Baer says he’s willing to let the A’s share AT&T with the Giants – with a catch

Giants President/CEO Larry Baer slipped a rather shocking note into the festivities surrounding the spring training opener, when he said that he’d be willing to allow the A’s to play temporarily at AT&T Park.

Of course, there are conditions. From Merc scribe Alex Pavlovic’s article:

“They’ve got to come up with a long-term plan. Once that’s arrived at, then maybe you’ll take a step back and say, ‘Is there something we can do to be helpful?’ As a neighborly thing.

“Obviously, they’ve got to come up with what their plan is and we’ll go from there.”

The A’s have a long-term plan, but that’s in San Jose, the city that Baer is loathe to give up. That means that Baer is perfectly willing to be neighborly, as long as the A’s stay in Oakland.

If you want to read between the lines, you can consider this a memo to Oakland ballpark backers to get off their asses and get something done. He’s willing to be neighborly, up to a point. He’s willing to appear magnanimous in his willingness to share the jewel at China Basin, up to a point. As long as there’s some motion towards a ballpark in Oakland, it helps Baer’s cause.

Strategically, it’s easy to see why Baer is going this route. Now that the Giants have practically paid off their ballpark, they need another rationale for preserving the split territorial rights regime currently in place. They can talk about protecting their fan base in the South Bay, but frankly, the issue is Oakland. Simply put, can a ballpark be built in Oakland? If it can – and it pencils out for the A’s financially – then the current T-rights scheme can remain in place, whether Lew Wolff and John Fisher are the owners or someone else takes their place. If Oakland can’t be done, which Wolff has been arguing, the East Bay itself is done, and MLB will be forced to consider an alternative method of drawing up territories. Immediately that means the South Bay is the only other place in the Bay Area, with Wolff preferring that as opposed to leaving altogether, which Baer has hinted in the past he’d be okay with.

Baer’s little nudge should provide motivation for Oakland boosters, though Baer can’t make it easier to build in Oakland. Nor is it likely that the Giants will help Oakland out monetarily. News coming out of Raiders camp can’t be encouraging, as Raiders owner Mark Davis indicates that nothing is happening with Coliseum City, at least as he sees it. Davis characterized Coliseum City as perhaps Oakland’s last chance to keep the Raiders. By NFL rules, Davis has to make a good faith effort to keep the team in its current market, and Davis has certainly done that so far. If Coliseum City breaks down, the Raiders could leave for LA as early as a year from now, and Roger Goodell can’t say much about it. Sure, the NFL holds the purse strings, but by that point they’ll know full well the challenges of building a stadium in Oakland as much as LA. Like the A’s situation, if it doesn’t pencil out in Oakland, there may not be an East Bay alternative. Already he’s backing away from the Concord Naval Weapons Station and Dublin’s Camp Parks, which makes me wonder if he’s only feigning interest in those sites in order to appear thorough.

Davis also referred to the impact of the Oakland mayoral race, indicating that developers wouldn’t get off the fence until after the election. That runs counter to the idea that the various mayoral candidates could make Coliseum City progress by stumping for it along the way. The project has its own schedule and milestones, with the next big one, the Market Data Analysis, due in March. By spring we’re supposed to find out how feasible Coliseum City is, and by summer teams are supposed to be signed on to be partners – at least according to Mayor Jean Quan. Movement will come from making the numbers work, not magic. Davis is not the only person to wonder what exactly is happening with Coliseum City. We’re going through these phases with CC, where some small amount of progress happens, followed by a huge informational vacuum, then a sobering dose of reality, and then another small step forward. Eventually that cycle will be replaced by real discussions, actual reports, and true political and financial support (or a lack of it).

Going back to the Giants and Baer, I suppose that since he’s offering his place as a 1-2 year airbnb stint for the A’s, we can start talking about what that would look like. That’s for another day. For now, it makes the most sense to focus on Oakland. In the near term, that’s where the only future for the Raiders and A’s lies.

153 thoughts on “Baer says he’s willing to let the A’s share AT&T with the Giants – with a catch

  1. Oakland can’t be “done” for an A’s ballpark! Why is that still being discussed here!? As for Baer, @#$%! him and the Giants! And whatever happened to the gag order? All of a sudden we’re back to 2012 and the “rights aren’t negotiable”? Would love to hear Wolff’s take on this. In the end it’s simple: It’s not up to Baer and the @#$%! Giants!

  2. No progress on the Raiders stadium? I thought Quan assured us there would be a deal by this summer? What’s most likely happening is there is no progress because public money is needed and Oakland can’t offer it. Same wiith an A’s stadium

  3. Fine work Ml.
    As a Raider fan I call mark Davis bluff that he will leave Oakland. ..

  4. Evidently Baer is now the MLB Commissioner. So much for Selig’s gag order also.

  5. A’s can share ballpark in Vegas while Railey Park in Sactown us renovated …

  6. Marky can leave Oakland but NFL and Roger might not let him. SC here he comes.

  7. One has to read between the lines to figure out what Larry Baer is actually saying. First, Baer states that the Giants would welcome the A’s at AT&T Park on a short-term temporary basis. However, the only definitive condition specifically stated by the Giants to allow this temporary arrangement would be that the A’s must have an approved finalized new ballpark deal in place. It should be noted that Baer did not specifically say where or where not the new ballpark location is to be. While he did reiterate that the Giants would not want for the A’s to move to San Jose, he did not specifically use that scenario as a disqualification to the ballpark sharing plan. I think the Giants realize that if MLB approves the move of the A’s to San Jose, the Giants would not be in a position within MLB to reject a short-term ballpark sharing arrangement with the A’s. This would be especially true if the A’s are forced to vacate the Coliseum, and essentially thus become homeless. Lastly, I do believe that allowing the A’s as temporary tenants at AT&T Park for a few seasons will be part of the compensation package deal to the Giants for giving up their territorial exclusivity claims. The Bay Area would rightfully return to being one fully shared market/territory for both the A’s and Giants to prosper.

  8. Baer definitively said “in their territory.”

  9. Complete speculation on my part but… The ONLY way the A’s play at AT&T Park is as part of a compensation package for a new ballpark in San Jose. The other scenario that I could see unfolding is one in which the Raiders leave the Bay Area (despite what Mark Davis says, Santa Clara and Dublin are part of the Bay Area) and the A’s become the only tenant at the Coliseum and they stay put/return to the development rights as funding mechanism Lew Wolff originally proposed in 2005. How bizzare would that be? Bizzare, but plausible.

  10. @Jeffrey, The territory issue becomes moot if MLB changes the Bay Area market to one shared territory.

  11. I simply cannot believe the ignorance if posters on this site … A’s playing at AT&T part of comp pkg??? How silly.

    I think Sactodavey is more correct …

  12. After reading the article again, it’s actually not as bad as I first thought. Yes, Baer did say they would do whatever they can to help the A’s get a new ballpark “in their territory,” but that’s it. No where is it stated what the Giants would do (to help or otherwise) if the A’s couldn’t get a ballpark done “in their own territory.” And we all know it’s not going to happen in Oakland. The Giants may or may not help the A’s when MLB gives its blessing to San Jose, and you know what, it doesn’t really matter now does it (i.e. we dont’need your @#$%! help you bow-tie wearing @#$%!…)

  13. rat face can pull his lower lip over his head and swallow.

  14. Glenn D.? Speaking of ignorance…

  15. Hey Glenn, go piss up a rope. I said it was complete speculation. Raley Field can’t be “renovated” into an MLB park. It would need to be rebuilt. You can search the Internet to find out why or you can just spout illogical dreck all day. Fine by me me either way.
    Illpec and Tony, you guys are adding your own spin. Larry Baer isn’t couching his statement in any way. When he says “in their territory” he means in CoCo or Alameda County. MLB has had 4 years of study time to change the territory and they haven’t done so. It ain’t happening in a unilateral manner.

  16. What Larry Baer’s comments do is make CC viable for the A’s even after the Raiders sign a deal with Oakland, making the A’s homeless. Now the A’s can just play at AT&T and wait as their stadium is built at Howard Terminal or a subsidy of CC. Baer anticipated the future deal with Oakland and the Raiders and is offering a solution to the “homeless” issue if they stay and build in Oakland.

  17. @ Jeffrey,

    It’s only “plausible” if Wolff feels the vast amounts of land in East Oakland is a good buy. Really, if the Raiders are having issues, that says a lot about the possible debacle that is developing the Coliseum parking lots. This isn’t acres of acres of land potentially being offered in Silicon Valley or even Fremont; it’s East Oakland. I know that sounds harsh, but it’s reality (see construction boom happening in SF, Peninsula and SV/SJ with almost nothing happening in East Bay).

