The last public statement Bud Selig made on the A’s-San Jose lawsuit was at the beginning of the World Series, when he held court for the assembled national media. The session included the obligatory question on the A’s situation, which included Selig’s reflection on the lawsuit because Judge Ronald Whyte had recently thrown out many of San Jose’s claims in the case. Here’s what MLB.com’s Paul Hagen wrote then:
A judge, ruling on a lawsuit filed by San Jose against Major League Baseball, recently upheld MLB’s right to determine when and where franchises may relocate, but left open the question of whether the city of San Jose may sue for damages. Selig said, however, that this doesn’t impact the timetable for a resolution.
“I wouldn’t say so. We were very pleased with the decision, obviously. But nothing has changed,” Selig said. “We’re working on details. Look, I know everybody says it’s taking so long. But the more our group has gotten into it, the more complex it is. If people really understood all the complexities, they would understand. But it’s a situation that needs to be dealt with.”
Selig was asked if the complexity was the San Francisco Giants’ claim that they have territorial rights to San Jose.
“The complexities are all the parties,” Selig replied.
A month earlier, Selig went on John Feinstein’s radio show to complain about the A’s and Rays’ stadium problems. At the time Selig referred to the state of the Coliseum.
“It’s a pit,” Selig said. “It reminds me of old County Stadium and Shea Stadium. We need to deal with that. I’ve had a committee working on it for two or three years, and there’s no question we’re going to have to solve that problem.”
But hasn’t the committee been working on it for a long time? What’s the hold-up?
“We have, John, but I’ll tell you it’s far more complex,” Selig said. “Look, you have one team that wants to move and the other team doesn’t want them to move, and it’s a very complicated situation. Before I leave, I’m satisfied we’ll work out something.”
Now let’s pivot to the most recent revelation of a letter “formally” rejecting the A’s proposal to San Jose. MLB didn’t release the letter with the recent court filing, so we’re left to guess as to what the letter truly contained. The filing characterizes the letter as a final decision on the A’s move request. Since the news broke, several reporters have gotten unnamed sources to characterize the letter as a rejection of the proposal as written, but not a rejection of San Jose. Selig’s statements above – made three and four months after the rejected proposal letter – don’t sound like any decision, final or not, has been made.
Since we know nothing about the proposal, we can only speculate on its terms. Some of the discussion on this blog has been about the need for a greater public contribution. That may be the case, but I suspect that MLB wouldn’t focus on stadium deal terms that far afield. There’s always the matter of negotiation with between the team and the city when it comes time to write a DDA. Instead, I’m certain that the issue boils down to the overarching issue at play: territorial rights and compensation.
From the start of the San Jose talk in 2009, the Giants have never publicly stated a price. Lew Wolff has joked that he’d prefer to pay the same amount the Giants paid for Santa Clara County in 1992, which was $0. Since then, Wolff has hinted that he’d be willing to pay compensation based on actual demonstrable losses suffered by the Giants, not a big lump sum payment. Given that the Giants sell out regularly, demonstrable losses could be difficult to prove. If anything, MLB wants a serious compromise between the two sides, and isn’t satisfied with Wolff’s definition of compensation. While Wolff may be loathe to pay anything to the nemesis Giants, ponying up something is probably the only way to get down to San Jose.
At the same time, the proposal has to work within other written (and unwritten) rules MLB has set forth. Consider these additional issues at stake:
- How much additional debt does the club have to take on to make the ballpark happen?
- If the land encumbrance issues at the Diridon site can’t be resolved, what backup sites are being considered?
- Does the proposal involve the A’s staying on revenue sharing for some period of time?
- Are the A’s sticking to the small, 32,000-seat concept, or will they move to 36,000 or higher?
While all of these are legitimate concerns, I still think that it all comes down to the compensation issue. In February, Bill Shaikin reported that MLB gave the A’s temporary guidelines in order for Selig and the owners to approve the move. If there were guidelines given to the A’s, then it’s up to Wolff and John Fisher to comply with those guidelines. Otherwise they’re just spinning their wheels. Shaikin wrote then that compensation was not “among the list of matters for the A’s to resolve.” Sure, as long as the A’s are in compliance. If they proposed a different form of compensation or different terms, suddenly that issue is front and center.
If MLB convinces Judge Whyte to grant a stay in the discovery phase of the lawsuit, we probably won’t find out the substance of that letter or proposal. That would be, to put it mildly, unfortunate.
newballpark.org 
ML, if what you say is true, it seems pretty cut and dry as to what the A’s need to do. As you noted, to offer anything less would just be a waste of time.
To me the difficult part comes should the A’s refuse to ante up. What happens then? Do they just stay in Oakland and play in the crumbling coliseum and continue to receive revenue sharing? Do they move, and if so, where?
RM,
Aren’t compensation and public contribution sorta related? Meaning, if Wolff has to pay off the Giants AND (as currently envisioned) buy the Diridon parcels/pay for ballpark, doesn’t that add a lot of debt to the A’s? If compensation for the Giants is $0, then him paying for everything not to risky. If compensation amount considerable, then paying for EVERYTHING becomes a issue re future debt load. Did any of this make sense BTW?
Re your 2) above: they’d better be considering other sites, and they’re out there…
@fc,
Southern AlCo. Tired; going to bed..
The commissioner’s office has expressed concerns about the viability of the proposed San Jose ballpark site and the financial projections offered by the A’s in support of a move, according to people familiar with the discussions.
@Tony D. I agree with you, the total price is too much, for MLB to be happy with, land, building, and paying off the Giants is so much mony, the A’s would still need to be on the doll. I think the only way the A’s get SJ is if MLB decides what the A’s pay the Giants (Giants will not come up with reasonable amount), because as we know the Giants will drag this out till the A’s are in Portland
Prefacing this with saying it would be absurd, but what if the contradictory nature of Selig’s words was intentional to push forward disclosure now that the AT’s are off the table. He (not MLB, just him) wants this resolved and he also knows that disclosure would force his (and MLB’s) hand.
If the so called “territorial rights” issue is in fact to be the biggest stumbling block for MLB to approve the A’s move to San Jose, then Selig is in fact the biggest culprit in failing to resolve this matter in a fair and equitable way. Why does it seem to appear that Selig is holding so firm with the Giants on the so called “territorial rights” issue? This seems even more apparent with Oakland doing everything in their power to reject themselves as a future home for the A’s, while San Jose is looking more and more as the most logical and realistic location for the new A’s ballpark. I do think that the only way we will get that answer is if and when a discovery phase is opened up by a future court order action. Selig and MLB is most fearful if that was allowed to happen. IMO, if all the relating documentation was ever exposed, it could very likely have a negative impact for MLB on their sacred ATE. IMO, the way to San Jose for the A’s is still via the courts. The good news is that MLB will ultimately allow the A’s to move to San Jose before it gets that far. A settlement will be coming soon, I’m still very hopeful.
