Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Oakland Athletics Will Be Granted Permission To Move To San Jose, According To Report

Rosicrucian

l Park!

The Oakland Athletics may not be in Oakland for much longer, if new reports about the prove true: USA Today writer Bob Nightengale reports that sources say the Athletics will be granted permission to move to San Jose by February.

This move has been a possibility simmering on a back burner for some time now; Rob Neyer wrote about the potential of the San Jose A’s in September. But while it has been a possibility for many years, with the A’s looking to improve their accommodations from the outdated O.co Coliseum to a new ballpark and/or get out from under the shadow of the successful San Francisco Giants, this new approval may accelerate a timeline to get the A’s out of the city they have called home since 1968.

Repoz Posted: December 24, 2011 at 06:39 PM | 106 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: athletics, business, giants

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. RMc Has Bizarre Ideas to Fix Baseball Posted: December 24, 2011 at 06:56 PM (#4023072)
Ladies and gentlemen, the San JosA's!
   2. Tripon Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:03 PM (#4023074)
So uh, who's building the stadium for them? Or will they just play in a minor league park to start?
   3. Flynn Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:11 PM (#4023076)
They have bought the vast majority of land they need for the park - I think there's one business holding out, but the city wants to use eminent domain or something like that.

This is a major rebuke to the Giants. I wonder if there's going to be a TV network that the A's will essentially pay for but the Giants will own or something like that.
   4. Bhaakon Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:14 PM (#4023077)
This is a major rebuke to the Giants. I wonder if there's going to be a TV network that the A's will essentially pay for but the Giants will own or something like that.


Isn't there already such a network? I vaguely remember the Giants owning a substantial percentage of CSN Bay Area with the A's having only a small stake.
   5. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:17 PM (#4023079)
Isn't there already such a network? I vaguely remember the Giants owning a substantial percentage of CSN Bay Area with the A's having only a small stake.


There are two different Comcast Sports channels now. CSNBA and CSNCA (California). CSN Bay Area still holds Giants games, CSN Cali does A's (and Sharks!) games.
   6. Athletic Supporter is USDA certified lean Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:22 PM (#4023080)
Still skeptical.
   7. Flynn Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:24 PM (#4023083)
Isn't there already such a network? I vaguely remember the Giants owning a substantial percentage of CSN Bay Area with the A's having only a small stake.


I think the Giants own something like 30% of the network. Surely they must be getting something out of this, if Selig is just handing the territory over to the A's with no strings attached after waffling over doing so for years it would only be baffling but a major kiss-off to the Giants as well. A team-owned TV network would make sense.
   8. asinwreck Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:28 PM (#4023087)
As Neyer wrote, chances of a decision coming down have been percolating since late last season. Wonder if Beane traded Cahill and Gio given assurances from MLB that a new park in Fremont/San Jose/One Infinite Loop would be open for business by 2015. Jarrod Parker, Derek Norris, A.J. Cole et al will still be cheap then.
   9. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:28 PM (#4023088)
# 7

I hit on this in the other thread....what should the Giants really expect? They never paid anything, why should they be paid? They may not even actually have ownership of those territorial rights....
   10. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:29 PM (#4023089)
#8

I think so....I had mentioned that in a thread that was buried last week....and mocked accordingly (with good cause, of course!) ;-)
   11. Tripon Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:34 PM (#4023091)
Maybe the Giants realized that if the A's get their own ballpark, they wouldn't need revenue sharing as much. Personally, I think baseball as a whole is trying to get away from the model where the rich teams have to share what they have with their poorer brothers.
   12. Gamingboy Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:35 PM (#4023092)
They WILL keep the name Athletics, right? Right?
   13. Tripon Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:37 PM (#4023093)
Gamingboy, who else would want the name?
   14. Gamingboy Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:42 PM (#4023095)
Gamingboy, who else would want the name?


Er, what I mean is, I hope they keep the name Athletics, and not fall to any local pressure (if there is any) to change it to something else, like, say, the "San Jose Winchesters" or the "San Jose Way".

(That has to be the first time the Winchester Mystery House- which I believe is in the San Jose area- was been referenced on BBTF)
   15. Bhaakon Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:50 PM (#4023100)
I hit on this in the other thread....what should the Giants really expect? They never paid anything, why should they be paid? They may not even actually have ownership of those territorial rights....


Because regardless of how the Giants obtained them in the first place, the whole idea of MLB territories becomes a sham if they can be taken way at will. It's in the other 29 owners'* best interest to make sure that territorial rights can't be forcibly transferred without compensation.

*at least the ones with territories worth protecting. Some of the small market owners might very well want a precedent that may one day be used to justify moving their franchise to New York or LA.
   16. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:53 PM (#4023103)
Because regardless of how the Giants obtained them in the first place, the whole idea of MLB territories becomes a sham if they can be taken way at will. It's in the other 29 owners'* best interest to make sure that territorial rights can't be forcibly transferred without compensation.

*at least the ones with territories worth protecting. Some of the small market owners might very well want a precedent that may one day be used to justify moving their franchise to New York or LA.


Except, Oakland is staying within the same territory. San Jose is as much theirs as SF.

This is not the Yankees blocking the Rays from moving to Brooklyn, it's the Yankees blocking the Mets from moving there. If the Mets had wanted to build Citifield in Brooklyn, the Yankees should have no right to object.
   17. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:56 PM (#4023105)
Because regardless of how the Giants obtained them in the first place, the whole idea of MLB territories becomes a sham if they can be taken way at will.

They can be taken away at will. Those are the rules. The Giants have known for 20 years that their so called "rights" were revocable at the whim of MLB. So what's the big deal if it becomes a "sham"? The relevant point is that 29 of the 30 teams' value increases if there is a team in Silicon Valley and if the A's aren't a revenue sharing recipient. The same will be true if the Rays move to Manhattan. What's good for the owners as a whole is, and should be, the guideline in these matters.
   18. Bhaakon Posted: December 24, 2011 at 08:03 PM (#4023109)
Except, Oakland is staying within the same territory. San Jose is as much theirs as SF.


Except nothing. The Giants have the rights, the A's don't. The whole point of protected territories is to allow teams to invest in their area without having to worry about another team cutting in on that revenue stream. The Giants funded their new park in large part through money from the Silicon Valley, and ticket sales/ad revenue from that area remains a big part of their bottom line. They've gone to great lengths to cultivate that market, so why shouldn't the A's have to pay to take it over? It's not the Giants' fault that the A's ran their team into the ground over the last twenty years, and that failure shouldn't be rewarded by forcing a healthy franchise to relinquish a big chunk of its customer base for free.
   19. Bhaakon Posted: December 24, 2011 at 08:08 PM (#4023112)
They can be taken away at will. Those are the rules. The Giants have known for 20 years that their so called "rights" were revocable at the whim of MLB. So what's the big deal if it becomes a "sham"? The relevant point is that 29 of the 30 teams' value increases if there is a team in Silicon Valley and if the A's aren't a revenue sharing recipient. The same will be true if the Rays move to Manhattan. What's good for the owners as a whole is, and should be, the guideline in these matters.


