Selig puts out statement about the Coliseum and Howard Terminal (Update: JPA response)

Just in from the official MLB PR Twitter feed:

“I commend the Oakland Athletics and the JPA for their efforts in reaching an extension for a lease at O.co Coliseum. The agreement on this extension is a crucial first step towards keeping Major League Baseball in Oakland.”

“I continue to believe that the Athletics need a new facility and am fully supportive of the club’s view that the best site in Oakland is the Coliseum site. Contrary to what some have suggested, the committee that has studied this issue did not determine that the Howard Terminal site was the best location for a facility in Oakland.”

That makes it official. MLB is throwing its support behind Wolff and his plan, however nascent, for re-doing the Coliseum complex. That plan is not Coliseum City and is not compatible with Coliseum City. Moreover, Selig considers the 10-year extension a “crucial first step” to keep the A’s in the Town. If that isn’t Selig trying to use his leverage, I don’t know what is.

Sure, if talks break down again MLB could intervene again and negotiate another short-term lease, or turn around and green light Howard Terminal. But they probably aren’t inclined, given Oakland’s generally wishy-washy handling of everything at the Coliseum.

Your move, Oakland.

Update 3:30 PM – The JPA just released this statement:

OAKLAND, CA – The Oakland Alameda Coliseum Authority has issued a statement following Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig’s public comments on the license agreement between the Oakland Athletics and the Authority:

“We very much appreciate Commissioner Selig’s support for Oakland to be the home of the A’s. We also agree, and we believe the A’s do as well, that long-term the Coliseum is the best site for them in the East Bay

We are still fine-tuning the details of the license agreement between the Authority and the A’s. It is our hope that the details will be finalized shortly and will then be voted upon the by the JPA on Friday. Once approved, the agreement will then be voted upon by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and the Oakland City Council in the weeks ahead.”

Update 4:50 PM – Oakland Mayor Jean Quan denies that the A’s and the JPA have come to a lease agreement:

sovern

Larry Reid also appears to be surprised (link includes quotes from me). They certainly didn’t see this coming. These joint powers arrangements aren’t complicated at all, as you can see.

68 thoughts on “Selig puts out statement about the Coliseum and Howard Terminal (Update: JPA response)

  1. Well that’s about as balsy as a move as we’ve seen MLB make during this entire fiasco. They may not be willing to push the Giants around yet and seem to have no real care for what San Jose is or isn’t doing. But they sure put the screws to Oakland with a single statement. Basically, sign the lease and listen to Wolff on the Coliseum site or else.

    On the flip side though, this could be read as a bad sign for San Jose boosters. If Wolff is enough behind the Coliseum site for MLB to start throwing their considerable weight around, it might not bode well for SJ’s chances. Unless you still believe MLB is waiting for Oakland to exhaust all its options for the 5th time before they consider San Jose.

  2. @Dan – Unless there was an emergency meeting, the vote was scheduled for Friday. Oakland City Council and Alameda County Board of Supervisors still have to approve the deal separately.

  3. Im fine for MLB/Wolff A’s management to end the Howard Terminal ballpark and open up a Coliseum ballpark instead. ..Oakland move is..we will split the Coliseum land in half one side for Raiders the other for the A’s do as you wish to develop a sports venue

  4. Is it possible there was an emergency meeting of the JPA?

  5. Yes, let’s see how MLB reacts if Oakland is given the chance to keep the team in town for 10 years and turns it down and then genuflects before the Raiders (again). Even though MLB wanted a downtown or waterfront site, it is conceding there is no place feasible in Oakland but the same old industrial area parking lot (feasibility in this case does not factor in how the place gets paid for).

  6. re: did not determine that the Howard Terminal site was the best location for a facility in Oakland.”

    Translation: The HT site s***s so very badly there is now way in Hell MLB will ever consider it anymore than it already has. Forget about it – it’s DOA. Won’t happen. Ever.

  7. HT can be revived if Knauss & Co. offer to pay for all site remediation – regardless of how many hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost. No such offer so far.

  8. *waiting on The Raiders response*

  9. I know the Raiders response is going to be very interesting. Does Mark have the cajones of his father? Because we know what Al’s response would have been. Mayflower fans packing up to move the team to Santa Clara or LA by this evening.

