This is how oral arguments started today.
San Jose Atty. Phillip Gregory: We're not asking to overturn ATE.
Kozinski: That's a relief.
— newballpark (@newballpark) August 12, 2014
For San Jose, it pretty much went downhill from there. City of San Jose Attorney Philip Gregory was up first, and he had a very tough time against the three man panel of judges: Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Judge Barry Silverman, and Judge Richard Clifton. Gregory asserted that the Portland Baseball case limits the antitrust exemption to the reserve clause. Kosinski and Clifton took issue with that. Gregory argued that the prior cases often cited (Portland, Curt Flood) are more about minor league-major league system interactions/transactions than major league franchise movement. The judges didn’t appear to be swayed. Gregory was left to argue that the case shouldn’t be dismissed at this early stage, and should go to discovery.
MLB lawyer John Keker was next, and he had a much easier time. He was able to go at least 2 minutes without being interrupted, which indicates that the judges had little to question.
Mlb atty Keker not facing much resistance, looking bleak for San Jose. SJ atty joe Cotchett will have to perform CPR to finish
— Howard Mintz (@hmintz) August 12, 2014
Keker sits down early, following the adage: quit while you're ahead.
— Wendy Thurm (@hangingsliders) August 12, 2014
The most resistance Keker got into was a hypothetical that Kozinski put forward. The judge first asked Keker if baseball has an antitrust exemption, doesn’t that mean that this case automatically doesn’t have standing? Keker agreed. This was also a key tenet of MLB’s filings going into today’s hearing. There was even a playful back-and-forth between Kozinski and Keker, in which Kozinski prodded, “Just between you and me…” That was followed by a chuckle from the much larger-than-normal gallery. Keker kept to his argument.
Keker breaks out the big lumber: San Jose insists on not putting up more money, doesn't have stadium or team, doesn't have standing.
— newballpark (@newballpark) August 12, 2014
That left the rebuttal to Joe Cotchett, who brought props. That led to this exchange:
Kozinski: I don't understand much of this baseball stuff.
Cotchett: That's why I brought the ball and the glove.
— newballpark (@newballpark) August 12, 2014
Cotchett tried his best to take down MLB, calling the territorial distribution as outlined in the Major League Constitution one that builds an “economic wall” around San Jose (Santa Clara County) because no team is allowed to move in there. He also brought up the recent decision in a US District Court to allow an antitrust case to move forward against MLB and broadcasters over TV blackouts and exclusive territories. Judge Clifton didn’t appear to be swayed by this either.
Despite the poor outlook for San Jose, Cotchett got to hold another presser outside the courtroom after adjournment, which for him is just as important as the actual proceedings inside. Even if he loses this case in the Ninth Circuit, he aims to bring it all the way to the Supreme Court. The way things look now, getting there would be the equivalent of a six-run home run.
—
Courthouse coverage comes from the Merc’s Howard Mintz and Fangraphs’ Wendy Thurm.
newballpark.org 
Starting to think Lew might actually have signed the lease and renewed his interest in Oakland from a legitimate need now rather than just a stalling tactic…
Which is fine, as long as Oakland cooperates and we end up with a new ballpark somewhere in the Bay Area.
@ athletics68
RE “Which is fine, as long as Oakland cooperates and we end up with a new ballpark somewhere in the Bay Area”.
And the choir said “Amen!”
It would be better to have San Jose breathing down Oakland’s back to get the team than to have Oakland convinced it has the A’s with no place to go. Hopefully, Oakland will give Wolff whatever concessions he needs to get his ballpark built in Oakland. But I fear that means sending the Raiders packing. Good luck getting the city fathers and mothers to support that one.
PJK, with any luck the Raiders will be gone by January anyway and it won’t be up to the city grand poobah’s anymore.
All of the A’s/MLB leverage over Oakland is gone if this suit is dismissed. Oakland can continue it’s work to sign a new agreement with the Raiders knowing that the A’s have no other alternatives but to hang around- in fact if I am Oakland I work hard to get a deal with the raiders cut- tell the A’s that they have till 2018 when they will be homeless and then drive a hard bargain- bottom line is the A’s are trapped with no leverage-
GoA’s, you assume the A’s have no leverage without San Jose. Fact is, they have leverage. And will always have leverage. Look at what hinting they might start even exploring outside Oakland (not even Alameda County mind you) just did to Oakland’s pols. And again last year when they hinted AT&T Park might be an option for the A’s. Oakland’s pols can be swayed with the most basic and simple threats. And this from a league that has engineered far more elaborate threats and last second moves in the past.
The A’s seem to have plenty of leverage.
