By jeffreyb (75.37.18.80) on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - 11:21 pm:

You know its coming. These a-holes are trying to work up a San Jose deal - fait acompli. But they can't slink away in the night like Robert Irsey's Colts leaving Baltimore behind. California politics don't work like that.

I wanted to repost well written words from mroakland:

I wouldn't lose hope just yet. This tale has many twists and turns. There will be lawsuits, from Oakland, from NIMBY opposition, from season ticket holders, from transit advocates, from environmental groups, etc. It takes a huge effort to relocate a franchise and build a new ballpark in California in this current economy. Oakland is the path of least resistance. Oakland is the geographic center of the Bay Area and is also the center of the fanbase.
----

this fight is just starting. this organization is well...tired. but a storm is a coming...prepared or not.

By eyleenn (38.99.44.122) on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - 10:26 am:

Don't think I have any standing, but I would LOVE to be part of a plaintiff group vs. Wolff!

By diamond_lil (187.15.155.140) on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - 02:07 pm:

Jeff's post is PRECISELY why this website is still online...tired and sad...but not dead.
We will serve, if anything as a 'testimonial' of
how they play dirty.

By mroakland (67.188.46.22) on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - 02:33 pm:

You can count me in that lawsuit. That SOB is going to have a fight on his hands. I'll even sue on behalf of Oakland to make sure Wolff can't claim rights to Oakland for baseball, or for his MLS soccer franchise.

By ws9 (99.102.135.242) on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - 04:03 pm:

The SJ EIR is near certification and I have not heard a peep from any NIMBY or Environmentalist nor have I heard anything from the City of Oakland or County of Alameda to make me think they would fight a move in court. Those with power have already written the story, just like Montreal, Oakland will lose it's team because it cannot support it. It is up to those that know better to keep telling the real story.

By ws9 (99.102.135.242) on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - 04:07 pm:

While I do think it's a done deal I don't mean to imply that we our anyone else should make it easy for them. Giv'em Hell!

By mroakland (67.188.46.22) on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - 05:19 pm:

Oakland A's fans have spoken loud and clear with 34,000 supporters on the "Let's Go Oakland" keep the A's in Oakland, Facebook page. Oakland fans have sent over 4,000 emails to Selig telling him to keep the A's in Oakland. Evidently the wishes of the fanbase mean nothing to these scoundrels.

The truth of the matter is, that the A's have been slowly leaving Oakland since that fraudulent delay by Selig and the Blue Ribbon Commission in 1999, which resulted in the expiration of the time frame which Oakland had to finalize a sale to a local pro-Oakland buyer. Oakland was then set-up with a San Jose businessman who had intentions to move the team to the South Bay from the very beginning.

We've been robbed! Oakland never had a chance and it's a crying shame because we all know that a new ballpark near the waterfront in Jack London Square would have been a huge success. Now, the lies about Oakland not being able to support a team will be perpetuated by the greedy carpetbaggers along with the San Jose franchise grabbers, while Oakland's punished and demoralized fans will be judged against San Jose fans in a new ballpark. These fans will now attempt to co-opt our history, our tradition and roll out our championship banners in a new ballpark. We labored for over 40 years and now they get our team in a new ballpark. They get the 500 million dollar infusion of capital. It's like that comment regarding a former presidential candidate, the San Jose partisans were born on third base and think they hit a homerun.

I will never set foot in San Jose again for any event or any function. This is a city which has a very low National profile and attempts to cure its huge inferiority complex by attempting to pilfer sports franchises from Oakland and San Francisco. This is a city which whines about territorial rights but now is ready to shut out Oakland from ever having a baseball franchise again. This is a city which also shuts out Oakland of any possibilities of ever having a pro-soccer franchise or a hockey franchise. This is hypocrisy at its finest and Oakland needs to go to court to save its future as a pro sports mecca accessible to all Bay Area residents.

By eyleenn (71.131.3.72) on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - 09:10 pm:

I don't think it's a done deal that San Jose voters will approve a stadium deal.

By linusalf (69.181.76.54) on Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 07:42 am:

Its not a done deal. Far from it. Like Eyleenn said this thing still has to go to a vote. Want to know what their voting on? Well it says so clear as day in the EIR (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/eir/Ballpark_PP05-214/Draft_SEIR_MainDoc.pdf)

"It is anticipated that the City Council will place a ballot measure before the San José electorate regarding the use of public funds for construction of a stadium. Pursuant to provisions of the San José Municipal Code, the City may utilize tax dollars to participate in the building of the stadium only after obtaining a majority vote of the electorate approving that expenditure."

huh? I thought no tax dollars were to be involved? And this vote was just "part of the process?"

