MLB makes final filing for antitrust hearing, includes ML Constitution

Two weeks ago the City of San Jose made its final filing for the October 4 hearing. Now it’s baseball’s turn to file, making its own submission yesterday. Now that we’ve had the initial filings and the rebuttals, we can see how the two sides are formulating their arguments. Yesterday’s filing continues to assert the antitrust exemption over all, that the Piazza decision was flawed, that the City’s interpretation of the Flood case is too broad, and that MLB can take as much time as it likes to determine where the A’s should or shouldn’t relocate.

The big reveal was that a second document accompanied baseball’s reply brief: the MLB Constitution. PDF links are listed below:

In the City’s original complaint, it argued that MLB’s Constitution expired at the end of last year, which I thought preposterous. Baseball had to approve the Astros’ move to the American League, and some covenant had to reflect that. The new Constitution does show the new divisional arrangement, and continues to show the same territorial assignments as the previous one, with no change in language.

San Francisco Giants: City of San Francisco; and San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey and Marin Counties in California; provided, however, that with respect to all Major League Clubs, Santa Clara County in California shall also be included;

Oakland Athletics: Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in California;

If you’re wondering what the shared two-team market definitions look like, here’s an example:

Los Angeles Dodgers: Orange, Ventura and Los Angeles Counties in California; provided, however, that this territory shall be shared with the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim franchise in the American League;

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim: Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura Counties in California; provided, however, that this territory shall be shared with the Los Angeles Dodgers franchise in the National League;

Even if City’s tactic was simply to get the Constitution out in the open, it’s a good thing. It’s not like they were going to win or lose the case based on this.

One thing to consider is the three-fourths rule commonly cited when it comes to franchise relocation. 3/4ths of the owners (23) need to approve any franchise move, whether it’s 30 miles or 3,000. Just as important is that 3/4ths of the owners are needed to do any number of other changes:

  • Control person owner change (ex: Lew Wolff for the A’s, Larry Baer for the Giants)
  • Franchise termination – some may associate this with contraction
  • Expansion
  • Realignment
  • Revenue sharing changes for individual clubs

Keep in mind that the A’s future could include any or all of the above remedies. Sure, I’m referring to mostly extreme, batshit crazy possibilities, but at this stage, I suppose anything’s possible. If the pro-Oakland folks want to get a new ownership group in or depose Wolff, 3/4ths. Want to contract and expand the team a la the Expos/Nats? 3/4ths. Got a unique way of compensating the Giants for giving up the South Bay or the A’s for giving up the Bay Area altogether? 3/4ths. Commissioner Bud Selig’s is supposedly retiring, so it’s unlikely he’d take on such difficult machinations during his lame duck senioritis period. He took care of a bunch of to-dos like replay and an expanded drug testing program in the last year.

Chances are that Selig’s successor will inherit this mess. If there is some jockeying for the job instead of a Selig “appointment” it could be interesting to see if the A’s and Giants try to lobby for one individual over another.

69 thoughts on “MLB makes final filing for antitrust hearing, includes ML Constitution

  1. bs is a wussy. three first things on his commish obituary will be steroids, 94 strike, and his stupid all star game decision. nice legacy bud-lite.

    as for the new commish, mentioned his name before but i would hope it would be alderson but that’s unlikley since he’s the nym gm and it’s doubtful he’d get the job but you know what side he’d be on for this issue about territorial rights.

  2. MLB’s intention is to swat away the San Jose lawsuit so it can continue to handle the A’s ballpark situation in the way that it has been – by doing nothing.

  3. The last version of the mlb constitution got disclosed in litigation, too. Now if we could just get some reports about the presentations the A’s and Giants have made during mlb meetings.

    For those of you who got excited by the Noll Decl. San Jose filed with its opposition, see pp. 11-12 and fn. 14 of mlb’s Reply. Personally, I also find the discussion of B&P sec. 17204 is interesting, too, although that’s really a minor part of the case. Once again, lack of A/T standing is the escape hatch for Judge Whyte.

    On balance, I think mlb’s briefing is better, but both sides have been smart and bold. We all know that the adversarial system doesn’t always work well. One side’s advocates often eclipse the other’s, and judges and juries don’t get what they need to sort things out. This litigation, however, is a high-quality clash over a unique (and, at least to some, an important) issue. Judge Whyte’s law clerks will be busy now. Oral argument on Oct. 4. So the order could issue right in the middle of the post-season.

