Dickey and Wolff duke it out in the media

A week ago Glenn Dickey wrote this in the Examiner, among several assertions:

In late 1992, just before he stepped down as head of the group trying to buy the Giants from Lurie, Walter Shorenstein told me there would be two conditions in the new contract: 1) The Giants would have to get a new park within 10 years; 2) The Giants would then have territorial rights to all the counties down the Peninsula and into San Jose. They were looking at Silicon Valley, of course, and money from that area helped build the park.

Well, I guess we can rest assured that the late Walter Shorenstein took that to his grave. If that’s true, why did Shorenstein split from the Giants ownership because he didn’t feel that a privately financed ballpark concept would work out? Did Shorenstein get cold feet?

In any case, A’s ownership would’ve been best served not responding to Dickey, since who reads Dickey or the Examiner anyway? Yet they did. Maybe Lew Wolff felt the need to respond. Maybe PR man Bob Rose was spoiling for a fight. Here’s today’s full press release refuting Dickey:

Setting the record straight: our position

OAKLAND, CA-On March 11, San Francisco Examiner sports columnist Glenn Dickey wrote an article about Oakland A’s Owner and Managing Partner Lew Wolff entitled “A’s Owner Wolff standing in the Way of a New Stadium.” The column featured numerous and un-resourced inaccuracies that need to be clarified.For the record:

  • The Oakland A’s have paid rent to play their games at O.co Coliseum and will continue to pay rent under the current new two-year agreement with the Joint Powers Authority. The A’s are also the only team playing at the O.co Coliseum that directly pays for day of game police protection.
  • The team continues to negotiate with the JPA about a 10-year extension to continue to play at the Coliseum.   Under such an arrangement, the A’s would continue to pay rent and has offered to pay for over $10 million in major improvements to the venue including two HD video scoreboards and LED ribbon boards.
  • It is not “urban legend” that Walter Haas granted territorial rights to Giants owner Bob Lurie so he could explore possibilities in the South Bay.   It is fact and Major League Baseball or the A’s would have confirmed that if either would have been asked.
  • Mr. Wolff did not create “artificial attendance reduction” by tarping off seats in the upper deck of the Coliseum. As a point of reference, the average attendance at the Coliseum in the 10 seasons before the tarps were installed was 21,872-capacity with the tarps installed is 35,067. Attendance in 2013 averaged 22,337. On several occasions, Mr. Wolff has said the team will remove the tarps if there is consistent ticket demand that justifies it. In fact, the team did remove the tarps during the 2013 postseason once ticket sales indicated the need for a larger capacity. However, the smaller capacity with tarps has clearly created a more intimate and exciting atmosphere at the Coliseum, as noted by many of our players, media and fans.

Not sure why Dickey calls the T-rights deal an urban legend. Selig acknowledged it. As I wrote two years ago, when everyone got confused over the history of the Bay Area’s T-rights:

If Bob Lurie had not gone after the South Bay, he wouldn’t have been granted the rights by Wally Haas. After Lurie struck out in SF for the last time and threatened to move to Tampa Bay, Magowan/Shorenstein swooped in to save the Giants. Would Magowan have asked for rights to the South Bay in 1993-96 in order to finance AT&T Park, knowing that he wasn’t actually going to build there but rather in downtown SF?

Remember that in the mid-90’s, the Internet as we know it today did not exist.

As for the stadium negotiations, Wolff is willing to sign a pretty long deal, as long as the A’s aren’t locked in if the Raiders take over the Coliseum complex. That’s only fair, since Wolff needs to have some control over where the team plays. Besides, history shows that Oakland/Alameda County/JPA have bent over for the Raiders, screwing the A’s in the process. The JPA is in the position to do it to the A’s all over again.

Interestingly, there are rumors emanating from the Coliseum that Coliseum City may be too expensive to pull off for the Raiders alone, forget the multi-team/multi-venue dream project. Hmmm

Still, best to avoid Dickey and his rants.

80 thoughts on “Dickey and Wolff duke it out in the media

  1. Nice to see Wolff fighting back. Dickey is one of these “No A’s in San Jose under any circumstances” folks who nonetheless has no solution whatsoever to get a ballpark done in Oakland and refuses to acknowledge that a privately funded ballpark is doable in San Jose but not Oakland.