Hi. Big time lurker and 1st time poster. I am thinking that if this case is dismissed and Oakland thinks it has the upper hand in all this, what is to stop MLB from allowing the A’s to build in San Jose anyway. I just get the feeling Oakland polls will try to complete Coliseum City anyway.
Athletics68: It just seems like, as has been said, that the A’s realize the city’s financial predicament and know it means no public money, while the Raiders expect Big Public $$ that Oakland, Alameda County and the State of California cannot give them. The Raiders want to stay in Oakland? OK. Want the taxpayers to pay for it too? Won’t happen. The Raiders were used to multiple cities (Irwindale, Oakland, LA) bidding on them. Remember the $10 million nonrefundable Al Davis got from Irwindale? The team never moved there, did it? Now, the tables have turned and there is no public bidding for the team. Not from any city in California, anyway. Maybe he can get that in San Antonio.
pjk, which is why I suspect the Raiders will be out the door soon. Even Mark Davis can see the writing on this wall. He’s not getting any help from Oakland. We know it, the voters know it, the city knows it, the NFL knows it and Davis knows it. And by their latest actions with the NFL reiterating they’d prefer the Raiders in Levis and the Raiders own actions of starting to look elsewhere, they’re moving as if they’re aware Oakland likely isn’t happening for them due to no public funding.
The A’s meanwhile as you say, seem to realize the same thing, but can cope with it unlike the Raiders. At this point I think we’re at the point where circumstances will force the resolution favorable to the A’s which is the Raiders gone and the A’s with a new ballpark. And it’ll be in Oakland, which will undoubtedly please the Oakland-Only crowd, seemingly since SJ seems less likely than ever to happen due to baseball’s archaic exemptions and the court’s seeming reluctance to tamper with them.
At this point there seems to be little A’s fans can do but sit back, and watch Lew work with Oakland. It’ll take a few years, but if he’s paying even those nincompoops will be far more open to working than they would be otherwise.
SJ Mayor Reed attempted to try a voter approved measure for funding infrastructure for the ballpark – that would be evidence of San Jose planning to build a stadium – and Selig instructed Reed not to do so.That would appear that Selig directly obstructed San Jose’s plan for a building a new A’s ballpark. Why the courts wouldn’t consider that evidence that San Jose was planning for a new ballpark is bizzare.
Not sure that would rise to being obstruction however. They could have done so despite Selig’s request. They chose not to, now to their detriment. But Selig didn’t inhibit them in any way from doing so.
@a68- A’s have always had that leverage – and playing at ATT is nothing more than a temporary solution- LW is not moving team out of area- if Oakland says HT is only spot for ballpark then what leverage do A’s have?
GoA’s, if it comes down to that and Oakland plays hardball, you can bet the A’s would be gone. They would prefer to stay in the Bay Area, but they’ve also never had reason to leave. If Oakland forces them out, you can bet they’d hit the road rather than take a bad deal from Oakland.
And HT is off the table per the new lease if I’m not mistaken, so we shouldn’t be hearing about that nonsense anymore.
All, only if MLB would throw there force around more, its that the city of Oakland doesn’t listen to Lew and likes to play hardball with him, but when MLB speaks its like then run and apologizes and does whatever MLB wants like a little kid that’s about to get a whopping from daddy. Lew should just let MLB handle it and go with it, MLB continues to do nothing unless they have to and let Lew go at his pace/support with the A’s want to do in there territory, which is see how this suit draws out. But if MLB said Oak get it done Lew get it done it would be a done deal. We see how bad Oakland retreats when Bud speaks. Now Bud needs to make one final speech to both parties.
The A’s and Raiders will both remain in Oakland. There is no better market for either of them at this point in time. LA is not going to happen for the Raiders. San Antonio is a much less attractive market in need of a suitable football stadium.
The best option is Oakland with both teams at Coliseum City, or, with the Raiders at Coliseum City while Lew Wolff builds at Howard Terminal but gets rights to develope Coliseum City. Lew can use the development at Coliseum City to help pay for a waterfront ballpark at Howard Terminal.
Oakland can grant Lew Wolff the Howard Terminal site while splitting the 800 acre Coliseum City area between Lew Wolff and Mark Davis. Davis can use his 400 acres to help pay for his football stadium while Wolff uses his 400 aces of development to help pay for a Howard Terminal ballpark.
The Warriors cold also team up with Wolff on the 50 acres at Howard Terminal to help with economies of scale. The Warriors will not be going to SF in the long run. It’s much too expensive and much too time consuming to get anything done in SF. The Warriors will owe Oakland 62 million if they attempt to leave before the bonds for the Arena are paid off. The Warriors have been quiet as mice as far as their SF plans. The fact of the matter is that their chosen site in SF doesn’t excite anybody, is in a congested area with inferior public transit compared to where they are now, is not cost effective considering the extra 62 million to leave Oakland, and, Oakland has proven to be a tremendous location for the franchise. The Warriors will end up selling their SF land at a profit and build in Oakland instead.