I’m just so over this whole thing. I want to enjoy another playoff run with the knowledge that I get to take my babies to watch games in Oakland for many, many more seasons (or San Jose, or Fremont)… One thing is for sure, Bud Selig couldn’t lead a company in the Bay Area. He’d be fired for incompetence by a real board before he sunk the ship. Monopolies are the bane of the world. They foster this sort of bullshit.
it’s a foreign concept for us here, but TR’s are important to Bud and the crew because they help the industry grow by keeping competition to a minimum. It’s just like the phone business for the last century… Limited growth through regional monopolies, stamping out any potential competition is more favorable than having to compete and potential higher upside.
@Tony, those were my thoughts as well. If MLB is concerned about the A’s ability to take on so much debt, why place such a high price tag on the territorial rights? Seems like the A’s are in a no win situation. My only thought is for Fischer to dig down and pays the Giants out of his own pocket.
Regarding Southern AC, I have to believe Wolff knew MLB had concerns about the A’s ability to take on so much debt. If this was in fact the case, why did he sell Pacific Commons? Are there any other parcels in SoAC which would work? Seems to me he lost his “Plan B” when he sold.
Wolff asked his friend to buy the A’s so he could get them a new ballpark in their current territory. Wolff bought the A’s and then spent several years trying, only to conclude a new ballpark in the current territory was not possible. Bud then formed a committee that apparently has reaffirmed Wolff’s conclusions. So Bud, how about MLB – and not Wolff – paying off the Giants?
Two questions:
Why would San Jose be involved with the territorial rights compensation issue? You’d figure that aspect of the issue would be solely between MLB, the A’s and the Giants.
Since MLB rejected San Jose’s proposal, why would San Jose respond by suing? This issue has been going on for over four years. The June 2013 rejection can’t be their first rejected proposal. San Jose wouldn’t slap MLB with a lawsuit after a single rejected proposal. The June 2013 rejection must’ve been the final straw. This leads me to believe that MLB wants the A’s in San Jose but only if San Jose gives its left and right nuts for.
@Briggs – MLB didn’t reject San Jose’s proposal. It rejected the A’s proposal. San Jose hasn’t made any kind of proposal. All it has is the option agreement and some rules it would like to use in a future negotiation. That’s it. It’s important to not conflate the A’s and the San Jose, because while they are linked in certain ways, they are not the same entity.
@fc/Tony D. – Teams making direct payments to each other are not exactly standard practice within MLB (or other pro leagues for that matter). Even the O’s/Nats arrangement with MASN has a degree of separation to it. I think MLB would structure the payment(s) so that the A’s didn’t need to take on new debt, whether from outside or even MLB’s internal credit facility. Instead they’d just reroute some amount of central revenue and/or change the revenue sharing formulas for the A’s and Giants. Those are things MLB can easily control within the auspices of the CBA.
My source is only right about 20% of the time. But he says the Giants have put a number out there. Actually 2. $100 million upfront or 10 1st round picks over the next 20 years.
re: This leads me to believe that MLB wants the A’s in San Jose but only if San Jose gives its left and right nuts for.
…Can’t draw blood from a stone. See my posts in the previous thread about San Jose city services reductions, police layoffs, growing class sizes in San Jose schools. No bandwidth whatsoever to use taxpayer $$ for a ballpark (unless some kind of hotel tax could be made to work).
fc, that to me is the strange thing as well. San Jose apparently will require a VERY big outlay from the A’s that the league doesn’t want (and it’s not likely to change under the Wolff/Fisher ownership since they’ve always worked on the cheap, which essentially stalls San Jose for good. We know Wolff has no interest in Oakland for financial reasons both public and private (and that any other would-be owners there would run into that same reality and would be right back where Wolff is today in short order). Southern or Eastern Alameda County then become the only real options that make any sense. And while Wolff didn’t succeed at Pacific Commons the first time around due to the housing collapse and the big box stores, he also didn’t fight them very much on the latter, and the former has been coming around again. I too don’t understand why he didn’t hang on to the site as a fall back. Obviously he wouldn’t have been alone in going suburban now thanks to Atlanta. And he still would have reaped many of the San Jose benefits he seeks.
Some of you are allowing your thoughts to venture to far afield again. This is all about MLB not being satisfied with the A’s relocation proposal in June AND (perhaps) compensation as it relates to the Giants relinquishing T-Rights to SCC/SJ. THIS IS NO LONGER ABOUT THE TERRITORIAL RIGHTS PHYSICALLY NOT ALLOWING THE A’S TO MOVE TO SAN JOSE. Could we please put that notion to rest, along with all the “Bud favors the Giants” crap?
@RM, thanks.
@All, again, Wolff doesn’t necessarily have to own a certain plot of land to build on it. Heck, it’s probably a better idea to work out a long term land lease at a ballpark site rather than purchase the land outright. This is why I feel Southern AlCo is still in play despite Wolff (and Cisco) unloading land recently.
@ML: “Those are things MLB can easily control within the auspices of the CBA.”
There’s one problem. mlb can’t easily change the revenue sharing provisions in the current CBA, can it? I think the current one runs through 2016. It assumes that both the Giants and (once a new stadium opens) the A’s will be payors, because they have this huge Bay Area market to share. (Yes, yes, that view of the market conflicts with the TRs actually meted out over the years. Well plowed field.)
As I’ve said since I first read the CBA last year, why would Wolff/Fisher want to take a chance on financing a new San Jose ballpark if they faced such a debilitating revenue-shariing reversal, too? RS subsidizes a lot of the A’s current payroll. Give up that and have to pay a load, while waiting to see if the ballpark will succeed? What if it’s a bust? All the blazing condo/hotel/etc. development dollar signs on the horizon shrink dramatically, don’t they?
The notion that a new CBA revenue-sharing deal giving a big break to the Giants that the A’s pay for makes some sense. Looks like Wolff/Fisher aren’t offering enough. But 2016 is three years away, so there’s plenty of time . . . .
@xoot – MLB has made tweaks to the revenue sharing formulas with each CBA revision since 2002, so yes, it can be done and quite easily to boot. And why does the revenue sharing change have to be debilitating? The A’s already run on a limited budget and practically don’t factor in the revenue sharing receipt into their payroll calculations.
Your questions about risk can easily be applied to a privately-funded Oakland ballpark. There’s always risk unless some dumb municipality wants to step in and pay full freight.
