San Jose’s antitrust case denied by SCOTUS

Today was supposed to be doomsday for San Jose’s Supreme Court case against MLB. Now we know for sure:

Here’s the list of which petitions were granted certiorari (PDF).

The Supreme Court started going through petitions Monday, with the expectation that we’d know the fate of the case sometime towards the end of the week. (SCOTUSblog details the process here.) While the case is still pending, it is being left to wither and die as there are no plans for the Court to take it up.

Now that this chapter is effectively over, MLB, the A’s, and San Jose can move on, which means watching Oakland try to get a ballpark deal in place for the A’s. That’s where the attention has been for the last 18 months, anyway. San Jose doesn’t re-enter the picture unless the A’s and Oakland aren’t able to work something out.

Reactions to be added to this post as they come.

Update 1:30 PM – Professor Nathaniel Grow chimed in further:

150 thoughts on “San Jose’s antitrust case denied by SCOTUS

  1. Was worth a try, I suppose. It’s unfortunate that the court won’t do anything about MLB’s ridiculous, undeserved ATE.

    • I agree. Maybe the lack of “standing” was the determining factor. I’d imagine the ATE will be threatened again but unfortunately, SJ’s case was too weak to make a dent.

      • Any of the lower courts could have booted the case on this basis, but none did. There is nothing to suggest this was a significant factor. (I also fail to see how San Jose’s case was any weaker than another theoretical plaintiff’s would be).

        The major obstacle to this case has always been longstanding precedent combined with, arguably, Congressional endorsement of that precedent. A more likely scenario is that the SCOTUS simply views the ATE as something that would need to be changed by Congress at this point.

    • Exactly! It’s a joke that SCOTUS actually sees MLB’s archaic ATE as legit. They have no valid reason behind the denial….in the past it has just been due to “precedent”?? They couldn’t come up with something better huh?

      • Um, “precedent” is the core of the American legal system, in contrast to “making shit up as you go along because you feel like it.” It’s kind of what distinguishes the U.S. from Idi Amin’s Uganda.

  2. Oakland now gets more time to procrastinate and fumble around with the Raiders while leaving the A’s at the wayside. Indeed, it’s a big day for Selig, Manfred, and Overlord Baer.

    Maybe with the litigation being somewhat settled, dialogue about SJ as a contingency for when/if Oakland fails could recommence. Sounds so familiar. Rinse. Repeat.

    • Is this a big win for Selig and Manfred? It means Oakland, as you said, can keep stalling while trying to get something done with the Raiders, with San Jose off the table.

  3. Great news! A’s belong in Oakland.

    • I’m fine with the A’s staying in Oakland. But Oakland has no money to help pay for sports stadiums and it’s questionable whether there is enough private money to get it done. MLB may have a pyrric victory – A’s stay in Oakland provided MLB continues revenue-sharing forever.

  4. The big winners? The San Francisco Giants.

    Reason: They benefit in both the short- and the long-term from keeping things as they are right now.

    Lew’s signing of the 10 year lease just blew up in his face, because now there is no urgency on the part of Oakland where baseball is concerned – they’ve got the A’s until the 2023 or 2024 season, and the NFL issue regarding LA quite possibly won’t be settled until then anyway.

    So, ML – you ready for another decade of this crap?

    • The 10 year lease is nothing. The amount of money the A’s would have to pay to get out of it would be made up quite easily in the first year of the additional revenue generated by a sparkly new stadium. It was actually a pretty brilliant move on the A’s part. It means that until MLB gets off it’s hiney and lets them do something they are guaranteed 9 more years of revenue sharing.

  5. Looking specifically for reactions from cocksure opiners from this site that were so darn sure cert would be granted. They had tons of unnamed “legal experts” backing up their conclusions.

    Also, this gives the City of Oakland more leverage to get a better deal on the fundamentals and community benefits agreement.

    • “Also, this gives the City of Oakland more leverage to get a better deal on the fundamentals and community benefits agreement.”

      I think this is debatable. Oakland is still pretty low on leverage unless they are ponying up some cash (look at every other market to have a new stadium in the last 20 years for supporting evidence). There’s still the possibility that the A’s leave the market altogether, which is really what the Giants want and won’t give up on until there is a shovel in the ground.

      It’s just not that straightforward.

    • A good afternoon for drinking tears.

  6. Congratulations MLB. You have now, and always have, royally screwed one of your storied franchises.

    That’s it. The A’s are doomed to be in the Coli indefinitely, until they are either moved out of the BA entirely, or folded. They now have absolutely no leverage to do anything at all in Oakland, and Oakland will do absolutely nothing for the A’s, while trying to suck up to the Raiders, who do have leverage (they can leave practically anytime they want).

    Sadly, the A’s will continue to be a AAAA franchise, unless currently ownership (or some other future ownership) decides to spend their fortunes trying to make the A’s viable.

    Fuck MLB. Fuck Selig/Manfred. Fuck the Lodge. Fuck Larry Baer/Charles Johnson. Fuck the Giants.

    • It’s a joke how MLB has no balls to allow A’s to go to SJ…since SJ wants them to. Based solely on weak territorial rights that should have been rescinded along time ago!

  7. Despite what they may think, this is not a victory for MLB. Only the Giants and the City of Oakland are winners here. At this point, the A’s now lose any leverage they possibly could have had in any future negotiations with Oakland for a new Oakland ballpark. It should also be clearly well noted that Lew Wolff and the A’s ownership would never put themselves in financial jeopardy just to satisfy Oakland officials and MLB by getting a new ballpark deal done. That said, A’s ownership has two ways to go, and neither one will be good for Bay Area A’s fans. The first way to go is for the A’s to remain at the current Coliseum indefinitely. With limited revenue stream potential from their current ballpark situation, the A’s will be forced to continue to operate as a small market team. Look for the team to continue on as perennial losers out on the field, with some short-term spurts of success, as has been the case in recent years. The second way to go is for the A’s ownership to get tired of the stalemate and could ultimately sell the team to out of market interests. Within a few years, new markets could very well offer better resources to accommodate a MLB franchise. With this scenario, the Giants will reach their ultimate goal by having the Bay Area market all for themselves. Either way, Bay Area A’s fans will be the biggest losers, but MLB will come a close second. Sadly, MLB is too blinded by their greed to realize this.

    • It’s interesting though because the gentrification of Oakland has begun and will continue the next 10 years. People who can’t afford or can’t get in in SF are moving to Oakland. The housing market is also hot in areas of Oakland as well as the rent market. Next, I see more big business / corporate hq’s moving there in the 10 years. Uber is there now…

      • Uber isn’t going to be there for 2 more years and it won’t be their HQ, but I think you are right about more businesses having a presence in Oakland (hopefully).

        It’s one way to combat the garbage transit options we have as compared to other big markets. I work for a company in SF, we had to open an office in the South Bay or risk losing a lot of engineering talent because nobody likes sitting in traffic or riding a train for 1.5 hours to get to work.

        I live in Pleasanton, and if my company opened an Oakland office, I’d be the first in line to work there, just to cut my BART time in half.

