Rumor: Oakland Tribune owner rebuffed in effort to buy A's.
OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Rumor: Oakland Tribune owner rebuffed in effort to buy A's.
| By deajay on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 08:50 am:|
I saw that from another poster at fanhome. According to USA Today rumor mill, Dean Singleton, owner of the Tribune, was rebuffed in his effort to purchase the team.
| By oakfan on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 09:33 am:|
I found this other brief mention about Singleton being turned down in his efforts to buy the A's.
This stinks of Selig!
| By deajay on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 09:47 am:|
Adolf Selig has too much power. Should a financially well endowed group be turned back from buying the A's, I would LOVE to see them take this pathetic dictator and mlb to court. Why should flourishing investors with the money (and assuming all have clean slates) not be allowed to purchase a team? With all the game playing this pathetic dictator has been guilty of ... see Montreal, Florida, Boston ownership ... somebody needs to make him answer in court for denying an American citizen the right to spend his money (if he has it) on a team. This is all such crap. This jerk continues to cry over small mkt. teams being unable to keep their stars, yet denies them the possible opportunity to do so. Does this jerk think he is the only one with any ideas? I know he is the ONLY one who thinks he has any. Is there anybody out there who is willing to fight this guy and his cronies all the way? Course, that means they must be willing to burn big bucks to do it.
| By diamond_lil on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 10:09 am:|
I have been saying all along that Selig is holding the A's hostage as he continues to play his cards to see what/where other teams, i.e. Montreal, Dodgers and Angels are sold and relocated...
The Oakland A's to Selig is just a "horrible mistake" and he would love to get that "mistake" fixed and out of the way while he completes his wheelings and dealings.
If the team is sold to a group with a strong commitment to Oakland, they will get in the way of his sordid little 'stadium for cities' card game.
Schott is just a willing and compliant minion who is easily satisfied with a small profit every year. He knows he stands to triple his dollar investment and the real pot of gold awaits him at the end of his rainbow when Selig gives his the nod to sell.
PS: I will move this thread to the Off Field Matters so as not to disturb the 'enjoy it while you can crowd' who feel it is our fault this shit has to surface every year...
| By diamond_lil on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 11:02 am:|
Just to refresh your memory a bit, the Oakland Tribune was also part of the group interested in buying the A's back when Selig/Schott tabled the sale:
In October of 1998, Schott and Hofmann formally put the A's up for sale. The team was officially valued at $155 million, and a price of $122 million was negotiated with the city of Oakland. The city then had until May 11th to find a buyer. A number of groups came forward, and the field was narrowed down to two. The city eventually voted for a group consisting of the following members:
· Andy Dolich, marketing executive and former A's Executive Vice-President from 1980-94
· Robert (Bob) Piccinini, owner of Modesto, CA-based Save Mart Supermarkets
· Joe Morgan, baseball Hall of Famer and ESPN broadcaster
· George Zimmer, founder of The Men's Wearhouse and a well-known local philanthropist
· Jeff Goodby, partner in the local advertising firm that invented the "Got Milk?" and Budwiser lizards advertising campaigns
· Raymond Gallagher, owner of Scott's Restaurants, a local seafood chain
· The Oakland Tribune, a member of the Alameda Newspaper Group
| By diamond_lil on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 11:10 am:|
Kevin, I moved the thread to off field matters so as to avoid complaints from the baseball only crowd.
| By ssblip on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 07:20 pm:|
"PS: I will move this thread to the Off Field Matters so as not to disturb the 'enjoy it while you can crowd' who feel it is our fault this shit has to surface every year... "
Get over it, Lil.
I usually enjoy your posts. They're well-reasoned, insightful and usually encourage further discussion. But I believe you've misunderstood the orginal point of the "enjoy it while you can" post a couple weeks back. All I (personally, as the original poster) was saying was -- for just one day -- can't we lighten up and see the positive side of this coming season? Apparently some of us can't.