  2. @ML–personally I am glad that the A’s refuted his bs with facts-I see no emotion in what they stated but just the facts—all bay area media folks could benefit from the facts rather than the spin that the gints and folks like GD, TK, MP and others have promoted for years-

  3. The problem with ignoring it is that unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who will take it as fact. You can’t fight every article (and it would be truly foolish to do so) but every once in a while when someone goes completely off the rails with fraudulent idiocy, you have to take a moment to politely, but firmly, strike back.

  4. Off topic but just in from 95.7: BREAKING: Athletics P Jarrod Parker will undergo reconstructive surgery on his right elbow & likely will miss the remainder of the season

  5. You all know BS, MLB and Frisco are getting nervous as the case is getting closer and closer to US Sup CT. It may take awhile but if SJ keeps pressing, eventually, the case will get to the Sup Ct. They all know if the court decides to hear it, the ATE will be gone.

    I am very confident that this current group of justices will take the case especially Chief Justice Roberts, Alito and Sotomayor

  6. @dmoas
    It’s nice to see the A’s say something in defense of their position, I agree with you can’t fight every article but there are times when you do have to say something.

  7. @Pjk
    That was some rough news.

  8. Dickey’s casual relationship with the truth needs to be countered. He left the Chronicle not long after he wrote an anti-Raiders column that contained so many falsehoods they had to run an 8-inch correction.

  9. @ daniel
    Kicking back getting paid.

  10. I ripped on Dickey two years ago and here was his response via email to me:

    “Bullshit. There were no territorial rights for either team beyond their own cities in 1990. Haas and Lurie were friends and I’m sure they had conversations about Lurie’s plans, maybe over drinks at the Lake Merced club bar, and Walter told him that was no problem for him, but the real deal was when the current Giants ownership bought the club. Before he resigned as head of the group, Walter Shorenstein told me that was the deal that they’d agreed on with MLB: The Giants would get a new park built and in return would get territorial rights on the peninsula and in San Jose. That’s what we’re talking about.

    As for the A’s leaving the area, I talked three years ago to the man who Selig designated three years ago to check out possible sites for a team. He reported that there were no viable sites.”

    Ironic he eats his owns words at the end when he states there “were no viable sites”. This guy is a real American moron.

  11. Also Dickey writes this as it is public knowledge Magowan was negotiating the Santa Clara site (Levi’s Stadium) with Schott until the Raiders came back.

    Magowan broke of negotiations as he saw the Coliseum was to be ruined instead of being renovated for baseball only. Less than a year late they got financing for Pac Bell Park.

    What Dickey writes makes zero sense…

  12. I used to subscribe to Dickey’s column until he called me “stupid” in an email and refused to apologize. Nice way to treat customers, huh?

    • The same guy posting under different names tried to do it again in this thread. You’ve been blocked pal. Please stop, you’re only embarrassing yourself.

  13. @Daniel

    I don’t see it making it to the Supreme Court. Aside from the difficulty in getting the case there, MLB has no incentive to let the process get that far. Their options if it looks like it might go to the Supreme Court are a) settle with the A’s and Giants out of court or b) risk losing their anti-trust exemption.

    It’s beyond me why the Bay Area isn’t one large shared territory like every other 2-team market.

  14. If GD is right about the backroom deal made between the new owners of the gints and mlb back in the mid-90’s it makes sense as to why 2017 was a key date–when the original ATT mortgage was to be paid off (I dont care that they are refinancing and extending the loan. So I doubt that the A’s were part of the discussion to give 7 counties to the gints while the A’s kept 2–did mlb owners vote on this arrangement? Regardless it puts the oneous on mlb to fix the wrong that they created–why should the A’s have to buy back rights that they didn’t intend to give away unless the gints built in SJ–

  15. just so i’m clear, going back to the Press Release war of 2012:

    – MLB Constitution designates SF Giants’ territory to include Santa Clara County

    – Wolff & Fisher accepted the MLB Constitution when they made the purchase and reaffirmed in 2008

    then there was something I recall about Wolff promising (contractually?) not to build in the Giant’s territory (i.e. San Jose) when he bought the team.