Whats possible by law and what's established practice are two very different things. It's possible that the US constitution might be amended to repeal the first, or any, amendment. In practice, it ain't happening. Taking the the uncompensated reassignment of territorial rights from "sure, it's technically possible within the rules," to "it happened to the Giants, so it could happen to you," is a big deal.
   20. Danny Posted: December 24, 2011 at 08:18 PM (#4023115)
Yay! This has been pretty obvious for awhile, especially with the new CBA giving 28 other owners the incentive to approve the deal to take the A's off revenue sharing. The Giants will get some compensation, though I'd guess less than they would have had they had more of an historical claim to the territorial rights rather than having been gifted the rights for their own aborted attempt to move South 20 years ago.

If the Giants fans want to whine about precedent, and I can't wait for the concern trolls to come by and say this move will be bad for the A's, the actual precedent is that the rights to San Jose are transferable without compensation.
   21. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 24, 2011 at 08:20 PM (#4023116)
Taking the the uncompensated reassignment of territorial rights from "sure, it's technically possible within the rules," to "it happened to the Giants, so it could happen to you," is a big deal.


If any business person has ever believed that any other business person is likely to vote to prohibit something that benefits themselves and their minority partners, they're not too bright. Of course "it could happen to you". Not only that, but it's likely to happen to you if it benefits the other 29 owners.
   22. Bhaakon Posted: December 24, 2011 at 08:22 PM (#4023117)
If the Giants fans want to whine about precedent, and I can't wait for the concern trolls to come by and say this move will be bad for the A's, the actual precedent is that the rights to San Jose are transferable without compensation.


The they're rights really rights, are they? Giving something valuable away for free doesn't make it worthless, just the giver stupid.
   23. TerpNats Posted: December 24, 2011 at 08:51 PM (#4023127)
Should the Athletics head to San Jose, the Giants should market themselves better in Alameda County, especially since their ballpark isn't that far removed from BART. In San Jose, the A's will be as isolated from the rest of the SFO market as the Sharks are.
   24. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: December 24, 2011 at 09:04 PM (#4023130)
It's hard to imagine something that would excite less sympathy in me than a member of a monopolistic cartel being upset that another member of the cartel is going to challenge their local monopoly over ADVERTISING in a certain sub-region near their own territory.

The they're rights really rights, are they?


Probably not.
   25. aberg Posted: December 24, 2011 at 09:52 PM (#4023143)
One vote for San Jose cansecos. Or California a's
   26. akrasian Posted: December 24, 2011 at 10:02 PM (#4023147)
One vote for San Jose cansecos. Or California a's

Los Angeles A's of San Jose.
   27. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 24, 2011 at 10:13 PM (#4023150)
Giving something valuable away for free doesn't make it worthless, just the giver stupid.

Thinking something received for free is actually valuable when it's not, makes the receiver stupid, but not as stupid as though he/she actually paid for it.
   28. Adam Starblind Posted: December 24, 2011 at 10:21 PM (#4023154)
   29. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: December 24, 2011 at 10:26 PM (#4023157)
No way, José?
   30. Something Other Posted: December 24, 2011 at 10:30 PM (#4023160)
They have bought the vast majority of land they need for the park - I think there's one business holding out, but the city wants to use eminent domain or something like that.
This kind of thing really, really, really pisses me off. Taking land for a ####### ballpark? I hope that business has deep pockets and hangs on in court for decades.

edit: do the A's get "backsies" on the Gonzalez trade?
   31. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 24, 2011 at 10:40 PM (#4023161)
They have bought the vast majority of land they need for the park - I think there's one business holding out, but the city wants to use eminent domain or something like that.


Which is a significant abuse of eminent domain, but I guess nobody gives a #### about that these days.
   32. Squash Posted: December 24, 2011 at 10:58 PM (#4023165)
Wow.

I was going to post this in the other Beane thread, but in the Oakland paper today Beane said they're budgeting $10-11 million for the draft this year, up from last year's pants-shittingly-low $3 million. That's a welcome move, if nothing else.
   33. Squash Posted: December 24, 2011 at 11:03 PM (#4023167)
Should the Athletics head to San Jose, the Giants should market themselves better in Alameda County, especially since their ballpark isn't that far removed from BART. In San Jose, the A's will be as isolated from the rest of the SFO market as the Sharks are.

And it begins.

Nobody in their right mind would chose Alameda County over Silicon Valley from a business perspective. This is like someone handing you a dollar and you complaining about the dime they want in return.
   34. Flynn Posted: December 24, 2011 at 11:28 PM (#4023171)
Of course, which is why the whole "But we had the rights in the 80s!!" thing has no relevance.

The Giants couldn't care less. If you give me a rock and it turns out to be a diamond, it doesn't mean you get to ask for it back.

Edit: Unless Seligdad makes you.
   35. tshipman Posted: December 24, 2011 at 11:40 PM (#4023175)
Nobody in their right mind would chose Alameda County over Silicon Valley from a business perspective. This is like someone handing you a dollar and you complaining about the dime they want in return.


If I remember right, it had more to do with things like Luxury boxes and so on. Of course, sort of stupid from a fan perspective. If you're an A's fan in Sacramento, you are now another hour away from your team. Kinda sucks in that sense.

San Jo's a ######## anyways. A's are welcome to it. This takes the likelihood that I attend an A's game from 10% to 0%.
   36. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 24, 2011 at 11:44 PM (#4023177)
Beane said they're budgeting $10-11 million for the draft this year

Does that include international amateurs?

If you give me a rock and it turns out to be a diamond, it doesn't mean you get to ask for it back.

What if my dad gave me the option to use a rock as long as he thinks it's ok, and then I give that option to you, and my dad decides to give it back to me after he stops thinking it's ok?
   37. Adam Starblind Posted: December 24, 2011 at 11:54 PM (#4023180)
What if my dad gave me the option to use a rock as long as he thinks it's ok, and then I give that option to you, and my dad decides to give it back to me after he stops thinking it's ok?


