Main Sections:
Main Site
Discussion Forum
    All Topics
    New Messages
    Search
    Last Day
    Last Week
    Tree View
    Edit Profile
    Create Login
    Guidelines
    Help
Game Chat
Fund Raiser:
Order Merchandise!

Suggested Reading:
(click cover for info)

cover

De La Fuente says A's, 49ers aren't moving

OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: De La Fuente says A's, 49ers aren't moving
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaklandathletic (12.149.144.130) on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 08:04 am:

Lew Wolff could use a refresher course on Bay Area Ballpark History 1A while he schemes to uproot the Oakland A's and move them east of Eden.

Oakland doesn't look like Eden to the wanderlust Wolff at the moment, but it might in time after he brushes up on local stadium mishaps.

About 20 years ago, Santa Clara County rejected two ballot efforts to build a ballpark for the Bob Lurie-owned San Francisco Giants. The unlucky, misguided Lurie also lost two ballpark initiatives in San Francisco.

So much for the public financing of baseball stadiums. It will take private money, or a similar form of creative financing, to build a ballpark these days.

If Wolff remains convinced that San Jose wants the A's, then he must have been hang gliding in Bora Bora when a recent poll of South Bay residents showed a definite split in that regard.

The San Francisco 49ers received the same down-the-middle split in a separate poll. Thus, it could be that neither the Niners nor the Athletics are going anywhere pending two South Bay stadium ballot initiatives affecting their future this year.

In addition, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed hardly sounded optimistic when he discussed his city budget a month ago. "The bottom line? We are in a deep hole," he said.

Wolff's Eden might be the friendly confines of Oakland. And Oakland is even willing to overlook his disingenuousness. That's because the A's are worth it in the long run. Now if we can just find Haas-like ownership again.

"I believe we can deliver a (ballpark) site," Oakland City Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente said. "But the reality is that Lew Wolff has been very public about it, that the last place he wants to be is in Oakland."

Wolff has been offered three more ballpark locations in Oakland after rejecting every previous site presented to him in the city. The only site he pinpointed himself, across 66th Street from the Coliseum, was occupied by a group of businesses that had no interest in being displaced which Wolff may have known all along.

"He has spent a lot more energy and resources in other places than he has spent in Oakland," said De La Fuente, referring to Fremont as well as San Jose. "He's never really had the intention to do anything in Oakland. He just complained."

De La Fuente admitted that constructing a ballpark on any of the three latest sites presented to Wolff involves "challenges." That's true, he added, of any city nowadays that aims to attract or retain a major sports franchise.

"The biggest challenge is Lew Wolff," said De La Fuente. "He bought this team with the whole intention of moving them to the South Bay ... because he is from the South Bay."

My favorite ballpark site in Oakland is the available, aesthetic Oak-to-Ninth location abutting the Estuary and Interstate 880. It would require an overpass between the ballpark and freeway, and over the railroad tracks because freight trains rolls by regularly.

De La Fuente thinks that building an overpass is doable, but Wolff is the problem.

"The reality is that Lew Wolff has not lost money, even when the A's have one of the lowest attendances in baseball," he said. "They have one of the lowest payrolls. They sell very good players. They share in the TV and radio revenue. They still make money, so what?"

De La Fuente predicts, boldly, that San Jose won't get the A's, territorial rights notwithstanding, and that Santa Clara won't get the 49ers.

"Those (two) polls show that voters are getting smarter," he said. "I don't believe Santa Clara voters are going to approve $100-plus million for the 49ers. And I don't think San Jose voters are going to approve millions of dollars for the A's."

He hasn't been proved wrong yet.


http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_14689872

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaklandsi (69.107.121.51) on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 08:06 am:

hah -- beat me to it. I was just about to post this.

I hope he's right.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaklandathletic (12.149.144.130) on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 08:29 am:

Haha...me too!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bubba69 (198.217.64.37) on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 08:38 am:

It's about time someone called out Wee Willy Wolfie...he has no plan and with the state of most california cities as far as cash goes who has that kind of disposible money...with fire, police and education being hit a ballpark should be the last thing they are looking at. If they are they are freaking nuts!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jmmarx (71.36.104.91) on Friday, March 19, 2010 - 06:10 am:

I think someone needs to call out old man woofie and tell him that he's FOWL!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By finleyunplugged (67.159.44.51) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 08:06 am:

Chris Cohan just put the Warriors on the market and Oracle's Larry Ellison is the likely buyer.

Too bad the Selig-Wolff cabal won't allow sale of the A's to a committed local investor.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaklandathletic (12.149.144.130) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 11:16 am:

Whoever ends up buying the Warriors needs to seriously do something about the name "Golden State." I'd prefer Oakland obviously, but I'd still be happy with the "Bay Area Warriors!"