  8. I have made no bones about being a Pro-Oakland fan, that has no problem with the A’s San Jose but I never could see why so many of us thought the SC would consider this case. I don’t profess to be some kind of expert of the law, but the case seemed pretty weak on the face of it.
    I’m not sure how much leverage this really gives Oakland though, because MLB can still negotiate with San Jose as a plan B.
    It’s unlikely they may end up there, but Oakland better come up with a strategy that includes more than the standard line of “The San Francisco Giants hold the territorial rights over San Jose”; otherwise we will lose the team to another metro area market, even if it takes ten to fifteen more years for that market to materialize.

  9. One group of winners… A’s fans. No SJ v Oakland horse shit any further. It’s Oakland, Alameda/Coco County or bust. Personally, I have never cared which Bay Area city eventually ended up housing a baseball stadium for the A’s to call home. As long as it is in the Bay Area, it’s fine by me. Oakland is in the Bay Area!

    Another potential winner… Lew Wolff. One issue with financing an Oakland ballpark has always been an unwillingness of certain regional players to back the project as long as they perceived that the project could be in their own backyard. Silicon Valley companies weren’t going to go all in on an Oakland stadium when they could have one in Silicon Valley. That excuse doesn’t exist anymore. They aren’t all going to jump on board, but there should be plenty willing to have a box and pay for sponsorships. One of the could even be willing to buy naming rights to get it done. Cisco Field in Oakland? Why not? It;s not going to be in SJ.

    People who want to get things done accept that a “No” is just as good as a “Yes.” This no is one of those.

    If I was Lew Wolff, I’d be releasing renderings the day after the season ends. “Here is what we think is possible, are you with us?” He doesn’t even have to exclude the current coliseum from the renderings (even if he believes it won’t work with the Raiders there).

    It’s past time to build something, guys. Get to it and do it.

    • No ballpark in Silicon Valley doesn’t make the commute to a new Oakland ballpark any easier. SV tech execs who want to entertain clients have other, closer options: the Sharks, Quakes, 49ers. They still won’t want to trek up 880 traffic during rush hour and have to head back home at 10 pm from Oakland.

      • It’s not about tech execs getting to Oakland. It’s about clients getting to Oakland. It hasn’t been a problem getting them to host me when I refuse to go to Giants games.

      • I agree with pjk–the company that uses a ballpark to entertain clients—lets see–the one on the water in SF or the one in the middle of east oakland off of 880-for the casual baseball fan it will be AT&T every day. I do believe that with the growth in the Bay Area only makes it more challenging to get to either SF or Oakland on a regular basis for a game. in essence MLB has locked out the 10th largest city and wealthiest city from attending a game in person. And while TV is important there is not that many people who will watch a 3 hour game on a regular basis—Not a smart move from my perspective.

    • Yup- until the discussion begins about relocation out of Bay Area- that is still the gints top priority-

  10. Looks like the Raiders are gonna have to move to Los Angeles and get out of the A’s way. {{-_-}}

  11. Oakland has consistently preferred the Raiders over the A’s. Doing a reserve – booting out the Raiders, and building a new ballpark for the A’s in Oakland seems unlikely (It would be similar to a steak and potatoes guy switching over to an all tofu diet) It’s possible – but appears unlikely.

  12. If the A’s are to stay in Oakland it should benefit the City which should mean an Uptown location like 20th St.-San Pablo-West Grand-Telegraph Ave. No parking but direct BART access At 19th Street. Should be viable but how much($) to assemble that Parcel? Maybe Wolff should go back to his 66th Ave North proposal (much cheaper to assemble the Parcel) leaving the existing stadium to the Raiders to remake and the Parking lots intact?

    • This question already has been settled: if a new ballpark is built in Oakland, it is going to be at the Coliseum site. That is it. Everything else has been looked at and rejected.

    • There isn’t an Uptown spot to build a stadium on. I agree, in principle, that Upton is the best spot in all of the Bay Area to build a stadium. Absent a specific site, it’s pretty meaningless.

      • The last thing that needs to happen is re-investigating all the same already-investigated sites just to try to find a way to shoehorn the A’s into some place else in town so the Raiders can have the Coliseum site. Of course, there’s still this little issue of a $400+million funding gap in the Raiders stadium plan that no one has been able to solve.

      • I agree the Ship has sailed on Uptown (Thank you Jerry Brown). Coliseum North makes the most sense because that particular parcel can be assembled easier than in 2006 (more vacancies) Wolff and the City/County get to share in the redevelopment and no Funding Gap if the Raiders rebuild the existing stadium by tearing dowm the original structure and repurposing Mt. Davis. Win,Win.Win.

      • I appreciate your bias, but this is just plainly not true. The most likely site is the old Malibu/Homebase lot. It doesn’t need to be assembled, it requires infrastructure work, which Oakland should be able to help with.

        Regardless, the Raiders situation is still very much a pipedream until Mark Davis sells all or part of the team to someone with real money (almost all of his networth is equity in the Raiders) and/or admits that Oakland ain’t building him a stadium for free and grabs the wheel (which is what he is partially doing, just not in Oakland).

      • If I had to bet today on where we will be when the A’s lease runs out:
        1) Raiders in Inglewood with the Rams.
        2)Warriors in SF in an New overpriced Arena no one can afford to go to.
        3)A’s GONE.(Giant’s Very Happy)
        4) Coliseum EMPTY…

      • Yes, it’s looking more and more like the most likely place the A’s will build is the old Malibu/Home base lot.
        I’m wondering if the recent news about the return of redevelopment dollars (in some form), could help Oakland/Alameda county in their efforts to get something built for the A’s, and (or) the Raiders?
        Things might actually be coming (starting) together. Ok, I won’t get that happy yet.

      • I don’t mean to be a downer here, I used to walk to the Coliseum from High Street when you didn’t fear drive by’s, but who in their right mind would build a $500-600 Million Stadium next to an empty facility? Maybe the plan is to tear down the Coliseum and redevelop that land?

      • I saved a tweet from Phil Tagmi a few years ago. He said it would play out like this: Warriors in SF, A’s at the Coliseum, Raiders somewhere else (Dublin? LA?). I think he probably nailed it.

      • @jeffreyaugust I don’t see how the Raiders funding issues get any easier in Dublin (even if that city had any interest in hosting them, which it apparently does not).

      • @ bartleby
        Am I mistaken, or weren’t you one of the people that thought San Jose vs MLB had a good chance of being heard by the SC? I could be incorrect; it doesn’t seem to matter at this point anyway.

      • That was an example from his tweet, not a prediction of a landing spot.

      • Wait, that was a little imprecise. That WAS a prediction made by him in the tweet (I copied the text when I first read it). I am not predicting that, right now. What I think he nailed is the Warriors in SF, A’s at the Coliseum site, Raiders somewhere else (which could be anywhere, I got no idea how they are going to get a stadium done anywhere).

      • “@ bartleby
        Am I mistaken, or weren’t you one of the people that thought San Jose vs MLB had a good chance of being heard by the SC?”