I'm so confused!
   38. TerpNats Posted: December 24, 2011 at 11:55 PM (#4023181)
Should the Athletics head to San Jose, the Giants should market themselves better in Alameda County, especially since their ballpark isn't that far removed from BART. In San Jose, the A's will be as isolated from the rest of the SFO market as the Sharks are.

And it begins.

Nobody in their right mind would chose Alameda County over Silicon Valley from a business perspective. This is like someone handing you a dollar and you complaining about the dime they want in return.
I didn't say the Giants should stop marketing to Silicon Valley and focus on Alameda County, merely noting that with the East Bay backlash that will result from the Athletics' move, the Giants have an opportunity to better promote their product there.
   39. Tripon Posted: December 24, 2011 at 11:58 PM (#4023183)
Except the A's have for years been 'sticking it' to their fans by constantly saying how much of a dump that their new stadium is.
   40. Tricky Dick Posted: December 25, 2011 at 12:30 AM (#4023192)
Baseball also has overlapping territories; the Rangers and the Astros have substantial overlapping territories that belong to both. Does that provide the precedent for this?
   41. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 25, 2011 at 12:50 AM (#4023193)
The A's asked that the SJ-SF-Oak area be shared by the Giants and A's, like the NY area is shared by the Mets and Yankees. I'd be surprised if that isn't how it's decided. I assume that both teams would have equal rights to all areas that either previously had rights to as well.
   42. Srul Itza Posted: December 25, 2011 at 01:04 AM (#4023196)
They WILL keep the name Athletics, right? Right?



They kept it when they moved from Philadelphia to Kansas City.

They kept it when they moved from Kansas City to Oakland.

They'll keep it when they move from Oakland to San Jose.

Wonder where they'll move to when San Jose does not work out.
   43. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 25, 2011 at 01:21 AM (#4023197)
Wonder where they'll move to when San Jose does not work out.

Solvang? Santa Barbara? Cabo San Lucas?
   44. 'Spos Posted: December 25, 2011 at 01:43 AM (#4023200)
That has to be the first time the Winchester Mystery House- which I believe is in the San Jose area- was been referenced on BBTF


Post 17: "Winchester Mystery House. pwn3d."
   45. Bhaakon Posted: December 25, 2011 at 02:06 AM (#4023205)
I didn't say the Giants should stop marketing to Silicon Valley and focus on Alameda County, merely noting that with the East Bay backlash that will result from the Athletics' move, the Giants have an opportunity to better promote their product there.


I don't think any anti-A's backlash in northern Alameda county will result in gain for the Giants so much as a growth in general baseball apathy. There's a pretty strong anti-SF sentiment from the Oakland side of the rivalry, and many of those fans would sooner abandon baseball than cheer for the Giants.
   46. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 25, 2011 at 02:45 AM (#4023209)
There's a pretty strong anti-SF sentiment from the Oakland side of the rivalry, and many of those fans would sooner abandon baseball than cheer for the Giants.

I wouldn't abandon baseball but I'd find a different team. I was briefly a Giants fan before I became an A's fan and I continued to root for the Giants in the NL until I left San Francisco, but after this territorial spat, there's no f'in way I'm going back to them.
   47. Squash Posted: December 25, 2011 at 04:00 AM (#4023230)
I don't think any anti-A's backlash in northern Alameda county will result in gain for the Giants so much as a growth in general baseball apathy.

The Giants are already making big gains in Alameda County. You see Giants hats all the time around here now - you never, ever would have seen that in the 80s or 90s. It's the new park near the Bart line, as well as the overflow population from the city (Oakland is hipster cool again now). Also, the Giants have more or less completely taken over the nicer/wealthier parts of the valley. When the Giants were in Candlestick, a solid 2-2.5 hours from Lafayette and Walnut Creek et. al, those areas were mixed but still decidedly A's - now that it's as easy to get AT&T as it is to get to the Oakland Coliseum it's all moving Giants. Basically the A's are already screwed in their home territory.

I don't think San Jose will be an absolute panacea for the team unless ownership does a 180 as well, which we'll see about, Wolff's protestations to the contrary. I think it pretty much assures they'll be an 80m payroll team for the near future, which is pretty good, with the potential to be more.
   48. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 25, 2011 at 04:32 AM (#4023236)
The they're rights really rights, are they?


There's no they're there.
   49. Jay Z Posted: December 25, 2011 at 05:47 AM (#4023241)
I vote for the San Jose Jimenezes. Offensive AND hard to say!
   50. valuearbitrageur Posted: December 25, 2011 at 05:53 AM (#4023242)
The Giants funded their new park in large part through money from the Silicon Valley, and ticket sales/ad revenue from that area remains a big part of their bottom line. They've gone to great lengths to cultivate that market, so why shouldn't the A's have to pay to take it over?


Because the A's were gracious enough to allow the Giants the option of building a stadium in that market (an option the Giant's never used), they have to now pay off the Giant's if they want to build there?

All because the Giant's ran some billboards south of SF?
   51. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 25, 2011 at 12:21 PM (#4023249)
Solvang? Santa Barbara? Cabo San Lucas?


Stalingrad.
   52. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili (TeddyF.Ballgame) Posted: December 25, 2011 at 02:17 PM (#4023251)
There's no they're there.


FTW. Merry Xmas, Miss Stein.
   53. Addison Russell T. Davies (chris h.) Posted: December 25, 2011 at 03:41 PM (#4023254)
Stalingrad.

...Not much fun in Stalingrad, no.
   54. depletion Posted: December 25, 2011 at 04:51 PM (#4023264)
I remain skeptical this will happen as well. I don't think the Giants will give up their rights to Santa Clara county very easily. It's a significant chunk of their base audience.
   55. Bourbon Samurai, what price fettucine? Posted: December 25, 2011 at 06:35 PM (#4023294)
Hmm. Good, i guess. Will attendance reach plummet to Expos like levels?

How many times will the Rivercats out draw the A's?
   56. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 25, 2011 at 07:12 PM (#4023305)
I remain skeptical this will happen as well. I don't think the Giants will give up their rights to Santa Clara county very easily. It's a significant chunk of their base audience.

Interesting....now how to get the other 29 owners to care......
   57. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 25, 2011 at 08:29 PM (#4023325)
I remain skeptical this will happen as well. I don't think the Giants will give up their rights to Santa Clara county very easily. It's a significant chunk of their base audience.