"Fault?" Come on. Nobody blamed you or anyone else here for anything. Those are your words and yours only. You've really taken this one out of proportion, so much that it's not even really worth clarifying the point of the original post anymore. Which, of course, defeats the purpose of having an online community...which is a shame. (I know I won't be putting up anything worth discussing for a while. Look what happens: side-of-the-mouth responses appearing in unrelated threads weeks after the death of the original thread.)
Put it to rest. The thread died a while back. There's no need for useless, small-minded jabs unless you want us to think you're a small-minded person.
| By diamond_lil on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 07:52 pm:|
ssblip, number one, a lot of what you call jabs were not really meant to be petty remarks directed at you, as you may think...way before you ever posted, others have seemed to try to ignore the business side of things and that is why we divided the forum, excluding what to some is considered a negative, disturbing and not enjoyable...
even before you ever posted, the ongoing yearly team relocation or contraction, with Schott leading the way with his famous "the A's have no future in Oakland" seems to occur (and this year is no exception) with GD putting the burden on the fans by saying they need to have 2,7 mil because the A's are at a critical point.
I'm sorry if you think I targeted you and I apologize for not being more careful when using remarks which at times was meant to be even humorous but can easily be taken as jabs....
Perhaps I do seem defensive about the fact that the owners and even fans seem to shift the blame of what happens in Oakland to lack of attendance and lack of fan support.
And I also admit to be in a very low tolerance mood with certain moves the A's have taken, so I'll promise to be less caustic.
Unfortunately I do have the tendency for being somewhat cranky and this may even get worse with age rather than better...so... please do dish it out whenever you feel I over-reacted and I'll be sure to tone it down.
| By fansince79 on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 01:24 am:|
hey, that's why we have multiple topic sections anyway right? one for the business side which is what this group is based on btw, and one for talkin about our favorite team. there's something here for everyone! and as long as we all respect each others thoughts and feelings it's all good.
on this topic, I assume adoph can neg buy attempts because of anti-trust exemption right? can anyone explain to me why baseball should have such an exemption?
| By voxhoo on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 10:06 am:|
If Congress eliminated the exemption today, the A's would be moving to New Jersey next season. The New York market is 3 times the size of the Bay Area market.
Right now, I think Oakland is safe but things are getting dicey. A lot of the small market teams have gotten new stadiums, Pirates, Reds, Brewers, etc. MLB is gradually working it's way up to the A's. If the Royals get a new stadium and if Sacramento or Portland offer up publicly funded stadiums and Oakland refuses, then I could see the A's moving.
As things stand, we might be looking at the Sacramento A's in 10 years. But, if Oakland builds a publicly funded new stadium, the A's will stay. If the the exemption was lifted, the A's would move to New Jersey even if Oakland builds a publicly-funded stadium.
| By diamond_lil on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 11:27 am:|
I totally agree with the fact that if MLB loses the anti-trust exemption, the territorial rights would fall along with the rest of their monopoly.
And it is true the New Jersey/New York should be the first market to probably get one or even two teams. It would only be right because it makes sense in doing business within a free market world.
But don't be so sure Oakland (which is falsely called a small market) would be one of the markets to lose a team. The Bay Area is the 5th largest market in the USA. I do however agree that if Oakland doesn't get a baseball park only, eventually another part of the Bay Area will get it and Sacramento could be one place down the line...
If the owner of the A's would tap into the potential of the Bay Area market, they would not be considered a small market team.
The BoSox busses fans up and down New England and sell out their small 33+ ballpark before the season even begins.
The A's could do the same with the Sac Valley and North Bay and they would fill their 60K + ballpark. But they prefer to keep the bottom line and think small because that brings them enough money and they whine and deposit their shared revenue piece of the pie, laughing all the way to the bank.
MLB left markets where 3 teams were very successful (NY Giants/Brooklyn Dodgers/NY Yankees)
and never looked back while they are more willing to for the 2nd and 3rd time give chances to markets who already failed in the past, ie Milwaukee and Washington DC.
The new ballparks will help make the Pitts, Cinci, Milwaukee profitable for about 10 years, but eventually, the disparity of the NY?Jersey markets will catch up with them again...