ML–the union is involved in the revenue sharing agreement for good reasons. In this “tweak” you’re apparently envisioning, the players and the small-market teams will be allied against any diminution of revenue sharing from the Bay Area. I mean, isn’t that the explanation for the provision that the A’s change from a receiver to a payor the moment a new ballpark opens? Also, many owners are concerned about preventing struggling teams from moving into their markets–which is one way to look at what the A’s are doing, technically.
You’re talking about a lot more than a minor revision to the CBA. imo.
@xoot – If the union wants to really push for change, they can ask for a salary floor. Guess what? They won’t. They know that the A’s will always operate relatively lean compared to most teams, and they know that the Giants will spend, though not so much that the luxury tax threshold is threatened. In the grand scheme of things, what does this change mean? It’s a rounding error in terms of total league revenue. If the union wants to get upset over a formula change, they may want to save their saber rattling for issues that truly matter. Let’s say that the transfer is $25 million/year for four years. That’s 0.3% of future annual league revenue that can still easily be spent by the Giants. Now tell me again how this is not a minor revision?
One other thing. In the CBA the Revenue Sharing “Performance Factor” which determines the annual payments made to/from teams is adjusted annually. So again, yes, it can be tweaked – and is designed to be tweaked.
@Tony D. – I’m going to delete your “how to get this done in Oakland” comments. Irrelevant for this thread.
@xoot,
You really, really don’t want to see the A’s move 35 miles south to San Jose, yet express this under the veil of big words and legalese. Oh well, you are more than entitled to your opinion. For arguments sake, what if privately financed AT&T Park had been a bust? No Barry Bonds, no WS appearances, sub-.500 teams, etc.? Life’s a risk my friend, and Wolff/A’s should be allowed to enjoy it fully in San Jose. With a spanking new yard in SJ and the corporate money flowing in, I’m confident Billy Beane will do wonders with the team and it will be a complete $ucce$$; full stop!
BTW, reading the side tweets has me wondering; why do a lot of folks choose to be complete idiots?…
Neil deMuse over at FOS just brought up a good point. If MLB sent an honest to goodness letter to Wolff formally rejecting the San Jose plan (either entirely or as it existed until June)… did Wolff send a similar letter formally requesting A’s relocation to San Jose that prompted the formal denial?
@Dan – As I understand it the proposal has been on Selig’s desk for some time. That’s why over a year ago Wolff wanted to get a vote of the owners.
ML, your numbers are opaque. How much revenue sharing money did the Giants contribute last year? How much did the A’s receive? The swing, under the current CBA, will be those TWO numbers, per year, PLUS what the A’s will owe as a payor. I’ll bet you could fit several Houstons in there. But I have work to do. You’re the numbers guy.
@xoot – The idea would be to take the $25 million in revenue sharing that would normally go to the A’s and hand it to the Giants. That’s it. Nothing fancy about it. Re-read what you wrote. Why would there be a double payment? You want to talk about opaque numbers? You don’t even have numbers yet you’re casting doubts with no statistical basis! Yes please, go back to work, non-numbers guy.
@Tony D:
Frisco had sub .500 teams but Bonds helped the attendance with the HR chase. You think Frisco was happy with him? Absolutely not but Bonds was like an ATM machine. Bonds helped pay the bills if you will.
Hopefully, the judge will allow discovery to move forward. It is the only way that will get this pathetic mess resolved soon. In the meantime, the judge should let SJ appeal to a higher court then hopefully the Sup Ct. I don’t care how many years it will take but hopefully the new justices will recognize that the A/T is a POS. Baseball should not have an exemption. Baseball is a monopoly now and the monopoly must be broken up.
@ Tony
I think the disagreement in understanding comes from the fact that you believe if the A’s move to SJ, they’ll be successful. Others believe, if the A’s stay and open a park in Oakland, they’ll be successful. I’ve seen and read arguments for both but I still beg to ask the same question I asked over the weekend:
Why doesn’t San Jose get out of the lawsuit and request an expansion team? Why go after other cities teams when you can have your own? Why steal a car when you can buy one? Why take another man’s wife when their are plenty available single women out there? (I’m being over-facetious)
And yes, I believe the Bay Area can work with three baseball teams that are 35 miles apart from each other. I think the Giants would be more hurt from the set up than the A’s if SJ were to get an expansion team because the Giants have a minor league team there and earn revenue from corporate sponsorship’s/packages,etc.
As for the A’s new stadium, if I were Lew I would at least meet with Colony Capitol to see what they have to offer, even if going in I know it won’t be anything I’ll like. That way, I can look like I appeased MLB in doing my due diligence and have tried really, really hard to build a park in Oakland. At least fake it till you make it Lew.
Hell, if I were Chuck Reed I’d flip my middle finger to Bud and start talking to the NBA. Now that would send a clear message. lol
@Ivan – As it stands, San Jose can’t ask for an expansion franchise because the Giants still own territorial rights to the South Bay. The Giants would be just as staunch in defending those rights against a potential expansion team. Besides, MLB is not considering expansion anytime soon. If they were, the most obvious places would be larger markets like NY/NJ and LA, then expanding markets that don’t currently have a MLB club nearby (Portland, San Antonio, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas).
@RM,
I was replying to your comment above re risk and a privately funded ballpark in Oakland. Since Xoot was expressing risk concerns of a privately financed yard in SJ and wanted to see how he felt about one in Oakland. That is all.
@Daniel,
Your first paragraph actually reinforces the point I was making above: what IF the Giants hadn’t enjoyed success in their new privately financed venue? The A’s should be afforded the same opportunity that the Giants had in 2000; albeit in an environment with corporate support and high disposable income.
@pjk
I agree with you. As you, I and many other have theorized, it looks although MLB would love San Jose over Oakland (no surprise), but even San Jose will have to pay a price, not as much as Oakland, and not as much as Portland, San Antonio, or whichever city MLB, rips off, but even San Jose, as desirable a location as it, will have to pay a price. I hope I am wrong, but I am starting to believe the SF Giants will be getting their wish, and as anyone, who has a little understand about this mess, could tell you that’s not San Jose, Oakland, Fremont, or Sacramento, that’s the hell out of the state of California, for our Athletics.
Re: This leads me to believe that MLB wants the A’s in San Jose but only if San Jose gives it’s left and right nuts for.