        Nope, not me With respect to San Jose’s chances, I have consistently maintained that:

        1. Standing was unlikely to be decisive;
        2. San Jose would probably ultimately lose on the merits because of longstanding SCOTUS precedent and the fact Congress had arguably endorsed that precedent via statute (meaning only Congress could undo it);
        3. SCOTUS would most likely deny cert, but if they did take the case, it would likely mean a negotiated settlement and win for San Jose without ever reaching a judgement; and
        4. Notwithstanding the long odds, the lawsuit had bid upside and little downside and therefore was a worthwhile gamble for San Jose.

      • @lakeshore/neil I actually debated other posters on the above points several times.

      • @ bartleby
        Thanks, I do believe I recall (now) some of your earlier comments. I figured you would clear that up for me.

  13. Turning out to be one heck of a large wrench the Gnats threw into the works!

    • Now let’s cross our fingers that Wolff/Fisher can pull this off. “Fine, Giants – don’t want a new A’s ballpark 45 miles away? We’ll put it 8 miles away. That’s what you wanted, right? Right?”

    • The Giants are idiot Asses. If the A’s build in Oakland they will always be a Small Market Team, and tied to their facility. In San Jose they would have self-sufficient W/O effecting the Giants Attendance/Sponsorship one bit. The most likely scenario IMHO is ALL of the Oakland teams Move on. Thank you San Fran.

      • MLB is, and in the past, run by a bunch out buttheads. The game itself is ok (it compares well to sports besides football) If MLB is losing its fanbase – it would be due to MLB’s mis-managment of the leagues.

        How could a franchise (the Giants), in a two team fanbase situation, believe that they would lose attendance if the A’s move 40 miles further away from SF( a very bizzare and paranoid belief) Nothing like how the Giants are shafting the A’s has occurred in professional sports previously. Also the giants do insane tactics to prevent the A’s from moving to SJ (forming and funding the false “Stand for San Jose” propaganda group)has any other pro sports franchise at any sport ever behaved as the Giants are? (and MLB evidently approves the Giants bizarre behavior and sides with the Giants – they have done little to support the A’s move to San Jose)

        The top 8 revenue drawing MLB teams (mostly because of their very lucrative media rights deals) typically dominate MLB annually. Sure, low budget teams such as the A’s can make playoff runs, or even reach the WS occasionally. However they can’t afford to pay and retain a core group of players. KC, for example, made the WS in 2014, and is playing well this season. However, they undoubtedly, like the A’s, cannot afford to keep their roster in tact and will need to break up their core of players as the A’s always need to do. The low budget MLB teams serve as an AAAA minor league system for the big spenders teams.

        Comparatively, with other sports such as the NFL and NBA, and NHL, small market teams are dynasties on a regular basis (Pittsburgh and Green Bay in the NFL) San Antonio in the NBA, ditto for the NHL. These leagues enforce effective salary caps and offer more equal revenue sharing than MLB offers its franchises . It is impossible for a small market MLB team to be a dynasty – MLB is one screwed up league.

      • EXACTLY!

    • The Giants are idiot Asses. If the A’s build in Oakland they will always be a Small Market Team, and tied to their facility. In San Jose they would have been self-sufficient W/O effecting the Giants Attendance/Sponsorship one bit. The most likely scenario IMHO is ALL of the Oakland teams Move on. Thank you San Fran.

      • The Giants know full well the obstacles to privately funding a ballpark in Oakland. Now let’s hope MLB – at long last – does SOMETHING to help the A’s and makes the ballpark happen anyway (as in helping out with some money, most likely in the form of continued revenue-sharing).

      • is it wrong of me as an a’s wishing every night very bad things happens to baer aka rat face and those other within the the midgets org where one of their main priorities “off the field” is to drive the a’s out of oakland.

        no, i don’t think so.

      • The Giants sellout all there home games. To think that an A’s move to San Jose would cause the Giants to lose their support from South Bay Giant fans is both foolish and naive. I’ve never heard of fans changing particular team loyalty within the same two team shared market on the basis that the other team moves its home stadium closer to their respective places of residence. Fan team loyalty is like ones religious faith, it will almost always be a constant part of their being. One example: I notice a strong contingent of Mets fans present at Mets road games all over the country from transplanted New Yorkers. Also, fans respective team loyalty is usually passed on from one generation to the next, provided of course that the particular team does not ultimately move away to a distinctly different geographic market. I’m sure there are very few A’s fans still in Philadelphia or Kansas City. Sadly and unfortunately, I believe that the Giants’ ultimate goal is to have the entire Bay Area market all for themselves. As of today, the Giants got much closer to achieving that goal.

      • Ah, yes. The ol’ “we have thousands of empty seats every game but at least we sold them!” sort of sellout.

      • @llpec

        I agree with you, it’s not as if current Giants fans will switch allegiances if the A’s move to San Jose. However, the Giants fear is a generational one, look how quickly the A’s franchise fell after the early 90s. The Giants are trying to secure their future market dominance, I can’t blame them for that. I do however blame them for how they are trying to protect it.

        As for A’s fans in Philly & KC, sadly a lot of those fans are not around anymore and the new generations never had a reference point to care. I have a cousin in LA that was born when the Raiders and Rams left. Huge football fan, couldn’t give two shits about the Raiders or Rams, but loves the Chargers. Same logic applies, it’s a generational thing.

        Go A’s!

        Ramin

  14. Added Nathaniel Grow’s comments to the end of the post.

    • So instead of the game being over, San Jose is down by 5 runs in the bottom of the 9th, with two outs, two strikes and no one on base.

  15. Does anyone know if the new agreement with the Players Union includes a renewal of the “Athletics-don’t-get-a-piece-of-Revenue-Sharing-Pie-if-they-have-a-new-Facility” covenant ??
    IIRC that had a sunset provision which is setting soon (if it hasn’t already); and as much as one can see why the (other) owners wanted it, IMHO it’s a big disincentive for doing anything.

    • That still has to be renegotiated. I don’t see how the A’s could just be dropped from revenue-sharing. Over-optimistic “We got new ballparks everyplace else” MLB didn’t account for the obstacles to getting a new ballpark in Oakland. MLB expected it would just happen. But it didn’t. The A’s will probably need revenue-sharing even more with a new ballpark in Oakland.

      • agree—losing $30M of revenue sharing and picking up a $20M annual mortgage is a big change on the balance sheet—personally I have a hard time believing that the $50M swing could be covered by a new ballpark in Oakland without either public assistance (development rights will be fine) from the city/county or continued revenue sharing. If the owners balk in giving me continued RS than the on-going saga continues because no one is going to force another owner to privately develop a ballpark that doesn’t pencil out financially—think of the precedence that would set for all others.

    • I haven’t read about this in a long time, but if I remember correctly… Interest paid on stadium loans creates an exemption from revenue sharing. Meaning, if the A’s have a $20-30M mortgage, they get to cut that right off the top of their own input into revenue sharing and it doesn’t count as revenue for their “take” of revenue sharing. Which was supposed to work as an incentive in the other direction. Build something and you don’t have to count all your revenue for your portion of the pot.