  10. pjk why cant Lew Wolff build a ballpark near the hegenberger side of the Coliseum close to E-BART and Denny..plenty of city owned land that is a little farther from the Coliseum and should not be in the way of construction

  11. @harry – Wow, treat the A’s like second-class citizens again? No thanks.

  12. harry: Since Oakland has no money to help pay for the ballpark, Lew has to recoup his half-billion-dollar investment by developing surrounding property, I suppose. Fitting the Raiders into that equation just doesn’t pencil out. Not enough developable land to pay for both a baseball and football stadium. And, as we have learned lately, Oakand/Alameda County only control 25% of the Coliseum City site.

  13. At long last bs finally speaks- so hopefully the Oakland reporters are tracking down Mark Davis to get his comments- bottom line it looks like “D” day is coming for Oakland- A’s or Raiders….should be a fascinating council meeting when they vote on the lease

  14. re: D Day

    See my post in the other thread: I think the Howard Terminal cheerleading today was Oakland’s way of trying to force the A’s onto the non-feasible HT site so the Raiders can have the Coliseum site. Oakland keeps both teams and spends nothing. But MLB will have none of it, ruling out HT. The day is coming where Oakland is going to have to choose one team or the other. Or maybe lose both.

  15. @pjk- agree- Raider Nation v stAy crowd- coming up at a council meeting soon!

  16. Hold up here, the JPA and Oakland City Council already balked on voting on this once.

    Has the deal changed? If so what are the differences from a few weeks ago?

    Or is the same deal going up for vote again?

    Bud Selig shut up….You dismissed the Coli site years ago and now say you think it is the best option?

    Where is that report from the BRC? Good lord….I cannot wait until he is out of office.

  17. MLB doesn’t have a good site in Oakland. All that’s available is the same old Coliseum site. No downtown site, no waterfront site. Of course, San Jose has a downtown site available in a major city and a long line of corporations lined up to buy suites. But we know how that’s been working out.

  18. Nice that the JPA believes the Coliseum site is the best site for the A’s in Oakland long term. But someone might want to tell Oakland’s leaders that little tidbit. Because they and their puff piece backers like Knauss still seem to think otherwise and still seem hellbent on not losing the Raiders.

  19. MLB is forcing Oakland to decide as to which team will be staying at the Coliseum site, A’s or Raiders. The ten year lease extension with the A’s is Oakland’s decision. The ten year lease extension should be more than enough time for A’s ownership to get an area developmental plan accomplished along with an accompanying new ballpark. As for the Raiders, they already have their new state-of-the-art stadium forty plus miles away in Santa Clara.

  20. “Hold up here, the JPA and Oakland City Council already balked on voting on this once.

    Has the deal changed?”

    Probably not by much if at all. This is a JPA deal, but they did what the city council does all the damn time. It’s common for the city council to delay voting on hot button issues where there is an organized public effort to defeat proposed “controversial” deals – as there was here. When this issue reaches the city council, I wouldn’t be shocked if that 1st vote gets delayed too. They’ll vote on it after giving it “more review”. But in reality they’ll vote on it when the chambers won’t be filled with opponents of the deal. It’s how government works in Oakland.

  21. Could the Wolff/MLB lease announcement be their way to keep JPA/Oakland from backing out of it this time? Seems like the JPA announcement wanted to make it clear that it wasn’t final yet.

    Now that it has been tweeted and retweeted, if either JPA or Oakland fail to approve, it will make them again look bad.

    Also, I’m curious about the JPA use of the word license vs lease. Is there a reason?

  22. “Seems like the JPA announcement wanted to make it clear that it wasn’t final yet.”

    I agree with Purdy on this. What this really is is MLB trying to show everyone who’s boss.

  23. re: We are still fine-tuning the details of the license agreement between the Authority and the A’s. It is our hope that the details will be finalized shortly and will then be voted upon the by the JPA on Friday. Once approved, the agreement will then be voted upon by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and the Oakland City Council in the weeks ahead.”

    Sounds like more stall, stall. stall. Oakland has suffered a hit with MLB’s rejection of the Howard Terminal site. But the current strategy of continuing to not make a decision has enabled the city to keep both teams (unhappy) in the current facility.

  24. Lets face it , BS and MLB are praying hard the A’s can stay where they are or it will become messier . It would be fun tho if the A’s are on the streets and homeless and have nowhere to go.