Another thing everyone likes to look over and bypass besides the false claims of it being so much trouble is the fact that that this is a 50 acre waterfront site looking towards SF. Tell me how many condos and hotels you can put down there? 50 acres is a lot but everyone discounts that that is a prime area, prices of some current condos downtown are already in the millions of dollars. So 100’s of condos next to a new ballpark overlooking towards sf. no brainier
How many condos and hotels you can put down there? Zero. It’s an INDUSTRIAL AREA near an ACTIVE PORT. Holy hell. You think you’re going to put anything down there that would have people going in and out of that place all hours of the day while trains roll in and out of there? Not happening. And no one’s going to want to live in that area. Great view maybe, but the overall environment isn’t suitable for people living.
Nav, the Warriors are already gone. They bought land in SF and are planning construction as you sit here dreaming. Continuing to spout nonsense like this completely undermines any argument you’re trying to make.
He’s beyond delusional. Don’t waste your time with that troll.
Elmano is full of shit as usual. The Warriors have re-upped with Snohetta and Manica Architecture last week regarding their SF Arena.
I agree with Athletics68 – continuing to spout nonsense like this completely undermines any argument you’re trying to make.
What’s funny about this is money-hungry MLB is beating back a city that could bring in a whole pile of money to MLB’s coffers just because this is what one franchise (the Giants) wants. All that Silicon Valley money sits on the table while MLB continues to “serve” Silicon Valley from 45 miles away. It will be tough for MLB to make something profitable work in Oakland; I hope it can get done. In San Jose, it’s a no-brainer.
It’s not a no brainier because allowing that will open up more issues than not, and making it work in Oakland can be profitable, but I guess San Jose rules the world in making anything work financially on here
re: The A’s and Raiders will both remain in Oakland.
…Yes, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy will come in and make things whole for both teams.
re: Oakland can grant Lew Wolff the Howard Terminal site while splitting the 800 acre Coliseum City area
…What did I tell you? Oakland-only advocates cling endlessly to the dead-on-arrival, not-gonna-happen Howard Terminal site.
re: The Warriors cold also team up with Wolff on the 50 acres at Howard Terminal to help with economies of scale. The Warriors will not be going to SF in the long run.
..Newsflash: The Warriors have acquired an arena site in Frisco. They are G-O-N-E from the Enchanted Land of Oakland.
re: Oakland has proven to be a tremendous location for the franchise.
…So tremendous that the Warriors are committed to leaving. No turning back.
re: in a congested area with inferior public transit
…Yes, with a Muni rail line right at the site, fed by CalTrain and BART. Very inferior.
Elmano: If public transit is so important, how come transit access-challenged Levi’s Stadium is sold out for the year (I was at the ticket booth the other day and the ticket person was emphatic – no 49er tickets available this season) while public transit-friendly O.Co Coliseum has tens of thousands of tarped seats for both the Raiders and A’s? Why can’t you answer this question?
@pjk this is a lame comparison, really and stadium that is not even opened yet you are comparing to one built in the 60’s. come on now, everyone loves new and when your team is winning it makes it even better. Goes for SJ goes for Oakland goes for SF. you really need the perfect storm to make projects like stadiums happen in Cali
The South Bay has no problem supporting SF teams and shunning Oakland. MLB already gets the Silicon Valley money at AT&T Park. Just like Santa Clara has no problem supporting the “San Francisco” Forty Niners playing in stadium in the middle of Silicon Valley. Until Silicon Valley establishes some self-respect and stops throwing itself at SF and San Francisco teams there really is no need for MLB to locate in the South Bay when they know they get the milk anyway.
Can you ever imagine the San Francisco Forty Niners playing in Oakland while still calling themselves SF? Oakland would never stand for it. The South Bay needs a little more self-respect other than kissing SF’s ring.
This coming from the same guy that keeps touting how close Oakland is to SF. That wants a ballpark at HT because it would have a nice view of the SF skyline.
The best thing about SF is the view from Oakland. The SF skyline is a great back drop for Oakland. SF has always looked its best from places like Oakland, Treasure Island, Tiburon and Sausalito.
Dmoas,
There are plenty of exiting condos in Jack London Square already. So, yes, people do want to live in that area and are paying between 500,000 to 1,000,000 million for condos.
re: but I guess San Jose rules the world in making anything work financially on here
…I’ll cut and paste from my last post: transit access-challenged Levi’s Stadium is sold out for the year (I was at the ticket booth the other day and the ticket person was emphatic – no 49er tickets available this season) while public transit-friendly O.Co Coliseum has tens of thousands of tarped seats for both the Raiders and A’s. Not to mention empty suites that are sold at rock-bottom prices because the Raiders can’t charge what the 49ers can in the South Bay.