How long is it going to take for everyone to realize that those "territorial rights" may not even exist, under the eyes of the law? If the Giants play too hard at compensation, they are going to lose. This is why they backed down once the County threatened to sue....their "ownership" of those rights isn't exactly clear, in the legal sense. I am guessing MLB tells them as much. It is they're own fault for balking at putting a stdium there and then moving on. I don't know why Giants supporters keep falling back on those rights, when just a little research will show just how questionable the "ownership" of those rights really is....
   58. my2cents Posted: December 26, 2011 at 01:38 AM (#4023384)
I'd call them the "BA's" or the "San Francisco BA's" just to turn the screw.
   59. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 26, 2011 at 04:32 AM (#4023408)
How long is it going to take for everyone to realize that those "territorial rights" may not even exist, under the eyes of the law? If the Giants play too hard at compensation, they are going to lose. This is why they backed down once the County threatened to sue....their "ownership" of those rights isn't exactly clear, in the legal sense.

You might be right, but it seems like if it was even half this simple, it would have happened 10 years ago. MLB and the Nationals didn't give a pile of money to the O's out of the goodness of their hearts.
   60. valuearbitrageur Posted: December 26, 2011 at 04:40 AM (#4023411)
You might be right, but it seems like if it was even half this simple, it would have happened 10 years ago. MLB and the Nationals didn't give a pile of money to the O's out of the goodness of their hearts.


The Nationals were moving into the O's "territory", the A's already share the south bay with the Giants and have been there for decades.

The precedent is, the Giants have never been in the south bay. They asked the As if they could build south of SF, the As said we'd allow that, the Giants didn't exercise that option. Nothing in that should concede San Jose or Silicon Valley to the Giants just because the Giants do a good job marketing there. That would be like saying the As couldn't move to Sacramento if the Giants build up a significant fan base there.
   61. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 04:42 AM (#4023412)
#59 - The issue of it hitting the courts was only within the last year or so (IIRC), which is why you've seen the acclerated movement since. I believe once the County actually started moving forward and notified the Giants to Cease and Desist or they would be bringing a complaint to the Courts for a decision, in an effort to clarify the "territorial rights" the Giants claim so that the County can prusue the opportunity to obtain a professional baseball team (ANY team, they didn't care who), the Giants knew their game was up. They simply postured for as long as they could to buy as much time as possible and hold out hope for a city like Oakland to get it's #### together for the A's. I am willing to bet the Giants will take whatever (if anything) is offered, as to hold out may bring about legal action that would leave them with nothing (which is about what they are honestly entitled to anyways...how in the world can anyone claim otherwise, knowing the facts regarding this situation?!?!?!?)
   62. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 26, 2011 at 04:57 AM (#4023417)
The Nationals were moving into the O's "territory", the A's already share the south bay with the Giants and have been there for decades.

The relevance of this is dubious. MLB territories are defined by the ML Constitution. In a perfect world, the Giants would yield back San Jose because they didn't build their stadium there, but we don't live in a perfect world. The right thing and the legal thing are often at odds. Claiming this is some sort of legal slam dunk is preposterous given the legal firepower MLB has at its disposal. Lew Wolff was Selig's college frat brother and maybe even roommate (?). There's no way this would have dragged out for a decade if it was half as simple as some people in this thread are making it out to be.

That would be like saying the As couldn't move to Sacramento if the Giants build up a significant fan base there.

It's apples and oranges. Sacramento is in Sacramento County, which is neither a part of SFG's nor OAK's MLB-defined territory. Santa Clara County, meanwhile, is specifically defined as SFG territory.
   63. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 26, 2011 at 05:18 AM (#4023424)
There's no way this would have dragged out for a decade if it was half as simple as some people in this thread are making it out to be.


I think by the MLB regulations it is exactly as simple as people are making it out to be. MLB can transfer the territorial rights to the A's or anyone else with a 75% majority vote. The hold-up is largely political, whereby Selig wants very badly to get a consensus among all owners so that factions don't develop and there is basic unity amongst all. If he makes 1 owner angry he can deal with it for the greater good. If he makes 1 owner and his 3 best friends angry, it's a much worse political situation. I think all these delays have been to cajole and appease all the other owners to go along with the vote so that it's at least a 29-1 vote, and ideally 30-0.
   64. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 26, 2011 at 05:43 AM (#4023427)
I think by the MLB regulations it is exactly as simple as people are making it out to be. MLB can transfer the territorial rights to the A's or anyone else with a 75% majority vote.

Where in the ML Constitution is this stipulated? Article V, Sec. 2 (b) (8) talks about "involuntary termination of rights," but that's basically MLB's death-penalty clause. If MLB didn't invoke it when the Nationals moved, why is it suddenly a slam-dunk, no-brainer move with SFG and OAK?

The hold-up is largely political,

Maybe, but my guess is the holdup is legal. MLB just strong-armed the Astros into the A.L. within a 90-day period, while this OAK situation is a decade old. Even at MLB's deliberate pace, it seems like more than politics have dragged this out.
   65. akrasian Posted: December 26, 2011 at 05:45 AM (#4023429)
I agree. It is a weak argument for the Giants - they were given San Jose to use, and then chose not to use it. There are 5 shared areas in MLB currently - the Washington area has already been resolved. NY and Chicago are not looking to move any time soon. The Angels would favor this decision. The Dodgers' owner has agreed to sell - his replacement's agreement is likely to be a matter of his getting approval. The Giants are alone in their not wanting this - and are likely to get a token or not so token payment to go along with it.

I suspect that McCourt agreeing to sell the Dodgers was the decision that got this approved. That was the one team that had something to lose by the idea that territories were truly shared.
   66. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 26, 2011 at 06:10 AM (#4023433)
Maybe, but my guess is the holdup is legal. MLB just strong-armed the Astros into the A.L. within a 90-day period, while this OAK situation is a decade old. Even at MLB's deliberate pace, it seems like more than politics have dragged this out.


Hmmm...the Astros are an interesting case. Here no one opposed this except the Astros themselves, and they were for sale, so the owner wouldn't have to live with the outcome personally. He would just have to be compensated for the difference in sales price and he seems to have been.

If you're wondering why this didn't happen 10 years ago, it's because Wolff only bought the team in 2005, and felt the need to show the other owners that Oakland and other places in the A's current territory weren't viable -- ie.Fremont. I believe that this was done for political reasons, to satisfy squeamish owners who didn't want to offend the Giants that a non-confrontational solution was not practical. Further there may have still been owners who did not think the SF Bay Area was a viable 2 team market, and Selig himself has been skeptical in the past. I am not a lawyer so I am not positive that there are no legal obstacles, but if there were, where are they now?

