through smoothly, this is a California, so I don’t doubt there will be a lawsuit (or two or three) filed when any decision finally happens. And in the end, this may explain why the BRC see has taken so long. It’s not just a matter of a decision, but the repercussions of that and how to mitigate it internally.

  17. There is no way in my lifetime (I’m 38) that the A’s will be playing in San Jose unless of course it’s an exhibition game in Mexico.

    Bank on it Tony, the A’s are more likely to end up in Sacramento.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s