  18. @ Jeffrey,
    Please re read my comment at 945. I know that’s what rat face meant re “their territory.” What I’m saying is nothing was mentioned re the Giants acting “neighborly” if the A’s couldn’t get it done in their territory. Baer may have his own personal wishes re San Jose and the A’s building in Oakland, but so what! Again, he’s not God and above all in this drama. I also don’t believe the committee has the authority to change the territorial landscape of the Bay Area; just to make a recommendation to MLB and the commissioner. Based on quotes from Wolff last year, I think we know what the “BRC” recommended..

  19. @Jeffry, I agree with Tony D. Wolff will not build a new ballpark at the Coliseum site, if he thought he could not make a go of it there. MLB has yet to decide on whether to approve the A’s move to San Jose. Even Selig has stated that the A’s desperately need a new ballpark, and the status quo is not the answer. With Selig leaving office at the end of the year, and the ongoing lawsuits possibly moving at a faster pace, the situation may be just right for MLB to finally allow a vote to approve the A’s move to San Jose.

  20. I feel that this is a preemptive strike by lb basically saying…in the event that the raiders do build at CC displacing the A’s they can share AT&T until they finish their ballpark also at CC- it continues to ignore the fact that CC may not make economic sense for the A’s but is useful in refuting the A’s claim that they have no where else to go- SJ lawsuit is the only way to end this stalemate because the gints will never willingly concede tr and we all know that bs doesn’t have the balls to make a decision

  21. You know, the more I read this the more clearer it gets. Damn this is easy! If the A’s build in Oakland then the Giants will happily share AT&T Park with the A’s during the construction years. If the A’s don’t build in Oakland and instead are awarded San Jose, the Giants won’t act “neighborly” or allow the A’s to share AT&T Park during the construction years. And you know what, that’s OK…BOOM!

  22. @ Glenn D – I’m always amused when you crawl out of your Saddam Hussein hole in the ground and spew your inane comments on this blog. You remind me of a cigar butt lying in the gutter which some poor homeless guy picks up, lights, takes a couple of puffs and then throws back down in the gutter. Keep up the good work.

  23. Perhaps Glen D really is Glenn Dickey – Dickey’s comments are equally lame.

  24. Wow the sfgate commenters are some anti sports idiots…listen I understand Mark Davis is not the brightest and the Raiders should put a winning team on the field before stadium demands but Oakland would still be tight on cash. Again my advice to mayor quan
    ..kick the A’s out the Coliseum. ..give the Coliseum land I mean everything to Raiders as long as they willing to stay…should make up for lack of funding. With A’s homeless this would force MLB to act on the issue and forceSF Giants to share TR rights in Santa Clara

  25. More BS to read and follow over the next year in this never ending saga.

  26. Mike2 hits the nail on the head with ferocity!
    Tony, you know I love you.

  27. re: “They’ve got to come up with a long-term plan. Once that’s arrived at, then maybe you’ll take a step back and say, ‘Is there something we can do to be helpful?’ As a neighborly thing.

    “Obviously, they’ve got to come up with what their plan is and we’ll go from there.”

    …Hopefully, the judges on the 9th Circuit won’t take kindly to the mega-arrogance of the billionaire Giants owners. Baer knows MLB has spent 5 years looking for an East Bay ballpark plan and can’t find one.

  28. @Jeffrey,

    The feeling is mutual my friend. know it gets harder to believe with each passing day, but still looking forward to all of us having that first round of cold ones at Cisco Field.

    Kind of on topic, but as a Raiders fan and the prospects for a new stadium in Oakland; the “news” coming from Mark Davis is depressing as hell.

  29. In actuality, the Giants are acting in an unprecedented adversarial way to the interests of their only co-market neighbor, the A’s. I am ever more confident that this blatant arrogance will show itself up in the form of its ugly head(MLB) at the soon upcoming court proceedings.

  30. re: “They brought in Colony Capital and based on that, I decided to go ahead and do a one-year extension with them. We will play in the Coliseum next year. But there’s been no progress.”

    …Anybody detect some degree of buyer’s remorse here? He keeps the team in Oakland but still no new stadium deal and no progress on one. At what point does Mark Davis decide it’s simply not doable? This should all serve as a lesson for those who think Wolff needs to “work with the City of Oakland.” Davis has been doing just that and has made no progress. Just more stalling, stalling, stalling.

  31. And what’s the “or else” from Davis? Where’s he going to go?

  32. @IIpec
    I am starting to think a few of us are seeing what we want to see, and simply reading into Larry Bares statements, what we would like to have happen. (Including myself at times), this can easily happen, when we are all so passionate about our team, and their future. With all due respect your statement,
    “It should be noted that Baer did not specifically say where or where not the new ballpark location is to be. While he did reiterate that the Giants would not want for the A’s to move to San Jose, he did not specifically use that scenario as a disqualification to the ballpark sharing plan.”
    We could get petty and go back a forth (as Jeffrey pointed out), but Baer definitively said “in their territory.” As you then followed up by saying, “The territory issue becomes moot if MLB changes the Bay Area market to one shared territory” You are correct, but to this point they haven’t, and there is a good chance they won’t., if it really can’t be done in Oakland or the A’s defined territory AA/CC, well I guess we all need to hope San Jose’s lewisite, which I personally believe and ML said the other day is weak, can somehow payoff because if not it may be out of the Bay Area.
    @Tony D.
    I love you like a brother, but “Oakland can’t be “done” for an A’s ballpark! Why is that still being discussed here!?” Again with all due respect, whether it can be done in Oakland or not is a matter of opinion, and we know that’s Lew Wolff opinion, but what we don’t know is whether it’s a fact or something that’s being said because he would rather build in the much more lucrative South Bay (which I don’t blame him), it certainly can be done in San Jose, and should be, but your starting to sound a bit like those crazy Oakland- Only people, you bring up from time to time, by saying what’s can be done and what cant.
    Love what you said; I think you hit the nail on the head.
    “What Larry Baer’s comments do is make CC viable for the A’s even after the Raiders sign a deal with Oakland, making the A’s homeless. Now the A’s can just play at AT&T and wait as their stadium is built at Howard Terminal or a subsidy of CC. Baer anticipated the future deal with Oakland and the Raiders and is offering a solution to the “homeless” issue if they stay and build in Oakland.”
    Could not agree more the whole thing gets tiring, if Oakland (AA/CC), is truly not doable, and San Jose’s lewisite is not successful, we will see, hear, and smell, a lot more BS not only next year, but for several years to come , all the way to Portland or San Antonio.
    Davis’s comments are not reassuring, but I think in the end he and Oakland will work it out, if it can be worked out.

  33. @LSN- regarding a ballpark in Oakland not being viable- it’s not only LW’s belief it also seems to be MLB’s belief if their focus over past 5 years has resulted in no tangible sites in Oakland with a lot of energy focused on settling the TR issue- LW challenged mlb/BRC to prove him wrong- hasn’t happened

  34. I don’t see how this is anything other than good news. For years the Giants declined assistance to the A’s whether they build in Oakland or San Jose. Now, they’re simply offering assistance if they build in Oakland. The Giants’ attitude towards the A’s in San Jose hasn’t changed, so at very least the chances of keeping the A’s in the Bay Area marginally improved.

  35. We’ve had two experienced developers, Schott and Wolff, both say it can’t be done in Oakland, with the BRC not finding anything these guys missed. If MLB really really wants the A’s to stay in Oakland, then it is probably going to have to accept another ballpark in a drab industrial area – the Coliseum parking lot – and make substantial financial concessions to the A’s (continued revenue-sharing, 9-figure grants) to do so. Unless Wolff is able to revive the so-called North of the Coliseum plan by displacing Colony Capital and building on the existing site. Who knows if that can happen?

  36. It’s Thursday. You know what that means kiddies . . . Bar talk

    I love how some Oakland A’s fans hate the city they play in. You buy the jerseys and hats, but hate the city. You wake up ever morning in life hating a city where your favorite baseball team plays. Even to the point where you write unsubstantiated, hypothetical, ignorant comments that you have no idea about, because you are not in private meetings or discussions. And you do it every day.

    I like the fact that you are miserable. It entertains me, a guilty pleasure if you might call it that. I hope this thing drags out longer, so you can continue to root for a team in a city you hate.