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jmmarx (71.36.104.91) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 12:49 pm:

I think the Golden State Warriors needs to change their name to the OAKLAND AVENGERS!

new name, new market.

what do you think???

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jmmarx (71.36.104.91) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 12:55 pm:

I think what A's fans need is to let Woofie know how this San Jose thing is. It may not be much, but it may change some things.

1.) Boycott all major league baseball games as soon as the A's announce the move to San Jose. The Giants will feel this pinch in a huge way

2.) Boycott anything and all things that associates with advertising major league baseball.

Like I said, it may not be much of a solution to this, but it may tigger off those who want to "montrealize" any teams associtaing with Major League Baseball, like the Oakland A's.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaklandsi (24.139.231.188) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 02:28 pm:

don't get too excited about the impending Warriors sale. There's some rumor that one or more of the prospective buyers may want to move the Warriors to SF or SJ...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaklandathletic (76.199.105.253) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 04:55 pm:

Yeah I read about that as well. It seems like everyone has a problem with playing in Oakland! The only reason why the Warriors moved from the Cow Palace to the Oakland Arena in the first place was because of poor attendance. Now that millions of dollars was spent renovated the Oracle Arena and attendance is doing quite well...there's still talks about moving out of Oakland when the current lease is up? WTF??

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By raiderjohn (64.139.4.178) on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - 11:49 am:

The plan is to build in downtown SF, ala MSG. Privately funded similar to Pac Bell.

Caught Selig on with our announce team on Sunday. Lots of cracks about trading for Fosse, then him retiring, but Selig always dropped, that was a 95 win team. Man, names Molitor, Yount, Thomas, Oglive, Cooper, what a lineup that must have been. Fosse dropped some hard questions, they circled around the territorial rights thing for better than half the interview. Haas gave it to SF, blah, blah.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By richochet (204.2.163.2) on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - 02:15 pm:

Fosse's a clown.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn (71.131.1.92) on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - 04:49 pm:

The Warriors have a lease at the arena until 2017, with 10 more years of options after that.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/warriors/ci_14733858

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jmmarx (71.36.104.91) on Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 09:27 am:

The Warriors aren't going anywhere.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By mroakland (67.188.46.22) on Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 12:08 pm:

The Warriors are an embarrassment to Oakland.They refuse to take the moniker Oakland after playing in town for so many years. To add salt to the wound, they trout out their "San Francisco" uniforms to slap Oakland across the face. The "Golden State" Warriors are useless to Oakland. There's no positive publicity for the city, and no name recognition. They may as well waste hundreds of millions on a San Francisco arena because they provide absolutely no benefit to the city of Oakland. In fact, they use, and humiliate the city of Oakland at their convenience.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn (71.131.8.212) on Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 04:38 pm:

I read about that this morning:

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/nevius/

Painful.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By sactodavey (69.108.230.155) on Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 05:30 pm:

at best 7 yrs and a 60 million buyout wont happen people

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jmmarx (71.36.104.91) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 05:12 am:

The Warriors ARE an embarrasement to the NBA and Oakland.

However, if Oakland can partition for a NBA expansion team, the L. A. Clippers, the Warriors can go off and be SF again.

Say hello to the Oakland Clippers.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaklandathletic (12.149.144.130) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 05:26 am:

If anything the Warriors should become the OAKLAND Warriors and SF or SJ can get an NBA expansion team. Remember people...the Warriors only played in SF for a measly 9 years before they felt that there wasn't enough fan support. That is why they moved to Oakland in the first place and have been playing at the arena for 44 years where they have won their lone championship title.

Yes they are an embarrassment to the NBA and their host city of Oakland, but they're still more Oakland's team then they've ever been San Francisco's.

What we need is Mark Mastrov, founder of 24 Hour Fitness who's also an East Bay native to be the winning bidder for the team. Hopefully if that ever happens then maybe we can get the name changed to the Oakland or East Bay Warriors.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_14751962?source=most_viewed

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaklandathletic (12.149.144.130) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 05:45 am:

Golden State Warriors to SF just media chatter...

The possible sale of The Golden State Warriors has got "Warriors to SF" fans excited once again. The last time there was this much interest in the possibility was 1997 through 1998, when the Warriors were temporarily playing their games at the HP Pavilion in San Jose until the newly refurbished Oakland (Oracle) Arena was finished.

Then, like today, the idea of the Warriors moving to San Francisco was floated in the media, and without checking with anyone in Oakland regarding the Warriors lease situation, and that's happening again today. The idea of the Warriors moving to SF has spread like wildfire online and offline.

