Ninth Circuit grants San Jose’s expedited appeal request

A simple, one page order came out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today. In it, the court granted the City of San Jose’s request for an expedited briefing and hearing. While it was previously thought that briefs wouldn’t be field until the summer at earliest, the court is setting a March deadline for the opening brief.

Before: LEAVY and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges
Appellants’ opposed motion to expedite briefing and hearing on appeal is granted. The opening brief is due March 5, 2014. The answering brief is due April 4, 2014. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief.

This case shall be placed on the next available calendar after the completion of briefing. Any request for an extension of time to file a brief is disfavored and must be made under Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(b). No streamline requests for extensions of time in which to file briefs will be approved.

While I’m not going to go so far as to say that the court will rule in favor of San Jose (the case still looks pretty weak), this shows that the court acknowledges the high-profile nature of this case. Both San Jose and MLB will get the opportunity to make their filings, just as spring training and the regular season are starting. It could mean a summer trial oral argument date, too. Even if San Jose’s chances of winning aren’t great, it means a potential resolution for this case could come more quickly and a little more work for MLB in the meantime. Plus the timing of the briefs will keep the story in the news cycle.

Of course, March 5 is coming pretty soon. Chop chop, Joe Cotchett!

140 thoughts on “Ninth Circuit grants San Jose’s expedited appeal request

  1. MLB needs to feel the heat. Go San Jose!

  2. Cotcheet is no average lawyer…behind the scenes he believes that “enough attention plus more PUBLIC SUPPORT taxes and clearing all anti sports development hurdles…that San Jose can provide a successful home for the A’s. …so to the san jose citizens. ..if Oakland cant provide what the A’s need…can u?? Or willing?….pjk take it away

  3. @harry – What are you talking about? Cotchett represents the City. All along the City’s stance has been no public funds, and a vote will be needed. End of story.

  4. Harry: Neither Oakland nor San Jose will spend tax money building a ballpark. Even a hotel or rental car tax, as I’ve said, probably wouldn’t fly, since opponents would point to understaffing in the cities’ police departments and say “We’re taxing hotels to pay for a stadium and not to hire police? Huh?” If MLB requires a publicly funded stadium, then the A’s will sit in Oakland until another city far away ponies up the money. It will happen eventually….

  5. @ML–isn’t SJ/Cotchett’s assumption that it stands a good chance of losing in the 9th district but that then opens the door to appeal to the SC which is the ultimate goal here (assuming MLB doesn’t settle before which is really the ultimate goal)?

  6. @GoA’s – I don’t know that it’s an assumption. The Supreme Court could choose not to take the case at all. It’s not a given.

  7. @ML–understand–but it is interesting that the 9th district recognized the significance of this case and granted an expedited brief (which none of the legal experts expected to happen)–and in the local courts Judge Whyte’s comments that the AT made no sense but he was bound by previous SC rulings…make the outcome very uncertain for how a SC could decide—be interesting to see just how far mlb is willing to risk…

  8. @ pjk,

    For the record, in a Mello-Roos hotel tax situation, the owners of the hotels FIRST have to agree (and vote) to be taxed, or agree to higher property tax assessments (to pay off bonds issued for construction projects). They usually pass on the “tax” through higher room rates for hotel guests (usually folks from out of town). Since the hotel owners can choose which projects to help finance (the SJ Convention Center as an example), it makes no sense for citizens to cry about these revenues not going to city services like police. In short, those paying into a Mello-Roos can spend their revenue as they see fit.

    re lawsuit, I’m with RM on this one: weak case that I personally have never liked. That said, I do find it interesting that it’s gotten this far, and all the predictions made by the professionals thus far have been wrong. Again, Interesting..

  9. There will be an out of court settlement, well before the case gets anywhere near the Supreme Court. Protecting MLB’s sacred ATE is way more important than to protect the selfish interests of any of its individual franchises.

  10. re: it makes no sense for citizens to cry about these revenues not going to city services like police. In short, those paying into a Mello-Roos can spend their revenue as they see fit.

    …but cry they will. The new arena in Newark, NJ was funded in part by $250 million the city got from the Port Authority for specific, dedicated use for redevelopment. But the building almost never got built – even the new mayor at the time (now US Sen Cory Booker) was opposed. People wanted the money to go to the schools even though it was conditioned for use in redevelopment (new construction) only. Same thing would happen here with a hotel tax that doesn’t go toward police or other city services. Which politicians want to take the heat for this tax? Not many, I’ll bet. Besides, San Jose already has vowed: the A’s have to build their own stadium. The local politicians won’t risk their careers breaking that promise.

  11. To be honest: Police should want a new MLB stadium in San Jose because officers receive more money through contract work for the baseball event like directing traffic or having extra protection… most of it is paid for by the owners of the baseball team, not the city. More jobs for police officers = more money for them.

  12. Steven: Somehow, I think city employees already dissatisfied with the existing council and mayor would not sit still if taxes are raised to pay for a new stadium and not city services. This proposal would be like throwing a slow pitch right down the plate with Barry Bonds in his prime ready to smash it.

  13. @ pjk,

    Well, I don’t see to many Santa Clara pols taking the heat for the Levi’s Stadium hotel Mello-Roos. Look, the hotels can choose to finance whatever projects they want; even if it means they have to pay higher property taxes. If some uninformed citizen cries over that, they’re not only uninformed but STUPID as well.

  14. Santa Clara is a different, much smaller city. It hasn’t had to deal with massive service cuts and ballooning pension costs that I know about, like San Jose has. And don’t underestimate the voting power of the stupid and uninformed…

  15. PJK: I am unable to speak for everyone (I do live in DT SJ though), but all I am saying is there is a legit case to be made that projects like these boost property values, the number two contributor to SJ’s revenue (property taxes represent 27 percent of SJ’s revenue each year) and help pay for services we all use. There are more solutions to solving our budget problem than raising taxes. One solution: building smarter. All the buildings around the new stadium will go up in new developments, boosting taxes San Jose collects to pay for the good middle class jobs we all love.

  16. Most people are dumb and don’t get it though.

  17. Steven: All that makes sense but would it be enough to drown out the battle cry of “No taxpayer $$ for billionaires!” Probably not. And we’ll also hear about traffic and parking nightmares from a new stadium, blah blah blah. The success of the existing Sharks arena, which hasn’t created much-feared traffic and parking problems, might drown out some of traffic and parking complaints.