    I love the Oakland A’s and could never imagine rooting for a team but hating the city. Root for a different team if you don’t like the city. I don’t see what the big deal is.

    Why should I get to enjoy seeing my team and city achieve and not you?

    Don’t get down on yourselves, it will be o.k. in the end. Where else in the country is their a segment of fans that root for a team but hate the city?

  37. re: love how some Oakland A’s fans hate the city they play in. You buy the jerseys and hats, but hate the city

    …Complete bunch of nonsense. It’s not really worth any further comment.

  38. I see it as no news- it’s really an opportunity for the gints to try and shine their image a little bit as more exposure is brought to them trying to force the A’s out of the Bay Area. Baer is well aware there is no long term plan for Oakland- he has access to BRC report outs- so in essence he is offering nothing

  39. Ivan,

    As always, you’re full of shit! No one here “hates” Oakland. Stop making crap up and try to open your eyes to the reality of the situation (heck! Just look how “promising” it is for the team that wants to stay in The O…)

  40. If we “hate” Oakland so much, why did we select the A’s as our team in the first place? I could be like so many East Bay folks and be a Giants fan. I can name people in Fremont, San Ramon, Newark – all huge Giants fans…It would be a lot easier than dealing with all the stadium business that’s been going on for years and years and years. Nobody forced me to support an Oakland team for 20+ years. I made the choice myself (even though I live in the Giants’ so-called Santa Clara County “territory”)

  41. First question to Quan : Where is the beef ?

    before discussing any stadium location, Quan must be forced to answer the question.

  42. @Lakeshore/Neil, You are too quick to dismiss the possibility of a favorable ruling from the courts. Yes, we can all agree at this point that the likeliest and quickest way for the A’s to get their new Bay Area ballpark built on the site of their own choosing will most probably come out of a court decision. It’s obvious, and for some unknown reason, that the Giants do have a disproportionate amount of influence within the MLB Lodge. That said, a favorable court ruling for San Jose will most certainly be a game changer. I don’t see the A’s playing in their current venue much longer, nor do I see the A’s becoming long-term tenants of the Giants at AT&T Park. Sadly, I do see Wolff and Fisher eventually selling the A’s to out of town interests, if they do not get their new Bay Area ballpark built on the site of their own choosing. At this point, I see the Courts as the only way to get a reasonable outcome for the A’s.

  43. I here you load and clear,
    “regarding a ballpark in Oakland not being viable- it’s not only LW’s belief it also seems to be MLB’s belief if their focus over past 5 years has resulted in no tangible sites in Oakland with a lot of energy focused on settling the TR issue- LW challenged mlb/BRC to prove him wrong- hasn’t happened”
    but as I suggested yesterday to Pjk, five years of Wolff’s belief and the BRC in action would indicate that there is no viable sites in Oakland, vary plausible but the BRC nor MLB have moved on that information toward San Jose, as a matter of fact we know they turned down Wolff (San Jose), last June this of course does not mean they may indorse a future request for Dirdon or another site in San Jose, but it is also plausible that the MLB/BRC, could be waiting for viable site to open up, in Oakland (gasp for some).
    As I said yesterday, just because a site was not viable 2-4 years ago, does not mean it won’t be viable 3-4-5 years from the moment.
    Most of the time the five years is brought up, its brought up in the context of “Well the A’s and Giants have to come to turns on a composition for San Jose” (well it sounds like Larry, blew that out of the water), or “There still some lose ends that Wolff has to tie up with San Jose, for MLB to be happy”, and that may be true again that’s plausible (although the league just told him no in June)
    So two plausible explanations, for the five years have taken a bit of a blow, not that either is imposable but it’s a bit odd that, one other totally plausible outcome that continues to get over looked, is MLB may be waiting for Oakland to actually get its site HT, CC viable, it’s the only alternative that has not taken a hit recently, but I realize some commenters would not be willing to consider that…

  44. re:Sadly, I do see Wolff and Fisher eventually selling the A’s to out of town interests, if they do not get their new Bay Area ballpark built on the site of their own choosing.

    …I see that, too. As I and others have said – it’s only a matter of time before another city far away (Portland, San Antonio, Vegas, Charlotte, NC, etc) gets its act together and comes up with a knock’em dead ballpark plan to lure the A’s. But Oakland-only A’s fans would then have the satisfaction that San Jose didn’t get the team….I don’t see the Clorox group getting the team unless it commits in writing and establishes an ironclad financing plan for a new Oakland ballpark. No more investigate, investigate, investigate for 7 more years only to find out Wolff, Schott and the BRC were right about the lack of sites, financing in Oakland. And then have the team end up in Portland, anyway.

  45. @IIpec
    You said that to me last week, and as I said then I am not dismissive of the San Jose lawsuit, I do believe its weak and will not win but it does not have to win to be affective, it just has to get MLB to the bargaining table, and I hope it does if it truly cant working Oakland.
    What I think, is several of the comments about Oakland and or its efforts (untestable to a point), are dismissive, again as I said last week.

  46. @IIpec
    You could be correct about them getting a site of their choosing, I have said all along (with Pjk), they may end up out of state.

  47. @ pjk,

    Funny how you could see Wolff/Fisher selling to outside interests (and relocating out of the Bay), yet can’t see them revisiting Fremont as a plan B for San Jose. FWIW, Fremont way more realistic than your A’s out of the Bay scenario.

  48. I ran across a Forbes article a few weeks ago and it broke down the RSN that each MLB team owns. If the A’s leave the Bay Area I don’t see them moving to Portland, San Antonio, or Montreal. The Mariners recently bought a majority share of ROOT Sports. I don’t they would be willing to share TV revenue with a new/relocated team in Portland. Texas’ RSN are controlled by the Astros and Rangers. Are both clubs willing to split Texas/Louisiana with a 3rd team? Montreal has it’s own issues with language, fan support, and stadium costs so I don’t see that as a viable option unless an owner pays for a baseball stadium on his own, plus the Bluejays will have something to say. It would make sense for baseball to move a AL team there someday, but MLB does not make sense and owners are only getting more greedier by the minute with the increased TV revenue.

    Relocation or expansion will be determined by RSNs and not what city is available. The only city or region I see open for a team to move to is Charlotte. If Mexico was not so f*cked up with cartels I would say move a team to Monterrey.

    I am just going to enjoy the A’s wherever I see them play this year. Chicago, Baltimore, Boston, and Oakland. I do hope this nightmare comes to a end and a stadium can be built in SJ. See you guys in October when the A’s finally get over the hump.

  49. Tony: Fremont is done, as we’ve said. The west-of-880 site is gone, from what I believe; the plot south of NUMMI is being developed and the NIMBYs won’t allow a ballpark near the new Warm Springs BART station – they have the will and probably the $$ to fight it for years and years and years. So what’s the point of revisiting it? Try to outlast the NIMBYs in court for another decade? A fork was stuck in Fremont long ago.

    Mike2: There is another option if Oakland continues to be impossible, San Jose off-limits and other cities not workable – suspend franchise operations (contraction) of the A’s and Rays. At some point, MLB may throw its hands in the air and decide new stadiums are just not doable for these two teams and continued revenue-sharing is not worth it, either. (Is TB on revenue-sharing? I presume so). Expand rosters of the remaining teams to take on the displaced A’s and Rays players.

  50. @Mike2
    Agree with you the A’s really don’t have anywhere to go, at least for the foreseeable future (10 years), so can they get San Jose? sure but its somewhat of a longshot.
    So since its, improbable, not doable, to difficult, imposable, can’t be accomplished in Oakland under any circumstances, what so ever (for some), I guess the A’s will continue to decay in the coliseum for 10 years, and then we will eventually lose the team.

  51. @llpec- I agree the lawsuit is the only way at this point and I do not think it is weak. Precedence is on the side of San Jose (Piazza in 1993 won in the 9th Circuit arguing Franchise relocation is not part of the ATE and won big).

    San Jose has drawings of the ballpark, a certified EIR, a land option deal with the A’s, and a economic feasibility study all done. It is not like they are going to court with a water pistol, they have heavy artillery on their side plus the 5 year delay with the BRC? MLB will have to explain themselves big time on this.

    Oakland is not feasible not because of the BRC the past 5 years but since the Uptown site was sold to developers by Jerry Brown in the 1990s. Therefore Oakland has been out of the mix for almost 20 years not 5 years.

    That was the only feasible site in Oakland and the HOK study in 2001 shows that clearly and the BRC knows it full well. Howard Terminal was the “least feasible”.