    If all of this is correct, then I don’t see how the A’s can get to San Jose without the Giants’ approval.

  16. fuck glenn dickey with a telephone pole. he has always been a liar and the worst kind of journalist. he writes things to get a rise, not to report the truth, or give insightful analysis. he is the epitome of a dipshit baseball writer.

  17. @Ru155,

    You forgot “and then MLB, Selig made San Jose a real possibility for A’s/Wolff in 2009 with BRC study of Bay Area.” And for the record, Santa Clara County designated Giants territory so that they can relocate to San Jose themselves (any day now!). This is all about the present and future, not past, and Wolff should be commended for trying to free SJ. No, A’s (or MLB) don’t need Giants approval to allow A’s SJ. Any questions?

  18. RU – Also add:
    * Selig persuades Wolff to buy the A’s, figuring if anyone can get a ballpark done in the A’s territory, it’s Wolff.
    * After several years of trying, Wolff comes to the same conclusion as the previous owner, Steve Schott: It’s not doable.
    * MLB forms so-called Blue Ribbon Committee to explore ballpark opportunities in the A’s current territory. The BRC concurs with Wolff’s and Schott’s findings.
    So, if MLB itself acknowledges a ballpark is not doable in the A’s current territory but won’t let Wolff move 30 miles to where it is doable, then MLB should be prepared to stay at the rotting Coliseum for a long time and keep on writing welfare checks to the A’s. MLB’s call. Does MLB want the A’s in a new ballpark or not?

  19. @GoA’s
    If that’s true, MLB made a decision do we want the Giants in the Bay Area with the name “San Francisco”, or do we want the A’s in the Bay Area with the name “Oakland”, or “San Jose”, because they had to know if it went down that way, they were making the Bay Area a permanent one team market.

  20. @pjk
    Apparently they do want them in a new park 10-15 years from today, outside of the Bay Area.

  21. @LSN–I have no doubt that mlb was fully aware that their actions could make the bay area a one team market back then—of course nearly 20 years later and SV has continued to evolve and now they realize the mistake they made. Getting the gints to concede that point publically I am sure was a win for bs—however, gints want tv rights to themselves–compared to filling a ballpark up 81 dates/year and having good corporate support- tv rights are where the money is–get rid of the A’s and the gints stand to make a fortune—it is their end-game–no matter how much baer wants to play the neighborly card he knows by refusing to negotiate a resonable settlement he is winning–at lease while bs is still in office–

  22. @TonyD
    Well I don’t have a copy of the constitution, but designating SCC for “relocation purposes ONLY” were in the “recorded minutes” according to the A’s release rather than the MLB Constitution. Now maybe they’re part of the same document much like a piece of legislation and the committee report, but that’s out of my scope of expertise.

    Also, reading over those releases once again, A’s threw in tons of language about sharing and spirit of the area rather than what’s printed in the contract. To me, that’s an appeal for sympathy rather than having them on Dragnet. (Just for reference https://newballpark.org/2012/03/07/as-release-statement-on-territorial-rights/)

    I got no beef with Wolff trying to move there, I just wish he had a case.

  23. MLB has so stacked the deck in the Giants’ favor – the six most lucrative counties, the two largest cities for them; just two counties and struggling Oakland for the A’s – that there’s no incentive for the Giants to negotiate.

  24. @ru155, the MLB constitution can be found in recent court filings. I don’t have time to look it up. But the constitution has very clear guidelines on territories and how to change them. Teams are NOT allowed to make their own territorial arrangements between each other. The “A’s agreed to keep things as is” is not much of a legal argument. When SF promised to sue MLB for the A’s moving to San Jose (which I believe is still an active threat?) their justification was a letter form the NL president written in 1997 reaffriming the Giants rights to San Jose. That letter was released along with the press release/threat of suing MLB.

  25. @pjk–I agree–which is the only conclusion I can draw is that mlb was looking at the bay area as a one team market back in ’93 or so–wasn’t this about the time that bs came out and said allowing the A’s to move to Oakland was a mistake?

  26. @GoA’s
    This whole thing is such Bull Sh*t.!!!