  18. Traffic and parking complaints would be what I fear the most coming from people. So I actually live near the proposed site next to Diridon station. If you ask me if people near the stadium are excited and wanting the project to go forward regardless of traffic, etcetc… I would say most everyone near the stadium site views it as a positive in terms of boosting the local economy and property vales. We’d need to know the exact tax proposal, but if it’s simply a hotel tax, San Jose could def drum up support for it.

  19. @ML
    what is the point of this website. To me mlb has made it clear to California that thr sf giants deal was a one time unique situation and that it will take public funding for the next bay area venue. If ur telling me that San Jose citizens wont do their part to fund the Cisco field ballpark then the A’s are gone. Something tells me behind the scenes u allready know that…what’s in it for u ml because u are powerful media member. U cutting a deal??

  20. @Harry,

    You continue to be hilarious! Thanks. BTW, do you have any thoughts on the 9th Circuit decision?

  21. Tony d why dont u and ml and pjk put up the tax money to get the A’s. ..this lawsuit dont scare MLB but money will make things move…

  22. @harry – I’m going to make myself a name tag that says, “powerful media member.”

  23. Seriously, if The Sup Ct takes the case, I will personally go and listen. Hopefully, I can see/hear Chief Justice Roberts declares ATE no more.

  24. The MLB ATE has become much more outdated since the SCOTUS affirmed it (barely) in 1975. The cable tv rights deals have increased exponentially even since congress last partially removed some of the MLB ATE’s powers in 1998. Even the MLBTV.com site earns $600 mil. annually. How MLB could still be considered an intra-state business only and the MLB ATE still legitimate is comical. MLB likely knows this and will cut a deal with the A’s/San Jose before SJ vs MLB reaches the SCOTUS.

  25. At any point mlb can take itself out of the cross hairs by declaring the Bay Area a shared territory no different than the other shared territories. All lawsuits end at that point. A’s decide which city makes the most economical sense to build- not MLB- which is hat it should have been all along-

  26. @GoA’s – I agree 100%! Question: Suppose tomorrow, Bud Selig and a super-majority (75% and up) of the owner’s announce their intent at their next meeting to declare the Bay Area shared territory between the A’s and the Gnats. Is there any legal maneuver that the Gnats management could pull to try and get the owners to change their mind and maintain the status quo?

  27. RM,

    I’ve asked this before and I’ll ask it again. Do you know (or believe) if there are any backroom dealings, discussions going on to open up SJ/avert SC trial? I personally find it hard to believe that Wolff/Giants/MLB are simply sitting on their hands staying silent about the whole A’s ballpark debacle. MLB knows there’s money to be made in $J/$V and that the A’s continue to play in a concrete pit.

  28. @matt- good question- mlb doesn’t allow it’s partners (owners) to sue each other or sue mlb but as the gints have shown they can be very creative in locking things up legally-

  29. duffer, you can also add in that the last time the ATE was re-affirmed (which gets re-affirmed with slimmer and slimmer margins), MLB was run as two different offices, including TV deals and umpiring crews. Since then they’ve merged into one and forced the umpiring unit into a universal MLB one as well as mega TV deals. Add in that they’ve been starting their seasons all over the globe (Japan, Austrailia, etc.) turning it into a truly international business that no longer needs an exemption to function.

  30. @ Tony:

    BS and MLB as of today have no reasons to negotiate anything yet. YET. Now if the appeals ct whacks them, then they will have to think hard about appealing that decision to a higher court just like what happened in FL. FL/Tampa won after FL Sup CT whacked them. BS/MLB could have appealed to the US Sup CT but they decided to award Tampa with a new team. Same here. BS and MLB just wait and see if the hammer will drop on them and if they do, well, we will see some actions.

  31. Regardless of the lawsuit, what’s going to happen once Oakland signs a deal with the NFL the coming summer to knock down the A’s home?

  32. @ML- This case is not “weak”, it hits at the heart of American Business and its values. To prohibit someone from relocating their business based on territory and backroom deals is “Un-American and flat out wrong.

    Or for that matter prohibiting a city like San Jose from luring a business to create tax revenue because of territorial rights? Horrible in every regard and Bud Selig should be ashamed of himself the coward.

    MLB does not understand they are not above the law, their ATE was granted in 1922 and the other sports have lost miserably in similar cases over the years. It is outdated and the A’s should have been in SJ years ago.

    San Jose was never going to win in the lower courts because something like this is above the “pay grade” of judges like Whyte. Hence why he allowed the appeal to the 9th circuit and allowed San Jose to file a state case in Santa Cruz County.

    Whyte knows full well what MLB is wrong but it is not up to him to decide either way.

    Like how off you were on the 49ers stadium I am telling you San Jose will be victorious here and will pave the way for the A’s to come and build 100% privately Cisco Field.

    @Steven- You are 100% correct on the possible tax revenue and development that would be possible with Cisco Field in DTSJ.

    San Diego’s Petco Park is prime example of what a ballpark can do as a catalyst if put in the right place.

    The Sharks already have setup things nicely for the A’s to tap into. Parking, infrastructure, bars, restaurants, and more will pop up because of Cisco Field and the 81 extra game days a year. Imagine if the Sharks and A’s are playing at the same time?

    Downtown businesses would kill it and the city would rake in massive tax revenue for city services.

    Your right….most people don’t see it like that. At least the city council did when they unanimously voted to sue MLB….These council members can never agree on anything either!

  33. @Tony D and Steven

    Well once the A’s are homeless because Oakland seems ready to burst with excitement in a new Raiders stadium ..then A’s could buils a temporary ballpark at the Coliseum land. ..”Coliseum City Field”

  34. Agree with Sid. The case is not “weak.” MLB’s best hope is that the 9th Circuit says “we are bound be Supreme Court precedent” and then SCOTUS doesn’t grant cert (declines to review the case).

    If SCOTUS grants cert, I think it’s over for MLB. Hard to see how SCOTUS would keep the ATE intact.

  35. Hopefully, to be exposed in the upcoming court cases, I would love to hear the rationale for MLB to allow its Bay Area market to be the unprecedented only one of the current four two-team markets so divided into two distinct and separate territories. Also, I would also love to hear how the Bay Area market territories were so divided up in such a manner as to be done in a blatantly and disproportionately inequitable way between its two franchises.