  4. It just confirms that Bay Area is not a shared market and won’t be until the right amount of money is given to the Giants and the Commish’s office.

  5. “For those of you who got excited by the Noll Decl..” You don’t have to be a jerk everyday of your life Xoot! “On balance, I think MLB’s briefing is better,”. Of course you do!
    As for all this legal bullshit, I’m reminded (as always) that 1) it never had to come down to this and 2) whether the suit gets dismissed or continues doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. After October 4, the A’s will still need a new ballpark, the days of MLB in Oakland will be numbered and San Jose remains the best place for the team long term. In a weird way, by MLB fighting San Jose back they’re actually fighting themselves.
    My “deal” for the umpteenth time: allow the A’s access to San Jose, make Santa Clara County a shared territory, guarantee the Giants franchise value and guarantee the Giants annual revenues until AT&T Park is paid off. As always, the best interest of the A’s, Giants and MLB; no lawsuits or Xoots blustering necessary..

  6. @Mike2,
    The Bay Area has been a shared market since 1968. The only thing the current territorial stupidity inhibits is where the teams could physically play. I can freely watch an A’s game on TV, listen via radio, buy tickets, buy A’s gear all right here in San Jose. And let’s not forget one important part to this mess: San Jose/Santa Clara County is currently being held hostage by the Giants because they were supposed to relocate here themselves in the early 1990’s. That never happened…FREE SJ!

  7. This is inexcusable it’s downright deplorable, that our team is closing in on its second straight divisional crown (with limited resources), and we are forced to debate, and split hairs over what Lew Wolff is saying, it’s just ridiculous.
    One day, when we have a nice new ballpark (that will keep the A’s, in the Bay Area), and ML is writing up detailed post, on the craftsmanship , of every nook and cranny of the place, we too, like (most other other) baseball fans, will only have to be concerned about what’s going on between those two long, white lines. Man, I just want to have a beer and enjoy our team.

  8. Question is how could the current CBA identify the A’s as a large market team when they are severely limited within that market by the MLB constitution and TR–if they end up staying in Oakland then this definetely needs to change so that they can continue to receive revenue sharing. Sure this factors into the A’s assessment–fine–we will stay in Oakland…of course may not have a place to play because we wont privately build it and they wont give us tax dollars to build it…and oh btw we might not have a place to play in 2014…but sure–we’ll stay and continue to collect revenue sharing rather than pay the gints some ridiculous sum of money—so come 2016 when CBA is up for renewal we will want to make sure we are reclassified as a small market team and will forever get revenue sharing. For what it is worth–Noll previously estimated the value of TR at $30M–a reasonable sum but far different than what the gints are trying to extort.

  9. @GoA’s–I think you’re right, and I think that’s exactly what Wolff/Fisher are arguing to mlb. The Bay Area is not yet a true two-team market and the A’s shouldn’t be compelled to pay revenue sharing money to other teams until they’ve had a fair opportunity to reap the benefit of a new stadium. It’d be a reasonable argument. That’s why I think the current CBA is one of the impediments to resolving the move to San Jose disputes. But that’s a guess.

    @tony–your hang-loose attitude falls apart pretty easily, dude. Tip: Be sure to listen when guys yell at you for taking off in front of them.

  10. what I am really hoping for…Oakland agree’s to try and build the Raiders a new stadium and agrees with the Raiders request to have it where the eColi is today…and the Raiders say it must begin immediately. This situation would require Oakland to ask the A’s to leave which would be so ironic in light of their historical preference for Raiders over the A’s financially, emotionally etc.

    This situation would really expose the ineptness of bs who has known all along that the A’s lease expired in 2013 and a new ballpark needed to be available in 2014–surely any other sports commissioner could have figured out a solution by 2011 so that the timeframe was met–anyone but bs.

  11. btw–sounds like another shitfest is happening at the eColi today–this time due to rain–where is the PR team for the JPA/Oakland–they are a national embarassement but as of yet doing nothing to try and defend their reputation.

  12. @GoA’s,
    With all due respect to fine folks like lakeshore, I think one thing is certain: the A’s won’t be forced to stay in Oakland (based on financial, political realities on the ground). They could be forced to remain in Alameda County however, which would seem absurd given MLB could have told Wolff that back in 2010 (rather than have 4 years of “study” that included SJ). As TW stated so eloquently in the last thread, the days of MLB in the city of Oakland are numbered.
    @xoot,
    I’ll happily, in the ultimate hang loose fashion, call out bull shit when I read it. Don’t like it, stay out of the kitchen…shaka!