By richochet (204.2.163.2) on Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 12:52 pm:

A ballpark in San Jose? Right, that's a good one.

If you read the comments by Bud, it does not appear that he's likely to recommend overturning the Giants territorial rights to the South Bay. He states that this situation does not have any precedent, meaning that it's an entirely different situation that in Washington, DC, where Angelos did NOT have territorial rights to DC.

The Giants ownership purchased the club knowing that they had the support of South Bay fans and companies ... and Wolff bought the A's knowing that he did not have rights to that area. Do ou really think MLB owners want to mess with this can'o worms???

Anyone that does has been over in Marineland far too often, if you know what I mean. Hey didn't that site say that Fremont was a done deal and anyone that didn't believe him was all wet???

Hmmm ... look who looks like a stooge now.

By jmmarx (71.36.104.91) on Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 01:25 pm:

this is far from over. The OAKLAND A'S FANS NEED TO FIGHT BACK FOR THE TEAM. KEEP THEM IN OAKLAND

By oakland4ever (99.36.195.63) on Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 05:43 pm:

Regarding marinelayer's website, I check it now & then & noticed the bias over there has driven Oakland A's fans away. Now it's just the pro San Jose, Oakland haters. Makes me sick to read how SJ supposedly has so many more people than Oakland, but then they won't mention Oakland has a higher urban density, because it isn't spread out like SJ. San Leandro, Berkeley, Castro Valley probably have as much urban density as SJ. But as the great Communist Josef Stalin said, if you keep repeating a lie long enough, people believe it

By jmmarx (71.36.104.91) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 09:03 am:

Uncle Joe said it best. You keep repeating a lie long enough, you and others will believe it.

A's fans need to understand that San Jose is just another town in the bay area.

They maybe a great hockey town, but can they support baseball? I think NOT!

The NHL has 84 games. MLB has 162 games. A's have 81 home games. Can the people in SJ go all 81 games in a year? MAYBE?!?!?

Ask Marinelayer this: "Can you support the A's 162 games a year?"

By eyleenn (38.99.44.122) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 12:56 pm:

If South Bay voters nixed the Giants twice, why would they vote for an A's stadium? Times are much worse economically now, and the South Bay is a Giants' bastion. Wolff conveniently forgets that.

By mroakland (67.188.46.22) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 02:32 pm:

The San Jose partisans love to mention that San Jose has nearly 1 million residents and Oakland has 400,000 residents. What the San Jose partisans fail to mention, is that the Oakland Metro Area of Alameda and Contra Costa counties have 2.5 million residents and Oakland is linked by BART to most of the Bay Area with the exception of San Jose and the South Bay.

As far as San Jose being a great sports town, that's not even a serious question. They've lost so many fringe sports franchise throughout the years. Also, they don't support San Jose State, the Earthquakes draw their biggest crowds in Oakland and can't compare with the Seattle Sounders who draw 32,000 fans per game, or with the LA Galaxy who draw 28,000 fans per game. It doesn't matter that the Earthquakes play in a small college stadium. They couldn't fill Spartan Stadium either.

For these arrogant South Bay types to claim rights to our team because they have "corporations," when advanced ticket sales receipts prove that these people could give a fig about the Oakland A's, is ludicrous. The entitled attitude displayed by these arrogant partisans is downright appalling.

By eyleenn (38.99.44.122) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 03:56 pm:

The city of SF proper only has about 600,000-700,000 residents. It's ridiculous to only count the population of one city.

By mroakland (67.188.46.22) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 06:10 pm:

Eyleenn, I agree. The only positive benefit for "city population" would be the density of population near the area of the ballpark. Oakland beats San Jose in immediate density to the ballpark, hands down, with a ballpark on Victory Court near Jack London Square.

Oakland's densest neighborhoods are all within walking distance of a ballpark on Victory Court. Residents from Adam's Point, Haddon Hill, Crocker Highlands, Uptown, Chinatown, Piedmont Avenue, Gold Coast, are all within a 2 mile radius. Adam's Point, Grand Ave/Lakeshore, Trestle Glenn and Haddon Hill would be directly linked through the new landscaped paths at Lake Merritt, leading to the Measure DD improvements being implemented at the Lake Merritt Channel and all the way to the ballpark.

In effect, a ballpark at Jack London Square has the desired urban density, along with great public transit access to the well populated Oakland Metro Area. Also, lets not forget that nearby San Francisco is the third highest attending county behind Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

By jmmarx (71.36.104.91) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 09:02 pm:

San Jose needs to understand that they are NOT a sports town. They maybe a hockey town, but as far as the other sports go, they can't support football, not soccer, much less baseball.