Someone forgot to call Oakland City Attorney John Russo. Aside from representing the City of Oakland in legal negotiations with its sports teams, Russo was also an Oakland Councilmember and was there when the Warriors were waiting for the then-new Oracle Arena to be complete. Today, he says that the idea of the Warriors going to San Francisco is just "media chatter."

"Everything that's come up about the Warriors is just talk. No one who's an officer or an owner or a potential owner of the Warriors has said anything about leaving Oakland," Russo said Thursday. "It's quite different from the Oakland situation where the owner (of the Oakland A's) introduced the Mayor of San Jose at that mayor's State of The City Address, and that mayor saying he's trying to get them down there. No one who is lining up (to buy the Warriors) has said anything to me. There's nothing other than the speculation of different people. It's all media chatter."

Anyone with an idea of moving the Warriors anywhere would be wise to talk to Russo first. The City of Oakland's lawyer has openly stated a desire to file lawsuits against cities and organizations that try to pry Oakland's sports teams away from Oakland. Russo expressed it in my video interview with him last fall and regarding the Oakland A's brazen attempts to leave Oakland for San Jose. Russo sees it as economic tampering and tortious interference. The last legal term is when a third party tries to interfere in a contract between two parties. In this case, the "two parties" are Oakland and its sports teams.

In the matter of the Oakland A's lease situation of 1997 and the "East Bay Entities" clause allowing the City of Oakland to find a buyer that would keep the team in Oakland and the attempt to sell it to supermarket developer Bob Piccinini in 1999, Russo said "In the A's case that ("East Bay Entities" clause) was part of the workout of the lawsuit the A's brought against the City and the County by the Oakland A's. (Where the A's claimed the "leasehold", or their ability to gain value from using the Coliseum Stadium, was damaged by the return of the Raiders in 1995.) That settlement should have had a damage clause in case they (the A's or Major League Baseball) did not approve the sale of the team." Russo says that (aborted sale) was the only case where MLB did not approve a sale to an owner, and Russo's still smarting about it. Indeed, as Mayor Elihu Harris' Economic Advisor at the time, so is this blogger.

Russo says the Warriors lease contains provisions for what the Warriors have to do in consideration for the City of Oakland should they try to leave Oakland or are sold. Again, Russo has not had that conversation with Warriors owner Chris Cohan or anyone else connected in any way with the Warriors. He said he had one phone call from a sports executive who asked about the Warriors lease agreement, but Russo did not disclose who that person was.

Russo has a great deal of respect for Chris Cohan, who has had a great working relationship with Russo. "Cohan ownership has been easy to work with," Russo said. "I can't speak to why they had such a hard time putting a winning team on the court. They did put money into it. Gave two rich contracts to people. I feel bad for Chris."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=59986#ixzz0jIm34hTC

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn (38.99.44.122) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 08:54 am:

The Clippers are also an embarassment to the NBA. Bad ownership is bad ownership, regardless of the city.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By mroakland (67.188.46.22) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 10:48 am:

"Russo says that (aborted sale) was the only case where MLB did not approve a sale to an owner, and Russo's still smarting about it."

The scoundrels defrauded Oakland and are going to get away with it because of a technicality? How about the deceptions and misrepresentations made to Oakland by Wolff about efforts to build a ballpark in Oakland? That sweetheart lease secured by Wolff was granted under false pretenses since we already know that Wolff was already attempting to secure territorial rights to San Jose even as he was proclaiming that he wanted to build a ballpark in Oakland.

Of course, this was when Oakland was farther away from San Francisco. Now, Oakland is "too close to San Francisco."

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By mroakland (67.188.46.22) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 02:35 pm:

I like the idea of the "Oakland Clippers." Of course we know that San Francisco and San Jose would fight to the death to keep that from happening.

San Jose wants the A's, Warriors, Earthquakes and Sharks, with the 49ers and Raiders sharing a new stadium on the border in Santa Clara. The audacity of it all. To make matters worse, they also redirected high speed rail away from Oakland and the East Bay. It's time to real Larry Stone and Chuck Reed in. These greedy power hungry politicians are out of control.

San Jose behaves as if it's the geographic transit friendly center of the Bay Area and people in the North Bay, San Francisco, the East Bay, all should come out of their way for the pleasure of genuflecting at San Jose's altar of sports decadence. San Jose has gotten too big for its britches.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jmmarx (71.36.104.91) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 04:59 pm:

We know San Jose and SFO would fight Oakland tooth and nail for sports supremacy in the bay area.

I mean, if the Warriors wanted out of Oakland, they would have done so.

As I see it, I think Oakland and the Warriors, A's and Raiders need to get their houses in order.