  25. Absolutely this is MLB showing the flag. They’re the ones in control here. The A’s can leave next season if MLB wants them to. Oakland despite thinking they hold the cards do not. Just because the A’s don’t have a desirable place to play other than the Coliseum (not that the old toilet is very desirable) it doesn’t mean they have no place to play.

    There are several options out there that work as a short term fall back for MLB in cities that would be far more willing to bend over backward for MLB. San Antonio could house them in a modified configuration of the Alamodome for a year or two, Montreal could host them tomorrow indefinitely if they so chose in the Big Owe, hell even Omaha could host them for a couple of seasons in a pinch. And that doesn’t even include cities with large AAA venues that could be temporarily expanded (unlike Raley in Sac) or cities with space to host a full on temporary venue (like Empire Fields in Vancouver) which could be built in the off season (including in San Jose should Selig continue to feel like having some cajones).

    Oakland’s only course at this point is to sit down, shut up, sign the long term lease and make way for Wolff to build at the Coliseum site. If they’re not going to Selig is making it clear they’re going to lose the A’s one way or the other.

  26. daniel, it would definitely be interesting. Frankly part of me is hoping at this point that is exactly what happens. If it gets the A’s out of the Coliseum and on the road to something better I couldn’t care less where it happened at this point. The A’s deserve better than the city of Oakland and Alameda County have provided them these last 20 years.

  27. It’s a tough spot for Oakland. Like Dave Stewart said, it’s a “football town.” But the A’s fill 81+ dates (and win) while the Raiders fill 10-12 dates (and lose).

  28. I think what the JPA is counting on is the Coliseum site and area being large enough to accommodate both the A’s and Raiders. They’re probably thinking that with the Warriors gone, they can get rid of the arena and somehow split the site to meet the needs of all of interested parties (Raiders, A’s, CC developers, etc). In theory, the site (if we include the N/S lots, stadium, arena, and old home base lot) IS large enough to accommodate a baseball and football facility along with any ancillary developments. The problem is the neighborhoods surrounding the Coliseum are some of the most crime-ridden in Northern California (which would make it difficult to support any development surrounding the stadiums) not to mention, Oakland just does not have the money to support two stadiums, let alone one.

    With all that being said, Oakland at this point is probably realizing that baseball is it’s best bet at remaining a major league city. They realize a football stadium would not justify the cost at only a handful of events per year. Again, I do not believe the NFL, the City of Los Angeles, or even the Raiders really want the team back in LA. Oakland may be just wising up a bit and realizing that the Raiders already have a new stadium – called Levi’s – and that a ballpark, at 81+ events per year, will bring in more revenue than a desolate, underused football facility would.

    This is all getting very interesting.

  29. The issue with both teams on that site is Oakland is offering $0.00 for construction of $1.5 billion worth of stadiums. Thus, the teams need development rights to the property to maybe make a return on their investment. And there’s not enough economic potential at that site to make both teams profitable building on that site.

  30. Even though baseball is 81 games versus 10 for football the Raiders have more revenue than the A’s.

    Meaning Oakland gets more tax revenue from the Raiders despite hosting far fewer events, this is why Oakland sides with them.

    For development of course a baseball stadium makes more sense with more dates but there is nothing there right now. To build it out in a desolate, run down area may not be the best idea.

    Not to mention it does not solve the traffic issues in the general area for I firmly believe is the big reason why with even good teams the A’s do not get fans during the week but do on weekday day games and weekend games.

    I bet Oakland delays again with a vote. They do not want to anger the Raiders while they are still showing interest in staying while Wolff is simply “hedging his bets”.

  31. But if the vision is for development of the Coliseum site with offices, maybe some stores, restaurants, homes, a football stadium brings the people in 10 times a year. The A’s don’t bring any revenue in because they play in a big parking lot and draw nobody in to any Oakland restaurants, etc.