  13. you wonder if it gets even worst mlb will “force” the a’s to play their posteason games at at&t.

    do any opposing teams want to play at that dump now?

  14. @Tony D–agree–not suggesting that–however–since MLB hasn’t solved their dilemna you can bet that LW would be very happy for the city of Oakland/JPA to give the A’s the type of deal that is being discussed for the Raiders which is Raiders pay $300M of a $800M stadium cost or about 35%; city of Oakland/JPA provides land/infrastructure and the remaining balance for stadium construction. Extrapolate that to the A’s- LW would pay $175M or so–balance of $325M paid by city of Oakland/JPA as well as city of Oakland and JPA need to present the HT site in buildable condition with all necessary infrastructure improvementts in place paid for by the city of Oakland/JPA. Oh–and we need it really soon–do I think that this scenario will happen–no–but for all of those who feel that LW/JF is a fool he has some pretty incredible leverage right now–and you can bet he will maximize that leverage to resolve this situation–the greed of the gints, the lack of leadership within MLB/bs and the incompetence of Oakland/Alameda County are all on display while the A’s will be on the national stage for reasons other than plumbing issues at eColi.

  15. what does this line mean??

    provided, however, that with respect to all Major League Clubs, Santa Clara County in California shall also be included;

  16. The A’s cannot be forced to leave until their lease is up, so they will play Playoff Games in Oakland. After the Season ends then the question marks come into play. The best case scenario for the A’s would be a World Championship. Then concepts like contraction or playing in a Minor League Stadium would be so embarrassing for Selig and MLB, it would make steroids look harmless. I do think some kind of temporary relocation like San Antonio ( that is what happened with the Saints) is possible. But to quote Al Davis it is ” Just Win Baby.” Then things will work out in the end.

  17. Xoot is 100% incorrect about this one and is showing his pro-giants bias, the MLB response is surprisingly lame and arrogant.

  18. David, there’s no where to play in San Antonio. So that obviously wouldn’t work even as a stop gap.

  19. If San Jose gets standing, MLB will never allow this lawsuit to be decided by the courts. That’s why MLB is putting 100 percent effort on a dismissal of this lawsuit. If the ruling allows for the lawsuit, I would guarantee that MLB will work rather quickly to approve the A’s move to San Jose. The Giants would be even bigger losers, since by then the Giants would lose their leverage on compensation for giving up their territorial rights to the South Bay.

  20. MLB once again fails in their reply in proving a “Rule of Reason” justification in their arguments.

    They clearly lost in the Piazza case which is very similar to this one and not even in a “broad” sense.

    The Raiders moving to Los Angeles in the NFL is more concise in supporting San Jose’s argument but yet MLB refuses to acknowledge that in their reply as well and the “rule of reason” the jury used. Was that “flawed” like Piazza? I think not…

    MLB cannot sit there and argue that they are “gods of their domain” and restrict San Jose based on convoluted logic such as T-rights that are in essence against all American Business Law on the most fundamental level.

    They refuse to argue San Jose’s points on this and even Roger Noll’s piece. They choose to ignore these key facts and stand that their 1922 A/T exemption holds merit here when Piazza and LA Coliseum proved in 2 different pro sports that franchise relocation is in fact subject to A/T law.

    Those cases were in the 80s and 90s, how has anything changed since then?

    San Jose will get this heard and when it settles they will get a ton of free money from MLB to put into police, fire, community centers, roads and get a free ballpark from the A’s.

    It is going down like the “F—ing Catalina Wine Mixer!”

  21. @IIpec- Your logic is sound.

    MLB will settle the case with San Jose paying them off a ton of money and they will have zero power to stop the A’s from moving to San Jose at that point.

    MLB will then be forced to pay the Giants from revenue sharing. MLB will lose big on all fronts.

    They will pay San Jose, pay the Giants, and the A’s will get a privately financed ballpark that MLB despises.

    Selig will go down in flames…

  22. The gnats, and Selig’s strategy has been very aggressive, whether their goofy arguments will have any merit in a federal court is another matter though.

  23. @Tony D.

    A shared market is where both teams can compete, market themselves and move freely about and not worry about the other team. As it is configured the Bay Area is not a shared market see the MLB constitution for reference. A’s cant move to SF and set up shop and vise versa with the Giants. Unlike the other 3 markets where teams in theory could play right next door to the other team and not infringe upon the other teams rights. Just because you can watch Giants/A’s game from the comfort of your local cable/internet provider is one thing. Territory rights don’t mean shit any more with the internet, cable and Direct TV packages.