  36. @IIpec
    We may never here those explanations, but it sure would be nice to hear what BS reasoning they would come up with.
    I just don’t get it, it would seem like some of, and if not most of the other owners would not go as far as they have to cover the SF Giants ass. I know the owners like to have a consensus (perhaps that’s just Bud), or operate as one, but how does any of the other owners justify this situation, as being ok?
    I have been critical of Lew at times (regarding Oakland), and I know that’s a matter of opinion, but damn this could be any one of the other franchises, what in the hell could they be looking at?
    As you said, and we all know “Its unprecedented only one of the current four two-team markets so divided into two distinct and separate territories”

  37. @IIpec
    I have always maintained that I think Oakland could work, better than it has, and better than others think it can, but Lew Wolff should not be forced into making it work, confined to two counties in his own market, and of course not only do the SF Giants control six of the other seven counties, they also control the two richest (by far), ones. If it’s a two team market it should function like any other MLB two team market.

  38. @LSNeil – well said and I agree with you completely! Hang on for the ride folks, because it’s going to be fast and bumpy! I can’t wait until BRC, or better yet BS gets dispositioned! Hypothetical scenario: MLB grants SJ an “expansion” franchise, but relocates the A’s! Bittersweet victory….

  39. What happened was MLB knew Frisco would let the Giants leave town before paying for a new stadium. And then Santa Clara and San Jose wouldn’t pay for one either. To avoid losing Frisco as an MLB city, MLB gave away the store – in the form of six counties including the two most lucrative cities – just to get the new ownership group to build a stadium. Wally Haas, being the nice guy that he was, signed off on all this. He couldn’t have foreseen the mess that’s been created, where MLB has basically banned the 10th largest city in the country from pursuing MLB and instead made the city a colony of Frisco. Now, San Jose is in court trying to do something about the whole situation, over which it had no say.

  40. Thinking back to those days surprised that MLB didn’t allow the gints to relocate to TB and retain the name for SF. Bay Area would have been left with one franchise that ultimately would have built either in SF or SJ- would have resolved the question as to whether the Bay Area should be a 2 team market-

  41. @Tony D – I’m not privy to any discussions, back room or otherwise.

  42. @RM,

    Thanks. BTW, FWIW good to hear that Wolff was in attendance last night at SJ State of the City address. Quakes are getting it done in SJ; hopefully one day we’ll include the A’s as well…

  43. Sid, the ATE is weak. But so his SJ’s standing to fight it. If SJ owned all the land and had something more firm than that option agreement their case would be a lot stronger. As it is, most legal experts can’t agree on whether their standing in court is strong enough. This has nothing to do with how strong MLB’s case is nor the ATE and everything to do about whether SJ is in a place yet to say they’ve been harmed.

  44. @dmoasSid Thannk you dmoas, two things can be true at the same time. The ATE is week, but is San Jose claim the best case to fight it? I dont think so, because San Jose’s case seems week (as ML said), at the same time. I know many have said, we (San Jose) dont have to get the ATE over turned to win, we just need MLB to fill the heat, so they give in. This would be great for the A’s and what I hope for, because I just dont see SJ case its self doing the job.

  45. I guess what I should say is a lot of us are pining much of our hopes on San Jose’s lawsuit, but a more realistic way to look at it, is to hope that San Jose vs. MLB would force MLB into a settlement, and within that settlement they would be granted San Jose, because San Jose’s case on the surface of it (IMHO), is pretty weak, it may be weaker than MLB’s ATE.
    The issue is not if the ATE is outdated, or correct for today’s business environment, because it is not, the issue is San Jose case, is strong enough to challenge it, I don’t think so.
    I hope that San Jose’s case can force MLB into a settlement, which I am not too confident of, because of SJ case being as weak, as I think it is but I also hope that Fremont can miraculously work out, I hope that Coliseum City can miraculously work out, I hope there is somehow (against all, that we know) nothing wrong with Howard Terminal, so I guess I can hope that San Jose’s case can miraculously force MLB to give the A’s San Jose.
    I guess out of all the miraculously improvable hopes, that I hold San Jose’s lawsuit, is the most likely of them to actually keep the A’s in the Bay Area, wow that’s scary.

  46. @Lakeshore/Neil the MLB ATE is very outdated. Back in 1922, when Congress voted for it, their logic was that baseball was an intra-state business only – no interstate commerce was involved with MLB team revenues, that’s why the Congress at that time believed the MLB anti trust exemption was not anti-competitive and approved it.

    Now – especially, with the recent mega bucks MLB cable tv rights deals, the mlbtv.com site, etc. – MLB interstate commerce has been soaring exponentially since the early 2000’s – making the MLB ATE a farce. None of this was occuring on such a big scale even as late as 1998 – when Congress last voted to limit some of the MLB ATE’s powers. The MLB ATE was on shaky ground at that time, now it’s wobbling. The pro-giants spin job artists such as Tim Kawakami, Ray Ratto, Matier and Ross, etc. don’t know what the eff they are talking about when they discuss the MLB ATE (which is not surprising since they are not legal experts)

  47. @duffer I agree with you, I fill the ATE is on its last leg. I hope the ATE for MLB falls, since it seems to be the only way the A’s can stay in the Bay Area. I just think San Jose’s case is weak, and will not force an end to MLB’s ATE but I hope I am incorrect.

  48. @Lakeshore/Neil: MLB and Selig might be getting tired of this mess also. Their idea of the A’s playing at phone booth park temporarily could be a signal towards the giants mgt. to stop the b.s. and play ball with the A’s.

    Lately, even minor league players are sueing MLB for being underpaid – Selig must really be getting miffed with all these legal actions against MLB.

  49. @duffer, etc

    You guys are overthinking this.

    Commerce Clause jurisprudence changed greatly in the late 1930’s, and the time before that has been generally thought of as a joke since then (you can fail a Constitutional Law class by arguing that the Court was right in the 1910’s-1920’s about this sort of issue.)

    By the last time the Supreme Court looked at MLB’s ATE directly, they had no Commerce Clause basis to uphold the ATE. Instead, they, in a much-criticized opinion, talked about how wonderful baseball is and said that they shouldn’t change their mind because it was already decided that way (an argument that never, ever wins in this sort of instance in any other situation.)

    You don’t need to go looking for reasons why MLB in interstate commerce; the Court will treat it as a given – as a fact. The real issue will be whether this Court wants to be the Court to be “against baseball”, and I think that they would have no problem stripping them of the ATE.

  50. As always, so much easier for MLB to make Santa Clara County (or whole Bay Area) a shared territory, thus allowing the A’s clear, uncontested access to San Jose. The A’s finally get a new yard and becoming contributors to MLB ‘ S revenue pot, the Giants continue to make serious money in SF while at the same time receiving compensation for SC/SJ. Again, the main goal of MLB should be making the most money possible and ensuring two healthy franchises in the Bay Area. By fighting SJ they are in essence fighting against themselves. ENOUGH ALREADY!

