The A’s hired Bob Rose in 2008 to be head of the team’s public relations. Rose handled many of the tasks you’d expect of a PR guy, handling inquiries directed towards ownership. He also occasionally wrote a blog called Clubhouse Confidential, which provided player profiles and reflections on the team during the season.
Today Rose was let go for reasons that were initially unclear. Then came this:
#Athletics let go PR man Bob Rose, will change position to “publicity and corporate communications,” incl dealing w/ local, state officials.
— Susan Slusser (@susanslusser) November 14, 2014
The PR department is already siloed to an extent for media relations and broadcasting, so it makes sense for the front office to have someone who can also work with public sector. For instance, the Giants have a 4-person public affairs group. The A’s currently have no group or person in that role. Ironically, Rose was the PR guy for the Giants in the lead up to the opening of China Basin.
It makes even more sense if you read into the move the need for a person to work in concert with counterparts at the Coliseum Authority (JPA) and/or the City of Oakland. Robert Bobb’s consulting group is going to handle much of the deal specifics on the JPA’s side, whether or not Coliseum City moves forward successfully. For large projects it’s common to draw up team org charts so that everyone understands their roles and responsibilities. I try to do that for every large project I work in my day job.
Org chart supplied by The Robert Bobb Group
Does it mean that an Oakland ballpark is happening? Not yet. But this is a solid step in preparation for a ballpark.
—
P.S. – I’m curious to see if this affects media access among bloggers. I wouldn’t expect any big changes.
newballpark.org 
As always, slanting every little news story to make Lew Wolff look like a saint and to make everyone want to move to San Jose…wait…what just happened? Are you saying that there was a solid step in Oakland? That doesn’t fit the narative I’ve been told about you! 😉
All kidding aside, this should be an interesting little story to follow in the coming months. In all honesty, PR for the A’s is in a sorry state right now. They should be investing in a good PR person and some solid marketing efforts to get in the good graces of fans regardless of where the stadium is built.
They have made solid strides in the past few years on the marketing side. It’ll be interesting to see who they bring in now to handle “messaging.”
It’s the one part of the Giants operation (besides the sweet attraction of a ballpark) that I wish the A’s had.
Yep. No one is better than the Giants at PR spin. And that was before the team on the field gave them even more ammo.
Wonder if the A’s know something we don’t yet regarding the Coliseum site’s future if they’re ramping up for a possible Oakland ballpark effort. Are the Raiders already on the way out?
No to both. This is ONLY about better PR: nothing more, nothing less…
And you base that on?
There’s nothing to base either side on. This is just a bunch of vague stuff.
@ SMG
You’re absolutely correct; the thing is Dan is not advocating for either side, he is simply wondering what it could possibly mean, on the other hand we have our dear friend Tony, who is dare I say being “Ellmano” like, in his cheerleading for San Jose, which by the way I usually don’t mind.
I fail to see how what Tony has said in this thread can be reasonably interpreted as San Jose cheerleading.
@ SMG
I am not referring to this thread only, having a propensity toward the negative, when it’s Oakland or San Jose is at times a backhanded way of cheering exclusively for one or the other (IMHO ), BTW I like Tony, and have even mentioned it here from time to time, but he has made no bones about his desire to see the A’s in San Jose ( not too dissimilar then some of the Oakland-Only folks), I don’t have a problem with that in general, but just like Elmano, it gets a little tired when you can only focus on one outcome, whic
@ SMG
Sorry, I got cut off there anyway I don’t have a problem with Tony, as a mater of fact as aggravating as Elmano was, I didn’t have too much of a problem with him, it takes all kinds and before the A’s get a new ballpark, it sounds like it will take absolutely every kind.
This news suggests a positive step, in an effort for an Oakland ballpark, but this is good news regardless of where the ballpark gets built. (In the Bay Area)
This is something that’s been needed, within the A’s organization for some time.
It could be other motives also. A few months ago, Rose was the A’s source (evidently not speaking for the organization) who was claiming the A’s were looking into out-of-state options if the Oakland lease was not approved. The A’s 100% denied that and added that was Rose was not representing the organization with that comment.
Yeah there’s been incidences with Bob like the Dale Tafoya credential pulling or him getting caught on camera during the 2014 wild card celebration going off on the cameraman for CSN.
Let’s get something done Oakland! Even if it’s just the A’s only, please turn your fortunes around and make us proud. You can do it!