PJK,
It’s all about the Raiders not having a winning season in 12 years while the San Francisco Forty Niners have been very successful on the field. Do you really think the Forty Niners would be selling out with 12 consecutive non winning seasons. Also, let’s see what happens when 70,000 people show up at that location.
re: really and stadium that is not even opened yet you are comparing to one built in the 60’s
…the Raiders had state-of-the-art luxury suites built in 1995. Have they been able to sell them? Nope. Not in 1995, not now.
again a bad comparison, a new state of the art 1.3 million dollar stadium to some nice luxury boxes that was built for the raiders to market it to a specific group of people, not a new stadium that everyone who is a fan could come and enjoy which it still equals a old stadium built in the 60’s
re: The South Bay has no problem supporting SF teams and shunning Oakland. MLB already gets the Silicon Valley money at AT&T Park.
…MLB gets a fraction of the Silicon Valley money that it would get if it had a franchise in Silicon Valley.
re: Can you ever imagine the San Francisco Forty Niners playing in Oakland while still calling themselves SF?
…One of the backup plans floated, if the 49ers could not get it done in Santa Clara, was to move to Oakland and have the Raiders and 49ers share a place there. Would the team still have been called SF 49ers if they moved to Oakland. Absolutely.
re: Oakland would never stand for it.
…You mean like how Oakland would never stand for an NBA team playing there for 40 years and never calling itself Oakland?
You do realize there’s a “reply” button and that, upon using it, will nest your comments under the one you’re replying to making conversation just a touch easier, right?
re: Do you really think the Forty Niners would be selling out with 12 consecutive non winning seasons.
…the 49ers were pretty bad in the 1990s and for part of the 2000s and the place was still sold out. The number of 49ers games blacked out on TV during that time: 0. Next failed argument, please.
Have to step back into the fun, and call bs again. It’s funny how facts aren’t facts on here but have to love the internet because history can’t be changed. Like the niners selling out and doing so good as you claim. False, wanna buy some coke maybe a 12 pack we will give you free niner tickets. Looks like a failed argument here.
http://m.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/01/09/story8.html?r=full
Officially, the games were sold out. That’s why there haven’t been any 49er blackouts in decades.
You don’t remember the 70’s and 80’s when the Forty Niners would draw 35,000 per game while the Raiders sold out their 54,000 stadium for decades?
I remember the 80’s when the Coliseum was dark all fall and winter since the Raiders were playing in Los Angeles and the Niners were sold out every week.
SFGate has their article up about San Jose’s bad day at the courthouse today…
http://www.sfgate.com/athletics/article/Judges-take-dim-view-of-San-Jose-s-effort-to-draw-5684371.php
re: while the Raiders sold out their 54,000 stadium for decades?
…How much were Raiders tickets in those days? $8 apiece? And there were no luxury suites to sell. The Raiders did OK in Oakland under the old cheap-tickets, no-luxury-seating paradigm of the 60s and 70s. But in the expensive-tickets, luxury-seating era of today, NFL football doesn’t seem t be working in Oakland, where the Raiders are last in league revenues and either the lowest-valued or one of the lowest-valued franchises in the league. The 60s and 70s are over, Elmano.
Forty Niner fans don’t remember John Brodie, Gene Washington, astro turf and 35,000 fans? I certainly do. This was all happening in San Francisco while Oakland was packing them in. The SF Forty Niners were the second banana in pro football in the Bay Area and it wasn’t even close. So, it can’t be that a SF location trumps Oakland every time as some here like seem to think.
And all of that old attendance info doesn’t matter given the NFL’s modern paradigm.
re: The SF Forty Niners were the second banana in pro football in the Bay Area and it wasn’t even close.
…Today, the 49ers are most-popular NFL team right in the county where the Raiders play in. The 60s and 70s are over, Elmano.
Chris,
Choosing an architect means very little. Lew Wolff claims he’s working with an architect for a ballpark in Oakland. Does this make a ballpark in Oakland a done deal? The Warriors are moving at a snails pace and these are very preliminary meetings with the neighbors.
This location is an afterthought compared to the glamorous location they had on the piers. I just don’t see the excitement for this less than accessible location.
Also, what happens with the 62 million the Warriors will owe Oakland for bailing on the bonds? This is far from a done deal.
@ Elmano
You are correct about those bonds, hard to see how the Warriors get out of that, but the Warriors probably would pay them, for the opportunity to leave Oakland (unfortunately).