In order to get a consensus, Selig had to first make San Jose the only viable place for the A's in the minds of all owners, and second, satisfy everyone, other than the Giants, that the Giants would still be viable even if the A's moved to San Jose. I think that takes a lot longer than getting the Astros to move to the AL West.
   67. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 26, 2011 at 06:16 AM (#4023435)
I agree. It is a weak argument for the Giants - they were given San Jose to use, and then chose not to use it. There are 5 shared areas in MLB currently - the Washington area has already been resolved. NY and Chicago are not looking to move any time soon. The Angels would favor this decision. The Dodgers' owner has agreed to sell - his replacement's agreement is likely to be a matter of his getting approval. The Giants are alone in their not wanting this - and are likely to get a token or not so token payment to go along with it.

The fact SFG chose not to use San Jose is more of a moral or right/wrong argument than a legal one. MLB and/or OAK could have demanded a "use it or lose it" provision and/or an expiration date when Santa Clara County was yielded to SFG but apparently no such stipulation exists.

I suspect that McCourt agreeing to sell the Dodgers was the decision that got this approved. That was the one team that had something to lose by the idea that territories were truly shared.

This OAK situation actually predates McCourt's purchase of the Dodgers, so I'm not sure I follow this.
   68. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 26, 2011 at 06:33 AM (#4023437)
In order to get a consensus, Selig had to first make San Jose the only viable place for the A's in the minds of all owners, and second, satisfy everyone, other than the Giants, that the Giants would still be viable even if the A's moved to San Jose. I think that takes a lot longer than getting the Astros to move to the AL West.

Maybe, but I find it hard to believe that it would take 7-plus years to convince MLB owners that OAK needs a new stadium and that San Jose is the best option while it took only ~90 days to shift a 50-year National League team to the American League.

(BTW, just so we're clear, I'm not trying to be an SFG apologist here. As far as I'm concerned, the sooner OAK (and TB) are resolved, the better.)
   69. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 26, 2011 at 06:46 AM (#4023440)
Maybe, but I find it hard to believe that it would take 7-plus years to convince MLB owners that OAK needs a new stadium and that San Jose is the best option while it took only ~90 days to shift a 50-year National League team to the American League.


It wasn't 7 years, it's been three years since the Selig Blue Ribbon Committee was formed. Wolff's only owned the team for 6 years and the first three of those were spent on the Fremont option.
   70. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 26, 2011 at 07:12 AM (#4023445)
It wasn't 7 years, it's been three years since the Selig Blue Ribbon Committee was formed. Wolff's only owned the team for 6 years and the first three of those were spent on the Fremont option.

But that committee was formed long after everyone knew the problem and the solution. Moneyball was written in 2002, which was already a couple years after OAK's revenue situation inspired them to start playing "Moneyball." We're talking 10 years, minimum, that this issue has been on MLB's radar.

If this issue was as simple as some people here are claiming, then it makes no sense for MLB and OAK to have wasted a decade.
   71. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 26, 2011 at 07:40 AM (#4023447)
But that committee was formed long after everyone knew the problem and the solution. Moneyball was written in 2002, which was already a couple years after OAK's revenue situation inspired them to start playing "Moneyball." We're talking 10 years, minimum, that this issue has been on MLB's radar.

If this issue was as simple as some people here are claiming, then it makes no sense for MLB and OAK to have wasted a decade.


If you're going back to 2002 there wasn't even a consensus that the area could support two teams. We're talking right after the bursting of the internet bubble. There were still options within the city of Oakland that had to be eliminated, in North Oakland and at Jack London Square. The A's were in the middle of the AL in attendance then. I don't recall a consensus that San Jose was the only viable option within the area until after both Oakland and Fremont had been eliminated. And then they had to convince people that San Jose was better than Sacramento, Portland, Charlotte, etc.

Again, if there were legal obstacles, what were they and when were they resolved? Why aren't they being put forth by the Giants?
   72. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 26, 2011 at 07:47 AM (#4023449)
Again, if there were legal obstacles, what were they and when were they resolved? Why aren't they being put forth by the Giants?

Put forth where? Nothing has happened yet, which means the SFG have no cause of action. But the fact this has dragged on for so long — 3 years by your count, 10 years by mine* — shows that MLB fears more than some hurt feelings in the SFG owners' suite, just as the money MLB paid to BAL when the Expos moved to D.C. proved the same in that deal.


(* Plus another 3 years to build a new stadium once the issue is resolved.)
   73. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: December 26, 2011 at 01:56 PM (#4023461)
The SJ Earthquakes.
   74. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: December 26, 2011 at 02:05 PM (#4023465)
Really disappointed for Oakland but the gulf in wealth between Oakland and San Jose is just too big to ignore, I guess. I'm relieved I'll still be able to go to games when I visit home.
   75. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 03:55 PM (#4023492)
Joe, instead of ignoring what I said, any chance I can get you to address ANY of my points? SF may not actually have rights, here. This recently came to light when the County threatened to sue them. I have asked a few questions related to this point....yet it keeps getting glossed over. I ask a few, paraphrased, again:

What if SF doesn't even have those rights?

Can YOU produce the evidence that they do?

(The Giants have not produed one piece of evidence, aside from hearsay and common misconception, or any actual paperwork regarding the rights of that area. My guess is they've merely been posturing all along. And yes, that is EXACTLY what a good/smart business owner does when he knows he really hasn't got a leg to stand on)

Do you not think there's a reason for this?

Why, in your opinion, did this quickly become resolved once the Cease & Desist was filed against the Giants in an attempt to prevent them from continue to claim rights and block a move to that exact location?
   76. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 03:59 PM (#4023493)
Put forth where? Nothing has happened yet, which means the SFG have no cause of action.


Simply not true. A Cease & Desist was filed by the County. Legal action started and that would've been the Giants chance to reply with whatever legal challenge they had....
   77. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 26, 2011 at 04:43 PM (#4023510)
My guess is they've merely been posturing all along. And yes, that is EXACTLY what a good/smart business owner does when he knows he really hasn't got a leg to stand on


Wouldn't it be more good/smart to cultivate the fans in the East Bay if they knew that the A's to San Jose was inevitable rather than alienating them by trying to get the A's moved out of the SF Bay Area, or keeping them in subordinate status in Oakland? As an A's fan who used to root for the Giants also in the NL, there's no way I'd ever become a Giants fan now.
   78. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 05:00 PM (#4023515)
# 77 - Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. I was being brief (I know, right!?) and apologize for any confusion and meant from the point of view of anyone wanting to actually block the move, it is a sound business decision. They have no legal leg to stand on and know it, then the best they can do is simply posture until forced to back off.
   79. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 05:02 PM (#4023519)
If the Angels were to want to move to downtown LA, would they have to pay the Dodgers?