    Therefore Fremont was the last hope for the East Bay to retain the A’s.

    Mark Davis is an idiot; how is he going to say Santa Clara and Dublin are not part of the SF Bay Area? What a moron and I hope he rots in the Coliseum for life or he is forced to share with the 49ers “outside the SF Bay Area”. That dude is on one to say something like that.

    He has no plan B, LA is not happening anytime soon and even if he wanted to move to LA the NFL is going shove a 2nd team down his throat just like they did to his Dad at Hollywood Park in the 1990s. I now know for a fact Mark Davis is not a smart guy. His Dad was light years beyond him.

  52. @Tim
    Im sure some ppl are wondering where Mark Davis is going to go…I beileve behind the scenes that Davis knows enough ppl in L.A with power to clear any hurdle for the Raiders to move to L.A. I just want peace and I want Oakland pols to finally br honest …if Coliseum City falls as much as I like mayor Quan..she might have to go

  53. @pjk

    I don’t see contraction as an option. You would have the players union fighting tooth and nail about the potential loss of jobs. (Remember the Twins in the early 2000’s?)MLB and minor league rosters would be affected even though less teams would improve the quality of play on some of the lower tier teams. Now it would make sense if the players union got involved about the deterioration of the Coliseum. Players and teams refusing to play in Oakland if more crap floods the locker rooms, that could help force MLB’s hand in making a decision.

  54. @Sid
    well thats not fair…listen even if or when Raiders move to L.A any shared stadium will be at least a shared NFL stadium…example lets say its Raiders/Rams it will be a stadium that will have Raiders/Rams history decor…with pictures of Marcus Allen to Marshall Faulkner everywhere. They will honor Al Davis with a fixture of some sort including Kronke…so it will be designed clearly for the Raiders that is why Mark Davis could leave and actually have “somewhere to go”

  55. Mike2: Yes, high-paying starting jobs would be lost. But the other teams’ rosters could be expanded to take on the displaced players. What has the Players Union done so far about Oakland not being much of an option for free agents (the A’s don’t have a lot of money,their ballpark is the league’s worst, the crowds sparse), about the sewage spills in the locker rooms and about MLB’s inability to get it done as far as a new A’s stadium? Little to nothing, as far as I can tell. The other team owners would have more $$ to spend on players once they are no longer subsidizing the A’s to play in front of 8,000 people in a football stadium every night.

  56. The Raiders aren’t going anywhere Mark Davis is talking out his ass, where is he gonna go, he supposedly only has 300 mil to go towards a stadium, as of 2011 there were speculation that to relocate to L.A it could be 275 mil. He has no pull to go anywhere outside of Oakland, unless he sells. frustration is understandable but he has no cards to play and the fact is the NFL doesn’t really want the raiders back in L.A and how would they draw even in this day when they keep loosing. L.A fans will be fed up with the raiders going back to L.A just as Oakland fans were when they came back. And lets not mention the price to build in L.A, Mark has no money, hence reason why he would sell portion to build in Oakland cause its the cheapest spot and he can still have controlling interest.

  57. I am pretty sure DAVIS can get what he wants anywhere, if he sells a controlling interest in the team. There are plenty of people with a lot of money that could build a stadium. They just don’t own a team. I just don’t believe Davis would sell though.

  58. @jordan you are right and that’s what i’m saying, he will never sell controlling interest, just like his dad, (only minority interest’s were ever sold) that’s why they have so little money, bad management old stadium no marketing, (they both live off the raiders name and past greatness to market)and also this is the Davis’s family only income I read somewhere pretty much all the teams are of a second source of income and like a hobby to these owners besides the Pack and Raiders, and we know the pack are publicly owned. So with him not selling majority interest there is no place to go. I also believe the more so sense of getting a deal done for him is do to his mom’s health and if he has no stadium he will have to sell when she passes.

  59. @ pjk,

    Contraction and relocation over building in Fremont? Really? Re your ideas, stick a fork in all of them, will yah! Who are you to speak so confidently about Fremont being “dead” while throwing out these outrageous scenarios of relocation/Contraction?! Completely ridiculous!

    BTW, no way in hell does Sharks ownership (who are tight with Wolff) agree to play out doors at AT&T Park if Baer continues to be a complete ass hole towards the A’s.

  60. @ RM,

    Any word out of the A’s organization on Baer’s comments? And what happened to the gag order? IMHO time for Wolff/Fisher to start getting Al Davis with Selig/the league re San Jose.

  61. Davis’s strategy is simple. He can quietly play off both Oakland and LA if he speaks to them in private, doesn’t negotiate through the media. Only he knows the two markets’ cards. Then he can choose which situation leverages his stake in the Raiders the least. It’s the smart way to go with his limited resources.

    @Tony D – No one has ever talked about the consequences for violating Bud’s so-called gag order. That’s because there probably aren’t any. It’s a gentlemen’s agreement at best.

  62. @TD–LW/JF are going AD on mlb—its the SJ lawsuit–which you continue to question–maybe now you can see its the only way anything will ever change here—

  63. with CC sounding as if its headed the way of Victory Court it must be just about time for Oakland to declare they have a new site—HT anyone?

  64. If I were MLB, I would not be too happy sticking my neck out and defending the Giants’ selfish behavior in the expedited case calendar schedule of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I believe that behind the scenes, the Giants may be starting to feel the pressure from MLB and are now publicly trying to soften their stance with a more neighborly approach to the A’s with their ongoing difficulties in getting a new ballpark. Hopefully, this is the first sign that a territorial settlement is in the works between the Giants and A’s, so that the A’s will rightfully be able to build their new ballpark at the Bay Area site of their own choosing.

  65. re: Contraction and relocation over building in Fremont?

    …Please go over the suitable sites left in Fremont. There aren’t any – unless Wolff wants to go to court with the NIMBYs for a few years.

  66. re: BTW, no way in hell does Sharks ownership (who are tight with Wolff) agree to play out doors at AT&T Park if Baer continues to be a complete ass hole towards the A’s.

    …I don’t think it would matter much – the Sharks and Giants have a lot of mutual fans. At the last Sharks game I was at, the Sharks put an old Giants player on the Jumbotron. But a more ideal – and likely – place for an outdoor Sharks game would be Levi’s Stadium. The existing fan base only has to travel 10 minutes from the existing rink instead of 45 miles. The Sharks could probably even run shuttle buses between the arena and the 49ers stadium.

  67. Our season tickets arrived today. Sweet! You guys get yours yet? See you at opening night!

  68. Good for you Freddy! I know of a few SJ coworkers/family members who’ve also gotten their season tix as well. Hopefully there are more season tix holders than last year; the more the merrier (of course).

    @RM, there are probably no consequences to breaking the gag order, but Baer’s utter arrogance and willingness to be a complete asshole can’t look good to the Lodge (Selig, Reinsdorff, etc.). It completely amazes that (at least publicly) Baer is completely unwilling to work in a partnership with Wolff/A’s re San Jose. Of course, at the end of the day it’s irrelevant what Baer thinks or wants re the Bay Area, but still, it’s amazing. You’d probably get more cooperation amongst kindegarteners than the Giants front office.

    @pjk, no need to re to your “thoughts” about this saga any longer. You’ve slowly drifted into the realm of ridiculousness…

    FWIW, I believe former SJ Mayor (and close friend of Wolff) Tom McEnery is a Sharks owner. YEAH RIGHT if TMac agrees to have Los Tiburones play outdoors at Asshole Park!

  69. Tony: What’s ridiculous is thinking Wolff is going to re-visit Fremont, which he gave up on many years ago. Since you won’t answer my question, I presume you concur that there are no sites left in Fremont except the one that will set off the NIMBYs.

  70. re: It completely amazes that (at least publicly) Baer is completely unwilling to work in a partnership with Wolff/A’s re San Jose.

    …It’s already been established the Giants are only out for themselves. No skin off their backs if the A’s are stuck at the Coliseum or have to leave the Bay Area. The real problem is the lack of awareness/lack of concern that South Bay Giants fans have over what their team is doing to San Jose – shutting it out of MLB. As long as these people keep buying Giants tickets, the Giants have absolutely nothing to be concerned about.

  71. @GoA’s,

    You may be right about the lawsuit and Wolff covertly going Al Davis on the league. Still, it didn’t have to come down to legal action IMHO. Baer and the Giants should have been professional from the get go and worked in a partnership with the A’s; putting the best interest of the league above all else. But instead they chose to act like selfish children and fight the A’s re San Jose. In the end I’m confident Baer will be put his proper place by MLB and the A’s will find the way to SJ. No more nonsense about contraction or relocating out of the Bay Area; imagine that!