For the one person on earth, other than Jean Quan who thinks the warriors aren’t going to SF, you nay want to go to these meetings
http://m.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2014/08/12/golden-state-warriors-mission-bay.html
I think the Warriors are keeping things low – key, because of how the Embarcadero plan blew up in their face.
I am actually hoping the Warriors move to San Francisco (probably a forgone conclusion), because it hopefully will increase the chances that Oakland can save the A’s, or Raiders, perhaps even both.
It will be difficult enough to get one or both take care of, the Warriors in San Francisco will allow Oakland to focus on the one, or two teams they have left.
Actually if the Warriors moved to San Francisco, it could be the perfect balance, assuming Oakland can get off its collective ass. 49ers and Sharks in the south bay, the Giants and Warriors in San Francisco, and the A’s and Raiders in the east bay, not sure in can be done for the A’s and Raiders, perhaps if Lew Wolff took the lead.
Lesson #1 for budding lawya’s out there – don’t screw around with Judge Kozinski, because he’ll hand you your head, gift-wrapped with a bow made out of your spleen.
It is regrettable that SJ could not come up with better arguments than they did. I fail to see this case making it past this hearing; perhaps they’d do better en banc hoping that some of the 9th Circus dimwittedness comes through.
Re Elmano: His argument boils down to this: “Oakland had a good run in the 60s and 70s with all three teams, therefore it’s better for all three teams to remain where they are.” Unfortunately for Elmano, this is no longer the 60’s and 70’s, and things have changed just a little bit. Some of the teams in question (49ers in particular) have caught the wave and are positioned to do better going forward. Some of the cities in question have made moves to improve their teams’ situations (SF with AT&T, SJ with SAP Center and plans for Cisco Field)….
…and some cities are Oakland.
@ sierraspartan
I agree, we can talk all day about what has been done unfairly to Oakland, and there would be some valid points, but if Oakland wants to save one, perhaps even two (outside shot), of its teams, they have to get off of their collective ass and do something.
I’m so tired of speeches about a “rich sports history”, or the “teams belong in Oakland”, or my personal favorite “teams should not a banded a culturally diverse city, such as Oakland”.
Look I am part of a minority group, grew up in Oakland, and love its diversity, but these are not financial plans to win, or keep the teams you have.
If it’s true that Wolff does not have a lot of leverage (San Jose not a true option), and has come to the conclusion that he must take the path of least resistance (coliseum site), unless he just decides to sale the team to out of state interests, this is the best thing that could have happened to Oakland.
The one person that can get something done at the coliseum site, being forced to except the coliseum site.
Doesn’t Oakland have a better arena than San Jose? You forgot to mention that Oracle Arena was completely gutted and rebuilt in 1997 and is currently a very nice arena.
Short answer… No!!
“Doesn’t Oakland have a better arena than San Jose?”
Ummm, no.
No, Oakland absolutely does not have a better arena than San Jose. But of course, Oakland could pitch a canvas tent in the parking lot and you would say that’s better than anything Frisco or San Jose has.
Also, Oakland has every right to keep all of its teams without having the Mayors of San Jose and San Francisco coveting what isn’t theirs. Oakland has every right to have its own sports franchises and institutions without worrying about balancing things out for those cities which have less. Should SF share their Broadway shows with the Fox and Paramount in Oakland to even things out in that department. Should the Oakland Zoo loans out animals to the Happy Hollow Zoo in San Jose to even things out?
I don’t get this provincial thinking that Oakland is less than and therefore deserves less than certain other cities in the Bay Area.
Oakland is a great town with great weather, beautiful topography, great theaters, wonderful restaurants, interesting neighborhoods situated in the very center of the Bay Area. Oakland isn’t some sort of charity car that is supposed to be viewed as inferior to San Jose or other cites in the region. Let’s show Oakland a little respect and let’s expect each town in the Bay Area without coveting the other owns assets.
@ Elmano
Oakland did accomplish a total renovation of the arena, I believe it’s quite, nice at the same time they made renovations to the stadium that got the Raiders to return (unfortunately it ruined the coliseum for the A’s), and to this day they remain the only city in California, to host the top three major sports, since I believe 1995. More impressively is what they accomplished in 1965 (I believe), when the coliseum was built for the Raiders, with the idea to also lure a MLB team, which they did in 1968 with the A’s, then went a step further with the arena, when they convinced the Warriors to move across the bay.
These were all wonderful achievements by Oakland, but the operative word is “was”, Oakland has not been treated fare by the Warriors, Raiders, or at times the A’s, but in all honestly sports teams, in all three leagues and a forth, if you include the NHL have treated their host city’s poorly, extracting untold billions from local municipality’s, using the threat of leaving to gain a better deal for themselves, it’s not like Oakland is unique in that sense, even if they have been treated worse than most.