By jmmarx (71.38.135.2) on Sunday, March 28, 2010 - 11:48 am:

some people, like marinelayer, doesn't seem to get it that to get a team in SAN JOSE, you have to put some kind of "moola."

Right now, citizens in San Jose and Santa Clara county won't put tax payers monies on any pro sports, including the OAKLAND A's.

By ws9 (99.102.135.242) on Monday, March 29, 2010 - 09:02 am:

These are all side arguments. San Jose owns most of the land at its ballpark site and has almost completed the EIR, what do we have? History? Geography? none of those things matter a fig to MLB, if they did we wouldn't be in this position. Yes I know it's Oakland's team and Oakland should not have to compete, and if our ownership didn't suck this would not be happening but none of that matters to the ultimate decision makers. Oakland is competing with San Jose and at the moment Chuck Reed and friends have run circles around Ron Dellums and Co.

By oaklandsi (166.205.137.181) on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - 06:22 am:

Dellums could run circles around Reed but that wouldn't change anything. The chief problem is Selig's hostility to having the A's in Oakland.

By ws9 (99.102.135.242) on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - 12:37 pm:

I disagree, Selig is not the audience nor is Wolf. The audience is comprised of the other major league owners who have to be convinced by Selig and Wolf that Oakland is such a poor alternative that opening up the territorial rights can of worms is worth the trouble. If Oakland had what SJ has (a site which is mostly acquired with EIR just about done)it wold be very difficult to convince the other owners to overturn the territorial rights by force. No doubt Oakland officials will say they have done little because the A's have shown no interest, but San Jose could say the same thing about MLB, they have been told time again that territorial rights are sacred etc.. yet they still moved forward and put themselves in a great position.

By jeffreyb (76.199.138.216) on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - 01:35 pm:

Selig is a master politician within MLB circles. He's the mafia don who won't move publically until the other owners are lined up. I suspect that a price on territorial rights will come into play in the creation of another NY/NJ team. It'll be a ribbon tied package before any public announcement. MLB owners who might move against Selig are not Oakland fans audience - the public and politicians are our audience.

By ws9 (99.102.135.242) on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - 02:23 pm:

If by that you mean that Oakland fans must convince the public and politicians to provide MLB an actual stadium site that is the city's to sell or lease to the team then I agree with you, however if you simply mean Oakland fans have to convince the public and politicians that MLB and Wolf are bad actors who are out to screw Oakland then that does nothing to help the team stay here. It may allow you to claim moral high ground once they are gone but that's about it.

By jmmarx (71.36.111.205) on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - 02:26 pm:

Selig is the master politician, but his failure to see Oakland as a strong candidate for MLB will be his done for.

People can be turned off by his political biase. People won't go to the games if he keeps meddling in on team business.

What could happen in Oakland could happen to SFO, NY, KC, Detriot, Boston, Atlanta, and anywhere else.

"We Won't Be Fooled Again." - Roger Daltry

By bparkjamo (71.202.35.250) on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 10:04 am:

What gets lost in all this SJ nonsense is that while SJ has a site,someone still has to pay for a ballpark. Wolff still does not have the money for a soccer stadium. And how many times have voters in the south bay turned down tax increases to fund ballparks? More than once. The giants are not going to give up the south bay cheaply,and I don't think the other mlb teams are in too much of a hurry to monkey with territorial rights. It would be too weird if,should the A's move south,the giants end up with Oakland in their territory.
SAN PABLO TRIANGLE is the place.

By eyleenn (38.99.44.122) on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 10:19 am:

Latest poll in SJ:

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_14788215?nclick_check=1

Strong support for ballpark IF NO NEW TAXES.

By mroakland (67.188.46.22) on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 03:11 pm:

San Jose faces a huge 116 million dollar budget deficit. These politicians have other priorities other than trying to steal a baseball team from Oakland. And yes, the fans are all for it, IF "no new taxes." Unfortunately we know that this will cost the City of San Jose millions in infrastructure improvements and land subsidies to Wolff and Fisher. Who are they kidding? Once the details come out, Mayor Reed will be exposed for wasting San Jose resident's money when public safety, parks and rec, libraries, street maintenance, all face possible cuts in this very tough economy.

San Jose better start dealing with its realities instead of worrying about enhancing its image by stealing a neighbors baseball team.

By eyleenn (38.99.44.122) on Thursday, April 01, 2010 - 10:20 am:

Playing devil's advocate here, the same can be said for Oakland ("public safety, parks and rec, libraries, street maintenance, all face possible cuts in this very tough economy").

That said, Oakland needs the A's a lot more than San Jose does.