The SJ Earthquakes.


Their MLS team is already named that.
   80. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: December 26, 2011 at 05:27 PM (#4023532)
Cardinals, Giants...Earthquakes.
   81. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 26, 2011 at 05:38 PM (#4023543)
Joe, instead of ignoring what I said, any chance I can get you to address ANY of my points?

Sorry, I thought I had addressed your points, at least tangentially.

SF may not actually have rights, here. This recently came to light when the County threatened to sue them. I have asked a few questions related to this point....yet it keeps getting glossed over. I ask a few, paraphrased, again:

What if SF doesn't even have those rights?

Can YOU produce the evidence that they do?

I don't understand this idea that the SFG "may not actually have rights here." Territorial rights are controlled by the ML Constitution, which states, in no uncertain terms, that Santa Clara County is the exclusive territory of the SFG for teams at the MLB level. See Article VIII, Section 8 (p. 15) of the ML Constitution (PDF).

Now, sometimes MLB treats the ML Constitution about as sacred as Islamists treat the Koran, and other times it treats its Constitution like last week's newspaper (hello, American League Astros), but there's nothing ambiguous about the SFG's claim to Santa Clara County within the context of MLB.

(The Giants have not produed one piece of evidence, aside from hearsay and common misconception, or any actual paperwork regarding the rights of that area.

What would they need to show, beyond the language in the link above, to satisfy such claims or doubts?

My guess is they've merely been posturing all along. And yes, that is EXACTLY what a good/smart business owner does when he knows he really hasn't got a leg to stand on)

Do you not think there's a reason for this?

If it's just posturing, then why did MLB and the Nationals agree to pay BAL when the Expos moved?

My guess is that MLB believes the ML Constitution is both valid and controlling, but it fears a friendly hometown Nor. Calif. judge might side with the SFG and (1) cause chaos vis-a-vis future enforcement of the ML Constitution and/or (2) render a huge damages judgment against MLB and/or OAK.

Why, in your opinion, did this quickly become resolved once the Cease & Desist was filed against the Giants in an attempt to prevent them from continue to claim rights and block a move to that exact location?

How has this been "resolved"? As far as I can tell, nothing has happened other than USA Today claiming there's been some movement behind the scenes — a rumor that's been recurring for years now.

If the Angels were to want to move to downtown LA, would they have to pay the Dodgers?

Aside from the internal politics of such a move, I believe there's a requirement that two teams/stadiums within a shared territory must be a minimum air mileage apart unless both teams agree otherwise. In this case, it probably depends on how "downtown" is defined. (Hold the LAA jokes.)
   82. TerpNats Posted: December 26, 2011 at 06:00 PM (#4023551)
The Nationals were moving into the O's "territory," the A's already share the south bay with the Giants and have been there for decades.
In the Nats' case, legally incorrect. The Orioles never officially annexed metropolitan Washington as part of their territory after the Senators left, although they marketed and broadcast games there.
If the Angels were to want to move to downtown LA, would they have to pay the Dodgers?

Aside from the internal politics of such a move, I believe there's a requirement that two teams/stadiums within a shared territory must be a minimum air mileage apart unless both teams agree otherwise. In this case, it probably depends on how "downtown" is defined.
I don't believe the Angels ever surrendered the rights to the city of Los Angeles (where they played their first five seasons), so I'm pretty certain that if Moreno wanted to move downtown (assuming the proposed NFL stadium near Staples Center is never built), the Dodgers couldn't block him, although MLB might request the Angels to pay a slight indemnification.
   83. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 06:08 PM (#4023555)
Joe:

You keep pointing to BAL-WAS...it's a poor comparison, as it is two different scenarios with two different surronding circumstances. These are 2 unique situations, so relying on the other for some sort of "precedent" is reaching.

You have not answered to the key question where all the legal stuff hinges: Why did SF back down after the Cease & Desist? Why is there now some semblance of resolution (as much as you'd like to deny it, it's happening. Sorry, Nightengale wasn't the only one in on this....this situation has been developing behind closed doors for some time now) after the threat of a suit was brought by the County?

Frankly, I am all for this debate, but you seem to want to only include YOUR facts. We can play "I think, You think" all day, but in the end, it's going to go down. In the end, the fact remains that once legal action started, a resolution seemed to get a whole hell of a lot closer.

Again, in short: Why, if the Giants are 100% on this, did they back down from the County's threats? Why didn't they challenge and assert their claim?
   84. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 06:11 PM (#4023560)
Aside from the internal politics of such a move, I believe there's a requirement that two teams/stadiums within a shared territory must be a minimum air mileage apart unless both teams agree otherwise. In this case, it probably depends on how "downtown" is defined. (Hold the LAA jokes.)


Really? What is the distance? The O.co is closer to AT&T Park now then it would be if it moved. In fact, they are REALLY close right now....just a bridge away....

If the Giants agreed to this "air-space" thing....why wouldn't they agree to see them move even FARTHER away???
   85. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: December 26, 2011 at 06:13 PM (#4023561)
Why did SF back down after the Cease & Desist?

Does anyone have a link to some background on this? I can't find anything using the googles.
   86. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 06:19 PM (#4023569)
Santa Clara County Times (or something....maybe even Contra Costa Times?), I think...I will look hard...I linked it before in a discussion about this, about 2-3 months back....
   87. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 06:25 PM (#4023572)
The legal wrangling starts about here. Google County Sue Giants Territory (or territorial rights). Tons of articles since, in various business mags, local rags, etc. I will also try to find the latest, where it talks about the official Cease & Desist....
   88. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 06:31 PM (#4023575)
Good article produced from search: Here

I'd LOVE to hear some Giant's fan feedback on THAT one!

The term 'Santa Clara Giants Territorial rights' is also getting tons of hits to various biz articles, etc on both Yahoo and Google that cover the legal wrangling...
   89. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 06:35 PM (#4023577)
This one.....full of relevant info.....is anyone but me actually looking that hard????
   90. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 26, 2011 at 06:55 PM (#4023583)
I don't believe the Angels ever surrendered the rights to the city of Los Angeles (where they played their first five seasons), so I'm pretty certain that if Moreno wanted to move downtown (assuming the proposed NFL stadium near Staples Center is never built), the Dodgers couldn't block him, although MLB might request the Angels to pay a slight indemnification.

The LAD and LAA share both Los Angeles and Orange counties (see link in #81), but I'm quite sure the air mileage rule (and/or internal politics) would limit/impede the LAA's relocation.