  24. just wondering if MLBPA can tell the players not to play if the conditions are not safe? Can MLBPA file a protest with BullShit and MLB ?

  25. ho hum. You guys really knock yourselves out.

    Look, Noll’s declaration was entirely outside the pleadings, not subject to judicial notice, and irrelevant on a Rule 12 motion — except as a beggar’s plea to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint to fix the holes.

    Piazza was wrongly decided. I’ll be very surprised if Whyte goes that way. Is it possible? Anything’s possible.

    The “rule of reason” discussion begs the question: It assumes the A/T dispute will move forward. Why did the courts get to the Rule of Reason in the Raiders case? Because the L.A. Coliseum and the Raiders had standing. Here, San Jose has no ballpark and no binding contract, and, of course, the A’s aren’t suing. (Remember, the LA Coli entity got bounced for lack of standing at first, even though they competed in the market of stadium owners seeking NFL franchises, becz they had no binding contract with the Raiders. They obtained such a contract, and thereby obtained the final requirement for standing.)

    Consider this: I have no stake in this dispute. If the A’s move to San Jose, I’ll be glad that they at least stayed in the Bay Area. I think the long delay in deciding the San Jose issue has given the Giants most of what they (arguably) may deserve in return for merging every county into one two-team market. On the other hand, I do have a keen interest in the law involved here. I’m as free from bias here as a fan can be. Take it or leave it. I don’t care.

  26. Again, after October 4 the A’s will STILL need a new ballpark in the Bay Area, Oakland STILL won’t deliver and San Jose WILL REMAIN the best option for the future. Nothing, even the lawsuit getting dismissed, will change these facts. Once MLB is done working against SJ/The A’s they should start working with SJ/The A’s..

  27. Xoot – Noll is not an attorney, and can only offer opinions about the A’s San Jose ballpark’s economic impact on the SJ economy. Noll cannot give an opinion if the MLB ATE valid is valid or not. His opinions – during the SJ vs MLB trial – will carry plenty of weight, not his opening arguments though. Also arguing that the Piazza vs MLB case was wrongly decided is both arrogant and foolish.

  28. duff I know what value an expert’s opinion has in a/t litigation. you don’t.

  29. @Tony D. Your so correct, if SJ vs. MLB does not go well for SJ nothing has changed, the A’s are still homeless (if raiders built on Coli foot print), and need to play somewhere, all this talk (Bay Area spots pages), about SJ will never get the A’s now that they have done this, blah-blah-blah. Does any reasonable thinking person, (that keeps up with the A’s situation), think SJ not going to have a chance because of this? It may sound crazy, but MLB could be asking SJ (please let the A’s play in your city), to let them do that in the end, even if SJ vs MLB falls through, because if they dont they will have to fork over a lot of money to Lew to make it happen in Oakland. I cant see MLB doing that, is it just me? I happen to think Lew is in the drivers set.

  30. Really? even mentioning Noll’s involvement in the opening filing seems like bad form. Actually, the more this case plays out, it appears the gnats owners and Selig are desperate and perhaps know they may lose – that’s why they are swinging for the fences and hope that the case won’t receive standing (even if that were to occur though, San Jose city officials would likely continue on and appeal the case anyways)

  31. If there is one person I do not feel sorry for, it is Lew.

    Yah see, Lew had an opportunity to get a beautiful new ball park in downtown Oakland in 2010, while the iron was hot. Lew’s response was, ” Go #$^# yourselves Oakland.”

    The city proposed 3 different sites, basically said take the land, it yours, take it cheap.

    If Lew had worked with the city, the Oakland A’s would have a brand new ball park opening next year in downtown Oakland.

    Now San Jose is broiled in a lawsuit with MLB, which could take another 3 years to end because San Jose is challenging the Anti-Trust exemption. Basically, there will be a lot of back and forth for another 3 years. Someone will appeal, which adds to the length.

    So not only does he have no ground broke on a new stadium, the place he wanted to break ground won’t be ready for another 3 years at least and there is no guarantee the courts decision will go his way and allow him to move to San Jose.

    He chose 100% of nothing (San Jose) over 1% of something (Oakland) . . . and now he has 100% of crap. So here’s some tissue for your plumbing problem and crocodile tears. Sell the team and be done with it.