  27. @GoA’s : it does seem as though MLB wanted the Bay Area as a 1 team market, but unfortunately for them, the A’s were the one doing well at that time….

  28. amen, Neil. amen.

  29. SJ will always love and respect Lew Wolff, always and forever.

    Let’s do business and get it done!

  30. Dickey is nothing more than a Bay Area media mouthpiece for the Giants’ propaganda machine. He plays to the ignorance of the readers of his column. His arguments are inconsistent to the facts. For Example, Dickey claims that the A’s cannot play in a temporary venue if it’s within the Giants’ so called “territory”. However, he fails to mention that the Giants have offered the option of the A’s playing temporarily at AT&T Park. Where is the consistency with his argument?

  31. Went to the east Oakland Wal-Mart across from the Coliseum. ..in the sports section there are more SF Giants gear than A’s gear…what is Oakland saying? ?? I do blame Wolff for not advertising the A’s well but Damn more Giants gear from the freakin Coliseum? ??

    Quan…plz let the A’s find their way to San Jose…ML is right just bend over for the Raiders and Warriors for Coliseum City. ..just spare the A’s

  32. When a man succumbed to freezing temperatures off Alameda Island a couple years ago while city “rescue workers” stayed ashore, one news article criticizing the workers speculated that perhaps they were busy wondering how the Giants were doing. (The A’s play about 1 mile away from where this incident took place; the Giants are across the Bay). The A’s are the Invisible Team even in their own backyard.

  33. Sigh pjk ml, what can the A’s management and fans do together to get a new ballpark? ?? I do wish ww has new owner ship

  34. New ownership? What makes you so sure it won’t be the Oklahoma City Thunder kind of ownership? As in, buy team, make feeble attempt to get new facility locally, give up and then move the team 1,500 miles away. I’m still waiting for this Clorox group to come up with the $2 billion it will need to buy the franchise and build at Howard Terminal. Show me the money…

  35. Dickey is a complete idiot. There is no agreement with MLB that the giants were to have exclusive “rights” to San Jose. Selig has never said anything remotely close to that. Furthermore, why would Selig bother to form the “blue ribbon committee” to explore the A’s move to San Jose? Selig could have simply told Wolff – “ain’t going to happen” This is complete nonsense. The giants (along with some of the bay aream media -who the giants have in their back pocket) – what a goofy organization.

    If anything – it now appears that MLB approving the A’s move is coming soon. Some of these giant homers such as Dickey and Tim Kawakami have been in big time denial and stepping up their nonsense rhetoric lately.

  36. @pjk
    dang go easy on Oakland. ..yeah Clorox needsto put up or shut up…but at least they are working on eEIR for H.T

  37. @harry- they will spend the next year on a 100k feasibility study- EIR if it happens would be after that

  38. yeah most of the uninformed just buy into the propoganda by the halloween team and their media minions.

    back a couple of years ago for example when byrnes was on knbr and he thought the midgets had territorial rights to the south bay all this time and think it was slusser who later chimed into the radio show and said no it was a shared territory until the early 90s and byrnes was say to say stunned when he learned about this “news”.

  39. Its sad that A’s fans are divided between Oakland and San Jose interests..sometimes I wonder if the bay area should be a one team market…it would simplify things and stop all the fighting

  40. @harry- wait until the Oakland only A’s fans begin fighting with the Oakland Raiders over which team should stay and receive public dollars- coming to a theatre near you really soon-

  41. These two statements are outright lies, or at best, half-truths:

    “On several occasions, Mr. Wolff has said the team will remove the tarps if there is consistent ticket demand that justifies it.”

    When was that? Links, please. He specifically ordered the team NOT to remove the tarps for the 2012 playoffs. Playoffs represent consistent ticket demand – come on, be honest.



    MLB would have forced him to open the third deck for the 2012 WS.

    “In fact, the team did remove the tarps during the 2013 postseason once ticket sales indicated the need for a larger capacity.”

    Perhaps team employees removed those tarps, but only after MLB ordered them to put those tickets on sale. MLB, not Wolff, made this decision. This transpired about an hour after post-season tickets went online – the price got jacked – and the third deck sold out. Despite the outcome, for three evenings it was glorious.