  51. Tony: Two things at work here = Selig is terrified of the Giants and, a San Jose ballpark would be built privately. MLB owners don’t want another privately built ballpark staring them in the face when they go to their host cities looking for more taxpayer handouts.

  52. @duffer I hope your right. @Tony D. I agree 100% there could be two healthy teams, and both would be paying into the pot, because if they A’s had to build in Oakland MLB would have to keep them as a revanue receiver.

  53. @Pjk right on the money again. I think the fact that there will be no tax money from San Jose or Oakland is a bigger issue to the other owners, then the TR’s or the ATE, well perhaps not the ATE, but you get the point. The other owners are like “Ok Lew if we give you San Jose, can you get tax money out of them?”

  54. Yes, if San Jose offered to spend $300 million on the ballpark, it would make it much much harder for the Giants to hold on to their lame “territorial rights.” But the discounted-land-only deal is an easy one for MLB to dismiss.

  55. @Jeopardydd: Possibly, However, San Jose could also make their case directly to the Congress’s Commitee on Oversight and Government Reform that the MLB ATE is outdated and should be overturned. It would be difficult to argue against that – with all the whopper MLB tv deals since the early 2000’s or even the international games being scheduled – these recent facts now really make the MLB ATE look silly and obsolete.

  56. Selig is terrified of the Giants?! Oh boy…
    (I guess he’s also terrified of the A’s and the other 28 teams)

  57. I truly believe that the main stumbling block to getting approval for the A’s to move to San Jose is the so called “territorial rights” issue, and not the lack of public funding for a new ballpark. While MLB would much prefer that any new ballpark be built with at least partial public funding, I don’t see MLB getting in the way of any franchise owner from building a new facility for his team using total private resources.

  58. @ llpec,

    As RM stated a few months back, it’s all about the territorial rights “payoff.” Everything else is a sideshow, including all the theatrics coming out of Oakland.

  59. @IIpec I sure hope your right.

  60. Agree it’s all about tr- 5 years into the latest round and it’s still the same issue- lawsuit is the only way to drive towards a reasonable settlement-

  61. @GoA’s I have said, I wish San Jose did not take this action (lawsuite), but your right its been over 5 years (I think), and I am sure San Jose did everything they could befor this point. I guess I should be saying, I wish San Jose was not forced to take this action, well at this point they dont have much to lose, and it may be the only thing that keeps the A’s in the Bay Area. I hope you guys are right, but I really think the issue of tax money is going to be big for the other owners, I guess if we (A’s), get San Jose, we can cross that bridge (tax money), when we get to it.

  62. It’s absurd to believe San Jose is unwilling to discuss tax revenue for a new ballpark especially when Mayor Chuck Reed asked Bud Selig to talk to him in a private meeting over and over before filing a lawsuit. Selig simply refused to even chat. So it has nothing to do with tax revenue.

  63. The idea that MLB is delaying the ok to San Jose because of tax revenue issues sounds like a red herring tactic to deflect the fact that the giants organization (and Selig also, for siding with the giants)are being a-holes. If anything, one would think that MLB would favor privately funded stadiums. Publicly funded stadiums that turn out be busts leave taxpayers holding the bag and po’ed. Miami (possibly San Diego also) residents likely are not too pleased being stuck with the tab for ballparks which have not been successful so far.

  64. Guys and gals, Frisco is the the reason, has always been the reason why The A’s are where they are today. Until LW and Fisher act, The A’s will be going nowhere.

  65. @dufferSteven I dont think MLB cares about how the local residents, of San Diego or Miami fill as long as they (MLB), got the money to help build. Red herring?, you could be correct, but it was not a red herring in D. C. when they wanted a team, its not a red herring in Cobb Co. with the Braves. I hooe MLB paints them self into such a corner (as they have), that the idea of the A’s paying for their own ballpark in San Jose, is not a problem but, I do think some of the other owners will be un-happy about it. Steven I am sure the Mayor of San Jose is willing to discuss tax revenue, just as the Mayor of Oakland is willing to discuss tax revenue ideas, but whats not obsurd, is to believe that if any of the tax revenue ideas ever came to a public vote, which I believe in SJ is required in many situations, it would not pass.

  66. @daniel Yes Frisco is the main reason, but if San Jose came up with 250-300 mill by next month, I somehow fill the Giants TR claim would be seen by many owners (most of them in the midwest, and south), as weak, and somthing that would need to be done away with.

  67. whats the old saying “Money talks and bull sh*t walks.”

  68. @lakeshore:

    You don’t know SJ or SC so stop mentioning the money. If needed, the mayor and city people can put together a tax plan and help LW and Fisher get a new stadium built but so far LW and Fisher are just happy collecting welfare checks. In my humble opinion, LW especially Fisher don’t care much because they are rich and getting richer by collecting welfare checks. and of course, the team is winning.

    It can be done in SJ like it did in SC but first the team owners must fight for their own cause. Instead, the team owners are quietly sitting on their asses. There are many things LW and Fisher can do to help their own causes. Many people did not believe that the Niners can get a new stadium done in SC, they were wrong including many in this blog. SJ can do it when it needs to but Frisco and BS are in the way.

  69. @daniel I dont know San Jose or SC?, sure man at the moment none of us know anything. I can mention what ever I want (tax money), if ML has a problem with it, I am sure he will let me know. SJSC can get it done, dont confuse me with others, whoever thought they could not, was not me If any city in the Bay Area is going to get it done its, its San Jose. Weather you think tax money may be an issue or not, dose not mean it wont be for some owners in MLB.

  70. @daniel- do u really think the SJ lawsuit is without LW support- in fact I would bet that LW signaled the need for SJ to pursue. The gints refuse to budge on a tr payment – what else do you propose LW do?

  71. It will be interesting to see what if any public funds Angels owner Arte Moreno may be receiving from either Anaheim or any other LA area community. Angels stadium is the same age as the Coliseum, and Moreno is seeking to negotiate for either a new or significantly renovated ballpark for his team. At least the Angels won’t have to be concerned about territorial issues with the Dodgers.