  32. “Of course, San Jose has a downtown site available in a major city and a long line of corporations lined up to buy suites. But we know how that’s been working out.” -pjk

    As my name indicates, I’m all for the A’s staying in the BAY AREA, be that Oakland, SJ, Contra Costa County, or ANYWHERE south of Santa Rosa and north of Los Gatos. Heck, I’d even be fine with them sharing AT&T Park with the Giants, whom I hate. With that being said, how can you be totally convinced that the A’s would get AS MUCH corporate and fan support (as the Giants) when the South Bay has already proven their allegiance to SF teams? No doubt, the A’s would make more money in SJ compared to Oakland, but even the Raiders (who I think will be forced to share Levi’s Stadium with the Niners) probably won’t be as profitable as the Niners (even if they changed their name to the ‘San Jose Raiders’).

    I think it’s a bit easier for the ‘San Jose only’ crowd to simply say, “Oakland has no money for a ballpark”. If we really think about it, SJ doesn’t have money for a new ballpark either. San Jose would be getting the A’s at virtually no cost, because Mr. Wolff would be footing the bill himself. While I’d be just as happy with the A’s playing in San Jose and would still support them there, I think the SJ crowd forgets that if anything, the A’s moving there would cause a divide between those corporations and residents who have historically been Giants fans, and those whose civic pride would convert them to A’s fans (if they weren’t already).

  33. BayMetro, It was probably the letter sent by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group whose membership includes many of those corporations (none of which have any ties to the Giants or will continue to do business with the Giants) who want the A’s in San Jose and pledged their support to the A’s. That’s where the SJ crowd gets the idea that they’d get a plethora of corporate support that they don’t get now.

  34. Based on Reid and Quan’s statements it’s pretty clear that MLB is forcing their hand. Either agree now or lose the A’s forever. And as usual Oakland is responding defensively rather than intelligently.

  35. The most recent update to this post includes a link to a Merc article in which I was quoted. As I said on Twitter, I didn’t characterize San Jose’s ballpark effort as “now defunct.” The reporter did that. San Jose never came up in our discussion.

  36. @Dan,

    Hmmmm……I had no idea about that letting from SVLG. With that knowledge, I can only wonder why MLB hasn’t caved in on those territorial rights.

  37. Surprised BS would come out with a statement like this…could serve two purposes: (1) pushes for the 10 year lease to finally be signed AND (2) attempts to weaken SJ’s position in SJ v. MLB lawsuit.

  38. It doesn’t really weaken San Jose’s position. The city had a signed agreement with the A’s that MLB blocked from coming to fruition. And MLB’s anti-trust exemption is a joke and should be dumped by the courts.

  39. ML has previously suggested that the A’s would build a temporary stadium locally if a lease at the Coliseum couldn’t be worked out. Wolff’s goal is to keep the A’s locally – so a temporary move to San Antonio, Vancouver, etc. would be very unlikely.

    Selig evidently wishes to avoid that scenario at all costs though (suggesting that the A’s could move into phone booth park temporarily – now forcing Oakland’s hand with the suggestion that the HT site has been ruled out) Selig evidently has no problem butting in to secure a lease at either the Coli or even phone booth park – too bad he doesn’t have the balls to deal with the Giants’ greedy ways though.

  40. @macdamike- explain how this weakens the SJ lawsuit? No way to even remotely connect the dots as the lawsuit is around an option agreement and economic damages for SJ over mlb’s delays-

  41. Btw- the reporters who wrote the article for the merc and editors ought to be totally embarrassed to be as clueless as they are and refer to the “now defunct San Jose…” SJ couldn’t be anymore alive with Oakland having to make a decision between the A’s and Raiders and SJ pending lawsuit- totally amateur writing- odds that they will issue a correction…0

  42. @GoA’s how true – where were all these giants fans (evidently some – such as O’Brien – are working for the Merc news) when Lurie sold the team to the Tampa owners group? The giants did not have that strong support then (perhaps in SF – not in San Jose though)

  43. Foundation of lawsuit is A’s wants to be in SJ and MLB won’t allow it. A 10 year lease and the perception it will lead to a new stadium in Oakland damages this foundation.

    I should point out, however, that technically BS doesn’t endorse Oakland over San Jose. He just says the Coliseum is the best site in Oakland.

  44. @macdamike- completely irrelevant to the lawsuit even without the 1 year notice exit clause that the A’s have- A’s need a place to play while a ballpark is built- be it SJ or anywhere else

  45. San Jose is not gonna happen people so let it go. Geez….

  46. re: the reporters who wrote the article for the merc and editors ought to be totally embarrassed to be as clueless

    …you’re assuming the reporters know at least as much as you do about this subject. Your assumption is incorrect.