  32. @duffer,
    I’ve never been a fan of this SJ lawsuit. In the event of dismissal, SJ should do what they’ve should have done all along; put there best foot forward! Finish acquiring ALL the Diridon parcels and clear the site for immediate construction. Also continue working with Wolff to get a favorable result from MLB re relocation. The hell with appeals and more legal shenanigans. MLB isn’t stupid; they can see that Oakland is not the future of the franchise (thanks to Mark Davis and sewergate). Go A’s!

  33. duff, I really am not interested in a debate. The Noll decl addressed market-definition and standing problems in the complaint. The court may consider the decl in connection with whether or not to give San Jose leave to amend to try to fix the holes in its complaint. Otherwise, the decl is not pertinent to the Rule 12 motion. That’s a civil procedure fact.

  34. Talk about serious delusion..

  35. @ivan- really? Please share the 3 sites and where did they go? How come MLB hasn’t discovered these sites?

  36. Hey Xoot! When the A’s are playing in a palace in downtown San Jose you owe us all a beer. It’s the least you could do for tormenting us with your legal arrogance. (The heck with Crotchett; SJ should have hired you!)

  37. Just wondering – Is there any possibility that local and/or state health authorities could immediately shut down O.Co Coliseum declaring it a health hazard due to problems with the plumbing and thus unfit for business or entertainment purposes? If so, how would that affect the A’s and the Raiders? I realize this an unlikely event, but, again, I was just wondering if there is any chance of this occurring?

  38. Ivan, a four year old article promising 3 locations that were all already dismissed as being problematic isn’t proof of anything.

  39. dmoas, I understand. Show me proof these three sites were not proposed.

  40. @Ivan–really–why don’t you find the article that shows VC was pulled off the table by the city of Oakland–too expensive to do. HT was listed as last of I believe 5 sites in a study commissioned by the JPA back in 2000 because it was cost prohibitive. To date, even though this is the “preferred site” today the city of Oakland has yet to commission an EIR which would be the first step to establishing viability. Drawing a circle on a map and claiming we have sites can only work so long–its getting the EIR done and showing you have the financial means to acquire the property and prepare the site for construction. 4 years after MLB stepped in to validate Oakland’s claims of vialbe sites there has been none identified. I would call this an “absolute pin”

  41. @xoot, not questioning your legal background or opinions in general. However, Prof. Noll’s arguments appeared solid and Noll has no legal authority anyways. At this point of the case, one would question if Noll’s arguments are important to the case.

  42. Ivan, circling land on a map accomplishes nothing. If that’s all it takes, I’m sure we could come up with an infinite number of possible “sites.”

  43. But drawing lines on a map and yelling “viable!” like a 5-year old is fun! Magic number one…

  44. duff your last comment made a lot of sense to me. the question isn’t whether Noll’s right but whether he could be proven right later in the litigation. at this point in the case “proof” isn’t an issue.

    tony I’m trying to be objective. ask yourself why that seems arrogant.

  45. @Xoot,
    Telling duff you know and he doesn’t, or telling guys they’re really knocking themselves out, is arrogance. The “I’m better than you because my shit don’t stink” syndrome. But whatever. If you were really being objective you’d be providing analysis of what Crotchett/SJ are arguing effectively re the lawsuit; you haven’t. So again I ask you: do you feel you’re a better attorney than Crotchett?

  46. ML, a few topics back but I just asked a security director at Petco Park if they’d be implementing metal detectors there and he said hell no. They might step up bag searches and/or do some random wandings, but the prison treatment is an A’s mandate, not MLB.

  47. tony the guy can only do the best with what he has. he decided that’s piazza. and his name has no r in it fyi

  48. And there is no R in Win or Clinch and that’s what we are gonna do today!!!

    FTW!!! Go A’s!

  49. @zuut,
    Thankz four onze agan comin two da resque with da speling corecshun. At leest your good four sum thing around hear.
    @freddy,
    For once I actually agree with you; AL West Championship here we come!

  50. @Tony D. You are funny’ my man.

  51. First, San Jose’s lawyer is Cotchett not Crochett

    Second, you can dismiss Oakland all you want but Oakland has sites. Just spitting out Wolff’s talking points about Oakland doesn’t mean the site aren’t real and viable.

    While not my favorite site, the Coliseum site is there and viable.