@SMG above,
Thank you.
@LS,
Not anti-Oakland per se, but after reading/hearing all the anti-SJ garbage over the past few months from the traditional Bay Area media, Oakland politicos and the “stay” crowd, well…let’s just say I’m no longer rooting for Oakland to succeed on the ballpark front (sorry). It’s been like someone bragging that they kicked your ass, all while you had your hands cuffed behind your back. Anyhow, don’t think an Oakland ballpark will ever happen, whether I root for one or not. It’ll be San Jose in the end; the cuffs will eventually come off 😉
Again, only about better PR and nothing more…IMHO.
@ Tony D.
@ SMG
Hay there old friend, I have never thought you were
anti- Oakland, from our past conversations I’m sure you know that, but you seem to have become anti – a new baseball park in Oakland (which your past few comments would suggest), to some degree I can’t blame you Oakland has blown every opportunity they have had with the A’s and may blow whatever opportunity they have at the present. (if any)
Just pointing out to SMG, that like some (Oakland-Only folks), don’t see a future for the A’s in San Jose, you don’t see one for them in Oakland.
I think that’s fairly accurate, if so that’s cool own it.
As crazy as most though Elmano (not suggesting your as extreme as him), was I don’t think anyone would say he didn’t own his point of view.
BTW: I messed you.
But the difference in the debate, as I’ve mentioned before, is that there are Oakland-only people but no San Jose-only people.
@ SMG
Well the difference ( Oakland-Only vs San Jose- Only) as you call it, is why I tempered my description of Tonys point of view, by saying things, such as “dissimilar”, or “not as extreme”, when I described, what I thought his position was, comparatively to some of the Oakland-Only folks, regardless of what difference there may be between the two, I don’t think it takes away from my original point to you, as a mater of fact Tony solidified that point in his response to both of us, when saying ” I’m no longer “rooting for Oakland”, I’m sure there are plenty of people in the Oakland-Only camp that are not rooting for San Jose as well.
@ SMG
Actually if you think about the idea of Oakland-Only vs San Jose-Only (I know you have brought this up a few times in the past), it’s somewhat of a false equivalency.(IMHO )
It’s not difficult to see why there is not a large thronging of people expressing a San Jose-Only point of view when the team is not potentially being taken from them, as it is with some in the Oakland-Only camp (in their eyes), San Jose is not losing anything, so it would stand to reason that you would not have much in the way of an opposite emotional reaction.
What San Jose is currently losing, and I’m sure Tony and many others fill this way, is the right to fairly and competitively pursue a MLB team, unfortunately vary few people know and even less seem to care about that fact.
There are no San Jose-only people. I’ve literally never seen, read, or heard a single person advocate for that. They simply don’t exist. You can’t compare the Tea Party of A’s fans (the stAy/Oakland-only crowd) to a group of people that doesn’t exist (San Jose-only).
@ SMG
I went out of my way to explain why I thought Tony wasn’t exactly like them, so it’s not an exact comparison. I also went out of my way to explain how I thought Tony fillings paralleled, some ( not all) in the Oakland-Only camp, in that he (Tony), and they (some in the Oakland-Only camp), both basically see and only support one conclusion, that being San Jose, or Oakland, although in the past Tony has supported a Fremont solution.
Tony then added validity to my ascertain by saying ” I’m no longer rooting for Oakland”
I then went on to explain why there really aren’t any San Jose-Only folks, sort of difficult to be Only anything when the subject matter (A’s baseball team), has never even played a game in that place, again a false equivalency. (apples and oranges)
You brought up the tea party, well I consider myself an Independent, but I’m sure there are some things that a few people in the tea party and I may see the same way, that doesn’t mean I agree with some of there more extreme people or positions, you know the same way Tony and some of the Oakland-Only folks see one solution, so yes I’m quite confident that I can compare the two even if slightly.
I’m not in any real position to say but I can’t see how firing the PR guy will decide where the team ends up. It’s not like he was the one calling the shots.
I would agree, it doesn’t suggest where a baseball park may be built, it does suggest the ground work to build one is being laid.
What makes perfect sense is to have the A’s and 49ers in San Jose/SC and the Raiders Giants in the North. That is perfect symmetry.
Yeah, geographically and monetarily that would make sense.
Right on Aw!
Giants, Warriors and Raiders in SF/OAK.
A’s, Sharks and Niners in SJ/SC. The perfect sports balance in the Bay!