  47. I still believe the best site available to the A’s is Laney College. Obviously Peralta CCD was opposed in the past, but if Oakland were serious about keeping both the A’s and Raiders, it would make this land available for the A’s. Between Downtown, Jack London, Lake Merritt and Residential area of East Oakland it’s best suited for a Ballpark Village and has great public transportation. With developers trying to acquire Dewey Academy, there’s obviously a demand for this area. Done correctly, a ballpark here could vitalize and connect the surrounding area. Gondela ride from Lake Merritt, Kayak from Jack London, Bike from East Oakland or walk from downtown anyone?

  48. @Beatbanks: There is literally no economic factor that goes against the A’s going to San Jose. The only thing stopping it is territorial rights that are inconsistent with other 2-team markets, which is itself an extension of MLB’s complete joke of an anti-trust exemption.

  49. GR Committee: I’ve expressed that thought here several times. Knock down the HJKCC. Splash hits into Lake Merritt. Downtown buildings looming over LF wall, the Oakland hills beyond CF?RF. Beautiful spot with fantastic access.

  50. ^ What saddens me is that the Coliseum had great hill views before the Raiders came back from LA and ruined the view with Mt. Davis.

  51. A Blue Ribbon Commission together for almost 5 years without an iota of comment on their “findings” — but Mr Weenie BS can discuss the BRC findings publicly when needed for PR/Fluff/extension negotiations? Nice. Can someone in the feeble MSM, someone with some onions, stand in front of BS and ask “if the BRC doesn’t think HT is best/good/whatever site, can you tell me what this commission does say about other sites?”.

    BS/MLB spoke to help get the extension done, that’s it (as well as jockeying for position/PR). Otherwise read his words carefully;
    Getting an extension done is first step in keeping baseball in Oakland? Well Duh! Without an extension they are playing somewhere outside Oakland. Then consider this statement: “I continue to believe that the Athletics need a new facility and am fully supportive of the club’s view that the best site in Oakland is the Coliseum site”. Well Duh, the A’s need a new stadium (what a stupid statement). And where does BS think is a good place for a new ballpark? It’s the coliseum part deux IF it is Oakland (the “best site IN Oakland”?). Pure fluff, nothing more.

    The same undeniable issues are still there, unchanged and BS added nothing to the discussion whatsoever: (A) Raiders must leave for coliseum part deux but will leave a legacy of serious Mt Davis debt. (B) Oakland will not give public money support. (C) The location is simply not ideal without a Coliseum City type project (which BS dissed — in so many words). (D) the corporate support is too thin to make the math work for a privately financed ballpark by LW/the A’s (LW/the A’s have made it clear they will not build in Oakland paying for it themselves). Nothing BS said was of any value to the main points at hand. Let’s hear him say MLB will provide some funds for a ballpark (doesn’t have to say how much — just that they will). That’s comments worth hearing that matter.

    Part of me thinks the SJ lawsuit is MLB’s ultimate savior — if the suit goes far enough in the legal process to force the skittish Lodge to do a ‘hand to the face’ to the Giants. Otherwise it is clear that the A’s stadium fiasco is so far from being resolved it’s almost not worth commenting on…

  52. @TW

    Football is king in this country. ..the Raiders side will win out in city hall in these next interesting few days…all Colony Capital has to do is say “a ha” maybe we could build something here”…just a small statement to get Oakland peein with glee and force the A’s if they want to stay “do it the Coliseum City way”

  53. Rhamesis – you’ve been complaining about the premature leaks. Who’s responsible for this one?

    Just curious. Maybe it’s part of the puzzle.

    • @freddy – It had to be Wolff. He sent back the counteroffer with whatever small (or large) changes were there, then he probably called Selig to explain the situation.

  54. “The ten year lease extension should be more than enough time for A’s ownership to get an area developmental plan accomplished along with an accompanying new ballpark.”