I think the question I have for Oakland politicians is what are they doing today, not yesterday, but today and as unfortunate as it is that Wolff, would not talk to them, for some time, or that the Warriors were not even willing to listen to a proposal from them, or Mark Davis continuingly talking to other cities, while saying I am trying to work with Oakland is, what has Oakland done? Or plan to do?
It fills likes Oakland is doing nothing more than using the unfortunate circumstances, as reasons why they can’t do something, Oakland needs to stop play the victim role and get something done.
@ Elmano
RE: “Also, Oakland has every right to keep all of its teams without having the Mayors of San Jose and San Francisco coveting what isn’t theirs.”
Why should Oakland have this right, no other city in North America has it? Never mind that the Warriors played in San Francisco, before they moved to Oakland and Philadelphia before that.
Never mind that the A’s played in Kansas City and Philadelphia, before Oakland, and the Raiders played in LA, before they moved back to Oakland, I guess in that case it was ok for Oakland s mayor to covet what belong to LA, because it belonged to Oakland first, hell I think the Raiders even played the first year or two in San Francisco.
Elmano, I am one of the few people here that recognizes, when you have a point, and try’s to be reasonable enough to let you know that, are you really going to stand by a statement that suggest that city’s should not have the right to compete for other city’s sports franchises? When that’s something every city is subject to, including Oakland?
Well even if it’s not right, it certainly is, and going to continue to happen.
The SJ vs MLB lawsuit is still in play. The recent Mark Purdy story puts it at the equivalent in the 5th inning (which sounds accurate)
Despite Wendy Thurm implying otherwise – the giants (and Selig) are the bad guys here. The Giants are a franchise that suffers from big time inferiority complex issues and are attempting to drive the A’s out of state so they can monopolize the bay area MLB fanbase – and Selig is an accomplice. The courts likely do not favor the giants or MLB (even though Wendy Thurm’s comments imply otherwise) If the case ends up at the Supreme Court docket – there is a fair chance that the MLB ATE could be overturned or its powers diluted. Also, if San Jose wins the state torts case – the result would be more precedence against the MLB ATE – which would damage it further (MLB would prefer to avoid that and also open up their books for scrutiny during that case)
Pardon the question, but when do hearings for the CA case begin?
What are the chances of the Supreme Court taking this case? Not very high, I’ll say.
Raiders fans keeping it classy (along with their team).
http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/11345924/oakland-raiders-fan-hits-dallas-cowboys-bw-webb-joint-practice-brawl
Wonder if Magic is saying this himself or if Mark Davis is prompting him to say such things…
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story/_/id/11346347/magic-johnson-believes-los-angeles-land-nfl-team-next-two-years
Raiders back to LA? Magic and his big bucks group wouldn’t mind it.
Also looks like San Antonio and Davis were more serious about the team moving there than originally thought.
http://www.sfgate.com/raiders/article/San-Antonio-prepared-well-for-meeting-to-attract-5685213.php
It could happen if SA or LA is willing to build a heavily subsidized stadium for the raiders.
Well it sure seems like SA is willing. And as for LA they wouldn’t need to. Between AEG and/or Guggenheim you’d have a private group that could build a stadium on the private dole. Hell they could even buy out Davis and be the majority owners yet let Davis still feel important and make him the face of their new ownership group not unlike they’ve let Magic Johnson do with the Lakers.
Both are equally threats, it all depends on what kind of ownership situation Mark is willing to tolerate. But it sure sounds like he’s having more than a simple flirtation with San Antonio. They’re already talking about a 27 million dollar renovation of the Alamodome as a TEMP venue, and then building him a new stadium at a later date. And the temp venue would even be a step up from the Coliseum for the Raiders.
If Davis wants a new stadium then he should be very serious about moving to LA or San Antonio since he is not going to get public funding for a stadium in Oakland. This blurb in SFGate says it all: When news of Davis’ trip to San Antonio surfaced, Oakland Councilman Larry Reid, who is on the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority board, said he wasn’t surprised that Davis might be looking elsewhere, noting that a $600 million funding gap existed for a football-only stadium.
@ pjk
As you already know, Davis is just trying to pimp, which ever city will give him the most money (tax dollars), Oakland does not have any, not sure if San Antonio does but if they do, be my guest, you may have them, and I say this as a lifelong Raider fan. It sure is refreshing to fill that way.
LA is the only one of the three that will not have to come up with as much, or any at all, as the LA market is so lucrative that privet investors would pay to play, but we all know Mark has no money and will be heavily reliant on others that do.