      Baseball revenue sharing is so fucked up. It shouldn’t matter what market you are in, or not in. There is a revenue sharing pot and if you are one of the 15 lowest performing revenue teams you should be able to get a cut.

      You are probably right though, the idea of coming off revenue sharing entirely is a disincentive to build something and part of the math that the A’s will be using to figure out the “viability” of building anywhere.

      • Yes: it’s both a big dis-incentive for doing things privately AND a big incentive for a club to demand public money (which – though I’m not intimate with its history – is why I would imagine the clause was inserted in the first place).
        And so far MLB’s intimidatory tactics – ranging from the outright blackmail of Reinsdorf or Loria to the more passive-aggressive approach of other ownerships – have been successful: DC resisted, but ultimately gave a sweetheart deal; MN resisted even longer, but ultimately gave an even sweeter deal. They may have met their match in Oakland, though, for the simple reason that the city doesn’t have the political pull at the state level to establish the type of multi-county taxing districts used in other states….not that they would – or should – want to anyway.
        But while that tells us what CAN’T happen, it doesn’t really tell us what can.

  16. Sadly the thing is the Giants are trying to secure their future market dominance. They want the A’s GONE, not anywhere in the Bay Area, and not in any type of New Stadium which would mean that the A’s would not be leaving for 30 more years. If the A’s are to stay; the Stadium has to be a destination attraction and hopefully attract enough casual fans to make it viable. Unfortunately the Giants have most of the big Corporate Sponsors tied up at ATT along with a lot of transient tourists for “Sellouts”, so the A’s will have to rely on up and comer Corporate Sponsors and Individuals. Can they make it work? The Giants are going to try to stop the A’s at every opportunity, openly or underhanded. Maybe the A’s can make it work, but I suspect when the lease runs out the A’s are sold and GONE. The Raiders are going to Inglewood with the Rams, Forget Carson, Stan Kroenke has the $ in hand to build W/O the NFL.

  17. Anyone who thinks this is a victory for anyone except the City of Oakland and the Giants is crazy. Here is my question? Regardless if the Raiders leave (like the Warriors), why should Libby Schaff and the City of Oakland do anything for the A’s? They can hold them to that lease like St Petersburg is doing to the Tampa Bay Rays, and kick the decision down to another Administration (see Brown Willie and Quan Jean as examples of this). Where are they going? Montreal? They can (and will) always use the “Greedy Owner versus Schools” argument of why they cannot do anything for the A’s (even fix the plumbing). I have little doubt Davis is gone (San Antonio or St Louis if necessary), and the A’s will be stuck at the Coliseum.

    • That’s wrong. They can’t hold them to that lease in any fashion resembling the Rays and St. Pete. For the cost of a backup catcher, the A’s can get out of the lease in the near future (4 seasons).

      • If it is MY business, why would I want to play in a dump when other teams and schools in the Bay Area get upgrades? Of course, Wolff does not, but he has no option (except selling) for a long time. Once again the point is where exactly are the A’s going? The most important things for politicians are being re-elected and their legacy, so there is little doubt that Schaff will make sure she does end up like Jean Quan Part 2, and thus she puts the interest of keeping baseball in Oakland on the back burner (where are improvements like new toilets let alone a new Stadium?). Now if Lew Wolff decides to SELL (figuring he is not getting development rights), then Montreal becomes more viable, and she might do something then, but until then, why should she?

      • Take a valium. It will pass.

        Also, they aren’t stuck anywhere. The lease has escape clauses and they can’t finish building anywhere else before they kick in.

        They are working on something and Mayor Libby, who is a much more effective leader than Jean Quan can even pretend to be, is involved. Or did you think they kicked Kephart to the curb because he had bad breath or something?

  18. The amount of revenue MLB is raking in these days is off the charts. But don’t let that fool you.

    MLB has long term difficulties. The average age of it’s fan base is among the highest in all professional sports (and continues to increase), and the younger generations aren’t watching the sport as much as in the past (plus, fewer and fewer kids are playing little league).

    Couple that with a major problem with scoring, where league offensive stats continue to plummet year after year.

    Then there is, as already mentioned on this thread, a handful of teams that rake in the most money and can continue to dominate over the long term (small market teams make occasional short runs, but then always have to break up the core), producing ridiculous competitive imbalance.

    Finally, there is MLB’s deplorable handling of the Bay Area situation, where they have methodically, deliberately, crippled one of the teams so that the other could flourish, and in the process missing out on a large chunk of Bay Area business, wealth, attendance, and TV revenue, as well as having it’s product displayed in a toilet bowl 81 times a year.

    This useless, dimwitted, arrogant, greedy, foolish “Lodge” is slowing killing the game. On it’s current course, MLB fans will consist of an ever narrowing contingent of the 60-plus set, and only in the largest markets, Everyone else won’t give a shit, because people’s attention is being pointed elsewhere in the super crowded sports market, at other sports that offer more action and much better competitive balance, and where individual franchises aren’t deliberately screwed over.

    • A counter point is that they have closed the revenue gap between MLB and the NFL a little bit over the past 5 years or so. This is because they embraced technology much earlier than the NFL did.

      If I was placing a bet on which sport would be most relevant in 20 years, it’d be the NBA. They have the revenue sharing, the media coverage and an exciting game. They don’t have Roger Goodell fucking up every time he opens his mouth, or the illogical “competitive balance” measures that MLB has.

      Monopolies rarely innovate. Some don’t even see the train that takes them out coming because they are so busy fighting to keep the status quo… Unfortunately, MLB is probably one of those.

      • The narrowing of the revenue gap between the NFL and MLB has come from the astronomical TV contracts from the various regional sports networks in the largest markets. And this phenomenon is most definitely a market bubble that will burst over time, because these regional sports networks won’t be able to recoup their investments, due to the aforementioned rapidly aging MLB fan base, and intense competition for entertainment dollars.

        Wake up MLB Lodge, the clock is ticking ….

      • That’s only partly true. MLB Advanced Media, which is direct to consumer bypassing cable networks, created revenues in excess of $600M the last time they reported any numbers (2012). That was more than double the revenues of 6 years prior. MLB is/was closing the gap by embracing new ways to extract revenue from their aging and existing fanbase better than the NFL does on the Internet.

        As far as dependence on large TV contracts go (regional or otherwise), the NFL is completely reliant on large contracts to broadcast networks and cable/satellite television providers, which could be a bad move as more and more consumers get their content from other sources (like internet apps, or MLB Advanced Media). You think DirecTV will still be paying a cool billion to broadcast NFL’s Sunday Ticket when their subscriber base is whittled in half by people dropping subscription tv as we currently know it int he next 5-10 years?

      • @jeffreyaugust “As far as dependence on large TV contracts go (regional or otherwise), the NFL is completely reliant on large contracts to broadcast networks and cable/satellite television providers, which could be a bad move as more and more consumers get their content from other sources (like internet apps, or MLB Advanced Media).”

        So far it has seemed to work the other way, as the NFL remains on of the few content providers that can deliver the kind of mass audiences that used to be routine for the nets. Advertisers (and therefore networks) are willing to pay top dollar because the NFL is somewhat unique in being able to cut across the fragmentation that otherwise dominates mass media.