    Third deck season ticket holders were treated poorly. We were pissed. This was the excuse we were given from both ticket services and the main office: MLB ordered it. That’s why they couldn’t accomodate us in advance.

    Flirt with Lew if you like. Tonight we split up our 2014 season tickets. Opening night in two weeks!

  42. @GoA’s

    Can’t wait for the summer. .love going to A’s games hella high… sigh just wish lew wolff could build Coliseum City field. ..and to ur statement…the Raider nation is much stronger then A’s nation so city of Oakland would go with Raiders

  43. @ Freddy,

    Why are you whining, crying like a Lil @$#&! over tarps when 6-10,000 folks show up to games on average?! Geez!! ( you feel the same over Da Raiders tarps to bro?)

  44. @freddy- yup- LW is doing everything in his power to keep the fans away- in face giving away near free tickets during the week doesn’t even work for him- what an evil person that LW is- just horrible

  45. Freddy, the overall ticket demand has never measured anywhere near enough to open it up. A few games isn’t consistent demand. As for 2013, MLB had absolutely NOTHING to do with the A’s opening it.

  46. Yep, that Lew Wolff is trying to suppress attendance. I’ve gone to a bunch of these free parking Tuesdays (a $20 value) and the place is still empty. Must be those tarps. Bottom line: there are still acres and acres of empty seats even with tarps. What is the point of expanding the acreage of empty seats by removing the tarps? And, as said, the Raiders get no flack for using tarps.

  47. In a way I was thrilled that Dickey wrote about the A’s ballpark situation, even though his arguments are factually wrong. The fact that the Bay Area media seems to be covering more on this issue has to be a plus. The fact that Lew Wolff responded quickly to the Dickey column was a huge plus. Hopefully, I would like to see the Bay Area media cover the ongoing ballpark issue from the A’s point of view, or at least to be more evenhanded. Also, the ongoing lawsuits will be the opportunity for greater Bay Area media coverage. I am starting to see light at the end of the tunnel for finally resolving the A’s ballpark situation.

  48. @ RU155

    you forgot:

    -The Giants’ ownership bought the team knowing that they could lose any/all of the territorial rights with a 3/4 vote of the owners. They agreed to this when they affirmed the MLB Constitution.

    In other words, you can’t have it both ways – holding the A’s to the Constitution but not the Giants.

  49. @RU 55- It comes down to logic here, I understand the Giants seem to “think” they own San Jose but people in San Jose can watch the A’s on TV and have been doing so for decades.

    To say even by the MLB constitution they own the area when another team shares marketing and TV for the “entire” region including Santa Clara County, that argument has no weight and it will show in court very soon.

    The A’s are not moving from out of the region invading the Giants TV, marketing and in reality T-rights in general.

    They are simply moving 35 miles south in the “same market” further away from where the Giants are now. Where is the logic in the Giants argument?

    I will say this, if the East Bay was doable Schott or Wolff would have built years ago to get a head start on the Giants. Had Schott succeeded in renovating the Coliseum for baseball only he would have had a 4-5 year start on the Giants and Pac Bell.

    The A’s got really good in the late 90s and their attendance in a renovated Coliseum would have soared as the Giants were still suffering in Candlestick.

    Look at where the Angels play, they put in club levels, added thousands of seats closer to the field and completely re-did the outfield. The A’s would have done the same exact thing.

    The moment Pac Bell opened up it put the A’s behind the 8-ball in the market place and even when good they cannot compete in the facility they are in and being so close to the Giants.

    It is obvious San Jose is the only way….painfully obvious and the Giants simply will not return the favor the A’s granted them years ago.

  50. I get so tired of the tarp talk. It’s like the whole “In 1990 we had (almost) 3 Million fans!” Why is it that outliers are presented as evidence of some trend? There are actual trends we can study… They don’t support the idea that Oakland has been an awesome place for attracting a large number of fans. Tarps, or no. Division Titles, or no. There have been 7 seasons, in 45 years, in which the A’s have even been in the top half of MLB attendance. This is fact. Not opinion. The A’s have been in the playoffs more often with attendance in the bottom half of the league than they have been in the playoffs with top half of the league attendance numbers. Even with the tarps the maximum number of fans that can attend a game in Oakland throughout the season is about 2.8M. There are plenty of available seats, yo!