  72. @RM, thanks for that update. Still, don’t see current Sharks ownership stabbing San Jose and Wolff in the back by playing outdoors in SF (thus rewarding the Rat face asshole).

  73. re: In the end I’m confident Baer will be put his proper place by MLB and the A’s will find the way to SJ.

    …MLB has had 5 years to put Baer, Newcomb, Charles Johnson in their place and has not done so. Why would they do it now? I remember a couple years ago the A’s situation was brought up at an owners meeting in January. Baer was there, Newcomb, probably A’s reps too. I thought things sounded hopeful. What action was taken regarding the A’s? None at all. To get the Giants owners to buy the team and build a stadium in Frisco, they were handed Santa Clara County, unfortunately with Haas’s consent. Now MLB is living with that concession – one team playing in a palace and raking in Big Big $$ and another team stuck in a sewage-spewing football stadium and surviving on league welfare.

  74. @Tony D- Sharks are on record for saying AT&T is a better spot than Levi’s because of weather…cooler in SF than down in SC–bottom line if you can promote outdoor hockey by the bay you do it—its business

  75. The Sharks even considering playing at ATT Park – 45 miles away from their current rink – makes no sense. If the Sharks want to reinforce the Giants’ bogus claim to San Jose, then they will play their outdoor game in Frisco. I hope it doesn’t happen.

  76. Sharks may not be as open to the A’s coming into the area as some would like to think–their market has just been tapped to a certain degree by the ‘9ers…EQ are building a new stadium and if the A’s were to build one also—I nearly cancelled my season tix to Sharks several years ago when it looked like they were dicking around with the A’s–was convinced by their management that they would not block the A’s move—but in reality I dont think that they would be overly excited by the prospect of more competition–so partnering with the gints…they may be more like 2 peas in a pod than they are advesaries

  77. FWIW, even the Coliseum would be a better spot than AT&T Park. Easier to get to from San Jose and it’s a square-shaped football stadium. But yes, I don’t think the Sharks are ever going to be cheerleaders for an MLB team looking to move right next door.

  78. I’ll bet the NHL chooses Frisco hands-down for the Sharks outdoor game, just so the league, for one day anyway, can get the prestige that comes with the Frisco name. A’s stadium battle? The NHL Could Not Care Less. 45-mile drive for the Sharks fan base? Tough luck. In an ideal world for the NHL, the Sharks would have been playing in Frisco for the past 20 years. Only San Jose taking the initiative to build a world-class arena while Frisco was not interested enabled San Jose to snag the Sharks.

  79. @GoA’s – The Sharks already bullied the City into putting up money for their garage north of the arena. If they push again with the A’s in context, they’ll do it to get improvements for the arena that are due when the lease expires in 2017-18. That’s the business.

    @pjk/Tony D – If the NHL wants the game in SF, they’ll get it in SF. San Jose’s civic pride is immaterial.

  80. There was an outdoor NHL game at Dodger Stadium in nearly 70 degree heat…AND IT WORKED! Hopefully the Sharks say yes to Levi’s Stadium and give the Giants a huge middle finger…

  81. @pjk/Tony D – If the NHL wants the game in SF, they’ll get it in SF. San Jose’s civic pride is immaterial.

    …I couldn’t agree more, ML. Also immaterial is how inconvenient this will be for the South Bay season ticketholder base.

  82. If your a Sharks season ticket holder and you don’t like the notion of the Sharks playing in the home of the organization that is keeping professional baseball out of SJ then send them an email telling them so. John Tortora, COO of the Sharks–btw–article today in Merc says they have already been in discussion with the gints-here is what i sent below to

    Mr. Tortora

    As a Sharks season ticket holder for many years (Section xxx Row xx-Seats xx)I am concerned about your decision to consider AT&T as a potential site for a future outdoor hockey classic game. As you are aware the SF Giants baseball team has been engaged for many years in keeping MLB out of San Jose. This aggression on their part should not be supported by the San Jose Sharks organization by agreeing to play a significant event in their SF building.

    Your decision to even consider partnering with them for this event when Levi Stadium is close to the Sharks home makes no sense to me or others that I have discussed this situation with and makes me question my continued support for the Sharks as a season ticket holder. While I recognize that you might feel threatened by expanding competition in the SJ area with the ’49ers and Earthquakes building new stadiums, you run the risk of losing support for your organization by either directly or indirectly being associated with the organization that is keeping professional baseball out of San Jose.

    I am asking that you re-consider your decision to use AT&T unless the SF Giants organization releases its TR claim against Santa Clara County and the city of San Jose. You could have a significant positive impact on continuing to raise awareness to this issue by publically renouncing your interest in AT&T while the Giants organization continues to try and hold TR rights over SJ. Happy to discuss this issue with you further if you wish to contact me–

  83. Well, if the Sharks due indeed play an outdoor game in Frisco then we should all encourage a boycott of the match; ie educate Sharks fans on what the Giants are trying to ban in SJ (MLB), the greed of the Giants organization, etc. That’s one Sharks game I would neither watch or attend; hopefully many others will do the same.

    Back on topic: still haven’t heard or read anything out of the A’s organization re Baer’s gibberish on sharing AT&T Park and the A’s staying in “their” territory. Perhaps Wolff and company aren’t going to waste their time with the nonsense and know exactly how this will play out..

  84. @ Go A’s,
    Awesome brah!

  85. AT&T is much easier to get to from San Jose than the Coliseum. Way less traffic on 280N than 880N and Caltrain runs from next to the Shark Tank to next to AT&T.

  86. Though Levi’s makes the most sense to me from an outdoor stadium standpoint.

  87. re: if your a Sharks season ticket holder and you don’t like the notion of the Sharks playing in the home of the organization that is keeping professional baseball out of SJ then send them an email telling them so

    …Already did this. Do I think it will make a difference? Nope. See what ML said – if the NHL wants a game in Frisco, it will have a game in Frisco. San Jose’s baseball battle and fan convenience will be disregarded.

  88. Just remember the 1997 MTV All Star Game Party – held in downtown Frisco even though “San Jose Live” was a rocking nightclub at the San Jose Retail Pavilion at the time. San Jose? zzzz. Frisco, baby…

  89. 1997 MTV All Star Game Party should read 1997 MTV NHL All Star Game Party – game held in San Jose, party held in Frisco.

  90. @pjk–may not make a difference but better than just bitching about it–in the Sharks defense they contacted me directly the last time I expressed concern to them–they are a quality run franchise—not only should send to the Sharks but to Mayor Reed (since city owns Sharks home) as well as Silicon Valley Leadership group etc–have some fun with it–see if you can make a difference!

  91. BTW, re this development: Ballpark Digest claims that the city of Oakland has come out with two viable proposals for a new A’s ballpark, thus meeting Selig’s criteria set forth for the A’s. God there are some stupid people in this world…

  92. @pjk – You mean the South Bay ticket base that normally commutes 25 minutes to anywhere and has a convenient direct train connection to AT&T Park? Spare me.

  93. ML: Yes, it’s the same South Bay ticket base that usually takes 10-15 minutes to get to a Sharks game and 10-15 minutes to get back home. The same fan base that can find parking for Sharks games within walking distance for about $7. Two Sharks fans going to AT&T Park via Caltrain will cost about $36 for tickets + $5 for CalTrain parking. What a bargain…Wasn’t the whole point of the arena to bring world-class entertainment to the South Bay so residents wouldn’t have to travel to Frisco or Oakland for it?

    • @pjk – Did the arena make San Jose a world-class city on par with San Francisco? No it did not. It made for a nice place for entertaining the locals. The Outdoor Classic games aren’t designed for convenience. They’re event games, meant to approach the level of spectacle as All Star Games or the Super Bowl, but on a regional basis. Convenience? That’s way down the priority list.

  94. Larry Baer makes me want to puke. My hope is that the day the wrecking ball falls on Candlestick, some type of structural problem is discovered at ATT, thus preventing the Giants from playing there. Then Baer will know what it feels like to have his ass stuck between a rock and O.Co.

  95. ML: once again I agree with everything you said. Fan convenience will take a back seat to broadcasting from Frisco for a day.