…Can’t draw blood from a stone. See my posts in the previous thread about San Jose city services reductions, police layoffs, growing class sizes in San Jose schools. No bandwidth whatsoever to use taxpayer $$ for a ballpark (unless some kind of hotel tax could be made to work).
http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2013-10-23/mlb-team-values.html
That cool graphic, originally lined on this blog back in Oct., is perhaps a good starting point. According to Bloomberg, in 2013 the Giants “net loss” due to revenue sharing was $21M, while the A’s “net gain” was $36M. So there’s $57M to worry about. Give the Giants a break, to compensate for the loss of SCCo, and stop paying the A’s, and things look pretty balanced from everyone’s pt of view except that A’s. So that tweak seems possible, if the A’s go along. Add to it, however, the A’s new commitment to contribute to revenue sharing as a major market team, and things get darker. That’s a great deal for the small market teams and the players, but can the A’s pony it up? Devising a contractual amendment to find a way out of that problem, imo, would be no minor tweak. Enough.
ML–you get so damn testy. You’re the boss on this blog; you don’t have to shout about it. I’ve explained my view. You haven’t really explained yours. Maybe neither of us is “right.” Exploring the various views can only be a benefit.
@xoot – Sorry xoot, you haven’t explained your view particularly well. In fact, the little bit of reading you just did blew apart your argument. Thanks for playing. You think that was testy? It’s a debate, counselor.
@TonyD.
Man as you know this is total B.S., I have said it before and I know many of you are with me, as much as I would love the A’s to build a new ballpark in Oakland, if they are prohibited, for doing so in San Jose, or the conditions, on which they may build in San Jose are so restrictive that they can’t, and are forced to leave the Bay Area, I will not watch, listen to, spend a dime on anything that’s MLB related for the rest of my life. I get it teams move for a variety of reasons, usually it simply comes down to money, and I can live, with that, as much as it can hurt (Raiders to LA I was in the 11th grade), but the San Francisco Giants being allowed to cripple a charter member of their sport is beyond me, I can’t take that.
Re: Your first paragraph actually reinforces the point I was making above: what IF the Giants hadn’t enjoyed success in their new privately financed venue? The A’s should be afforded the same opportunity that the Giants had in 2000; albeit in an environment with corporate support and high disposable income.
ML–I don’t think you understand my view. The problem is the size of the break that the A’s want. I don’t believe the small market teams and the players ass’n will be willing to give them much of one–being a major market team, and all. That’s why I stacked the numbers in the first post. In the Bloomberg post, I took another view and tried to estimate exactly why the A’s are low-balling their offer, so far. They don’t want to comply with the current CBA terms, imo.
So tell us about those minor “tweaks” you envision for the CBA? And you don’t debate, you just lose your temper any time someone wanders into your purview. Show us the tweaks, ML.
@xoot – Ah, but the A’s aren’t technically a major-market team until they move into a new stadium in the Bay Area somewhere. They show up on the table as part of a top-15 market, but the listing says “EXEMPT”. Can’t get around that, at least through the remainder of this CBA. Any tweaks would occur for the rest of the current CBA, then carry over to the next one for as long as it takes. That transition would coincide with any honeymoon effects the A’s would experience for the first 2-3 years, which would largely offset the lost revenue sharing. I’ve done pro forma on this in the past. As revenue stabilizes for the A’s, we’ll get to see if their model is properly sustainable. If not, the A’s can do what they and many other mid market teams do, sell off and rebuild. They’ll be able to write off stadium expenses for decades to come. Honestly, I don’t get why you can’t envision this. It’s not difficult.
As for MLBPA, they should full well understand the temporary, transitional state of affairs for the A’s. After all, it was Scott Boras himself who was clamoring over the last two years to get the team out of Oakland. If the end result is a net gain for league revenue with the move, there’s little reason for the union to align itself against the change.
BTW, if you don’t want snark, you might want to stick with the argument instead of ending comments with a dismissive tone.
IMHO the A’s will be able to pony it up if they’re allowed to relocate to a corporate rich area with high disposable income. And your Giants are living proof to this! Thriving off the corporate/personal incomes of SF, Marin, San Mateo and (in your case) Alameda County. BTW, does anyone know if the teams in the NYC, CHI and LA metros are all EQUALLY paying the same amount into revenue sharing? I think it’s assumed that once the A’s are in SJ they would be paying the same amount as the Giants; maybe, maybe not.
@TonyD.
I hope they get the opportunity.
Ok. One last time, dispassionate debate. Under the CBA the A’s stop getting RS when the new park opens ($36M in 2013). If the Giants get a RS break as part of the TR deal, the A’s will pay for it, right? Meanwhile, the A’s will have to start paying RS generally. So add those three numbers and don’t you arrive at the total new burden facing the A’s? Diminish the last number, or even provide for continued RS money to the A’s and aren’t you taking money away from the small market teams, whose ability to pay salary is the union’s concern? The parties to the CBA have many different agendas and the RS program is right in the middle of the tension.
Now–isn’t the “debate” about whether mlb could “easily control” these things “under the CBA”? I think so.
@xoot – Revenue sharing is only a zero-sum matter at the end, when all teams’ contributions and payouts are calculated. All teams pay into the system, 30-40% depending on who they are minus deductions. What the media calls “revenue sharing” is the matter of whether teams get rebates (receipts) at the end or not. As it stands, the Giants get no rebate. The A’s get one that varies annually. The change would be to grant the Giants all or part of the A’s rebate. There’s no additional math that needs to be done. In a new ballpark regime the A’s are assumed to make so much that the rebate is no longer necessary. If they don’t reach a certain level, they simply don’t get that rebate.
What is the basis of the breaking down of the shared two team Bay Area MLB market into two distinct territories; given that, other than in that one instance, it is unprecedented anytime in MLB history, and is not partitioned that way in any of MLB’s other three shared markets? In other words, what makes the Bay Area market so unique, that it is necessary to divide the Bay Area market into two distinct separate territories for both the Giants and A’s only as it relates to restricting their respective ballpark locations? Yet, it should also be noted, that either team is fully allowed to encroach on the other team’s so called “territory” for just about all other team operational purposes including the broadcasting of each respective team’s games on television and radio, ticket sales, and team promotional activities. In a court of law, MLB would have a lot of explaining to do regarding this unique concept two territory Bay Area market. It would not take much for one to reasonably conclude that by restricting where an accepted area competitor can set up business, it is done for the sole purpose of restricting competition.