  51. so where are the oakland only folks putting pressure on the JPA to accept LW’s offer? It may be at the expense of the Raiders but time to step up and demand that the Oakland leaders put the A’s first-

  52. Jeffery, you may get get tired of the tarp talk, but I am a loyal customer. Some of my favorite seats are still tarped over. We had some amazing experiences up there.

    The seats in Plaza Reserved are deplorable, anything hit into the outfield is depressing. They’re usually empty, except on Wednesdays – rightfully so. If you tripled the size of the scoreboards, you still couldn’t see them from Plaza Reserved. You can see them real good from the third deck, though.

    What if Wolff were to tarp those sub-standard seats and un-tarp a corresponding number of seats on the 3rd deck? It would be no additional tax on staff or infrastructure, attendance wouldn’t change. The third deck bathrooms are currently empty, there’s never a line for hot dogs. If you restore two dollar Wednesdays to the expanded third deck, you would convert a lot of new customers, just like we did in the old days. Moving fans from the boonies up in Mt Davis to behind the plate would make for a more dynamic crowd. No intimacy would be lost.

    Moreover, loyal third deck fans would stop complaining – that should solve your problem, right?

    Great idea, huh? Go ahead, shoot it down.

  53. @GoA’s I really wish Oakland would put the A’s first but they have not up to this point, so no reason to think they will. Actually as much as I hate it, this may be the one and only time Oakland should put the Raiders first, if the Raiders are willing to sign on to build a new stadium, that will keep them in Oakland for 30-40 years (or longer),and the the A’s who want a 5-10 year lease, with no intention of building in Oakland long turn, well that choice is clear to me. Hopefully the Raiders can work around the A’s and they both can play at the coliseum of course that would require Davis not building on the coliseum footprint, if that can’t be done Oakland should go with the Raiders.

  54. From an economic development perspective the A’s make much more sense with 81 dates at 23 avg crowd v 10 dates with 50k average crowd. So why is east bay media not harassing the JPA into accepting LW’s offer? Of course I know the answer to that but so tired of the media and the Oakland only crowd always pointing at LW when the villains for this mess are the Oakland pols and bs- I won’t even throw the gints in there since bs should have been more of a leader than to allow it to reach this point

  55. If you already know the answer, you’re not really asking a question, are you?

  56. Freddy, for one thing they’d still likely have to staff that area. There’s not good way to block only that part off without killing the bleachers (and potentially the suites) with it. (And imagine the uproar if they even suggested doing that). For another, $2 tickets don’t make the team money. Certainly not with any significance. Over the lifetime of fandom, the cost likely doesn’t balance out. But really, the 3rd deck is simply much, much simpler to “wall” off and any complaints about not having a view of x, y, or z while seeking out the cheapest seats in the house (and then most likely pulling a free seat upgrade) *should* fall on deaf ears. The A’s are the best deal in baseball. If you’re too cheap or can’t afford to sit there or elsewhere, you can’t afford to watch baseball live period. Not everything in life is free and MLB is not a charity.

  57. @GoA’s I agree with you on every point, with a slight difference regarding your point on economics, obviously baseball is the choice all things being equal but there not, the Raiders are willing to make the long term commitment the A’s are not.

  58. @freddy- yup- your right- I should not have put the question mark but rather have stated the obvious- Oakland only folks and their band of media slouches prefer to be victims rather than hold their pols accountable-

  59. dmoas – I’m a Third Deck Season Ticket holder. If you kindly spare the insults, I’ll gladly agree, it’s one of the best values in pro sports.

    You could easily add four more sections to the current three that are open while preserving the “wall.” 314 & 320 have awesome geometry, straight down the first & third baselines.

    Staff? No problem. You take a couple of people out of the dank corridors of Mt Davis, put them behind home plate. I doubt they will complain, just be alert for foul balls.

    Correspondingly, I doubt it would be hard to wall off Plaza Reserved, you probably don’t even need tarps, nobody will want to sit up there. Plaza Reserved are the cheapest seats in the house. They are horrible.