You keep pointing to BAL-WAS...it's a poor comparison, as it is two different scenarios with two different surronding circumstances. These are 2 unique situations, so relying on the other for some sort of "precedent" is reaching.

No, it's not a poor comparison. To the contrary, it seems like the SFG have a stronger claim than BAL did. The ML Constitution explicitly lists Santa Clara County as SFG territory.

You have not answered to the key question where all the legal stuff hinges: Why did SF back down after the Cease & Desist? Why is there now some semblance of resolution (as much as you'd like to deny it, it's happening. Sorry, Nightengale wasn't the only one in on this....this situation has been developing behind closed doors for some time now) after the threat of a suit was brought by the County?

Yes, it's been happening "behind closed doors" for 10 years or more. As I've been saying all along, if this was half as easy as you and some others are claiming, it would have been resolved many years ago.

Frankly, I am all for this debate, but you seem to want to only include YOUR facts. We can play "I think, You think" all day, but in the end, it's going to go down. In the end, the fact remains that once legal action started, a resolution seemed to get a whole hell of a lot closer.

As I've said before, I have no horse in this race. I want to see OAK (and TB) resolved ASAP. Again, my point is simply that this deal isn't as easy as people are claiming. If it was, why has Selig's college frat brother been left in limbo for years, with a minimum of three more years of limbo (while a new stadium is built) even if the issue is resolved today?

Again, in short: Why, if the Giants are 100% on this, did they back down from the County's threats? Why didn't they challenge and assert their claim?

I follow MLB quite closely and wasn't even aware of this "cease and desist" issue until I read this thread. Do you have any links about this issue? I just tried a variety of words and phrases at Google and found nothing except a trademark dispute.

Really? What is the distance? The O.co is closer to AT&T Park now then it would be if it moved. In fact, they are REALLY close right now....just a bridge away....

"Just a bridge?" The SFG and OAK ballparks are 16 miles apart by land (and more than 5 air miles apart).

Anyway, I believe the air-mileage rule is five (5) air miles, but I'm not sure if it applies only to new teams moving into a territory or if it applies to teams already sharing a territory. But again, MLB's internal politics often trump even the ML Constitution. Since just about any major move by a team needs MLB approval, it seems doubtful the LAA could move two miles from LAD without substantial internal hurdles.

If the Giants agreed to this "air-space" thing....why wouldn't they agree to see them move even FARTHER away???

Simple: The SFG apparently care more about Santa Clara County than they do about Oakland. Whether this is a rational position from a business standpoint is a matter of debate.
   91. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 07:16 PM (#4023592)
I follow MLB quite closely and wasn't even aware of this "cease and desist" issue until I read this thread. Do you have any links about this issue? I just tried a variety of words and phrases at Google and found nothing except a trademark dispute.


Try the search terms and/or links provided.....

I find it hard to believe that only I can find these articles.....in my spare time (which isn't much)....

I also don't think it's easy, anytime you have multi-million dollar companies vying over something like this...I do think SOMETHING occured in the last few months that changed the Giants tune. My best educated guess, judging from everything coming from the County itself, is that they backed down once they realized this would end up in a court of law. You seem to be arguing that everything is the same and won't be resolved....all signs point the other direction. I get that it's taken 10 years to get this far. That, more than anything, should show you the last few months has brought along some progress. Now, any theory as to WHY? If not fear of legal action....why is this all FINALLY being settled? NEVER before has it been this close to being a completely done and official deal.
   92. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 26, 2011 at 07:17 PM (#4023594)
The legal wrangling starts about here. Google County Sue Giants Territory (or territorial rights).

Good article produced from search: Here

This one.....full of relevant info.....is anyone but me actually looking that hard????

The first link is from 2009 and includes no mention of any lawsuit or "cease and desist." The second link is a blog post full of opinion and almost bereft of facts (and, again, no mention of any "cease and desist" orders). The third link is from almost a year ago and also has no mention of any legal action.

For someone who claims others are playing fast and loose with the truth, it seems kind of odd that your central argument in this thread is based on an alleged legal action for which no one can find a single link.
   93. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 07:23 PM (#4023595)
The first link is from 2009 and includes no mention of any lawsuit or "cease and desist." The second link is a blog post full of opinion and almost bereft of facts (and, again, no mention of any "cease and desist" orders). The third link is from almost a year ago and also has no mention of any legal action.

For someone who claims others are playing fast and loose with the truth, it seems kind of odd that your central argument in this thread is based on an alleged legal action for which no one can find a single link.


Tip of the iceberg. Everyone says there is NO mention? Did you read those articles all the way through? One was well over 7 pages and INDEED touched on the legal action the Mayor and County were taking, including the discussion between them and the lawyers....are we NOT looking at the same stuff? What about EVERY OTHER ARTICLE IN THE SEARCH, that you said brought up nothing? I don't understand how I use basic search engines, but am getting different results....

I just re-read those...again.....are you skimming?????

" Even San Jose could sue for the right to bring the A’s to town..."

Is that NOT plain enough english? That was from one shot, from one article, from the above search, pulled at random. There are several relevant articles out there....I would apprciate it if you read each and every one before making a comment like the one above. I will NOT do the research for someone after providing all the outline needed to do that research themselves. If you choose not to read each article and came to the discussion without 100% of the available knowledge....not my fault nor do you need to accuse me of anything approaching intellectual dishonesty. Try reading ALL the relevant information PRIOR to making your judgment/assesment of me. Thanks.
   94. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 26, 2011 at 07:29 PM (#4023598)
Tip of the iceberg. Everyone says there is NO mention? Did you read those articles all the way through? One was well over 7 pages and INDEED touched on the legal action the Mayor and County were taking, including the discussion between them and the lawyers

On which page? I scanned all 7 pages and saw no mention of any lawsuits against SFG and/or MLB, and the word "cease" — as in the alleged "cease and desist" action to which you keep referring — doesn't appear in the article (or in the other two links) a single time.

As for why there might be resolution now rather than 10 years ago, it's probably because (1) there isn't a single city in America offering a huge subsidy to build a new ballpark for a possibly relocated OAK, and/or (2) MLB and the other teams understand the preceding and are tired of having OAK in limbo (and receiving revenue sharing money rather than possibly paying it in San Jose).
   95. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 07:36 PM (#4023602)
Scanned...hence the problem. Read them. "No mention" is just plain incorrect. Granted, they aren't 100% about legal action, but there is content there that you are missing, and from more than just that article, if you continue to say there is "no mention of any lawsuits". I am trying to find the article that had the actual Cease & Desist mentioned...I posted it here at BBTF in a thread about 2-3 months back....is there any way to search through my own previous posts on here, I could give the EXACT link from there without any hassle?
   96. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 07:39 PM (#4023604)
I also assume you noticed the part where the A's were approached by the Giants, and Haas sincerely wanted to help and didn't want to mess with formalities and holding up the process, so...