        “You think DirecTV will still be paying a cool billion to broadcast NFL’s Sunday Ticket when their subscriber base is whittled in half by people dropping subscription tv as we currently know it int he next 5-10 years?”

        They may be willing to pay even more if they conclude the NFL is the main reason they’re still holding on to the other half, which could easily be the case.

      • So far, sure… because there hasn’t been mass adoption of using the internet to bypass cable bundles. With HBOGO and other services like Netflix leading to more and more people dumping packaged tv, it’s only a matter of time.

        Skate to where the puck is going, not where it is now.

        I expect Sunday Ticket to be an internet app in 5 years, not an exclusive pay package on any television providers network.

      • @jeffreyaugust “So far, sure… because there hasn’t been mass adoption of using the internet to bypass cable bundles. With HBOGO and other services like Netflix leading to more and more people dumping packaged tv, it’s only a matter of time.

        Skate to where the puck is going, not where it is now.”

        There are a number of variables here and I’m not sure the outcome you’re predicting is a sure thing. For one thing, cord cutting has happened a lot more slowly than many would have predicted (87% of Americans paid for TV five years ago, 83% do so today). It is not entirely clear yet whether this is is an irreversible paradigm shift or part of a normal ebb and flow that occurs in the industry. http://www.ibtimes.com/forget-cable-cord-cutting-83-percent-american-households-still-pay-tv-2081570

        For another thing, a significant factor in cord cutting is the availability of free broadcast television to fill programming gaps for the cord cutters . If a significant number of people actually do cut the cord, this could result in a resurgence of the broadcast networks. (Meaning, NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox might end up with more money to throw at the NFL offsetting any losses from DirectTV).

        “I expect Sunday Ticket to be an internet app in 5 years, not an exclusive pay package on any television providers network.”

        That could be true, but may not result in the dramatic decline in NFL revenue you seem to be predicting. In fact, it might result in an increase in NFL revenue by allowing them to cut out the middleman and distribute the product directly.

    • agree—for the first time ever as many 18-25 year olds identify soccer as their favorite sport as do baseball—of course football is still the number one favorite.

      • Demographics are the biggest obstacle facing sports in general. Traditional sports including the NFL, MLB, NHL, and Motorsports are rapidly seeing the average age of their fans increase rapidly. Their response; screw the fans that they have for as much as they can get. Unfortunately the A’s may have waited too long to get a new venue. PSL’s and Suite sales might work in San Jose or elsewhere, but I am doubtful about those tactics in Oakland. The only thing going for the A’s is that as their fan’s age they become wealthier, but are their enough of them to spend the $ to support any new stadium? I hope so, but I would not be surprised to see Wolff/Fisher sell to The Bigger Fool elsewhere.

  19. While this is obviously a loss for SJ and the A’s, even if SCOTUS took the case and MLB caved, it does’t solve the problem. The real issue is how much of a fee would MLB charge the A’s to move to SJ.

    Even though the NFL, NBA and NHL don’t have the ATE, they can still charge relocation fees when franchises move.

    SJ is absolutely a better option than Oakland from the economic side of things, but it’s not a gold mine that moves the A’s to even the top 10 in terms of revenue. If MLB charged a massive relocation fee to the A’s, that would make SJ a worse option than Oakland.

    Wolff even hinted at this when he commented on SJ not being worth it at the start of the year.

    MLB has three options:

    1. Let the A’s move to SJ with little to no fee and have them pay into the revenue sharing pool

    2. Keep the A’s on revenue sharing (this happens if the A’s stay in Oakland or they move out of the area as all other sites would be small markets)

    3. Contraction

    The first option benefits MLB overall and 29 of the 30 teams. The other two benefit the Giants but are bad for the rest of MLB.

    The ball is still in MLB’s court.

    • That’s it exactly. The relocation fee should be whatever the Giants paid plus interest, but can the Giants keep blocking a vote? It is in Baseball’s interest to let the A’s go to S.J. and the financial reality is that San Jose is currently the only viable option for a new stadium that actually pencils out.

      • Oakland Dave “The relocation fee should be whatever the Giants paid plus interest,”

        Agreed. That would be $0.00.

      • @ bartleby
        Not to be arguing on the side of the San Francisco Giants (their ownership group has been so unfair to the A’s IMHO,) but if I were the Giants I would say sure the A’s can have San Jose for free, as soon as they pay us for moving to the Bay Area in the first place.
        The A’s never compensated the Giants for the Oakland/East Bay territory, or the rest of the Bay Area for that matter when they moved back in 1968. (I believe)
        It’s easy for us A’s fans to see things through green and yellow glasses, but there is another side to the story. Although there isn’t much to the Giants side there is one.

      • @lakeshore/neil Not seeing that as much of an argument. The Giants didn’t pay an relocation fee when they moved to the Bay Area either.

        If the A’s didn’t pay to move from Kansas City to Oakland back in the ’60’s, why should they pay anything to move a few miles down the road in their existing market now? When the Giants wanted to do the same thing back in the ’90s the price they paid for the privilege was $0.00, and with the A’s blessing. That is the price the A’s should have to pay.

        At the end of the day the Giant’s may have certain contractual rights, but that’s just an accident of some bad historical decisions. I objectively don’t see them as having any good moral or equitable claims whatsoever.

      • bartleby
        “Not seeing that as much of an argument. The Giants didn’t pay a relocation fee when they moved to the Bay Area either”.
        I thought you might say that. And, yes that’s correct but there was no other MLB team in the market when the Giants got to San Francisco. I think it was the Red sox that owned the territorial rights at that time, but that was only for their minor league team.
        So yeah (IMHO), there is realistic augment to be made when one MLB team moves into another MLB teams market stays there fifty years and doesn’t pay a dime, then turns around and says they should not have to pay to move within a market that they never paid for in the first place.
        And again, unlike the Giants another MLB team was here when they got here.

      • @lakeshore/neil “And, yes that’s correct but there was no other MLB team in the market when the Giants got to San Francisco.”

        So what? The Giants didn’t have any rights to the territory, so the A’s paid nothing. Finito, end of story. I get that they might not have liked it, but they had (and have) no legal or moral claim.

        People on this board seem to sometimes start from the assumption that if a business is damaged by competition that alone somehow gives it basis for a claim. The exact opposite is true: Our entire economic system is built on the core value of vigorous competition, and normally it’s the attempt to constrain that competition – not the competition itself – that provides the basis for a claim.

        The Giants are exploiting a legal anomaly whereby the combination of a bad, poorly reasoned, century old legal decision combined with bad decisions by MLB and the A’s two decades ago have given them a contractual basis to defend anti-competitive conduct that would otherwise most likely be ILLEGAL. They have no claim whatsover, legal or moral, for compensation based on the A’s move into open territory 50 years ago, regardless of the fact it was adjacent, and no matter how much they may not have liked it.

        Simply put, “we got here first” gets them nothing.

      • “Simply put, “we got here first” gets them nothing.”