  96. @ML

    Have the A’s looked into Concord or putter San Ramon for a newballpark…great location and close to the east bay top money. Could rescue some sf giants fans and easily convert back to A’s fans…do u think ol Wolffy would do it

    • @harry – Wolff has said he’s looked throughout the territory. Not sure how much he had sought out Concord, San Ramon, or Dublin for that matter.

  97. Is this Harry spitting knowledge? What’s the world coming to! Perhaps the A’s/Wolff could consider Camp Parks in Tri-Valley for a new yard and development. Equa-distant from Silicon Valley/SJ and the greater East Bay, located on 580/BART and easily accessible from 680, excellent weather and close to all that Tri-Valley, Blackhawk money. Prefer SJ or Fremont, but perhaps Camp Parks should be considered for an A’s ballpark as well.

  98. @ harry Camp Parks? I do think the A’s would be more welcome then the Raiders are, at that locatuon.

  99. Well there you have it! This thread had way run its course. Done here; until the next one…

  100. Meant “has” not “had” above. Damn thumbs.

  101. The $20,000 question is: how is Oakland going to raise $300 mil. (or more likely) towards the Raiders CC stadium. Once Oakland city officials can answer that – the Raiders have a new stadium, if not – it could be a repeat of the LA Raiders (which the Raiders organization possibly, Raiders fans, the NFL brass, and some football fans from LA seek to avoid)

  102. S.F is not setting a good example with their difficulty of using public funding to get new venues…it makes the other cities say “well if s.f gets private funding arenas so should we..problem is to the Oakland, Sac and San Jose type cities. ..ur not S.F or L.A …now congrats to the Kings of getting their public/private funded arena…but how will the Raider, A’S, Chargers and Warriors get theirs???

  103. @harry- SJ/SV has no problem with privately developed venues like the ‘9ers new stadium and the Earthquakes new stadium- it’s Oak town and sacromwhere that isn’t possible

  104. @freddy. Got my season tickets (24 game pack) today too. Mostly in sec. 123-125, vs. 122-123 last year, even though I ordered earlier. What that tells me is they sold more 81-game plans this year. Looking forward to some baseball!

  105. Rodger on that. We do the 24 packs and noticed the same thing, instead of prime 317 we’ve got more 16’s and 18’s. We can deal with it.

    No offense to those in better seats, folks in other stadiums, or those who merely argue/covet ballparks, but the 3rd deck is arguably the best value and the best fans in all of professional sports.

    Plus you’re watching the Oakland Athletics.

  106. @GoA’s Yeah man, I think we all know (or should), that it can be done in SJSV without public money, the question is, was, and will be going forward will MLB let them build there with no public money. Thats if or when, they get past the TR’s crap.

  107. Yes, it’s Oakland’s expectation that it, too, deserves a privately funded ballpark like Frisco got that leads us to where we are.

  108. @pjk, harry, GoA’s
    Harry brings up a good point, and one that pjk has brought up many times before. Tax revenue (or the lack thereof), in this situation may be the real wild card.
    We can talk about the 49ers privately financed (mostly), stadium in Santa Clara but the NFL does not operate like MLB, the NFL actually helps their teams build new stadiums, thereby lessening the need for as much tax revenue from local communities, although football stadiums generally cost more to build, they still offer that help.
    MLB on the other hand does not offer such a program to its teams, again MLB operate in such a way that each team is required to work individually in their market to have economic success, so it would seem reasonable if MLB would require Lew Wolff to build in Oakland (AC/CC), they would also help him with a financial package to get that done, but of course they won’t do that.
    Even with the example of the earthquake’s, we are talking about a venue that cost much less money, so it’s easier to be done privately, not that it’s a problem for Lew and John to do it privately, just pointing out that it’s not quite the same undertaking.
    Lew has said he would build it privately in San Jose, so that’s what San Jose (voting population) is expecting, in Oakland (voting population), they have not been told this, but, they just like San Jose, not only can’t afford it, but would not vote for it even if they had the money. (Mount Davis still fresh in their minds)
    Both San Jose (in their case it’s somewhat reasonable), and Oakland expect to get a free ballpark, and there is no indication that’s going to happen in either case. We need look no further then Washington D.C. to see how much they spent to get the Nat’s, or the large sums of money that Cobb County is coming up with to get the Braves to move to the suburbs.
    It was brought up the other day that most teams have a new ballpark, so the other owners may not be to upset about the idea of the A’s paying for their own park in San Jose (without tax revenue included), the thinking being, that since most of them would not have to build anytime soon, in their area, local municipalities would not look at the A’s situation, and say “Why should we pay, they did not”, but as I said then the owners (most of them), look at their teams generationally, and expect to keep them in their family, much the way it’s been described about Lew Wolff and his grandson, so they are looking 30-40-50 years down the road, as to what their teams may need.
    We often talk about the TR’s and its generally considered the worst thing the Giants could have ever done to the A’s, but in the end, the worst thing the Giants ever could have done to the A’s, may have been to privately build their own ballpark in San Francisco, thereby giving San Jose and even more so Oakland, the idea that MLB would let them do the same thing.

  109. re: MLB on the other hand does not offer such a program to its teams, again MLB operate in such a way that each team is required to work individually in their market to have economic success,

    …the A’s do not have economic success in their market. They require a perpetual multimillion-dollar subsidy.

  110. @harry- Levi’s was built for two teams and all signs are digital and can be flipped when need be. The stadium has two home locker rooms and so much square footage a Raiders store and history section can easily be built out. This place is twice the size of Candlestick and the Coliseum.

    Mark Davis is in la la land and that is why Amy Trask (former CEO) re-signed. She wanted to share with the 49ers in Santa Clara as she saw that as the most logical way to get a stadium done….Smart woman, Al loved her.

    Of course, Mark Davis is his spoiled rich kid wisdom decided against it and thought two 1B dollar stadiums in the same market made perfect sense. He thinks the 49ers left the “SF Bay Area”, he sounds ignorant when he says that. Santa Clara is called the “South Bay” smart guy.

    If he goes to LA, he will be the same situation if he shared with the 49ers. Except he has to make a significant capital investment in a stadium he knows he cannot fund with seat licenses or suites because his fan base does not have the demographics to support that model like the 49ers have. He would need a 2nd team to help him fund it. How he does not see this is mind boggling.

    His logic about the 49ers having all their history and statues is crap. He can easily with a little bit of money change that on game days as the stadium was designed for a 2nd team.

    Davis really has pigeonholed himself in Oakland and he acts like he has options but he doesn’t. This guy would rather play in a dump instead of a brand new jewel 35 miles away he could have had on the cheap partnering with the 49ers.

    Wow, what a buffoon! It goes to show when someone doesn’t earn their money and it is handed to him how off their logic can be.

    I think the Raiders by default will stay at the Coliseum as is for years to come.

  111. On the surface, I don’t really believe that MLB is concerned if the A’s, or any other MLB franchise, would be willing to fully privately finance their own new ballpark. However, MLB knows that the Giants would expect to be sufficiently compensated by the A’s as the price for giving up their territorial claims to the South Bay. That said, MLB is likely concerned that adding both financial burdens on the A’s would make it much more difficult and risky for themselves, even with a ballpark at a more desirable venue such as downtown San Jose. It is for this reason that I believe MLB is expecting that the A’s get some public funding support for the proposed San Jose ballpark project. However, where MLB is making a big mistake is that they are placing the onus on the wrong party. Knowing the current political mood in California, the issue of public funding for private sports enterprises is a non-starter. Instead, MLB should be pushing for more compromise on the Giants to ease up on their compensation demands, especially when there is no such evidence that they would be appreciably negatively impacted by an A’s move to San Jose. Until MLB begins to apply the hammer on the Giants, the status quo regarding the A’s getting a new ballpark will likely continue.

  112. I received a reply from the Sharks VP John Tortora. Todl him that we will cancel season tix (6 in center ice) if they choose to play in Frisco. Told him that Mr Plattner, the owner, must be told of our objection. The Sharks are a class org, unlike the POS in Frisco.

  113. re: Knowing the current political mood in California, the issue of public funding for private sports enterprises is a non-starter.

    …Yes, MLB has two choices: Accept that California is loathe to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on sports stadiums used by millionaires on teams owned by billionaires and build privately, or be prepared to move franchises out of California so it can teach California a lesson. San Jose’s lawsuit tells us all we need to know about the idea of San Jose helping to pay for a ballpark: It won’t happen. Same deal in Oakland.

