The article doesn't make it sound like anything new is happening. Some of these conditions don't make a lot of sense:

The A’s could be required to guarantee they can both pay for the ballpark privately and still spend enough money to field a competitive team. Wolff and Fisher might also have to promise they would not sell the team within five or 10 years for a quick profit.

How would the A's possibly guarantee that? Also, why shouldn't Wolff and Fisher be able to sell for a profit in fewer than 5 years? As an A's fan I don't really want them running the team long term. Wolff's primary skill is as a real estate developer, not a brand or business builder.

And the Giants? They could be forced to pledge that the franchise or any franchise affiliates (sponsors, etc.) won’t file any lawsuits connected to a possible San Jose A’s move. In return, MLB would set up a proactive formula/matrix to calculate the Giants’ monetary situation five years after the A’s are playing in the South Bay — and after that review, compensate the Giants for any damages they might suffer.

Why would the Giants agree to this? Basically Purdy's implying that Selig has 75% of the votes to allow the move over the Giants' objections. We've heard this "implication" a million times before. What's different now?

Basically I don't see anything new here.

Solomonesque? Just to be safe, everybody should have their children taken away.

The nearest Bud Selig has been to anything "Solomonesque" is when the Brewers signed Salomon Torres.

Purdy writes for the Monterey Herald now? Wait, Purdy is still writing? I feel 10 years old again!

How about MLB uses some of their billions in revenue to loan the A's the money to build a ball park near Jack London Square and the A's can pay it back with their revenue sharing. I like it. Make it happen.

The A's will be allowed to build half a ballpark in San Jose.

I decree the A's should build an awesome stadium in downtown Oakland. JLS, towards Lake Merritt, it doesn't really matter.

Solomonesque?

The A's will be allowed to build a stadium in San Jose but not allowed to play there. (and isn't San Jose a great name for a city?)

The A's will be allowed to move to San José, Costa Rica.

Also, why shouldn't Wolff and Fisher be able to sell for a profit in fewer than 5 years?

The Royals had such an agreement with David Glass when he first bought the club. All it results in is the owner not investing a penny in the club because he has no profit motive. Its a terrible idea.

Selig will let them move to San Jose, but he won't tell them the way there.

Selig will let them move to San Jose, but he won't tell them the way there.

And then the A's just won't know what to do with themselves.

They'll be parking cars and pumping gas.

> Solomoneque

Move the Rays to San Jose and the As back to Philadelphia. Both OAK and SFG will object, and then bud will know, yes, he will know...

Why dont they move the Giants to San Jose and let the A's play in AT&T? Problem solved

I love the idea of Bud requiring a team to privately finance a ballpark. We'll have cats marrying dogs next.

Maybe the Giants either let the A's move to San Jose or they both play in AT&T until the A's build a new stadium. The Giants and Jets play in the same stadium, and it's not even in NY

I like that suggestion WM. baseball game every day during the season on my commute to work!! And the A's tickets would be cheap!

Maybe when the A's play the giants in the world series this year the earthquake will be along the hayward fault and swallow the colliseum. All of next years games at AT&T!

Maybe when the A's play the giants in the world series this year the earthquake will be along the hayward fault and swallow the colliseum. All of next years games at AT&T!

Well after last Sunday, I hope the earthquake will take the Raiders along with it.

The A's can't afford to put a hundred down and buy a car. How are they going to find their way to San Jose, and pay for a new ballpark?