I have been very optimistic about San Jose until last week. However, The “Fantasy Proposal” of Coliseum City, coupled with, what Selig did by saying no to the A’s, just might be start of the process of moving the A’s out of the Bay Area. Yes, that means Oakland as well (for the “Oakland Only” folks who are happy about SJ). It makes you think that Mayor Quan’s belief that unless the Raiders stay at the Coliseum (and force the A’s out), the A’s remaining at the Coliseum with the present conditions at hand, is not without justification and logic (twisted and self-serving as it is). However, I think that Wolff knows that the Coliseum (especially as is) cannot any longer be a viable long-term option (Raiders or no Raiders), and if and when he determines SJ is no longer a possibility, then he will start to either look to move or sell the team to outside investors. If I am Mark Davis, I am asking WTF is going on, and starting to look at Santa Clara and LA even more. If that happens, the Quan Stadium maneuver (even if it works for her politically), might leave just two winners (besides her), that being the Giants and the 49ers, while leaving the City of Oakland to clean up the mess of no sports teams (making Wolff, Davis & the Warrior Ownership look like the bad guys in the process)………. Of course, there is still the issue of paying off the Mount Davis debt. Talk about the ultimate “Pyrrhic Victory” over “Greedy” owners, making them “Look bad” while being responsible for that debt, certainly would qualify.
@xoot: you mean Frisco will stop contributing into the RS pot if the A’s move to SJ? come on, that can’t happen.
the fairest way is for the A’s and/or MLB to pay Frisco a lum sum. I don’t know what that sum should be.
It is why all the docs and secrets must be out in the open.
ML, what I’m missing from your argument is that you’re not accounting for when the A’s no longer qualify for that rebate. The only reason they’re getting that rebate in the first place is that they’re grandfathered in based on their stadium situation. The moment they’re in SJ, they no longer qualify for their rebate. That means both the A’s & Giants will supposed to be on the payer side of the ledger, not one on either side. You can’t give the Giants the A’s rebate if the A’s no longer qualify for a rebate. Not without amending the CBA.
@dmoas – Look at the timeline. No ballpark can start operating in San Jose before 2017 or 2018. There is sufficient time to address the payment schedule. If it carries over into when the A’s start operating a new ballpark, the performance factors can be adjusted on a one-time basis to accommodate the payment. In that case money doesn’t even change hands. The Giants simply pay less into the pool and the A’s pay more.
@all,
For the umpteenth time: SELIG DID NOT SAY NO TO SAN JOSE! Again, they rejected the A’s relocation proposal in June due to financial concerns. Like the Sun rises in the east every damn morning, that’s the truth. Why is that so hard to understand?!!
@Xoot,
Again, point blank: what do you want to see happen to the A’s? You’re arguing so passionately against them relocating to San Jose based on CBA’s, revenue sharing, etc., yet the same arguments could be made with a private financing scheme within their current designated territory. Sounds to me like your against the A’s remaining in the Bay Area so that your precious Giants can have it all to themselves. True? Again, what the hell do you want?
ML, that’s fair. That’s what was missing for the calculations you were doing. Alternatively, I suppose if the A’s play at ATTandT for a couple of seasons, they could incorporate that into the various calculations as well. Something like the Giants don’t have to add that revenue into things and the A’s don’t get to subtract it from their end or something to that effect.
Tony: If Selig wants the city to sweeten the deal (as in spend taxpayer $$ on the stadium), then it’s as good as saying no to San Jose.
@pjk,
Whatever you say (rolling eyes)…
Oakland Raiders and A’s
Golden State Warriors
Sacramento Kings
San Diego Chargers all need new or improved venues.
The issue is with Jerry Brown and anti public funding Californians….these ppl have been stalling these long overdue projects for years…enough is enough. ..I’m in favor of public funds for stadiums (and yes teams owners in return should contribite more to the city) …that’s my choice. Lets get a damn vote out of Oakland or San Jose amd whoever agrees to pay more (however they do it) wins the A’s…
Ml u know I’m right. ….
Oakland Raiders and A’s
Golden State Warriors
Sacramento Kings
San Diego Chargers all need new or improved venues.
The issue is with Jerry Brown and anti public funding Californians….these ppl have been stalling these long overdue projects for years…enough is enough. ..I’m in favor of public funds for stadiums (and yes teams owners in return should contribite more to the city) …that’s my choice. Lets get a damn vote out of Oakland or San Jose amd whoever agrees to pay more (however they do it) wins the A’s…
Ml u know I’m right b/c its the only way. ….
There’s different ways to look at this:
* There’s no money to spend on sports facilities when schools are being cut, police being laid off, etc.
* Investing in these facilities helps improve the economy. We don’t make Southwest Airlines or United Airlines build our airports. We don’t make General Motors build our roads.
*But we don’t publicly fund construction of McDonald’s or WalMart.
…Take your pick.
My pick is that its business. ..to be honest what schools are being cut??? Not happening to the white schools just the black/latino schools…so glad pplfinally care to spite sports….I went to “bad schools” and made it…so can anybody else. Police??? Plz…over paid , trigger happy cops with unions that make it so hard to fire the loose cannon cops…I think they will be allright….
@Oakmetro86 – If you want to join up with Save Oakland Sports and figure out ways to finance Coliseum City, be my guest. I can guarantee that if any major public expenditure is put to a vote of Alameda County residents, it will fail. They remember how bad the Mt. Davis deal has been, you can’t paper that over. They aren’t as uniformly gung-ho about keeping the sports teams as you and guys like Dr. Death are. It’s about priorities, and the teams aren’t as high on the list as you think.
@Oakmetro86/pjk
At the risk of offending some, (don’t take this the wrong way), but even Jesus said “The poor you have with you always”, we need to get some tax money, we will always need more money for police, fire services, roads, etc., weather the A’s are here or not, no new tax money means the A’s are out of here, out of Oakland, San Jose, Fremont, 680/Tri-City, out of the San Francisco Bay Area, and the SF Giants win, game over.
Lets look at Oakland could they use more cops….maybe a lil..but they seem to be in patrol all the time rolling up and down bancroft, 73rd..sobrante park (not so mucj west oakland acorn projects….yikes) but in my life growing up their presence has made it safe for ppl waling up and down those streets I have ever seen in years. Hell even more caucasion ppl are in “deep” east oakland…however those individuals have a certain “street smart” to them which doesn’t cause friction in the community. Its the ppl in montclair, piedmont that are bitching about public funds for the A’s and Raiders knowing that these guys could leave for good..they complain about Oakland crime yet are on th other side of town..
Bottom line to all my pro Oakland folks…no more la la land. If u guys really love Oakland A’s and Raiders and the owners are footing most of the bill..this will take some sacrifice on our part to get new venues…the team deserves it, Oakland deserves it and if we are unwilling then it shows we never cared for our teams
It believe revenue sharing, by 2016, will be a zero sum game, if I understand what you mean by that. Each team contributes 31% of certain revenues into the pot and then gets an equal share out of the pot. so the Giants 31% is big; they get less ($21M less in 2013) than they put in. The A’s get more ($36M more, 2013) than they put in. By 2016, however, the system is designed to exclude the 15 teams in the major markets will not get any extra money. They can get a refund of some of what they put in, but they can’t get excess. So the A’s–who are a major market team but with a generous exemption (quite a word, huh?) pending a new stadium–will lose the income that they now receive.