  114. @pjk
    Re: “the A’s do not have economic success in their market. They require a perpetual multimillion-dollar subsidy.”
    I hear what you’re saying, and one might think that fact alone would make MLB slap the SF Giants ridicules claim down and give the A’s San Jose, but on the other hand revenue sharing and the way it works in baseball is a function of the way MLB choses to operate.
    Oakland/East Bay (especially with the rest of the Bay Area around it), remains a a better market than Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Milwaukee, San Diego, Minnesota, Cincinnati, and many others so in less MLB choses to have 4-6 teams in each league, the fact that the A’s are on the revenue sharing program (in less MLB give them San Jose), really is not that big of a deal, they are going to be on the program even if they move to Portland or San Antonio, which are also lesser markets than Oakland/East Bay. ..
    Could not have agreed with you more, concerning the Raiders and Mark Davis’s situation.
    We differ a little on the how each one of us views the importance of tax revenue, concerning the A’s efforts to get a new ballpark whether it be Oakland, San Jose, Dublin/Pleasanton, Fremont, or Timbuktu, but I hear what you saying and I believe that the reason Lew Wolff was turned down in June 2013, had more to do with his team’s potential debt load then the Giants TR’s, when you consider the payout to the Giants, along with the fact that the A’s would be paying for their own park no matter how much land is available for them to develop in and or around the Dirdon site it would not be enough to make up the difference.
    No matter how much weight you want to put on the question of tax revenue in general, it becomes a whole lot heaver when considering those factors, in getting San Jose.
    Last comment, I am right with you MLB has to make a choice.

  115. @llpec
    The Sacramento Kings defeated the anti sports crowd and are getting public funding for the Downtown Kings Arena…yes its coming from parking revenue but if that falls short that is coming from city of Sacramento..did they have to buy a judge are two…sure…but at least there was a crowd strong and willing enough to demand that they do there part to help fund a arena for the Kings and not loose them to Seattle. ………Oakland and San Jose are not S.F both cities can rally for private help but even then there needs to be some contribution from the city tax payers to fill in the rest….I beileve there is a pro sports crowd in the bay area…but we are either too lazy or scared of the anti sports crowd to get it done…this is why Oakland fans Better hope that Mark Davis or Lew Wolff doesn’t leave….because then it will be end for bay area sports as far as S.F/Oak area is concerned. The South bay would be the only place …and that counts double for Warriors who in my opinion should use San Jose as a threat to both Oakland and S.F

  116. re: Oakland/East Bay (especially with the rest of the Bay Area around it), remains a a better market than Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Milwaukee, San Diego, Minnesota, Cincinnati, and many others so in less MLB choses to have 4-6 teams in each league,

    …it is not a better market than those when we factor in there is a competitor 8 miles away that already has hogged all the corporate sponsorships from that market. None of those other martkets you mentioned has a competitor franchise within 150 miles

  117. @pjk
    Of course none of those makes have a competitor 8 miles away, because none of those markets have the population or wealth of the Bay Area, and regardless of where those markets are, they all qualify for the MLB revenues sharing program (I believe), so back to the point, in less MLB wants to have 4-6 teams in each of the National and American league, the A’s being on revenue sharing really is not that big of a deal,(if it was MLB would have got off its ass, and given them San Jose by now), and counties to be an overstated fact. (IMHO)
    As to your point about a competitor hogging up corporate sponsorships, well pjk, we are just not going to agree on this one (we have been over it before), because I fill the A’s have done a poor job marketing themselves over the years, and while that is not the whole problem, or even half of it, it a problem and it’s not just Wollfs problem, because before he came along the A’s where a poorly marketed team, being totally outclassed by the San Francisco Giants.
    I won’t go so far as to say Lew perposfaly undertakes his team, so he may bolster his claim that he needs to move to San Jose, but how much would anyone like to bet, if Lew gets San Jose all of a sudden he will market the hell out of this team.

  118. Sorry should have said “undermarkets his team”

  119. re:, because I fill the A’s have done a poor job marketing themselves over the years,

    …How so? Maybe they need to run TV, newspaper and billboard ad campaigns, hold lots of great giveaways, have free parking nights, have $2 ticket sections and have great uniforms and colors. Oh wait – they’re already doing all this. Please tell me what the A’s need to do to better market the team under the current circumstances. I keep hearing this “poor marketing” nonsense as a way to blame the A’s for the predicament they are stuck in, the predicament imposed upon them by MLB, the city of Oakland and the Giants.

  120. The Niners and Raiders playing in the same stadium though? That’s not the Raider’s tradition (or the Niners also) Also, Wolff may also know that Oakland has a larger fanbase than many of the MLB teams with smaller fanbases – or potential future MLB team sites, that’s possibly why the A’s are interested in the CC site. Quan has made an effort to keep the A’s – that may be why the A’s are now talking with Oakland, whereas the previous Oakland mayors’ administrations did squat for the A’s.

  121. @pjk You make good points my man, and like I said in the past, you and I agree on 95% of this stuff, so I am cool with you.

  122. @daniel- I also received a reply from the Sharks- while they said they were looking at all options he didn’t address the issue of being in discussions with SJ number 1 enemy- the gints. I also sent notes to Purdy and SJ Mayor and Council- I want a outdoor classic for the Sharks but not if it means partnering with the gints-

  123. @duffer—are you serious–can you show me what JQ has done to try to keep the A’s besides throwing a new site out every 6 months or so to keep the delay going…

  124. @pjk
    The A’s dont market themselves very well. It doesn’t help the SF Giants are in the way …but Lew needs more corporate partners and clever ad campaigns and tv commercials. Advertise more out of Reddick, Crisp and Donaldson…those things help

  125. @Go A’s – that’s much more than Dellums or Jerry Brown did for the A’s, perhaps that was the previous reason why the A’s werent’ negotiating with Oakland – because of a lack of cooperation from Oakland city officials.

  126. City of Sac is funding a new arena that means there is money in California for new venues.

    • @harry – There’s a huge difference between the Central Valley or inland parts of California and the coastal parts, where real estate is more expensive and citizens aren’t so desperate to pony up.

  127. @ duffer,

    The only thing the A’s are negotiating with Oakland is a possible lease extension at the Coli; that’s it! Saying they “might” have an interest in building at the Coli is only to get said extension, not because they’re seriously considering building a new ballpark in Oakland.

    BTW, interesting that Wolff had no comment today on Baer’s quotes (per Biz Journal). ESPN also stated that the Giants would share AT&T Park if the A’s “chose” not to relocate to San Jose. What?! It’s the A’s choice? 😉
    (OK, now I’m done here)

  128. @harry This is one of the tihings pjk and I, have disagreed on, and I get what he is sayng its not all the A’s falt, but they dont market well at all. You know whats up, if you go to a Target store in Union City, Fremont, Concord, it really does not matter any mall in the East Bay, they will (most of the time), have more Giants gear then A’s gear in the store, what the hell is that about, its one thing if your in the City, or even the South Bay to a point, but the Giants out market the A’s in ACCC? and dont get me started about the Giants marketing there history, up till the last few years the A’s had 4 WS in the Bay Area and the Giants had 0, yet the Giants always found a way to stick their history in your face.

  129. @GoA’sduffer JQ did not have to do much, to do more then RD or JB. All she had to do was get behind the idea of the A’s staying in Oakland, BTW she ran vs a guy, who threw up his hands and said about the A’s situation “There out of here”, that was the guy that Lew Wolff gave 25,000 (I think was the amount), toward his run to be the mayor of Oakland, and some people wonder why some of the Oakland-Only people are as crazy as they are. It may be hard to believe but Oakland could be doing worse then SQ.

  130. @Tony D – the A’s averaged over 23K per game in ’13 – at the Coliseum. If they played at a new, baseball-only park (at the CC site) it would not be a stretch to assume they could have averaged at least 30K per game (in Oakland, and very respectable)Also the Coli does not have a history of violent incidents that the ‘Stick did (or now phonebooth park) does – the Coli has proven to be a safer site then either the stick or “asshole park.” If the giants continue their losing ways – which is a strong possibility, and the A’s – if they were playing at a new ballpark at the CC site – would soon overtake the giants (as the A’s have done in the past) and dominate the giants again. That’s why Baer is not likely sincere in his desire to help the A’s with a new ballpark in Oakland – the giants fear a new A’s stadium in either SJ or Oakland – the giants real objective is to drive the A’s out of town.

  131. @Tony D. If the A’s dont build in Oakland, I know you dont think there is a snowballs chance in hell of that, but if they dont, I hope they build in San Jose, if for no other reason, then your health if they dont.