        You already answered this with your comment earlier in your post:

        “The Giants are exploiting a legal anomaly whereby the combination of a bad, poorly reasoned, century old legal decision combined with bad decisions by MLB and the A’s two decades ago have given them a contractual basis to defend anti-competitive conduct that would otherwise most likely be ILLEGAL.”

        I 100% agree that this is a legal anomaly, but unless SCOTUS takes the case, it doesn’t matter. The Giants have a legal claim on the territory and MLB’s ATE gives them the ability to enforce it.

        We got here first does mean something if MLB says it does.

      • @slacker “We got here first does mean something if MLB says it does.”

        I think you’re missing my point. My post was in response to lakeshore’s suggestion that the Giants had some kind of legal or moral claim based on the A’s move in 1968. They don’t.

        The fact that the Giants got here first is also irrelevant to their claims to Santa Clara County. Those claims are the result of a contractual commitment that MLB made in the ’90s and that the A’s foolishly endorsed. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Giants were first to the Bay Area.

        So again, “we got here first” means absolutely nothing with respect to the current territorial dispute. (In fact, I have to point out, with respect to Santa Clara County this isn’t even an accurate statement – they got here never).

      • @ bartleby

        “So what?” Really, really?Come on man, I expected so much more out of you. Way to challenge a totally reasonable point. As you pointed out the TR claims only means something if MLB thinks they means something. Last time I checked they thought the TR rights meant something.

      • @neil Are you willfully missing my point? Yes, they think they mean something, my original post said as much. But because the A’s ceded them voluntarily in the 90s, not because the Giants were first to the area; that is irrelevant. Did you even read my post?

      • @ bartleby

        I know the story behind the TR claim to the south bay, I was talking about the hole Bay area.

        The fact that the Giants got here first is meaningless, because bartleby says so .
        Okay go tell Lew Wolff, I’m sure he will be glad to know.

      • The A’s owed the Giants nothing when they moved here for the same reason they owed the 49ers nothing when they moved here. They played in a totally separate league at the time. Same sport, different league. The American League allowed the A’s to move here and there was nothing the National League or any of its teams could do about it.

      • The A’s owed the Giants nothing because they were in a separate league, but not a separate sport which is why the Giants fill they are owned money for the south bay.
        Never mind they would probably never except a reasonable amount.

        BTW I never said I aged with the Giants position (if it were what I stated above), I’m only saying that there are two sides and as A’s fans I think that we sometimes forget that. And yes, I hate the Giants ownership group for trying to push the A’s out of the Bay Area as the next guy.

      • That they play the same sport is irrelevant. That was my whole point. The leagues didn’t officially and legally merge until 2000. Doesn’t matter what the Giants may think. They had no say whatsoever in the A’s move and were owed nothing because they were in a legally and functionally separate league. Would you give any thought or credence to the idea of paying the 49ers for the A’s to move here? Of course not. Well, same sport or not, it’s the exact same situation legally and functionally.

      • That they play the same sport is irrelevant? Tell MLB, the Giants, and Lew Wolff how would probably pay the Giants if the Giants came up with a reasonable amount.

        Perhaps it should be irrelevant, but it’s clearly not.

      • Sorry: Lew Wolff “who”

      • Alright, I’ll try it again. The NL, of which the Giants are and were a member, had no say in the movement of AL teams in 1968. I repeat, NO SAY. Therefore, their being here first gave them no monetary claim on the A’s moving here. They were independent leagues at the time, thus in terms of a claim of being here first they might as well have played different sports. This is just the way it was. Nobody’s opinion on that matters. It’s just a fact.

      • I will try it again. I know they were in different leagues, I knew it before you brought it up. That doesn’t mean the Giants won’t try to make it an issue if they can’t push the A’s out of the Bay Area.
        If this situation has shown us anything, that would be that no matter what the rules were or are, they can change dramatically depending on who is in control.

      • Well, before you said the Giants had an argument that they were here first and should get paid. I explained how that argument holds no water at all. Not sure why you would propose that argument if you knew it was irrelevant and meaningless to begin with.

        Now you seem to be saying the Giants are willing to say anything no matter how untrue to get their way. OK, I guess that could be true.

        Anyway, I’m done here. Have a good day.

    • @slacker

      “While this is obviously a loss for SJ and the A’s, even if SCOTUS took the case and MLB caved, it does’t solve the problem. The real issue is how much of a fee would MLB charge the A’s to move to SJ.”

      Why would they charge any fee? The A’s would be moving in what is functionally their existing market, to the benefit of MLB. I don’t recall any discussion of a relocation fee when the Giants were trying to move south, and I don’t see a scenario where the A’s would pay one. (Some kind of settlement payment to the Giants is a different matter).

      “Even though the NFL, NBA and NHL don’t have the ATE, they can still charge relocation fees when franchises move.”

      It’s not clear to me whether such fees would hold up if they were challenged in court.

      “SJ is absolutely a better option than Oakland from the economic side of things, but it’s not a gold mine that moves the A’s to even the top 10 in terms of revenue.”

      It could easily move the A’s to top 10 in revenue. Tenth right now is the Rangers, they could easily do better than that. Also, the revenue curve for MLB teams gets pretty flat after the top 4. http://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/

      “If MLB charged a massive relocation fee to the A’s, that would make SJ a worse option than Oakland. Wolff even hinted at this when he commented on SJ not being worth it at the start of the year.”

      It’s a massive leap to say the possibility of a relocation fee was the reason for his statement.

      “MLB has three options:

      1. Let the A’s move to SJ with little to no fee and have them pay into the revenue sharing pool

      2. Keep the A’s on revenue sharing (this happens if the A’s stay in Oakland or they move out of the area as all other sites would be small markets)

      3. Contraction”

      There’s no way contraction happens under any circumstances. It makes no economic sense at all. The other owners would have to buy out the contracted team, which would be substantially more expensive than just paying for a new stadium. It would have to be collectively bargained with the players, who would never go for it. And sometime in the not too distant future, MLB will be looking to expand. It is 1000% more likely they would just move the team to a different market. Contraction has always been a horseshit threat.

  20. The fact it is still in limbo after the initial announcement of appeals being granted is a good sign for SJ.

    The lower courts dismissed this easily before. SCOTUS is going to take it but they are confirming a few facts as Grow indicated. This would be a landmark case for SCOTUS and professional sports in general.

    No way SCOTUS dismisses this with ease, it would be hypocritical to do so when they took on NFL vs. American Needle when the NFL won on all lower levels and they were the ones who took it to SCOTUS not American Needle.

    Hold on guys, next week will be huge

    • @neil Lew Wolff is well aware that 100% of the Giants claim to San Jose is based on the rights Haas ceded in the 90s and 0% on the fact the Giants moved here first. You have not cited a single piece of evidence that suggests otherwise.

      • I think you only consider your own points, when discussing or debating with someone.

        But it’s cool, everyone has an opinion.

      • @Lakeshore/Neil I have carefully considered the point you seem to be trying to make and spent a fair amount of time trying to respond as specifically and thoughtfully as I could, which I consider a sign of respect. Frankly, I don’t know what more I could have done to demonstrate that I carefully considered your argument. Conversely, you seem not to have even read what I wrote.