Yes, the assumption is that they’ll be able to live with those CBA terms if they get a good new stadium, but that’s a risk. Add to that risk long-term compensation payments to the Giants for SCCo, and things are, as a I said, darker.
The parties to the CBA include the 3/4 of the owners who have to approve a change of TR and a move–plus the players’ ass’n. Engineering relief for the A’s by amending the current CBA looks like to me like it’ll take a lot of work, unless the A’s are simply willing to keep most of the status quo and add some sort of payment to the Giants. Maybe that’s what’s holding up the process.
I’m a Giants-fan guest on this blog. More than a few of you, including ML, have gotten annoyed with my tone from time to time. Fair enough. I’ll keep it cool.
@tony–for whatever it’s worth, I want the A’s to remain in Oakland, but if that’s not possible, I want them to remain in the Bay Area. That’s it.
sorry, my comment to ML shoul’ve started “I don’t believe.” Gaffes. Damn.
@ML
I was thinking about it…I’m scared I might throw a chair at somebody. But ok ML…if the teams are not a priority. ..then why the save oakland sports and thr coliseum city…if u know that the teams can’t stay unless they are getting public funding…ML would u still be a A’s fan in Virginia, Portland or San Antonio???
…..I think u amd A’s Nation would say no….so in tthat case lets do something 50mil each for A’s and Raiders. ..may be small but its something.
@Oakmetro86 – Save Oakland Sports is mostly a well-intentioned group of people who sincerely want to rally to keep the teams. Unfortunately, I think they’re overmatched by the sheer size of the Coliseum City project and the individual cost of each venue. The City? Lip service. Anything to make it look like they’re doing something.
You need to understand that if you’re not talking a nine figure investment (for each team, you’re not making a dent. Sacramento is putting up $250 million for the Kings. Cobb County is putting up $300 million for the Braves. One team! That’s the new standard. It’s more expensive to build here. Mt. Davis debt still has to be addressed. All of these costs add up. $50 million isn’t going to do anything for the project.
I do not like Brown period, but let’s be honest, it’s not all on him ( see Johnson, Kevin versus Quan, Jean when it comes to leadership and caring about sports teams). It is also possible to get something done even with Brown (Santa Clara, Stanford, UCLA ( upgraded Pauley Pavillion), and Cal got something done). Cal is a perfect example: This is the most Left-Wing City in America, and the NIMBY and tree hugger types were overcome to get the Bears a New Stadium. The reality is that Jerry Brown will likely be leading the State until January 2019. However, the larger question still remains will the A’s be in the State as well? That is an open ended question, with the answer still To Be Determined?
xoot, if I’m understanding ML, it would go as follows:
2014: SF gets $25M of the A’s “return” of that $$ (A’s still in Oakland).
2015: SF gets $25M of the A’s “return” of that $$ (A’s still in Oakland).
2016: SF gets $25M of the A’s “return” of that $$ (A’s still in Oakland).
2017: SF gets $25M of the A’s “return” of that $$ (A’s still in Oakland).
2018: SF & A’s get normal shares as per the current CBA (A’s move to SJ).
All total, $100 million went to the Giants to the A’s through the general revenue sharing system, all pre-move.
I dig it ML, I was throwing out the 50mil each for Raiders and A’s as a random number but maybe something afforable for Oakland. I do have to question the desire of pro Oakland ppl+ inept city pols on what it takes to keep the teams….
However major respondsibility goes to Davis, Wolff and Lacob. Davis has options but his real “option” is moving back to L.A (before Chargers and Rams) and make friends in L.A county to garner support $$$ for a new stadium..Wolff has to be more like “Al Davis” and bully his way to San Jose, plus more support $$$ from san jose citizens and pols. And Lacob might have to do business with SF Giants just to get an arena …so California is not an exception to public funding b/c Cobb County and othet cities cam figure it out so can Oakland
@Oakmetro86 no matter what Tax payers money will be used anywhere, weather it is for infrastructure or whatever. I can tell you this, all along for the Oakland side was for the city to bring in investors to build projects like Brooklyn Basin and more importantly CC/ Howard Terminal. I have spoken and heard conversations by a family friend who ran for Mayor against Quan and their plan was to use connections to investors as well to develop the city/ stadiums, and this was back in 2010. And this person is well respected and become a very wealthy person off investments and bringing investors to the table for his visions. We will see if this will work hopefully soon but, this seems to have been Oakland’s plan all along.
@Karin: money, real f’n money. Talks won’t move heaven and earth.
Put real money on the table then maybe LW and Fisher will consider.
Oakland needs at least 300mils for the A’s NOW. TODAY. Not 10 years from today.
Seattle did not get the Kings but Hansen and “Mr Microsoft” Ballmer flashed the cash and a plan for a new arena. Oakland must do the same NOW. TODAY.
BS talk won’t help keep the A’s in Oakland.
If only there was a proposal from a very creative local designer who had an actual working solution for the OAKLAND A’s sumwhere around jack London that MLB and the people all KNEW about, maybe fans could compare designs and rally around… #best1
It would be nice too, if that other design firm (JRDV) proposing designs for the A’s in Coli City would give a young brother credit and not just rip off or steal his…. know what, never mind…
@daniel and what do u think they just did with this group of investors? They just brought them in and Larry Reid made sure hard dates were set in the contract so there will be no more bs stalling any more by the city. All we can do is debate and give reasons for each side but we will have a clear picture within the next few months if the city is finally for real or not. And I believe Selig has stalled to give Oakland this last try and if the fail he opens up SJ for the A’s
“Why doesn’t San Jose get out of the lawsuit and request an expansion team? Why go after other cities teams when you can have your own? Why steal a car when you can buy one? Why take another man’s wife when their are plenty available single women out there?”
@ Ivan – Conversely, why does Oakland want the A’s now when it’s neglected it over 20+ years? Why does Oakland want the A’s now after having being caught wining and dining with Raiders and W’s to the tune of $200M while zilch has been spent on the A’s? Why does Oakland want the A’s now that it has been left to rot in a cesspool of a house while surviving on MLB welfare checks? Why is Oakland surprised that the A’s want a divorce now after all of this?
@ Karim – since you seem to be “in the know” on everything Oakland, let me ask you: What happened to VC? Why did it die? What’s the difference between VC, HT, and CC?
