10 more years for the A's (San Jose, Oakland: exemption, park, location)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man

Where's the EIR?

Haha you guys ask this as if it's a gotcha question or a deal breaker that is the determining factor. **yawns**

The only thing that's been determined and settled is this:
Judge dismisses antitrust claims in San Jose lawsuit | MLB.com: News

Oh, and this:
Document claims Selig rejected A's move to San Jose in June - Sporting News

So thanks for your concern for the A's stadium, but you all already have a stadium that is one of the best, if not THE best in the majors, AT&T Park in SF. Wow, ur so chic San Ho.

[Natural510]

Probably wasting my time in this thread, since all you guys want to do is argue & score internet points, but at the end of the day the A's are in Oakland, and have been since 1968, so for San Jose to work, Oakland has to be proven to be inviable, which it hasn't yet (no matter how much propaganda Wolff puts out there). That's why MLB has dragged its feet and has not made a single gesture against their Giants' claim for San Jose. So there must be somewhere MLB thinks the A's can still build, or at least consider, in Oakland or they would've ruled otherwise by now.
I'm not one of these pro-Oakland homers who think Wolff is the devil incarnate, but with everything he's said & done up to now, it's apparent he wants San Jose for business reasons, and because he calls it home, and anything he says in favor of an Oakland site has an ulterior motive. If he claims the Coliseum is the only viable site in Oakland, that may be because he secretly hopes the Raiders build there and all of a sudden he will have nowhere to take the A's but San Jose (or San Antonio).

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

The Point: San Jose is NOT going to happen, so build at Howard Terminal.

Why are you always dealing in extremes? We talk down HT so we're of course pushing Diridon? Coliseum looks the safest bet right now. Just wait for Bowlcut to **** off Goodell by sitting on his stupid spoiled ass, then the A's have both a ballpark village and close proximity to an urban environment.

Originally Posted by Stephen1110

Yes, I guess you did miss the point. The Scott/Hoffman ownership wanted to move the A's to San Jose. They hired Lewis Wolff as Vice President of Venue Development to lead their San Jose ballpark efforts, with a pending offer to become a part of ownership, in which he became a part of. Therefore, the relocation efforts by two consecutive ownership groups is really one continuous effort of the previous ownership group, since the common denominator is Lewis Wolff - the old man at the helm of the relocation efforts of both ownership groups.

No, think about what you're saying. Wolff was not an owner when Schott and Hoffman looked elsewhere, he was merely someone with a similar goal so the two entities joined forces.

Originally Posted by Natural510

Probably wasting my time in this thread, since all you guys want to do is argue & score internet points, but at the end of the day the A's are in Oakland, and have been since 1968, so for San Jose to work, Oakland has to be proven to be inviable, which it hasn't yet (no matter how much propaganda Wolff puts out there). That's why MLB has dragged its feet and has not made a single gesture against their Giants' claim for San Jose. So there must be somewhere MLB thinks the A's can still build, or at least consider, in Oakland or they would've ruled otherwise by now.
I'm not one of these pro-Oakland homers who think Wolff is the devil incarnate, but with everything he's said & done up to now, it's apparent he wants San Jose for business reasons, and because he calls it home, and anything he says in favor of an Oakland site has an ulterior motive. If he claims the Coliseum is the only viable site in Oakland, that may be because he secretly hopes the Raiders build there and all of a sudden he will have nowhere to take the A's but San Jose (or San Antonio).

Lew Wolff is neither from San Jose nor does he live here. It's just an easier place to do business than Oakland, as evidenced these past weeks in Town politicking. That's really as impartial and unbiased as financial matters get: less resistance and higher profit.

And if the Raiders decide to build at the Coliseum instead, it will be because the city of Oakland has picked them over the A's for the thousandth time.

[bobby_guz_man]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Haha you guys ask this as if it's a gotcha question or a deal breaker that is the determining factor. **yawns**

But it is. All site needs an EIR

The only thing that's been determined and settled is this:
Judge dismisses antitrust claims in San Jose lawsuit | MLB.com: News

State torts claim survived. Might not be able to poach the A's as easily as San Francisco poached the Warriors, but we'll keep going.

Oh, and this:
Document claims Selig rejected A's move to San Jose in June - Sporting News

Gosh, that SOB, guess we'll just have to grow a pair of balls and take him to court

So thanks for your concern for the A's stadium, but you all already have a stadium that is one of the best, if not THE best in the majors, AT&T Park in SF. Wow, ur so chic San Ho.

I am an A's fan, so that would not work. But some A's fans would love to stare and admire AT&T Park from their Howard Terminal seats, and I understand that

[Bulldogdad]

River City A's?

[Natural510]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

And if the Raiders decide to build at the Coliseum instead, it will be because the city of Oakland has picked them over the A's for the thousandth time.

Well, the Raiders appear to at least be working with the city into getting something done (even if they probably have to way to pay for it) on a new park, while the A's are wasting time on San Jose. So as much as I hate the Raiders and what they've done to the city & county, they are the only one of the three who have shown interest in staying put.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by Natural510

Well, the Raiders appear to at least be working with the city into getting something done (even if they probably have to way to pay for it) on a new park, while the A's are wasting time on San Jose. So as much as I hate the Raiders and what they've done to the city & county, they are the only one of the three who have shown interest in staying put.

As much as I sound like a nut saying it, and as much as I watch the Raiders/football more than the A's/baseball, that is what they want you to think. Bay Investment Group is doing the work, and even they have missed deadlines on providing information and have done little in terms of PR after the pie-in-the-sky renderings were released. Coliseum City sounds like a joke to A's fans who have been following stadium development news for years, but Raiders fans honestly wonder why the A's and Warriors haven't gotten on board (go read some message board/facebook/reddit discussions). That's how in-the-dark they are because Davis has done so little beyond saying he wants to stay. Even then, we have to disregard whispers with Dublin, Concord and the obvious Los Angeles. Selig won't answer questions about a team actually looking for a solution somewhere while Goodell has to come out and actually budge the Raiders to do something by stirring the Levi's pot. The Raiders will sit and expect/demand their way, so of course they are less willing to leave a free ride.

[18Montclair]

Pointing out missed deadlines in this saga is futile. Clearly there is no real tme table that if left to expire, will really mean anything.

The blue ribbon committee took 5 years and Bud Selig didnt care.

[krudmonk]

Now you're just being a contrarian. What is your allegiance to Bay Investment Group? Why jump to their defense? Their business relationship with the city and county is in no way analogous to Bud's boys reporting back to him, as the latter is a single entity in baseball.

[18Montclair]

So anyway, whatever this^ is about I havent a clue.

But to act like time is somehow 'running out' and that there is a do-or-die deadline is totally inaccurate at this juncture of the process.

MLB has spoken, they've rejected the SJ move and now publically advocate for a new stadium in Oakland.

The issue is not even when or if, but where in Oakland.