    For the A’s to ultimately decide on building their new ballpark at the Coliseum site, the following preconditions would have to be first met:

    1. The current lawsuits rule in favor of MLB.

    2. Oakland gives A’s ownership full developmental rights to the entire Coliseum property, parking lots and all.

    3. MLB allows the A’s to continue on as revenue sharing recipients.

    4. The Raiders would no longer be playing on the Coliseum site.

  55. Ironic that some media outlets are talking about the “announcement” as being “premature”. Others have said it but nothing could have been more deliberate by MLB and bs- negotiations are over- either accept it Oakland/AC or A’s might have that freedom that they have been looking for sooner than later-

  56. Looks like Quan is not comfortable with this pressure from the A’s and MLB. At long last, somebody is trying to force some kind of decision and is not going to let Oakland stall, stall, stall forever.

  57. I think Oakland’s reluctance is understandable. What do they get in return for signing the lease? They get to keep the A’s at the Coliseum. For now. .
    But there’s no commitment from the A’s to stay and build, and nothing preventing them from signing the Coli lease and then keep pursuing San Jose.
    .
    So Oakland buys a little more time with the A’s. But potentially pisses off the Raiders. And is no closer to getting anything built.

  58. @Steve- what alternative does Oakland have if it wants to keep the A’s? Remember- it was Oakland/AC that created this mess nearly 20 years ago and during this time has done nothing to show MLB that the A’s are a priority-

  59. re: A’s a priority.

    Oakland has done everything to show the opposite – that the A’s are NOT a priority: Ruining the stadium for baseball, firing the city manager for devising a new ballpark plan, refusing to help pay for a new ballpark like pretty much every other MLB city has done. Not to mention bashing A’s management in public many times over.

  60. I bet there’s another reason you hate Oakland so much. Something personal, perhaps. Nothing to do with those half-truths you repeat and repeat and repeat.

    The tactic is obvious, if you repeat a lie long enough, people start to believe it. Oakland Sucks!!!!

  61. Talking to me? Sorry, stating the truth is not “hate.” Please state one word of my post that was not true. Just one word, please. Signed – guy who tells other people to visit Oakland’s zoo, ballpark, Children’s Fairyland, etc as I have done often…

  62. @GoA’s: I agree Oakland has no good options. But at the present time, they have only one card to play: the A’s lease extension. There is nothing else on the table. So I think it’s understandable that they would want to get at least a little something for agreeing to the extension.

    I also think Wolff/A’s are being a little cute here, implying that they want to stay in Oakland long term (of course without saying anything concrete), but in reality likely to re-start work on San Jose once they get the lease in the bag.

    I say this as a staunch A’s-to-San Jose supporter.

  63. Seeing how surprised Oakland Pols opens your eyes a little bit.

    The 5M in parking is peanuts to the bigger picture. The issue here is Wolff committing to stay in Oakland in some shape or form with a new stadium.

    Oakland wants the same deal San Jose is getting and what SF has…..a free ballpark for the citizens.

    Oakland Pols could care less if Wolff makes money, goes bankrupt building it, the feasibility, or anything of the nature. These people are Pols not business minded.

    This alone will kill this lease once it gets to the Oakland City Council for a vote.

    They want something San Francisco has and what San Jose is trying to get….a privately financed ballpark.

    No tax dollars, no public subsidies, even for infrastructure.

    Oakland does not want to spend a dime because their thinking is if SF didn’t pay a dime outside a muni line and SJ isn’t going to pay for anything why should they when the A’s are stuck in Oakland by default?

    They are trying to keep the Raiders because Santa Clara is a real threat especially with Levi’s about to open up, the Raiders unlike the A’s are not artificially constrained by the NFL/49ers…..It gives the Raiders some leverage.

    The Dubs are gone already and I for one believe Oakland thinks it will never happen and they will get paid 60M if they do leave so they don’t care….for the moment.

    The A’s are stuck artificially because of MLB/Giants therefore why help them in anyway? Force them to stay and pay their way like the Giants did in SF and what SJ is offering.

    Bud Selig has created zero leverage for Wolff with Oakland. By not allowing SJ to compete it puts Oakland in a position of power and forces the A’s to rot at the Coli on Oakland’s terms.

    The moment San Jose wins its appeal in August, it would force Oakland to make a choice between the Raiders/A’s.

    Right now they do not have to and will turn down this 10 year lease because of Bud Selig’s inability to give the A’s the leverage they need.
    Oakland’s stance makes sense as crazy as that sounds.

  64. Also keep in mind all the concessions the A’s already get from the 1995 lawsuit after the Raiders came back.

    Oakland doesn’t want to give the A’s anything….they want to take and give nothing back.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s