Daniel and Karim have both good ppints. We will see if Malik/Colony can show the money….till then I’m going to see Marcel Reese and the Raiders in Hayward toys for tots. A lot of families here. It shows the Raiders have a strong fan base to = a 53, 000 New football stadium. Get it together Quan.
“It shows the Raiders have a strong fan base to = a 53, 000 New football stadium. ”
@ OakMetro86 – Are you talking about the same Raiders that announced Tarpgate II?
https://newballpark.org/2013/02/06/raiders-not-selling-mt-davis-in-2013/
@Karin: I don’t care what and how or a group from Mars or Jupiter, show me the f’n money NOW. Show your face and lets get it on.
How about Mr Money calls a presser and say like ok we would like to contribute 300mil to this CC project NOW.
This is all BS talk by the city. I want to see their f’n face and their f’n names and of course the real checks.
@ Daniel – lol, this is all I can think about from your post:
Anon…tarpgate does suck..but the Raiders have to put out a better product on the field (team winning) Mark Davis needs to get that together fast b/c a winning Raider team and making good business moves fould get the Clorox, Ross & Safeway corps to finally help a east bay team out.
P.s anon u ok? U having a crumby holiday or something?
@ Anon
1. Conversely, why does Oakland want the A’s now when it’s neglected it over 20+ years?
My Response: Show me proof
2. Why does Oakland want the A’s now after having being caught wining and dining with Raiders and W’s to the tune of $200M while zilch has been spent on the A’s?
My Response: Show me proof
3. Why does Oakland want the A’s now that it has been left to rot in a cesspool of a house while surviving on MLB welfare checks?
My Response: Show me proof
4. Why is Oakland surprised that the A’s want a divorce now after all of this?
My Response: Show me proof
Any other questions?
Last comment from me on this thread: in light of all the stupid headlines from the latest news, “MLB denies A’s to San Jose” or “Selig says NO to SJ,” the irony is that the truth about this whole development came out of a San Francisco paper (Chron). Let us all be thankful for reality and Sussan Slusser. Go A’s and Go SJ!
Time for the A’s and SJ to stop playing nice and get something done. SJ needs to put the A’s move on the ballot and the A’s need to buy off the Giants, and whatever buy piece of land they plan on building a stadium. Al Davis this crap and just build it. Playing nice gets you last, and I think we are all tired of the A’s finishing last when it comes to new stadium.
Metro, the fact the Raiders had to reduce capacity to the smallest stadium in football by over 10,000 seats shows they not only have a bad fan base, the Raiders have far and away the absolute worst fan base in the NFL. Sure they have some loud crazy guys who dress up like Darth Raider, but they don’t have near enough of them. Even Jacksonville makes Oakland looks pathetic…
@Dan No matter how you spin things about attendance etc and fans. The Team has a duty to do something to entice the fan like win maybe or at least put a good product on the field. Every team has the same situation sooner or later you have to put a winning product on the field. You have your die hart fans in the Bay for the raiders to the tune of about 53k and you have your casual fan who will come for a good game then your fair weather fans who will only tune in if there winning that’s a fact. Raiders, A’s, Giants, Niners who ever they are, you win and the support of fans increase.
@Anon Remember the City of Oakland was fed up with Lew or however you want to spin it, so the city contacted MLB and Bud to let them know and “prove” they were committed to making it work in Oakland. to the pledge of 250 million (how ever you wanna look at it smoke screen or whatever, maybe that’s her smooth talk to Bud.)This was still after redevelopment funds ended, have you ever thought that maybe MLB let the city know that VC isn’t there preferred site and HT was what they would accept? so why continue with the study and spend more money. because after VC died, the focus immediately shifted to CC (also not preferred site for MLB) but more so HT and getting that site for MLB. We all know Bud likes all the power and control so and things to go at his old pace so why is it so unimaginable that bud or the BRC recommended that site and would consider it then if Oakland got it. It would eliminate all the drama, all the compensation and lawsuits all together. Also for all to think about you see Oakland playing good city “supposedly working/talking with MLB” staying in the background while SJ is yelling threatening and suing MLB for a team do you all think that sits well with MLB and especially Bud and his huge ego?
Tony D: yeah I tend to agree, I think Slusser nailed it and did so fairly early on. She was ignored since the story is more exciting to spin it but everyone is enjoying getting worked up about it. I imagine when the SJ lawyers leaked this they knew they were stirring the pot.
@Oakmetro86:
Your theory is correct. Dan gets offended whenever his precious gnats are insulted, and frequently stretches the facts about the giants organization and the SJ giants also. (He claims to be an A’s fan – however, is likely using that as an excuse to make pro-gnats comments at an A’s site)
He is also wrong about the Raiders/Jacksonville – the Raiders don’t pad their attendance figures like Jacksonville does. The Jag’s actual attendence appears to 25,000 max per game – there is no way that Jacksonville stadium is anywhere close to 85% filled for that team’s home games.
@Duffet
Thx for support duff…
@ Ivan – Apparently, denial seems to be a river that runs directly through Oakland and your neighborhood:
1. Conversely, why does Oakland want the A’s now when it’s neglected it over 20+ years?
Proof: read about Brown, uptown, etc. efforts 2 decades ago (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/the-fremont-athletics/Content?oid=1082316). Read up on VC, HT, CC, etc. Better yet, take a whiff of the Coliseum when the sewers clog up!
2. Why does Oakland want the A’s now after having being caught wining and dining with Raiders and W’s to the tune of $200M while zilch has been spent on the A’s?
Proof: Read up on Oracle Arena renovations ($80M). Read about Mt. Davis ($120M). Read about the debt service on this site.
3. Why does Oakland want the A’s now that it has been left to rot in a cesspool of a house while surviving on MLB welfare checks?
Proof: Read E.Coli-seum (http://www.sfgate.com/athletics/article/Coaches-area-plagued-by-sewage-backup-at-Coliseum-4833723.php). Read about A’s getting subsidized by MLB (see:CBA).
4. Why is Oakland surprised that the A’s want a divorce now after all of this?
Proof: See mirror (or read Fremont A’s or Cisco Field).
Any questions?
@Ivan
SHOW YOU PROOF???? Are you farking kidding me? The proof, the absolute undeniable proof has been reported on and detailed here on this very blog over the past several years.
You want “PROOF” that Oakland neglected the A’s for over 20 years??? It is absolutely UNDENIABLE (yes, I am shouting because this is freaking ridiculous) that Oakland threw the A’s under the bus when the Raiders were negotiating to come back to Oakland.
We cannot “show” you the proof if you refuse to look at it.