        Your point seems to be that the Giants’ claims to San Jose in some way hinge on the fact they moved to the Bay Area first. From a legal standpoint, the fact the Giants came to the Bay Area first is 100% irrelevant to their TR claim to San Jose – that is simply an objective fact. If you’re trying to say it’s important from a psychological factor in terms of what’s motivating the Giants or MLB, you have offered neither evidence nor logic to support that wildly speculative view. My own view continues to be that both the Giants and MLB are motivated purely by pragmatic and business considerations. There is simply no reason to believe all of this is happening because the Giants didn’t get paid off based on a non-existent claim 50 years ago.

        No need to get all pissy just because you have failed to persuade me of something.

      • @ bartleby

        I’m not sure where the misunderstanding took place. I think the Giants claim to the south bay is almost a different subject altogether then whatever claim they may (or may not) have had to the rest of the Bay Area as a before the A’s got here, since the A’s clearly ceded those rights to the Giants, it’s to bad they did stipulate that the Giants could have the south bay “IF” they actually built there at the time . I’m not mad because I couldn’t persuade you (although I doubt it’s easy), I wasn’t trying to persuade anyone I was only pointing out that the Giants have a side in this as well. A side that, as I said as A’s fans some time’s we view through green & yellow (gold) glasses. IMHO it was bore out by some of the responses.

        Anyway weather those or future claims are reaso

    • @ bartleby

      Reasonable or not won’t be decided by you or I. I’m sure we can agree on that. Sorry if I came off as an ass, a lot can be lost when you’re typing.

  21. willing to bet if this vote to allow the a’s to sj took place right now the a’s would have the votes but as rumored with selig and could be the case with the new commish manfred he wants almost universal agreement by all the owners to make this move happen.

    • It is my belief that unless Manfred publicly, or at least privately, endorses the move of the A’s to San Jose, the Lodge will not have enough votes to approve it. I do believe though that on an individual team by team basis the support is there to allow the A’s to move to San Jose. However, unless Manfred gives his blessing, there will be enough members of the Lodge who will not want to upset the applecart (MLB is making tons of money for the owners and franchise values are skyrocketing), and will more than likely reject any such proposed move, if it comes to a vote. Unfortunately, the Commissioner’s Office , as it also was under Selig, holds all the cards to whether the A’s will ultimately get approval to move to San Jose.

  22. If the A’s were smart they would build a new ballpark in Oakland, and because of the extremely lopsided way MLB divided the A’s/Giants market in favor of the Giants (the Giants have territorial rights to 7 of the 9 counties – no other two team fanbase situation at any other professional sports does this type of market assignment by county) – insist on continued revenue sharing if they build in Oakland. (If the Giants and MLB are foolish enough to prevent the A’s from moving to San Jose – they should compensate the A’s because they are screwing the A’s badly with this lopsided agreement.

    • Apparently, Wally Haas only asked for those two counties. And now the A’s are paying the price.

      • Then why oh why did Bob Lurie need him to sign off on Santa Clara?

      • @pjk: The intent of that agreement was to pave the way for the Giants move to San Jose. Since San Jose voters rejected the Giants plan and their move never occurred – the logical move by MLB would be to revoke the Giants rights to San Jose, which they (for some bizarre reason) have failed to do (More evidence of how MLB sides with the Giants and how both MLB and the Giants are so wacky)

  23. Even if the Revenue Sharing continues for the A’s they have to generate enough additional funds to cover the costs of a new facility.Why would the A’s enter into an mortgage agreement that actually reduces the available funds to run the team?

    • Or should MLB just fully fund the Stadium?

      • That could be another option – this could be another possible MLB ATE case brewing, it’s unbelievable how the Giants and MLB are screwing the A’s so badly and succeeding (so far)

      • There is one other tactic: A’s sign an agreement with San Jose (ala Al Davis) and force MLB’s hand to vote or have the Giants see them in court over the territorial rights. But it would be VERY UGLY!

      • Also the A’s SJ plans may still be on the table – the attorney representing San Jose appears to be a bulldog and likely wont’ go away easily.

  24. Knowing all too well how the Giants are actively blocking the nation’s tenth largest city from deservedly getting a MLB team, especially one such as the A’s who are already located well within its market, I just can’t understand why the South Bay civic and corporate community does not make an attempt to shift their MLB team allegiances to the A’s. I’m not talking about an economic boycott of the Giants, but more of an organized attempt to promote and show fan support for the A’s. As long as the Giants continue to sellout all their home games, the Giants will continue with their selfish bullying ways. However, If the Giants begin to see their South Bay fan base erode and shift to the Oakland A’s, then just maybe the Giants will finally reconsider to make a deal with the A’s so as to allow them to move to San Jose. The power of the pocketbook could very well be more influential to change attitudes than any ineffective legal threat.

    • The Giants have most of the big Corporate Sponsors tied up at ATT along with a lot of tourists Visiting for “Sellouts” I doubt you can hit them in the pocketbook.
      But try something…

      • Hey, how about going after their Sponsors! Satrt a campaign about how unfair the Giants are.

      • Att is one who worked to block the SJ ballpark by refusing to sell their property downtown even after SJ gave them a change in zoning so they could build housing near San Carlos street- turns out ATT sits on gints BOD also- given these hi tech companies don’t have the luxury of an ATE and actually have to compete for their business I would think the gints cock blocking of SJ would piss them off- bttm line they just don’t care enough

  25. Time to move the team to Sacramento and call it a day.

  26. re: SJ appeal officially over. Looks like that lawyer really sold San Jose a bill of goods on this case. Didn’t he promise a ballpark deal within two years? At least the city wasn’t paying him.

    • @pjk Don’t be silly. No one knows for sure how something like this is going to play out in the end, but a basic part of an attorney’s job is expressing public confidence in a favorable outcome for the client. If the lawyer doesn’t appear to believe in the cause, why should anyone else? The client gets an honest assessment of the likelihood of success privately, under cloak of attorney client privilege. Clearly counsel thought this claim had a reasonable chance of success or they wouldn’t have devoted so much of their time to it without compensation.

    • @pjk – it wouldn’t be surprising if San Jose (and Cotchett) makes another attempt at the MLB ATE, this may not be over.

    • The lawsuit was justified given the BRC fiasco, Selig asking SJ to delay a vote on the stadium a few years ago, and the completely unfair ATE.

      In any event, the litigation is over, and the A’s are still no closer to a new ballpark. It will come down to what happens with the Raiders. If they figure out a way to stay ( re-do the Coliseum is really the best option), then the A’s will still look to SJ as the solution. This one is far from over! I guess we will know soon enough…or not!

  27. Man, this is taking forever!

  28. It is becoming more and more apparent that the only place where the A’s can be is the Coliseum Site, and under AS IS conditions (unless somehow they can do what Arizona State University ( ASU) is doing with Sun Devil Stadium. The fact the plumbing cannot be repaired gives me doubts about that). There is no way the Giants will let them rent AT&T until they build a new Stadium or renovate the Coliseum. Why? They would love to get them out of Town. I suspect that the team will be moved when the lease is up.

