A's: So its true, if you build it, they WILL come. (San Jose: credit, live)

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by jade408

Of course, any owner that doesn't follow the territory rights isn't make themselves any friends. If they owners vote to do it to the A's, then everyone else's territory is fair game.

If the A's become self-sufficient, they take less in revenue sharing from the other owners. And name me a current market besides New York/New Jersey that would even draw the attention of another club. The whole issue could be avoided by simply defining the special circumstance of the relocating club actually moving further away from the infringed. Where else could that apply but the Bay Area? Saying that this opens the floodgates to a massive shuffle is totally ridiculous.

[vdy1985]

If they move to SJ, they would sell out on a regular basis, as there is a critical mass of population in the south bay. OAK is too close to SF. SF takes all of OAK's thunder.

[llowllevellowll]

Originally Posted by vdy1985

If they move to SJ, they would sell out on a regular basis, as there is a critical mass of population in the south bay. OAK is too close to SF. SF takes all of OAK's thunder.

Ridiculous opinion from someone who obviously doesn't live here. San Jose is San Francisco's market, Oakland isn't and I'm not just talking territorial rights - south Bayers love their Giants. I don't know if I've EVER seen more than 5 SF hats in Oakland in my entire time in the Bay Area.

A new stadium in SJ probably sells out on a semi-regular basis.

A new stadium in Oakland probably sells out on a semi-regular basis.

It's the stadium/locale/amenities moreso than where it's placed in the region.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by Parti Rhinocéros

San Jose is San Francisco's market, Oakland isn't

Hahaha, why? Because they both begin with "San?" Oakland is much more connected to SF. You're attached at the hip by BART, which dictates the boundaries of your universe. "omg San Jose doesn't even have BART you can't put a stadium there!!!1" Just look at the coverage of East Bay sports compared to South Bay sports in the Chronicle. The A's draw crap and have their own blog while the Sharks pack the house for every game and don't even have a beat writer up there.

[NorCal Dude]

The giants can't sue the A's, but the plethora of business who work with the giants can and will sue. You could get 500 frivilious law suits and all it takes is just several to tie up the A's for years. Especially if you get a judge willing to declare some sort of injunctive relieve or tpo barring the A's from doing anything until the issue gets resolved.

And there have already been various business owners in silicon valley and the penninsula who have already spoken out in support of the giants.

The crux of the issue is the A's are a welfare team and dependent on revenue sharing. Is the issue that the stadium is the cause of the A's to be dependent on other mlb teams for money because of the stadium or because the ownership is pocketing the money?

As of right now there are no specific requirements as to how an ownership spends that revenue sharing money. If one looks at when the A's were spending a bit more money and had a larger budget back in the early 2000's they were right in the middle of the league for attendence. Not amazing but not horrible. And they were not spending that much either. So by most accounts they were doing OK.

It wasn't until they started being at the bottom of the barrel for payrolls that attendence started dipping. So if I am an owner and Bud Selig is trying to sell this to me, I have to ask myself, whats the real issue here? Is this genuine or is thhis a ponzy scheme between frat boys to help somebody make a lot of cash?

My guess is this is why nothing has happened as of late. People can talk about hurdles all they want but, considering how fast Sf, New York, the white sox,anahiem and a bunch of other teams were able to upgrade or get new stadiums, my guess is this is going to be a long nasty battle.

Damon bruce hit it on the head. 10 years from now the A'S will still be at the mosoleum.

[18Montclair]

The Oakland As rank 29th as far as revenue, but it ranks 11th in actual operating income, meanwhile some far bigger teams are actually operating at a loss.

The Oakland A's are not in the red, The Oakland A's are not operating at a loss, The Oakland A's are not depreciating in value.

#29 Oakland Athletics - Forbes.com

In fact, when one looks at the team's financials, it becomes abundantly clear that a new stadium is the only thing that's holding back the Oakland A's, and neither Lew Wolff or any SJ booster has shown any real reason to substantiate the claim that building a new stadium in San Jose would be better for the team and Bay Area than building a new stadium in Oakland.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

And there have already been various business owners in silicon valley and the penninsula who have already spoken out in support of the giants.

Silicon Valley Leadership Group (http://svlg.org/press/press_releases/2010_0311.php - broken link)

[NorCal Dude]

Just the polar opposite of the Stand For San Jose group. Nothing special. Giants have far more corporate backers then the A's could ever lure. It's never going to happen. At least you can watch soccer there. And there is also the sharks, ie the cubs of hockey.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Just the polar opposite of the Stand For San Jose group. Nothing special.

Anyone else and I'd assume they were just joking. The site obviously covers many issues beyond a baseball stadium, as the SVLG is an independent coalition of companies with power/influence. Even a child could click "About Us" and see that. Stand For San Jose is a Giants-backed lobby posing as concerned citizens. That viewpoint is represented by the legitimate Better Sense San Jose, with its counterpoint existing as Baseball San Jose.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by durfmonk

Anyone else and I'd assume they were just joking for saying something this stupid. The site obviously covers many issues beyond a baseball stadium, as the SVLG is an independent coalition of companies with power/influence. Even a child could click "About Us" and see that. Stand For San Jose is a Giants-backed lobby posing as concerned citizens. That viewpoint is represented by the legitimate Better Sense San Jose, with its counterpoint existing as Baseball San Jose.

And that giants backed lobby is filled with a plethora of wealthy businessmen with just as much power and influence, probably more. In addition to many local Nimbys who will jump on the waggon just because they hate fun. How many businesses and millionares are backing "baseball san jose"? Stand for San Jose must have some pretty deep pockets considering the have hired a marketing firm and a legal team.

Again a small coalition of companies in San Jose is not going to be able to compete with San Francisco and the plethora of millionares and billionares backing the teams interest. SF has yahoo, Coca Cola, B of A, visa, chevron, and at&t in its corner, no need to name the smaller sponsors.

As far as most people are concerned the noise in san jose is no different then the noise in oakland. A bunch of yahoos hollering from the cheap seats.