@ Karim – so, you’re insinuating that Oakland contact MLB, (after or before the BRC was formed?), then went down the path of VC themselves (to the delight of many pro Oaklanders), then 9 months later canned it without a word? And now “the focus immediately shifted to CC (also not preferred site for MLB) but more so HT and getting that site for MLB”….so wait, what IS the preferred site? Is it HT or is it CC? If it is HT, then why is CC still in the discussion if Oakland is in the know with MLB? If it is CC, why is it a phase 3 project well on the back burner? Why hasn’t the EIR for either started, given that the A’s are on a year to year lease for the next few years? Why did it leak that MLB threaten to move the A’s to be with the Gnats if everything was so rosy with Oakland? As you can see, I can easily dissect your straw man’s argument, because none of it lines up. The only thing that makes sense right now is that MLB has their own interest and not Oakland, nor SJ. While Oakland is content with sitting on its arse and let the BRC’s machinations play through, SJ isn’t (which may or may not be a bad thing). While I selfishly favor SJ, I really hope that Oakland makes a REAL proposal and actually kick starts something, because I’m scared as hell that the A’s will be back into a corner by the Gnats, forcing them to eventually leave the Bay Area….
@Dan and Anon
U don’t get laid much do you??
@Oakmetro – Already deleted one dickish outburst from you. Keep it up and you’re out… again.
i swear what am i missing here? doesnt the MLB want a team generating its own money and actually financing the league and help it come up to the level of most professional teams? the A’s are known to pay small ball prices for great players because they do not have money. oakland does not have money, why do you think they are tarping the top seats at BOTH raiders and A’s game? its not because it looks pretty its because you will see the empty seats. why the hell is bud selign fighting this move soo much? it makes ECONOMICAL sense. not only is it a new stadium but its a city that has good WARM weather, its goign in an area that will have good public transportation infrastructure that can move people in and out. it will have corporate sponsorship and corporate money to not only support the team but actually flourish it by helping keep big name players and bring back championships to the organization. holding back this move is either bud selign having a vendetta againt wolff, having close personal ties with the giants or has ties to oakland financially that isnt being brought up to question. whatever it is, this will come down to either the move happens now or when hes out of the chair. either way i doubt it that the A’s will stay in oakland because it doesnt make sense financially.
@D’Sjon Dixon: Beautiful designs. Do you have any alternate orientations? I believe a ballpark, especially in that location, would face south, south-east. I dig the highrise element behind homeplate.
Karim, Cleveland, Chicago and many other cities beg to differ. I just watched people freezing their asses off last night on Monday night football filling Soldier Field in temperatures that would cause the Bay Area to cease functioning all to watch a .500 football team that hasn’t done squat in years. Raiders fans meanwhile can’t even come out in numbers to fill the reduced capacity Coliseum regularly (and would still be getting their regularly scheduled blackouts if not for the new 85% rule and team ticket purchases). Just for reference the Raiders despite having the lowest capacity stadium thanks to the tarping of Mt. Davis, are dead last in attendance and % of capacity attendance in the league. There’s no spinning this to, “they’re bad” or “the Davis family doesn’t try.”
The Raiders attendance just sucks. And their fans are currently the absolute worst in the NFL by a pretty significant margin. They’re the Expos of the NFL without even having to the league undermine them like MLB did the ‘Spos.
@Anon Actually it was the city’s request to form the BRC and I posted the reply from the city in regards to them requesting it so before or after it doesn’t matter because the city asked MLB to form the committee. I’m not saying the they are working had in had non stop to create something just for Oakland, what I am saying is if Oakland didn’t reach out to MLB to express there desire to keep the team in Oakland the A’s would be gone. So one main reason were are here today has been because of the city of Oakland fighting to keep them.(Not Jerry Brown) Weather it is a “smokescreen” or “stall tactic” Pro SJ people like to say but it must be working since the A’s have been out of Oakland since 1995. All some of the Pro SJ people have to do is think beyond the Oakland sucks routine. Why would VC be killed after expressing going forward with it, spending money for the study’s, and letting MLB know about it? money? no, because weather its HT CC or VC money is going to be spent. Stall tactic? maybe but lame excuse, we all know the city doesn’t just throw around like that. So did MLB tell them that’s not a preferred site? maybe, no body knows but looking at it with a open scope might help clarify some. And like I said HT is the preferred site everyone who has been keeping up with this knows that. Oakland, MLB desire is a downtown site for baseball. That’s why Phase 3 is so far out because there giving options, and Fred Blackwell stated that the times are adjustable but the preferred place is HT site but the submissions for maritime use must be exhausted before non maritime use is looked at and used, which he described as a technicality. And for the A’s playing in the Giants stadium come on now, you really think the A’s would have played there? like the saying goes, don’t believe everything in the media, the only news that we get in the media is the news they want us to here, and with all the back and forth drama everyone is playing for position. I don’t think SJ is out of the hunt I think Selig wants to go on his own dime and make the easiest decision that will avoid lawsuits etc, and the best way is to keep them in there territory. But it is ironic after all the years of bashing and Oakland hate by Lew that in September interview and since he has seemed to lighten his stance on Oakland saying it would be great now for a Stadium in Oakland or SJ, (even though backtracking later, but never uttered out his mouth ever) now knowing he received the letter in June it seems like he doesn’t want to appease what MLB request are.
@Briggs/D’Sjon Dixon
Yeah, I have seen D’Sjon’s designs before and like Briggs I really like them, really good work, but I had the same question about the orientation of the park, as well as I am not sure if you could put a park at that location, perhaps you could if KTVU 2 was on board, for a teardown and their studios being incorporated into a ballpark. Man it’s too bad this location (probably), does not work, because I could see ferry stops on each side of the Lake going right through the Lake Merritt channel to the estuary and stopping right at the ballpark, boy that would be cool, and probably the best Oakland location by far IMO, oh well I guess, I am just dreaming.
duffer, I think you have me confused with someone else. The whole San Francisco Giants organization can eat *bleep* and die for all I care. In fact there’s no sports team on the face of this planet I loathe more than the Giants. Also I’ve never made any pro-Giants comments on this site.
Not being offended by the San Jose Giants putting a banner up at their own ballpark about them being pro-baseball in San Jose (which in fact they are) doesn’t mean I’m pro Giants. It just means I’m not looking for demons in every corner like some people. A $30 dollar banner by a Single A team at their own ballpark is not a calculated move to undermine the A’s. Time to take the tinfoil hat off if you think it is…
OakMetro, I get laid plenty. You on the other hand dropped out of school after what? Third grade? Your spelling and grammar are atrocious, you flip flop on points more than a sleazy politician, and frankly you contribute about as much to this site as the last guy who typed out disjointed and aimless posts much like yours…
Okay, that’s enough. Thanks for ruining the thread guys.