  29. Looks like San Jose is getting ready to move on without MLB. Good – it’s MLB’s loss.

  30. SCOTUS denying San Jose’s appeal is mind blowing. They have repeatedly shot down the other leagues when they have tried to do what MLB is doing now to to SJ.

    SCOTUS upholding a 1922 ruling makes zero sense and it is hypocritical on their part.

    San Jose is dead forever, MLB has won and decked the city its final blow.

    MLB would rather let the A’s rot in Oakland than let them move to San Jose. Reason why? The Giants, they have won even bigger than MLB did with this lawsuit. Their T-rights are now solid as gold and can never be taken away from them.

    With San Jose dead now Oakland can sit on their ass like they always do and do nothing. Wolff has even less leverage now with this ruling and it was not much to begin with.

    Even if the Raiders leave (doubtful at this point) Oakland will tell Wolff “rot in the Coli unless you want to pay for a new stadium yourself 100%”

    A’s will be playing at the current Coliseum in 2025.

    • Yes, MLB is going to expect public money for a stadium in Oakland like it gets everywhere else. And it won’t get a dime.

    • @ Sid
      Part of the problem may very well be that Wolff, will sit on his ass just as long as long as Oakland.

      • If he can’t make the numbers pencil out, that’s what he should do. Let MLB rot in the embarrassing Coliseum for years on end, just so it can protect the Giants’ “territorial rights.” But the problem with this scenario is eventually some city will step up to the plate and offer a publicly funded stadium and it’ll be bye bye A’s. If I recall correctly, DC offered to pay for 2/3rds of a stadium for the Nationals and MLB insisted on 3/3rds. And got it. Another privately funded stadium in the Bay Area will have MLB cringing. Better to let the team sit tight in Oakland until Portland, Vegas, San Antonio, Montreal, wherever, are ready. It’ll happen eventually.

      • @pjk, with the Nats, MLB had the advantage of a bidding war between several cities. DC was the most desperate for redevelopment of the area, and it’s not exactly being run by the most fiscally responsible politicians.

      • pjk
        Re: “If he can’t make the numbers pencil out, that’s what he should do.”
        Sure. And if he CAN make the numbers pencil out, but simply refuses to build they yeah, that could also be a reason why the A’s would end up in another market.
        Oh I forgot the narrative, only Oakland can sit on their ass when Wolff may be doing it, it’s called
        “It doesn’t pencil out.”
        Well then his ass needs to sale the dame team. I’m just as mad about the San Francisco Giants blocking the A’s from San Jose as anyone, or the SC not taking the case but at some point some of the responsibility has got to fall on Wolff as well. He purchased the team knowing exactly what the situation was, even if he hoped he could get to San Jose, or had some sort of hand shake deal with the last commissioner; the fact of the matter is he knew the worst case was that he may have to build in Oakland. If he can’t or won’t then he needs to get the hell out of the way.
        Ok your turn to defend the saintly Mr. Wolff, who has no reasonability in this, and is nothing but a poor victim of the San Francisco Giants, MLB, the Supreme Court, Oakland, Alameda County, and whomever else that’s making it soooo default on poor Mr. Wolff.

    • Do not forget that 75% of the owners can change the territorial rights at any time. I believe Wolff has most of the votes he needs, and will get the rest
      If the Raiders get their stadium, or when it becomes clear that an A’s stadium at the Coliseum does not pencil out financially as a small market team in a parking lot without permanent revenue sharing.

  31. While the territorial issue prohibits the A’s from moving to Santa Clara County, it does not prohibit the team from actively promoting themselves anywhere within the entire Bay Area market, and that includes Santa Clara County. One overlooked item that the Giants were unable to block was the approval of the direct extension of BART to Santa Clara County. As a result of these future extensions, fans from the San Jose area will in the coming years have fast, and direct public transit access to and from the Coliseum. In effect, this will provide fans from many parts of the South Bay even better and quicker accessibility to the Coliseum than to AT&T Park. I would hope that if the A’s do eventually get a new ballpark built at the Coliseum site, the team will take advantage of its very accessible location to extensively promote themselves not only to Santa Clara County, but throughout the entire greater Bay Area region. Maybe then, the Giants will finally realize that they made a big mistake to block the A’s from moving some forty miles further away.

  32. Well, looks like SJ is finally dead, and while it’s pie-in-the-sky to hope the A’s build on the Homebase site and the Raiders take the other end, at least one team is likely to stay put.
    .
    I guess the new waiting game is for the NFL meetings to determine the team/s getting clearance to L.A.

    Though Al was a maverick and thumbed his nose at the NFL, Mark appears to be a team-player, which puts the LA-move truly in the air. So i guess we won’t see any plans from Wolff until the Raider issue is sorted.

    • I don’t see this as improving the likelihood of one team staying at all. The Raiders want $400 million in public money, which they won’t get. And the A’s are just as likely to leave the Bay Area as they are to stay in Oakland, at this juncture, if the numbers don’t work. The Supreme Court ruling was a huge win for the Giants. Who says the bad guys don’t win?

      • excuse, the Supreme Court’s non-ruling.

      • @pjk
        1) I don’t think there is a stronger market outside the bay area to support a baseball franchise. I laugh at the idea of portland (almost no fortune 500s), san antonio (hot), las vegas (hot/dirty), charlotte (no money). montreal or mexico city? good luck with that wolff.

        2) Yes, the raiders want a fat wad of cash, but the only place they’ll get that is LA or San Antonio. For all of Davis’ bluster, he would never move the team out-of-state and ruin the legacy of his family.

        He’s currently looking for a big finance guy to buy a share of the team to help make them more attractive for the LA bid.

        If he gets bumped in favor of the Chargers-Rams, then it wouldn’t be too hard to get that big money to call Oakland plan B. With the 9ers down in santa clara in their sun-baked tomb, it wouldn’t be impossible to see the upside of the Raiders becoming the Oak-SF team. Why go all the way to santa clara when you can hop across the bridge and be to the game in 10 minutes?

  33. I, for one, hope that San Jose builds a AAA ballpark and the AAA team that plays there is associated with the Oakland A’s. Would be sweet to hear the Gnats gripe about that!

  34. The NFL isn’t run by a bunch of idiots (as MLB is) and likely to make the smat move (approving the Rams move to LA) The Rams have a long history there, they are the preferred NFL team in the LA fanbase, their owner is willing to privately finance a $2 bil. Rams stadium. and the NFL would be better off with the Rams in LA than in St Louis anyhow(where their attendence is struggling and declining)

    The NFL isn’t stupid and wouldn’t do something similar (as MLB is) and blow off the 10th largest city (which has demonstrated it supports sports solidly) and the NFL wouldn’t do anything such as condoning the Giants goofy antics (fearing they will lose attendance if the A’s move 40 miles from SF? – LOL) upholding the Giants “territorial rights” – even though those rights were given to the Giants to help with their failed move to San Jose. Since the Giants never moved to San Jose, MLB should stop enforcing those bogus territoral rights by the Giants – instead MLB preferrs to side with the Giants and their goofy claims – what a crock of b.s.

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