…I see these comments from people not in the know saying Oakland needs to build the Raiders a stadium, Davis is just using San Antonio to get the right deal out of Oakland, no chance the Raiders move to San Antonio, blah blah blah. None of these commenters is aware that Oakland has $2 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, needs more police officers, etc. Spending taxpayer money on stadiums doesn’t even enter the picture when it comes to Oakland budget priorities. The Raiders might reflexively expect Oakland to pony up half a billion dollars but it aint going to happen.
@ pjk
You’re correct, Davis can’t get a better deal from Oakland, because Oakland has nothing to which, they can give him to make it a better deal.
While I understood the motivation for the law suit, I still feel it was a blunder. It only works if the Supreme Court agrees to hear it AND they are sympathetic to the arguments of SJ. It’s the very definition of a “Hail Mary” and we are very close to finding out if it has any chance of succeeding. Guessing from most independent legal analysis, it doesn’t.
Of course, Oakland has had 5 years to make something happen. All they have accomplished is cementing the Warriors exodus thus far. I am hopeful that they will realize keeping 1 team is their best realistic outcome at this point and get to gettin’ it done. But I have followed this closely for a long time, and I have little faith that they will get realistic anytime soon.
The net result of all of this is… status quo.
A loss by San Jose, which seems likely at this point, means the A’s have to deal with just Oakland or Oakland and other places far away. With Oakland unwilling to concede even the loss of the Warriors, who already have property in Frisco for an arena, what are the chances of Oakland sending the Raiders packing so the A’s can make a ballpark work at the Coliseum site? Little to none. Hence, we end up with Oakland having the same old “The A’s have no place to go” hope and no incentive to do anything for the A’s. And at some point, MLB will say enough is enough and take the team out of the Bay Area. A San Jose win was important not just for San Jose but to get a ballpark built in Oakland, too. San Jose’s loss could end up Oakland’s loss as well.
Pjk, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you’re worrying far too much about the “city sending the Raiders packing”. The Raiders are gone. Just read the articles I linked to above and listen to what their leaders are saying. They know the jig is up when it comes to the Raiders. The Raiders are in serious talks with San Antonio, they’ve got LA’s monied interests sniffing around. They’re as gone as the Warriors are already. The city is even coming to realize that at this point (which is probably why they sided with the A’s in the end). Given that Wolff needs nothing but land they’ve long designated for the exact purpose he wants to use it for, he’s the path of least resistance for them now. The Raiders need public funds, and even Oakland’s leaders now realize that if that’s the case and another city can offer that, they’re through being an NFL city.
@ pjk
I hope not, but you have a point and it could very well go that way.
Just think if we are tired, what does MLB, or the NFL think? Each league having a franchises playing in a multipurpose stadium, well after the practice was obsolete? We don’t even have real plans at this point to resolve it, this can’t go on forever.
@ athletics68
I think your right; we won’t have to concern ourselves with Oakland choosing the Raiders, because it doesn’t look like Davis will choose Oakland.
Then Oakland will be forced to dill with the one team, they have chosen, not to dill with for so long, and Wolff will dill with them, if he has no other real choses.
A city with no choices, and a team with very little choices, works for me.
Exactly. In the end after years of both the city and Wolff dicking around with other dreams they’ll end up building a private ballpark right back where the A’s have been playing for 50 years out of simple necessity on both parties part. The A’s because MLB left them with no other options and the city because they’ve got no realistic options left given their financial constraints.
Funny thing is, it will probably work out great for everyone in the end too. Wolff will get his Fremont Cisco Field style development and legacy project (if on a slightly smaller scale), the city will get a revitalized South Oakland neighborhood in an area that was derisively called “Baby Iraq” only a handful of years before, and we’ll all get to go see the A’s in a shiny new ballpark that has decent freeway access and great transit access as we’ve had for the last 46 years.
It’s crazy… the circle of life
A court loss isn’t inherently the end of the story. The owners could take a vote at any time. Fighting a publicity battle with MLB would probably stand a better chance of succeeding than fighting a court battle at this point.
Just try to shame the owners into taking a simple vote. If the A’s lost the vote, then so be it. If they win, good for them. There’s no reason not to just take a simple damn vote.
Forty Niner fans are anxious to push the Oakland Raiders out of Oakland. It’s not going to happen.
Davis knows he has access to a great market now that the Forty Niners have vacated the center of the Bay Area and located in a congested and transit challenged area in the southern portion of the Bay Area.
If the Raiders start winning while the Forty Niners begin to falter, fans will come to Oakland instead of dealing with the taffic congestion nightmare in Santa Clara. Davis will end up working with Oakland and end up with a new transit friendly stadium in the center of the lucrative Bay Area.