    Howard Terminal, four years ago, was not viable b/c it had a tenant with a long-term lease. That tenant’s lease expires at the end of the year (via litigation). As far as I have read Wolff’s comments, there has never been any specific reasons given by him as to why HT won’t work except: “We looked extensively at it and it’s got problems.” ML is the one who put out the clean up costs which are a red-herring. Studies have been done to show that you can build on top of the asphalt cap at a cost that doesn’t make the park un-financable. It’s big enough at 50 acres to give the team development rights for ancillary retail/hotel. It’s next to the ferry stop and close enough to downtown BART,and there is the potential for an inline JLS BART station between W. Oakland and City Center. And it’s got great freeway access.

    Finally, Oakland can only go so far to develop a site unless the team is walking hand in hand with them. The pro-SJ folks here love to promote how much SJ has done but always seem to forget that what SJ has done has always been done in conjunction with the A’s. It’s a lot easier politically to see this to your constituents if your private sector partner is at your side.

    • @stanley stanson – I would love to see these studies. Red herring? It’s documented. Show me proof that what you’re saying can work and I’ll acknowledge it.

  52. No public. Done as due diligence before announcing that the site would work. Do you really think anyone would put the site out there if the cost is what has been published on your blog? What was the figure $150MM?

    • @stanley stanson – Yes, I completely believe that. The same people severely underestimated the cost of Victory Court. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same people are floating this new idea that Howard Terminal can get its EIR streamlined because the site is zoned for a convention center. What kind of nonsense is that? There is a group of people in Oakland who are willing to believe anything they hear without vetting it. That is insane.

  53. stanley, absolutely they’d put that site out there without doing their due diligence. Look at VC.

  54. Also the fact that the Howard terminal site would be a copy of phone booth park – who needs another copy of that?. Building at the Coliseum site would make more sense. It’s doubtful that Wolff would sell the A’s anyways though.

  55. Hey Marine Layer,

    Are you:

    A. Pro San Jose
    B. Pro Oakland
    C. Pro Stadium in the Bay Area somewhere

    I’m asking this to get a better understanding on your objectivity. Dmoas, you are welcome to answer too.

    If you don’t want to show your hand, that’s fine too.

  56. @Stanley- just spitting out Oakland only talking points about Oakland sites doesnt mean they are real or viable. Second, an EIR for HT doesn’t require any hand holding from the A’s–they are conducting one for CC for the Raiders—remember–thats why we dont have only the shitiest plumbing in all of baseball but also the worst scoreboards–funds to replace those were diverted by the JPA to do another useless EIR for CC-

  57. Ivan, C. I’m in the NBay, so I’d prefer Oakland over SJ, but ultimately I only care that they’re somewhere in the bay.

  58. @GoA’s Stanley does have a point, in that its not easy to work with someone (the A’s), that does not want to work with you (Oakland), but if the reports are true (who knows if it is), that MLB is working with Oakland. Then it should not matter much. MLB has let Oakland know what they want, its up to Oakland to put a workable plan togather. This is the problem with Oakland, if somthing is being done, its being done behind closed doors, with back room deals. I no longer live in OaklandAlameda Co., but if I was a tax payer there, I would not be happy, because I would think the Oakland pols, where just about to stab me in the back.

  59. @LSN–fair point but the first step–agreeing on a site and conducting an EIR does not require the A’s. MLB wants a downtown site–SJ has one and has identified it and completed the EIR. Oakland hasn’t even gotten to this first step as an request for an EIR would have to be included in a public document and approved by the city council. Remember when Quan publically stated that they were doing an EIR for VC and the council even voted to do it—and then nothing ever happened. Funny that the Oakland only folks were never outraged with the public display of “affection” that was little more than a PR attempt.

  60. @ Ivan not that I was asked, but when I wake up and have a nice cup of JO., and take a deep breath of crisp clean air I am pro-Oakland, by noon however, I am A, B, C, D, E…Z €@%¥£ Lets just get the fuc**** thing done.

  61. @GoA’s right on the money, my man.

  62. re: in that its not easy to work with someone (the A’s), that does not want to work with you (Oakland), b

    …because Oakland’s definition of “working with the City of Oakland” remains this – team owners pay for construction and assume all risks when revenues generated at the stadium aren’t enough to pay the mortgage or expenses. The A’s (and Raiders) know Oakland doesn’t work as a place to privately finance a stadium. That’s why the Raiders want NFL and city money and the A’s, knowing Oakland has no public money to offer, want to move 30 miles away.

  63. @pjk two things can be true at the same time…

  64. Though I wasn’t asked directly, I’ll reiterate… I am C. It’s unfortunate that the City of Oakland has chosen to play cloak and dagger rather than showing their cards. I’d love the A’s to be in Oakland.

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