    Tell you what, I’ll even take the two dollar ticket thing out of the argument as well. Personally, I think it can be used as a tremendous marketing tool. I created dozens of fans via cheap 3rd deck tickets; I’m not gonna stick my friends in Plaza Reserved. The sticker price of a $2 is somewhat inconsequential after you factor in parking, concessions, merchandise and repeat business. But I’ll take it off the table, let’s consider that moot for now.

    According to Lew, they plan to stick around the Coli for a while. Why not make it a more engaging experience for the customers? Let’s try to make this work, guys!

  60. @ Freddy,
    You’re in dire need of a pacifier my friend..

  61. If you have ever spent time in any other baseball park, including AT & T, you notice how deficient the Coliseum is for a baseball park. It was rebuilt as a football stadium. Which means that nice views in the bleachers went away solely for the Raiders. Bleachers now cut off a good chunk of the outfield, and don’t even think of looking for a decent replay on the horrible boards. Complaining about tarps is just beyond groveling and sad. Mark Davis does not get nearly half the crap for doing the same thing as Lew Wolff, and he is tarping seats that are still being paid off to the tune of $100 million plus, seats that were built solely for them.
    Quite honestly, it’s pathetic that there are some Oakland-only folk that will never let this go.

  62. By the way, the best thing that happened to Glenn Dickey in forever is that ML linked Dickey’s column to this post. Must have been a great traffic day for our beloved Glenn.

  63. Freddy, what insult? Seriously. If you saw one, you have bigger issues than a random internet person.

    If you have people in the bleachers at all, which you’ll need to have, you’ll have to somehow block off from left to right field. You don’t think people will wander from one end to the other? And if you’ve been in the suites up there, you’ll know that it’s easy to climb out of the windows onto the concourse up there. You’ll still have fans wanting to run around up there chasing after them. You’ll need staff up there to deal with these people. Especially considering home runs go out there. Sure, not a lot, but you’ll need people up there. The point I’m making is it’s not quite as simple one for one tradeoff as you’re trying to make it out to be. And until a lease is signed, there’s no reason for the A’s to take significant action wrt to the stadium.

  64. In an honest discussion, I’d consider this somewhat insulting:

    “If you’re too cheap or can’t afford to sit there or elsewhere, you can’t afford to watch baseball live period. Not everything in life is free and MLB is not a charity.”

    Are you implying that by asking for 4 more 3rd deck sections, I can’t afford to watch baseball, I expect charity? Maybe you’re right, I should just overlook that, after all I’m a victim who needs a pacifier.

    Heck, I was just trying to solve Jeffery’s problem, he’s tired of the tarp talk. Dickey and Wolff brought it up, not me. I guess this can’t be solved. Not here at least.

    T minus 13 days until Opening Day. Our first tailgate toast is “To the Playoffs!” Yeah, it’s a tough job being a victim these days.

  65. Here is a quote from Wolff earlier today – clarifying the HT situation taken from a Mark Purdy story in the Merc news:
    “Oakland’s apparent dream is for the A’s to jump on board plans for a ballpark proposal in downtown Oakland near Jack London Square. Good luck with that. Wolff said again Tuesday that he and A’s co-owner John Fisher have (A) zero desire to pursue a Howard Terminal project and (B) no plans to sell the team to anyone who might build a ballpark at Howard Terminal.

    “We are not going to Howard Terminal,” Wolff reiterated Tuesday. “It’s not going to happen. It would be easier to build a ballpark on Treasure Island.” (The HT site ain’t going to happen)

  66. Thanks, ML.

    The tarp talk stems from this assertion, which I do not find factual.

    “Mr. Wolff has said the team will remove the tarps if there is consistent ticket demand that justifies it.”

    1) I do not recall him ever saying that.

    2) The playoffs represent sufficient demand. A picture to prove it:

    3) At this point in time, the official A’s policy is that they will NOT be taking down the tarps for the 2014 playoffs. I can give you a script, you can prove it with one phone call. If I’m wrong, I’d be happy as a lark, that means our World Series tickets are guaranteed up there, rather than out on stinky Mt. Davis.

    If Wolff promised to shed the tarps after game 162, his assertion would be factual. Heck, they’re coming down anyway after the season ends. Think positive.