Davis would be foolish to be pushed out of Oakland now with the Forty Niners giving up San Francisco. The Raiders can control Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Marin and Sonoma counties with a successful team in Oakland.
It’s not just about building a new stadium. It’s about building a new stadium in a good market accessible to your fans and to your tradition and history.
I sometimes wonder if the world you live in has a blue sky, too.
I think the stated possibilities in Oakland make perfect sense.
Davis wants to stay in Oakland and things will work out just like they did with the infusion of 1.5 billon for the Brooklyn Basin project currently under way on the Oakland waterfront.
@all
Leave Elmano alone… Oakland just gained a small victory with the San Jose on the brink of being SF Giants territory for awhile.. so its best to just to discuss different ballpark designs for a new A’s ballpark next to the Coliseum… I prefer the A’s to copy the Pirates ballpark design and size.
In a shit-stain world, I’d assume the sky is brown.
Can I get some of whatever u are smoking, dude?
Looking more and more like this will be the last season of the Oakland Raiders, Elmano. They need at least $600 million for their new stadium and can’t come up with the money.
If 9th Circuit rules SJ has no standing, can SJ still appeal to SCOTUS?
Of course, they’d appeal the standing ruling. The SCOTUS would not be obligated to take the case, however.
how many new parks built over the last two decades have been “out in the middle of nowhere” and not in downtown areas?
-miller park in mil
-citizen’s bank park in philly
-bank one park in az
-marlins park in mia
-us cellular in chi
-ballpark in arlington in tex
-citifield in nyc
-untitled braves new stadium
that leaves about maybe 13 or 14 downtown/waterfront mlb parks during the same two decade timeframe?
if the a’s remain in oakland then i’m fine with that. what design they’ll come up with? who knows. out of all the 3 designs that the a’s have put up there between coliseum north, fremont, and sj the ballpark design itself in fremont i preferred the most. actually the stadium design for coliseum north and fremont was basically these same other than the design beyond the of walls.
Bank One Ballpark is in downtown Phoenix, Marlins Park isn’t in downtown but it is right in Little Havana, and Citi Field is in the heart of Queens. Not really good examples.
However the Coliseum site does have a lot in common with Arlington, Miller Park, US Cellular and Philly. And three of those four have worked out very well. And US Cellular’s issues had less to do with location and more to do with the fact it was the last pre-Camden ballpark.
You can add Angels Stadium of Anaheim to that list. Is there even such thing as Downtown Anaheim? I don’t think so.
After finally getting a chance to review what happened 2 days ago here is my take:
-San Jose cannot argue torturous interference and collusion in anti-trust court as Piazza did in 1993 because of the Curt Flood act. This makes no sense as why is it called the “Curt Flood Act” to protect the players, not to strengthen the other areas of their ATE, it would have taken congress 5 years to repeal everything, that’s why they left it to the courts…..
These judges seem old and are fixated that a ATE granted in 1922 holds weight in 2014? When one judge said “I don’t understand this baseball stuff”…that is a ignorant remark as baseball is a business not a game.
-If this was Apple vs. Samsung and Apple argued they have T-rights to the Bay Area so Samsung cannot move here would that fly in the 9th Circuit? No it would not nor would the 49ers stopping the Raiders from moving to San Francisco.
-Cotchett did a poor job of showing the anti-competitive behavior of MLB in this case.
-Seattle, after Bud Selig moved the Pilots to Milwaukee lost in federal court but won in state court. That is where Cotchett can argue torturous interference and collusion like Seattle did and it forced MLB to open their books.
That case though would not start until this one is done.
SJ got a raw deal with these judges, Piazza caught a huge break years ago with more liberal judges.
These judges also ignored the recent ruling by a district court on broadcast territories in the Nats vs. Orioles case. How does this make any sense?
Did Kekar and MLB pick the judges?
Sid,
It’s “tortious” interference, not “torturous.”
This has nothing to do with the age of the judges, they are bound by precedent. It’s hard to get the Supreme Court to overrule longstanding precedent; it’s even less likely that an appellate court is going to step out on its own and say “we’re ignoring Supreme Court precedent because it’s based on faulty and outdated logic.” If the ATE were going to be overruled at all, it’s more likely that the appellate court would uphold precedent and leave it to the Supremes to overrule.
The Nats v Orioles case has zero precedential value in the Ninth Circuit. (In fact, it has zero precedential value in its own jurisdiction because it’s only a trial court decision and not an appellate court decision). If it gets upheld by an appellate court and creates the appearance of conflicting precedent, then it might help convince the Supreme Court to hear San Jose’s case. Maybe.