"“Haas gave away territorial rights, and the Giants never gave them back,” Doyle says. “So, this whole idea of the Giants having territorial rights—had you been at the table, it’s not something that was bargained for or bought. The A’s gave them to them.”"

WTF is the Giants problem?
   97. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 26, 2011 at 07:49 PM (#4023607)
Scanned...hence the problem. Read them. "No mention" is just plain incorrect. ...

The word "cease" appears zero times in that 7-page article. Bottom line, if the SFG and/or MLB had been slapped with any legal action relating to San Jose, we wouldn't be struggling to find links. It seems you've either misremembered this alleged "cease and desist" action or misconstrued an opinion-based blog post as fact.

" Even San Jose could sue for the right to bring the A’s to town..."

Is that NOT plain enough english?

Is this a joke? Throughout this thread, you've been claiming the SFG "backed down" after being hit with a "cease and desist" action. Now the best you can find is an obscure reference to the threat of legal action? If you don't want to admit you were wrong, that's fine, but I see no point in going in circles.

"“Haas gave away territorial rights, and the Giants never gave them back,” Doyle says. “So, this whole idea of the Giants having territorial rights—had you been at the table, it’s not something that was bargained for or bought. The A’s gave them to them.”"

Then that was dumb of OAK and/or OAK's lawyers, but it doesn't change much of anything on the SFG side of the fence. If a rich guy gives a million dollars to charity and then goes broke two weeks later, it might be nice to return the money, but the charity is under no legal obligation to do so. This doesn't seem much (if at all) different.
   98. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 07:58 PM (#4023610)
FWIW....browsing through Field Of Schemes site to see if I was lead to the article from there....I will find it!
   99. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 26, 2011 at 08:01 PM (#4023613)
Is this a joke? Throughout this thread, you've been claiming the SFG "backed down" after being hit with a "cease and desist" action. Now the best you can find is an obscure reference to the threat of legal action? If you don't want to admit you were wrong, that's fine, but I see no point in going in circles.


We're crossed somewhere. I said several times that I need to find the EXACT article, I was merely pointing out the fact that "no mention of any lawsuit" is factually incorrect.

THe #96 wasn't directed at you, just a general statement while I was reading through some of this stuff. It appears that the bottom line was that the Giants wanted to force the A's out of the Bay Area completely (?)

If you don't want to admit you were wrong, that's fine, but I see no point in going in circles.


THis part really bugs me. I do admit I am wrong in about 80% of my posts! No problem with that at all, which is why I keep trying to find the specific article I am trying to reference again. Either to prove me right or to prove that I misread it. EIther way, I am ok. NOT knowing for sure is what kills me!

Again, I ask most sincerely...is there a way to search through my own previous posts on this site? Never tried before. That would help clear the confusion. Again, I did not once claim that any link provided was THE link, on the contrary I keep saying I am looking for the thing. I am merely refuting your flat "no mention of any lawsuit" statement, as that's just false. There is mention of lawsuits. It doesn;t have the exact wording I am looking for in re: to the Cease and Desist from the County, but to say there is no mention of ANY lawsuits....that is simply untrue.
   100. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 26, 2011 at 08:14 PM (#4023618)
We're crossed somewhere. I said several times that I need to find the EXACT article, I was merely pointing out the fact that "no mention of any lawsuit" is factually incorrect.

Hey, there are no hard feelings here. I assume you're an OAK fan and I hope the situation gets resolved ASAP. My point in the last few comments is simply that if Santa Clara and/or San Jose had taken legal action against SFG and/or MLB, you wouldn't be having trouble finding it on Google. It would be a 3-second task.

Again, I ask most sincerely...is there a way to search through my own previous posts on this site?

There's a Google Custom Search box above. The "view posts by this member" option has never worked for me here.

BTW, I found an old analysis by Doug Pappas from 2002 that says the following:

Under Rule 1(c), either league can move into a territory belonging to a club in the other league, so long as (a) 3/4 of the affected league's teams consent; (b) the two parks are at least five air miles apart unless the two clubs mutually agree otherwise; (c) the newcomer pays the existing club $100,000 plus half of any previous indemnification to invade the territory; and (d) the move leaves no more than two clubs in the territory. This provision dates to late 1960, when it was adopted to establish the terms for the expansion Los Angeles Angels to play in the territory claimed by the Dodgers in 1958.

Maybe the rules have been changed and/or Doug misread something, but if this analysis is correct, it makes OAK's move into Santa Clara seem very easy. There seems to be a wide disconnect between the above and the experience with BAL/WAS and now SFG/OAK.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
1k5v3L
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 24: Baseball and the presidency
(451 - 2:00am, Sep 25)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogScrabble added 300 words, none of them OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 24, 2018
(78 - 12:42am, Sep 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(560 - 11:17pm, Sep 24)
Last: sardonic

NewsblogLong-time White Sox broadcaster 'Hawk' Harrelson bids emotional farewell in home finale vs. Cubs
(30 - 10:51pm, Sep 24)
Last: Howie Menckel

Sox TherapyDecisions Decisions
(6 - 10:00pm, Sep 24)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

Gonfalon CubsThe Final Push
(191 - 9:25pm, Sep 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogTickets available as Marlins host Reds
(80 - 9:09pm, Sep 24)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogFive Tool Players | Articles | Bill James Online
(41 - 8:53pm, Sep 24)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogBobby Evans’ days as the Giants’ GM appear to be numbered
(2 - 7:43pm, Sep 24)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogFowler, still owed almost $50 million, eager to be part of Cardinals' future | St. Louis Cardinals | stltoday.com
(12 - 7:40pm, Sep 24)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (September 2018)
(397 - 6:56pm, Sep 24)
Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)

NewsblogAlen Hanson gets back-to-back starts, likely still in Giants’ plans
(6 - 5:30pm, Sep 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogTim Anderson's eventful day at the yard ends with shot at Joe West: 'Everybody knows he's terrible'
(25 - 5:00pm, Sep 24)
Last: PreservedFish

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1947 Discussion
(11 - 4:59pm, Sep 24)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogKen Giles: ‘I’m actually enjoying the game more than I did for my entire tenure in Houston’
(7 - 4:10pm, Sep 24)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network)

Page rendered in 0.6961 seconds
46 querie(s) executed