  67. I have cut ally advocated for that before, as well. The Plaza Bleachers are a joke.
    I do, however, quibble with the two dollar Wednesdays driving loyal fandom. Those are the exact kind of promotions that deflate season ticket sales by creating a disincentive for buying tickets ahead of time.
    Of course, 13,000 empty seats on any given night ($2 night or no) suppress any incentive for season ticket holding anyway. Untarping the third deck makes this worse. The point is that there is no incentive for anyone to buy season tickets beyond rabid fandom. And even Rand fans don’t have to buy season tickets to get to a huge amount of games at a reasonable price.
    Cheers to you, Freddy. I appreciate all of my fellow A’s fans wether I agree with them or not.

  68. That mangled comment brought to you by autocorrect.

  69. And cheers back to you, Jeffery.

    The two buck chucks aren’t creating a disincentive for buying tickets ahead of time this year. Limited to Plaza Reserve, they went on sale online only back on 1/15. Many games sold out by the end of the day, they were all gone in a month or so.


    I’m not asking for them to untarp the entire third deck for the regular season. Just a few more sections, please. Besides I doubt you’ll be able to fill the whole thing up for games like the Yanks and The Streak anymore. After the Hammer Kids were banished, they moved onto other things. If they’re gonna do the 2 dollar thing, it’s the first taste of the game for a lot of folks. Get them high, give them an honest view.

    There’s lots of incentive to buy season tickets, you don’t have to be rabid. The 24 game package gives you most of the perks. You can lock in all the premium games for half-price or better. Half-price parking, ST entrance & access to the elevator, ticket exchange if you want to move games, postseason rights, and everyone smiles at you.

    It took me a while to stumble upon it. I sold it to my guys. They love me. This year we added more dudes to our crew. When we take our kids and ladies to the game, they’re hella impressed, too.

    That, gentlemen, is what the A’s need. Marketing. No matter when or where they stay or go. Don’t get upset – you may have never seen it before.

  70. PS- Freddy, I love your passion but it is plain ridiculous to post a picture of a single playoff game and equate that to season long demand for seats that went largely unused when they weren’t tarped. That, in an honest discussion, robs your argument of merit.

  71. Hold on a sec, pardner. My picture of that playoff game was preceded with:

    “Mr. Wolff has said the team will remove the tarps if there is consistent ticket demand that justifies it.” – Wolff.

    “The playoffs represent sufficient demand.” – Me.

    That is all that picture was intended to prove. I could link two more. I have season ticket holders – my friends – who I answer to. We’re front and center in all three gigapans. I want the tarps to come down for the 2014 playoffs because I’m invested here. I answer to them.

    Last year they threw us in Ticketmaster lotto. Insulting. If Ticket Services is reading this blog, hey guys. Head me off at the pass next fall, we can work a deal.

    And, as explicitly stated above:

    “I’m not asking for them to untarp the entire third deck for the regular season. Just a few more sections, please.” – Me


    “Freddy, I love your passion but it is plain ridiculous to post a picture of a single playoff game and equate that to season long demand for seats that went largely unused when they weren’t tarped. That, in an honest discussion, robs your argument of merit.” – You

    I don’t know how to respond. What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate? If you know the movie, that’s kinda rude.

  72. I don’t feel like the playoffs or big draw nights like opening day or end of the season when we are in contention are sufficient to take the tarps down. I do like the idea of taking one or two more sections down, and I think playoff time is a good time to take them down.

  73. yeah. I misread what you meant. But we basically agree. Take down a few more sections and stop selling the plaza bleachers. It’s trading football seats for baseball seats at a baseball game.

  74. If Oracle Arena was out the way..and if u develop all the land (remove the trucking company alongside hegenberger/880)..the Raiders and A’s could literally split the Coliseum land in half which will be enough to develop new venues/parking and other things to gather money for their investment..so in a way the Raiders and A’s do have enough room to get Coliseum City to work.

  75. harry, that’s the most over simplistic view of things I have read. As much as Oakland folks hate Lew Wolff, you can’t argue with his contention that you can’t just circle a spot on a map and say, “There! A site is found.”

  76. Im trying Jeff…sigh..im trying..but didn’t wolff know about this stupid tr stuff..I just want a newballpark..

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 )

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.