  132. @duffer stop it, you are being to reasonable you cant do that.

  133. Ideally, The Giants would love to at least have a temporary tenant for a minimum of eighty-one additional event dates each year that the A’s could provide. In addition to bringing in rent income, the doubling of event dates at AT&T Park should bring in significant additional revenues from parking, concessions, and ballpark signage. As of right now, it still remains uncertain and unclear whether the A’s would be forced to vacate the Coliseum in two years. In the event that MLB does ultimately give approval for the A’s to move to San Jose, the A’s could still have all their temporary ballpark options available to them during ballpark construction. If I were the Giants, I would not want to be playing hardball with the A’s. As long as MLB still holds all the cards on the A’s ballpark future, the Giants really don’t have any leverage. If the Giants are thinking otherwise, they are making a very big mistake.

  134. re: it really does not matter any mall in the East Bay, they will (most of the time), have more Giants gear then A’s gear in the store, w

    …it’s about there being more demand for Giants gear than A’s gear. It’s very simple. The A’s are not responsible for what these stock on their shelves. Go

  135. @ML
    Would Howard Terminal be in play if Oakland or a generous investors (Clorox or whoever) were willing to pony up all of the clean up costs needed to make H.T ready…would ol Wolffy be interested

  136. @harry – Maybe, but that’s a huge hurdle to get over first. Oakland has to prove it can get HT ready before MLB and the A’s can make a decision on it.

  137. @pjk The Giants have more demand for there product, in the OaklandEast Bay area then the A’s? I love you man, but your making my point for me, bad marketing.

  138. Thanks ml. Howard Terminal would be the only way to save Oakland and baseball for the A’s. .. it helps Oakland with a extra attraction for Downtown and helps the A’s get a new facility better market and hopefully more MLB free agents would come to Oakland. .it also gives the Raiders all the Coliseum land to develop themselves

  139. @harry I here you, it would be nice.

  140. Lakeshore: Please explain how the A’s “bad marketing” is the reason for their being less popular in the East Bay than the Giants. The Giants have a glamorous park (the A’s play in a pit), the Giants have the media’s affection (the A’s do not), etc etc. Once again, you’re trying to blame the A’s for a situation imposed upon them. Reminds me of how people blame diabetics for having diabetes – blame the afflicted for their affliction.

  141. When the A’s were winning back-to-back-to-back World Series in the 1970s, they drew poorly then, too. I’ve seen that also blamed on the organization. Lack of radio coverage, blah blah blah. Funny thing, I lived in New Jersey in those days and knew all about the Swingin’ A’S 3,000 miles away. People don’t want to accept that the A’s are in a market that has never proven to be ideal for Major League Baseball. It just hasn’t.

  142. The giants propaganda myths continue. The A’s outdrew the giants 17 out of the 32 years when the Giants played at Candlestick – that definitely is not dominating. When the giants were ready to quit SF and move to Tampa – it was minor news in the south bay. Perhaps giants fans in SF were concerned, it was not big news in San Jose though (Although Tim Kawakami, Ratto, etc. would like you to believe otherwise) When the giants were preparing the moving vans to Tampa – the A’s were third in MLB attendance with nearly 3 mil. fans in ’92., and the giants were a very average, boring team with attendance problems – that’s why Lurie sold the team to the Tampa Bay goup.

  143. @LSN- I agree with PJK the A’s have done all they can do with marketing. Their ballpark is such a dump compared to AT&T Park it is not a even contest. What hurts more is they are so close to one another even if the A’s win and Giants lose more fans will still go to AT&T because it is “sexy” and eye appealing. That is just California fans for you in a nutshell.

    Look at the 2006 season as a prime example, A’s 93-69, Giants 75-86, A’s- 26th in attendance, Giants- 7th in attendance.

    The Giants got a huge head start and they own that metro area including the East Bay. AT&T Park pretty much “markets itself” and has no competition in the vicinity.

    Hence why Wolff wants out to San Jose, where he has corporate sponsors lined up, affluent fans with $$ to burn, and a Downtown site with infrastructure already in place and most importantly he is now 50 miles away from the Giants and their jewel instead of 12 miles.

    His marketing with a new San Jose ballpark would by default increase 10 fold. Because now people in the South Bay do not have to drive an 1 hour each way to SF or Oak to see a game. He would in essence have his own area to market versus fighting the Giants for the same people as is the case now.

    Right now the Giants dominate the entire market because of their ballpark and winning the WS twice in 4 years does not hurt either.

    @harry- The Giants have “cannibalized” all the corporate sponsors in the SF-Oakland area. The A’s have very slim pickings left even if they get a new Oakland ballpark they would still need revenue sharing to survive.

    The Giants only do business with 25% of Silicon Valley corporations because of sheer distance. The A’s have 75 sponsors lined as evidenced by the SVLG letter a few years back in the South Bay. Hence why Wolff knows a privately financed ballpark pencils out and the A’s are now the big market team they should be.

    I am a life long Giants fan and Larry Baer is a “cock” for saying what he just did about sharing. He knows full well there are zero options left in the East Bay and refuses to do the right thing out of greed.

    I love the Giants, everyone Sabean and below that is.

  144. @Sid, Unfortunately, There are not enough Giant fans like yourself to speak out against their team’s selfish, hurtful, and adversarial relationship towards their co-market neighbor, the A’s. It should be noted that in Larry Baer’s most recent public statement, he mentioned that the Giants season ticket and individual game ticket projections are as strong as ever, and that the Giants are on target for continued full sellouts to all their games at AT&T Park. It would have been a strong message to the Giants, if there were indications of a drop off of season ticket renewals from those fans residing in the South Bay. As long as the Giants’ behavior does not adversely impact them where it hurts(wallet), they on their own will not budge one bit on their exclusive territorial claims to the South Bay.

  145. @pjk/Sid
    (Pjk), Explain? We have both explained are point of views several times (on this post and in the past), so I don’t think that is really all that necessary.
    (Sid), it’s not an either or thing, and as I see it (pjk IMHO), can be at times be somewhat of a Wolff apologist, as I have told (pjk), before two things can be true, and in the A’s situation there are many different factors that are true, Mark Fuhrman can be a racist and O.J. Simpson can be a double murderer, at the same time.
    (Pjk), you make really good points, and all of them have some amount of validity and are at least partly reasonable for the A’s situation.
    Where you and I don’t agree (IMHO), is you don’t seem to want to hold Lew Wolff or past ownership groups responsible for the A’s situation at all. If Oakland is not a victim, as is brought up from time to time, neither is Lew Wolff. Say what you want, think what you want, it’s cool, but in my opinion (and everyone has one), Lew Wolff is at the very least partly reasonable for the A’s situation, and it’s not all that much of a stretch to think his lack of (real), effort in Oakland could be traced to the fact that he wants San Jose (I know they are winning), in my view Oakland deserves better then Lew Wolff, and Lew Wolff deserves better the Oakland (politicians), see two things true at the same time.
    (Sid)If Lew Wolf only holds 2%-5%, of the problem, that is a percentage (pjk), seems not to be willing to assigned to him, and like I said that’s ok, I don’t have to convince other people of my point of view, in order to fill good about it, that’s why I told (pjk), in the first place it was cool.
    BTW (pjk), if a person has diabetes, which as I understand it can be closed by genetics and or, by bad food choice and a lack of exorcise, you at least in some cases could very well blame the patent.
    Even if in Lew’s case its only 2%-5%
    (Pjk) Love you man, no need to rely (Sid), love you too, don’t want to leave anyone out.

  146. @llpec – are any comments made by Baer or the giants organization credible though? – Baer’s statement actually likely should be interpreted as giants season ticket sales are slipping.

  147. Sharks season ticket holder here as well–would be glad to have an outdoor game anywhere in the Bay Area, but realize these are MADE-FOR-TV EVENTS, and that AT&T >> Levi’s or Stanford for viewer eye candy. And that may be all that matters. The only advantage the South Bay might have is better weather in the February-March window.

    Certainly not worth cancelling my season tickets over this issue. I’ve waited years to get these seats; to walk away over a single game at an one-off venue seems silly to me.

  148. @mark- sorry- in my mind it’s sleeping with the enemy- it’s an affront to the community that supports you and paid for the house your playing in- to the Sharks credit Tortora did acknowledge that the gints blocking SJ is something that will have to be factored in to the decision- and btw- prefer to go to a game where we have 70k Sharks fans rather than 45k at att

Leave a Reply to Lakeshore/Neil Cancel reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.