  72. Correction: I meant to say “offered” instead of “receiving”.

  73. @daniel – you may right, without the SJ vs MLB lawsuit, the situation would possibly continue for sometime after Selig quits. MLB and the giants organization could stop the revenue sharing though (the giants call it “welfare checks”) by approving the A’s move to SJ, the welfare checks are MLB and the giants problem – Wolff shouldn’t take any blame for accepting them.

  74. @IIpec I was thinking the same thing, about L.A. California is California and the LA area voter is much like the Bay Area one (perhaps more so), in that they do not fill public money should go for such things. If either LA team would get a new or upgrade of an old park, they would most likley have to do it without tax payer help, that would perhaps help the A’s in San Jose. MLB needs to come to turms, with the fact that most places in California just are not going to give large sums of money.

  75. Maybe a sports exodus from California could get certain politicians to cough up some public funds to get several projects up and running. California is not a exception to public funding…the nfl, mlb amd nba need to start playing hardball and Make a real threat that they will leave if they dont get a back room deal to get a new venue…the only other alternative to no public funding is free development land courtesy of the city. Something Oakland should do for the Raiders and L.A for the Angels

  76. @Harry/ IIpec
    I think you have a good point about the question of possible tax revenue, as it relates to the building of sporting projects, but I think it would only apply to places like San Diego, Sacramento, Oakland, and possibly San Jose (it really should not apply to San Jose), because the people in L.A. and San Francisco (to a lesser extent), already know that they have the combination of population and wealth that the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, need to not only succeed, but to thrive.
    While all four major North American sports have their different finical dynamics, MLB is in a vary difficult position as it relates to a possible threat to leave a location in California, I believe the threat to leave for a location outside California would only possibly work in Oakland/SJ and San Diego, and of course the Padres have their new home so it’s a moot point concerning them, but with the Angeles looking for a new home (as IIpec was mentioning), it will be very interesting to see what happens, if or when they seek tax revenue, from whichever Southern California community the decide to build in.
    MLB is not going to move the Angles or Dodgers from Southern California, too much population and wealth, the NFL could get away with this, when it came to the Raiders and Rams to St Louis and back to Oakland, because they have a strict revenue sharing program throughout the league, MLB operates a bit differently, although they have revenue sharing, that has increased in recent years, it’s still somewhat limited, as MLB depends on its teams to work more individually to make a profit in their local areas.
    I don’t think the possible issue of a lake of tax revenue for a new ballpark for the A’s in San Jose, or Oakland, would be a problem for owners of MLB teams on the East and West coast, I think they realize that robing municipalities of tax revenue is a thing of the past for them, it’s the owners of the teams in the Midwest, and the South-Southwest, that will have the problem.
    Teams located in these places, have been getting truckloads of cash, from these municipalities for a very long time, and they do not want the gravy train to stop anytime soon.
    But before I get accused of not knowing San Jose or Santa Clara County again (ridicules), or being told to stop maintaining the possibility of tax revenue as a potential problem, I will restate, as I said earlier WE CAN CROSS THAT BRIDGE, WHEN WE GET TO IT, the most important thing is for the A’s to get past this TR’s crap of the San Francisco Giants, if they can’t or will not build in Oakland.
    It is alright (with some of you), that I said if they can’t, or will not build in Oakland, isn’t it? Jest checking…

  77. You guys all are making good points but you all are missing a key piece here.

    Wolff has financing lined up for Cisco Field in San Jose. Selig knows it full well but to all your points Selig isn’t having another privately financed park in the same market.

    The other owners if they were against Wolff, Selig would have called a vote and had this whole thing shot down. Wolff being as he is would not of fought it and probably sold the team. The BRC delay for 5 years proves Wolff’s point there is no where to build in the East Bay.

    The fact is, the other owners are all for the A’s in San Jose but Selig is the one who has to call the vote, in the meantime the other owners will sit and wait for direction….That is the status quo in MLB and has been for years despite lawsuits.

    Wolff is taking money from MLB year after year piling it in his bank account waiting for the day to throw 250M at a ballpark and having the rest financed by banks a la the 49ers in Santa Clara.

    He already has naming rights sold (probably will be more now because the original deal was for Fremont in 2006) and has 75 corporations ready in line to buy suites and club seats in San Jose.

    The fact the 49ers could finance 1.2B in Santa Clara, how can one argue the A’s cannot finance 450M in San Jose???

    Selig and MLB cannot argue in the lawsuit that because there is no public financing outside of a discounted land deal that they have full right to stop the move. In fact the courts will roll over and laugh at MLB for even suggesting such an argument.

    MLB is major trouble here and their arrogance will fail them at the end and will simply everything that Selig says is so “complicated”.

    San Jose will have their day in court this year. At that point the days of this blog being online will have its days numbered.

  78. *MLB is major trouble here and their arrogance will fail them at the end and will *simplify everything that Selig says is so “complicated”.

  79. @Sid
    Good points Sid, but I was not arguing, that MLB will site the possibility of a lack of tax revenue in their case vs. San Jose, as a reason they can’t move the team to San Jose, I look at both issues as being separate. I also think we all know (or should), that money, and sponsorships are no problem for Lew Wolf and the A’s in San Jose.
    I was simply saying it may become an issue, once the A’s can get the Giants to compromise on the TR’s pay out, or San Jose’s suite, makes the stupid TR’s a thing of the past (whichever comes first).
    But you have a really good point, in that none of the other owners are making a stink about the possibility of no tax revenue at the moment (doesn’t mean they won’t in the future), which could indicate that they realize the political climate, anywhere in California will not allow for the possibility of large taxable revenues form local communities.

  80. @all
    the judge in this Sacramento Kings arena petition. .is leading toward ruling in favor of no vote from the public to require public funding for the new Sacramento Kings downtown arena. That is a good victory for the pro sports ppl and if u can get tax money from Sacramento. ..Oakland, San Jose, L.A and San Diego have no excuses to get a deal done for their teams.

  81. @harry If the judge rules that way, then that could be good news, for those of us that want to see these projects move forward.

  82. Yup u are right. Save Oakland Sports would have no excuses. ..Alameda County needs to look at Coliseum City as a game changer and put in the public funding to make this really happen. U wont have to worry about the teams leaving if they put in their share

    • @harry & Lakeshore/Neil – The only reason Sacramento might be able to get away with no vote is because they aren’t instituting a new tax. Instead they’re moving existing parking revenues to the arena. If San Jose or Oakland could figure out a way to do that or something similar, more power to them, but both cities’ budget issues make it highly unlikely.

  83. Agree with Sid – the A’s/SJ ballpark solution maybe nearer than we think. It’s possible Selig could ok the A’s move before the state torts portion of SJ vs MLB goes to trial.