The arena is fine for the Warriors. I don't see anything wrong with it.

The A's need a ball park, so give them Jack London Square to build the new park at.

The Raiders need to renovate the Coliseum to fit their needs. Then, the 49ers can share it all the same, and everyone is happy.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By mroakland (67.188.46.22) on Saturday, March 27, 2010 - 03:31 pm:

You have to remember that Larry Stone has been trying to get baseball to Santa Clara County for decades. San Jose feels that it's not an important enough city without having at least one of the three major sports. These guys know that taking the A's from Oakland is their last chance to establish that San Jose is a major city in the United States. They're willing to diminish Oakland in order the enhance their National profile.

Oakland has to fight for what it has. This has always been about relocating out of Oakland disguised as a search for a ballpark. This is suppose to be an effort to build a ballpark for the OAKLAND A's. San Jose and Fremont have no business even being in the conversation. If Lew Wolff didn't want to own the OAKLAND A's, why did he buy the team? The answer: To relocate the franchise to the South Bay where his business interests are located.

The bottom line is that giving up the A's is not an option for Oakland. We have to fight this with everything we have. Oakland is experiencing a renaissance with many new condos, theaters, restaurants, pubs, etc. Crime is down for well over 12 consecutive months with a huge 34% reduction so far this year. Also, the Oakland Running Festival has registered over 7,000 runners for tomorrow's Oakland Marathon, Oakland Half Marathon, and the 5k race around Lake Merritt. The World will be able to see our beautiful city without the biased filters of the SF media. Oakland is on the rise in every aspect and now is not the time to allow a few carpetbaggers to project an erroneous picture of Oakland as a city in decline without any economic base. This is exactly the perception which will be created if we lose our beloved Oakland Athlethics.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil (187.15.174.210) on Sunday, March 28, 2010 - 01:00 am:

There is only one problem with this fight to keep the A's in Oakland.

The problem is that the fight should be against the one responsible for repeatedly stabbing and boycotting Oakland at its efforts to keep the team. The one to fight is Selig. He is the one that sets up Oakland to fail everytime.

Selig believes it was a big mistake to allow the team to come to Oakland and has as a mission to correct what he considers a HUGE mistake. He blames the A's for all the problems the Giants had in the Bay Area and would to eliminate or relocate the A's from Oakland.

He decided to take baseball away from Montreal and succeeded and he has been working on his next pet project, eliminate the A's from the Bay Area.

As long as he is the commish, either we fight and win at his level or we will lose and fail each time.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaklandsi (69.107.121.30) on Sunday, March 28, 2010 - 03:59 am:

I agree with Lil. History has shown us that Selig's hostility to having the A's in Oakland is the principal problem. Of course the Giants would like to have the entire Bay Area (and Northern California) market to themselves, but so what?

Perhaps the best chance the A's have of staying in Oakland and eventually getting owners who are committed to that would be to work for whatever will delay this whole circus until Selig retires...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jmmarx (71.38.135.2) on Sunday, March 28, 2010 - 07:21 am:

I would agree that BUD SELIG is the problem. He has stated that the A's are a problem to the bay area. He wants to relocate them, but there is a problem.

I say let's give him a fight to the finish he will never forget, and maybe perhaps, won't recover. LETS Boycott MLB if SELIG wins.

I will never step foot in SAN JOSE ever again.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn (71.131.2.96) on Sunday, March 28, 2010 - 12:16 pm:

In order to please his frat bro and let the A's move to SJ, Selig would have to sell the idea that letting that happen would NOT hurt the Giants. Nicely sticky situation for him. Maybe that's why he's taking his sweet time announcing the committee's findings.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By sactodavey (69.226.75.1) on Sunday, March 28, 2010 - 03:51 pm:

the problem is the committe prb recommended that Oakland and some of those sites as best cause Okalnd sitts in middle of bay area and closest to sacto the demographics the best and selig doesnt want this recommendation or whats to change it or make a table deal with Gnats so it will bypass the reccomendation.

Oakland is best possbile location since its 2 hrs from most of populatiion of 8 million bay and sacto , san jose is far south and the A's wont attract north bay and sacramento fans like before.

If this is a legit committe they will come to this conclusion it makes sense u got Oakland right in middle of bay area n san jose at far south dahhhhhhhh......

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By mroakland (67.188.46.22) on Monday, March 29, 2010 - 02:39 pm:

Selig, has to know that if he allows the A's to leave Oakland for San Jose, territorial rights throughout baseball will mean nothing. Oakland will not allow itself to be claimed by ANY team since the precedent will have been set. Any city will be able to challenge the legality of "territorial rights."


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.


 

Questions? Comments? Corrections? Please contact info@oaklandfans.com.