  84. Also, what’s different about Socal is there is enough of a tourism industry in Anaheim or LA that public tax dollars may not be needed to raise public funding for a new NFL and/or Angels stadium. One would believe that a municipality down there, seeking to partially fund a stadium could simply raise hotel/car rental costs to produce enough revenue. Oakland and San Jose (to a lesser extent)don’t have that luxury.
    The issue with the Angels/Anaheim is that the Angels currently enjoy very favorable terms for their lease with Anaheim – $1 a year, and all the Angels need to do is invest $165 mil. in aging Angels Stadium. Anaheim city officials are reconsidering the lease arrangment with the Angels – believing that they can possibly gain more revenue if they booted the Angels out, and put the land for other uses – expanding Disneyland or some other tourism use. It’s possible Moreno could move the Angels to LA.

  85. Moreno already talked to Tustin and possibly other cities if LA/Anaheim changes the lease or demand more money. Hello, Staples Coliseum.

  86. @duffer
    Good point, in illustrating the difference between Southern California (Anaheim/LA), and Oakland or San Jose (to a lesser extent) in Northern California, but simply because Southern California has a revenue stream to tax (tourism industry), does not mean the voting public will want to do that, and if they do they surly will want it to go to public services, before owners of MLB teams, and of course these teams don’t need a public subsidy, nor would the A’s in San Jose, it could be a matter of, if MLB lets them build without one.
    As I stated earlier the A’s situation has gotten so out of hand, and threatens to get even further out of hand if the Raiders and the City of Oakland can come to terms, and the Raiders want to build on the coliseum footprint, that the other MLB owners may have to overlook whatever fillings they have (if any), about the A’s building privately in San Jose.
    @ML/harry
    “The only reason Sacramento might be able to get away with no vote is because they aren’t instituting a new tax. Instead they’re moving existing parking revenues to the arena.”
    Re: Good try harry. I guess it is back to the drawing board, but at least you come up with ideas, thanks.

  87. FYI – the Metrodome was imploded yesterday. It was built about 16 years after the Coliseum, which isn’t going away anytime soon.

  88. @Pjk
    Yeah this would be the Twins second new ballpark, in the same time span (plus 16 years), that the A’s have had none.
    So the beat goes, and on, and on…….

  89. I’m with Sid on this. We keep on throwing out public subsidy for SJ, but a big city with the corporate support can make the financing work. If you want examples, just look across the bay at AT&T park. Privately financed, land leased to the Giants. On top of that, the MLB welfare checks JF/LW have been receiving for years now will go a long ways to pay down any debt, as well as the stadium naming rights to cisco on top of that. I don’t necessarily think that public subsidy is the issue, I still think it’s the Gnats cockblocking the A’s….

  90. @Anon Them making it work is not the point. Will the other owners let it be built in San Jose, or for that matter Oakland without tax money? It can work in San Jose (better then most places), thats not the issue. You use San Francisco and the Giants as an example, well thats the point the other owners may not want another situation like San Francisco or the Giants, because it may give other citys the idea, that they dont have to fork over cash in the future.

  91. @Neil – These are the baseball parks built/retrofitted on public money since AT&T was built:

    Marlins Park
    Target Field
    Citi Field,
    Nationals Park
    Busch Stadium
    Citizens Bank Park
    Petco Park
    Great American Ball Park
    Miller Park
    PNC Park

    Doesn’t seem to be compelling reason that AT&T would set some sort of precedent, especially after the Miami debacle. This doesn’t even count new ballparks by the Braves and Rangers in planning.

  92. @Anon I agree with you for the most part, it would seem that since most teams have a newer ballpark, that the need for tax money would not be an issue for them, but the owners think genarational, they seem to look at their teams as a family owned business, much the way (its been said), Lew Wolff looks at it, with his grandson. So it really may not matter that most of the ballparks are newer, because some owners may be looking 30-40 yeas ahead.

  93. Sorry: years ahead

  94. I only commented on the possible issue of a lack of tax revenue (as Pjk often does), in San Jose as challenge that may face the A’s in the future, if they get past the territorial rights claim (which is ridiculous), of the San Francisco Giants by negotiations (which seem remote on the Giants part), unless the San Jose lawsuit, or MLB forces the terms on the Giants.
    If the A’s can get San Jose, I would guess the questions of tax revenue as well as all other questions will more than likely fall into place, but to believe that Lew and the boys have a ton of cash, and it will be no problem for them, is missing the point.
    Lew and the boys could have enough money and sponsorships to build ten privately financed ballparks in San Jose, the question was, and is will MLB allow it? It seems to me that with MLB constantly painting themselves in a corner, as it relates to the A’s/Giants situation they may not have a choice, but it is still a relevant and valid question.
    To not consider this as a possible challenge for the A’s in San Jose, or for that matter Oakland (gasp), is a bit naïve, IMHO

  95. San jose and san diego are similar cities …big population with a good corporate surrounding in the area. Both play second fiddle to S.F and L.A respectively. Both city should have enough private support and public support to get new venues for the A’s and Chargers…

    I do look forward to if the Raiders and the mystery private investors to get the new Raider stadium agreed opon. That is when thefifireworks begin

  96. @harry Yes, fireworks indeed.

  97. San Diego does not have nearly the corporations that are in the SIlicon Valley and is more like Sacramento, from a distance perspective, than San Jose. But keep throwing bullshit against a wall if it makes you happy.

  98. @Jeffrey
    I guess I am really belaboring the point, and we have not got to the point where tax revenue would even be an issue (yet), in San Jose still got to dill with those TR’s.
    As far as San Jose, and San Diego, being fare comparisons to one another, well I don’t really see it. I would agree with Jeffrey in that San Diego (In the south) is a closer match to Sacramento (in the North), not only interims of geographically from San Francisco (as SD is from LA), but also both rely heavily on public sector jobs, although of course San Diego would place a bit ahead of Sacramento in most economic and population comparisons.
    San Francisco’s dirty little secret, is that San Jose and the surrounding Silicon Valley is the engine that drives the Bay Area economy, on top of that Oakland took the shipping business away from San Francisco years ago, San Jose probably stands (I could be wrong), as the second most economically powerfully city in California behind only L.A., most people, for whatever reason have not caught up to that change.
    Jeffrey I realize that harry can come with some *&^+#@!! stuff sometimes and I certainly don’t always agree with him, but dog man you came down with the pimp hand hard on that one.

  99. The Goodyear blimp read “Ice Cube is a pimp.”

  100. Sigh jeffery seems stressed. U mad bro? Ill take u to thr strip club in san diego and we can find some money to get the A’s a ballpark. ..deal?

  101. MLB remains locked into 1960, when San Jose was an inconsequential suburb of Frisco. The Giants want to make sure MLB keeps it that way – forever.

  102. @Pjk They sure do.

  103. An idea for ol lew wolff If he decides to build at the Coliseum parking lot. Make the baseball park face the Oakland hills and move it northwest of the 66th ave. Off 880 northbound. It would ruin the view of the hills from the freeway but it would be away from the coliseum however very close to Oracle…

  104. @Muppet

    Wow..Save Oakland Sports have some explain ing to do…or maybe they dont. Oakland citizens are not dumb. I wish Mayor Quan/Blackwell amd Kaplan will just be honest with us on Coliseum City. ..maybe after elections…but I have to admit…if Lew Wolff,Mark Davis and Joe Lacob really are threatening leaving Oakland. .lets call their bluff…if not then..well #stayinoakland….

  105. They had no comment, so what? It could mean something, or it could mean nothing at all.
    One thing is for sure if they had a comment and it was positive, some would claim “they are just trying to paint a rosy picture”
    No harm, no foul get your work done, and if the investors, Oakland, and the Raiders have a plan let’s see it, it’s only forever overdue.

  106. A’s announce new domain name for their web site athletics.com, from oaklandathletics.com.
    The A’s say it will be easier for those surfing? I am sure when (if), they get to San Jose the A’s will not mind inconveniencing, those that are surfing, coming soon sanjoseathletics.com.

  107. sjathletics.com would be easier IMHO 😉

  108. @Tony D.
    I here you Tony, sjathletics.com would be easier, but the A’s could have gone with oakathletics.com, that would have been a nice compromise, not as long and it would have still made it more convenient on that log suffering minority group of surfers?, easier for suffers sure, right…

  109. Until lew wolff goes to al davis mode ..then he should not be changing the website name and pissing off Oakland fans…

  110. So we have Wolff saying he might able to “do something” in Oakland on the current spot and then shortening the A’s URL to athletics.com from oaklandatheltics.com. He also was at the San Jose State of the City address and had a letter to the editor praising Chuck Reed published in the Mercury News the other day. One step in Oakland’s direction and two steps away from Oakland. What’s going on here? Who knows?

  111. @pjk I sure as hell dont.

  112. @ nathan,
    For now…

  113. Check out the statement from Larry Baer. While most considered the A’s playing at AT&T, part of a financial package to help the Giants for losing San Jose/Santa Clara County, vary few of us (outside of me), though the Giants may lend the A’s a hand if the conclusion was that they build in Oakland/Alameda County.
    I am not saying it couldn’t be San Jose, or won’t be San Jose (MLB may still try to force the Giants hand), but if I where the San Francisco Giants it would make a lot more sense to help the A’s upon the condition that they build in Alameda/Contra Costa Counties.
    “While Baer maintained his stance that the Giants’ territorial rights to Santa Clara County are non-negotiable, he said would continue to support a new stadium for the A’s within Alameda or Contra Costa counties.”
    And if that meant the A’s needed a temporary home …
    “There’s precedent,” said Baer, pointing out that the Yankees played at Shea Stadium while Yankee Stadium was being renovated in the 1970s. “(The A’s) have got to come up with a long-term plan. Once that’s ironed out, then maybe you take a step back and say, ‘Is there something we can do to be helpful?’
    “Obviously (owners Lew Wolff and John Fisher) have to come up with their plan and go from there.”

  114. And Baer of course knows the probably insurmountable obstacles to building in Oakland. The Giants support the A’s getting a new stadium where the Giants know the A’s are unlikely to ever get one. What guy. Let’s have San Jose’s lawsuit go forward.

  115. So Baer basically said we know BRC didn’t find any suitable sites but the TR is non- negotiatable- so if they can’t find anything in their own territory I guess they should move- ultimate objective by gints- amazing that bs has done nothing to settle this- for any who question the lawsuit baers’ quotes should help u understand that there is no other way to freeSJ-

  116. “San Jose is a better place due to Chuck Reed. He leaves the city with a platform for continued success.” – Lew Wolff, in his Letter to the Editor the other day. You can draw your own conclusions on what Wolff thinks of the lawsuit. Selig’s cowardice and the Giants’ greed and unwillingness to help a partner franchise leave San Jose’s lawsuit (as GoAs said) as the only way. Infuriating what the Giants are doing, basically saying, “We couldn’t care less about San Jose’s economic development plans. It’s ours and the A’s can’t have it.”

  117. Actually fellas Baer would support the A’s to build in their current territory a.k.a the parking lot of the Coliseum. ..which is Oakland owned..Lew and Fisher have enough money to fund a nice ballpark next to Oracle Arena..im starting to give up on this San Jose dream…so should u tony d and pjk

  118. Harry: Maybe the A’s should build at the current site. But if they can’t make it work financially, given the $0.00 being offered by the city and county, then Wolff ought to go before the MLB owners and tell them he’ll need permanent revenue-sharing and a 9-figure grant (not a loan) to help pay for construction. Failing that, I’d love to see Wolff sign a 20-year lease extension at the Coliseum and be done with it. “Notice to opposing players: Please bring rain boots on your trip to the Oakland Coliseum since we have been having some, uh, spillage issues in the locker room.”

  119. For the record, whether the T-Rights to SCCo are “negotiable” or not isn’t up to Larry Baer. Also, Baer has no authority over MLB or the committee recommendations for the Bay Area. Just a little reality for some of you…

  120. It’s good to hear that the Giants are now publicly stating that they are now open to allowing the A’s to play temporarily at AT&T Park, while the A’s new ballpark will be under construction. Larry Baer has called it the “neighborly thing to do”. It’s starting to appear as if the compensation package to the Giants is being put together, as a prerequisite for MLB’s approval to allow the A’s to move to San Jose. Despite the fact that the Giants are still publicly adamant about giving up their so called “territorial rights” to Santa Clara County, I believe the behind the scenes story is that MLB is putting pressure on the Giants to work out a compensation settlement with the A’s. I don’t believe that MLB would want to risk putting their sacred ATE in jeopardy, for the sake of protecting the selfish interests of any one individual franchise.

  121. @pjk

    Funny how those sewage problems doesn’t happen during Raider games….Hhmmm..maybe Lew Wolff is using too much toilet paper or wet wipes when he using the bathroom… and maybe lew wolff could get a grant to build near the Coliseum it would be the least expensive ballpark to build in the area…and who knows good ol Wolffy could be the loved again owner since Hass…

  122. @llpec,

    Hope your right! In theory, the Giants don’t really have to give up their so called “territorial rights” to allow the A’s to move to San Jose; THEY CAN SHARE THOSE RIGHTS! Look at how succesfull financially and value-wise the Yankees and Dodgers are (for example) sharing their territories with other teams. Sharing is caring…

  123. @Harry,

    Damn your hilarious!…

  124. @GoA’s
    “So Baer basically said we know BRC didn’t find any suitable sites but the TR is non- negotiatable- so if they can’t find anything in their own territory I guess they should move- ultimate objective by gints”
    I agree with you, that the Giants ultimate objective is to see the A’s out of the Bay Area, but we also know if the A’s have to be in the Bay Area, the Giants would prefer them confined to Alameda/Contra Costa Counties.
    Perhaps MLB is waiting to see just how suitable Howard Terminal can become (or Coliseum City), it has been said that MLB likes the site (still not sure if that’s true), and while we don’t even know if it can be built on, it could explain the long wait.
    Of course there are a few things that could explain the long wait, the Giants negotiating with the A’s on the TR’s, although Bears statements would suggest that is not it, or MLB could just be stalling long enough for Portland or San Antonio to get its act together. (5-10 years)
    I know a lot of people don’t prefer Oakland and I totally understand why, San Jose is by far the best place for the A’s from an economic standpoint (in or out of the Bay Area), and there are a few folks that simply are San Jose rooters, or both like Tony D. (and that’s cool)
    But I am not so sure we should assume that there are no suitable sites in the A’s current territory, simply because the BRC committee or MLB have not announced one. I am sure everyone will say “but it’s been five years, if they had a suitable site they would know”, the operative word being suitable, perhaps they are waiting on that suitable site, that explanation is as plausible as its taking so long because the A’s and Giants need to come to financial terms on the TR’s
    I agree with (pjk), that if the A’s are required to build in AC/CC, that Wolff (if he maintains with ownership in that case), should demand that the team continue to have the right to receive revenue sharing from the league, and perhaps assistance to build.

  125. Harry: The Raiders and their opponent have brand new locker rooms in the 1995 section of the stadium, no? Unlike the baseball teams who have to congregate in the vintage-1966 portion of the stadium. Just another example of Oakland neglecting its MLB team….

  126. Lakeshore: I heard from a reliable source that the BRC can’t find any suitable sites. Jean Quan has said whoever says there are no suitable sites has “blinders on.” Obviously, she has heard from people in the knew that the BRC can’t find any suitable sites. And, the 5 years of no progress tells us, indeed, there are are no suitable sites.

  127. seriously, I thought Dellums was terrible, now Quan , LOL

  128. @Tony D.
    You’re correct everything is negotiable, and it would be great if it was in San Jose (certainly the best place for it), but I guess we can all agree it would be grate in Oakland as well.
    @IIpec
    “It’s good to hear that the Giants are now publicly stating that they are now open to allowing the A’s to play temporarily at AT&T Park, while the A’s new ballpark will be under construction. Larry Baer has called it the “neighborly thing to do”. It’s starting to appear as if the compensation package to the Giants is being put together, as a prerequisite for MLB’s approval to allow the A’s to move to San Jose.”
    It sound like it’s more like the compensation package to the A’s to build in their own territory.
    @pjk
    I here you, but like I said the operable word is “suitable sites”, something that was not suitable 2-4 years ago, may become suitable in 2-3 more
    I don’t know guys I try to be reasonable, I guess I just a fool but, I do believe the solution can actually be in Oakland.

  129. Baer is being disingenuous. He knows full well MLB has spent 5 years failing to find a solution in the A’s current territory. So he “generously” offers to put the A’s up at ATT Park while the A’s build a new ballpark in their current territory, where no one has been able to develop a ballpark going back 20 years. Kind of like somebody telling me they’ll be happy to provide some furniture for a $5 million mansion in Woodside for me as soon as I buy the mansion. An empty gesture…The Giants know there’s no public money in the East Bay and no bank in its right mind is going to underwrite a privately built ballpark in Oakland. Baer’s gesture is meaningless but it sounds really good to low-information folks.

  130. re: THEY CAN SHARE THOSE RIGHTS!

    …Let’s look 30 years down the road here. The Giants have two major cities in their territory. No other franchise does. When ATT Park starts falling apart in a few decades, territorial rights gives the Giants the option to move the ballpark to San Jose…but not if the A’s are already there.

  131. Anyway, unless the A’s or Raiders were building a new ballpark exactly in the same spot as the current stadium, why would the A’s need to play at ATT Park? More emptiness from Baer. The Giants want the A’s either out of the Bay Area or confined to their current pit. If the Giants were serious about helping their business partner and MLB, they would do what Haas did and concede the Santa Clara territory, helping the A’s move further away from the Giants than where they are now. But the current situation, a 6-county territory, including the lucrative San Mateo, Marin, Frisco and Santa Clara counties, is so lopsided in favor of the Giants they have no incentive to negotiate anything. So they don’t.

  132. Soory: I should have said “it sounds like” and “I guess I am the fool”, I hope you guys got my point.

  133. @Tony D., When we are referring to the term “territorial rights” on this blog we are alluding to the splitting up of the Bay Area MLB market into two distinct, separate, and unshared territories. In reality, we know this separation is unrealistic to enforce.. Both the A’s and Giants broadcast and market into each others respective territories. However, the only area where this territorial exclusivity can be enforced is to deny one team from having their respective ballpark venue physically located in the other team’s respective designated territory. This division of the Bay Area market was done to assure the Giants that they maintain a competitive advantage over the A’s. In effect, by restricting the ability of the A’s to potentially compete with the Giants in the more lucrative areas of the Bay Area market.

  134. interesting that the Raiders were a no show at the SOS event that they were expected to present at….A’s were there…makes me wonder if Raiders are done with CC already—-article said Raiders gave no explanation as to why they cancelled—is LW willing to step in on CC provided he gets to control the land/projects….hummm–maybe that’s why Colony Capital is mum on whether or not they still have interest in the project—

  135. @Go A’s
    Raiders fans have been supporting this losing team for 12 years. ..Oakland media should call Mark Davis bluff…but nobody in the east bay media is brave enough

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