I just don't see the Bay Area as a one team market if MLB were to lose the exemption. But I do see New York/New Jersey getting a third team.
| By sactodavey on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 12:10 pm:|
Hey whats so wrong with the A's moving to sacto then i could get season tix and be at the games in only 30 min. sorry Lil
Sacramento is the fastest growing area in the U.S.
it will be ready in 4-5 yrs for MLB.
I think the reason schott is not talking big on a stadium anymore is he is already banking the $$$ without the stadium service debt, but i would not count Schott out of having his eye on sacto if he got a new stadium here he would have a city all to his own and sacramento is a huuuge!!!!! baseball town.
this city is like ripening fruit and soon it will be ready for the A's don't you think the owners are very aware of the fact the Rivercats drew 930k last years 1st in minor leagues 3 yrs running Sorry Diamond Lil but if Oakland does not build a stadium Sacramento sooner then later will entice th A's to have a whole area all to their own the $$$ is starting to flow in this capitol city, they expect 500k people to move in the
99-I-5 corridor alone in the next 10-15 yrs.
But i am all for the A's staying in oakland tooo!!
| By diamond_lil on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 12:40 pm:|
sacto, why do you always feel so sorry for me...
I'm not a whiner and there's no crying in baseball so stop feeling sorry for me and start feeling sorry for the taxpayers of Sacramento if they are crazy enough to play corporate welfare to Schott.
| By voxhoo on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 04:45 pm:|
If the exemption were lifted today, I think the A's and Twins would be sold and moved to NY. To compete against the Yankees and Mets for market share, you need to bring a winner. You can't just relocate a 100-game loser like the Royals, Marlins, or D'Rays to NY and expect to get 1/4 of the market handed to you. In fact, the Royals losing 100 games might be better off financially in KC than being the 3rd NY team.
| By diamond_lil on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 05:05 pm:|
Voxhoo, you are correct in saying that the A's and Twins, because of their recent success, would be the most attractive teams to be bought and relocated right NOW, but hey...that success can change real fast, especially with firesales and other sudden surprises...
Take a look at the Marlins and that team, with the starting rotation they have now, could become the hot item in the market real fast...
But I know one place who would embrace a 100 game loser...with the blink of an eye. The Brooklins...they would support a MLB team and love em till they became a winner again. Look at how they embraced their minor league team...those folks are still hungry for a team of their own.
| By oaktownfan on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 02:22 am:|
The A's aren't moving out of Oakland and if somebody tries to, the city and the people will never let it happen. This team has been screwed of getting new owners committed to the city twice now if this story is true. If I'm the city, I'm sueing mlb and taking them to court. This is complete bs. Any logical judge or govt. official can see this is all a ploy by commish Butthead so he can move this team out of the bay. The excuse they're using for not letting sales like this go through is hogwash. I want to see the commish go in front of a courtroom or in front of a senate committee like he did a couple of years back and make a absolute fool out of himself again. He has no leg to stand on this issue. Letting sales of the Redsox can go through, switching owners of the two teams can go through, but the A's matter is a whole different matter according to the heads of mlb.
Get this idiot and his cronnies out of power. They don't know what they're doing and they don't have the support or trusts of either the player's association or the fans. Both thinks this guy is a complete moron.
| By eyleenn on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 08:42 pm:|
I just read the original story on the Rocky Mt. News link posted above, and if I read it correctly, Dean Singleton is owner of the Denver Post, not the Oakland Tribune.
| By diamond_lil on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 08:56 pm:|
Ey, after I read that story, I contacted a media source asking if he had any more information re this bid and here's the answer I got:
"I'm not sure. But I think the article is referring to the 1999
Dolich/Piccinini bid to buy the A's. Singleton, who controls the Post and
the Oakland Tribune, was a major investor in that bid."
| By chris_d on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 09:37 pm:|
In addition to the Denver Post, Dean Singleton is the owner of all of ANG (Alameda News Group) Newpapers, which includes the Oakland Tribune, the Tri-Valley Herald, the Argus (Fremont), the Marin Independent-Journal, and the Daily Review (in Hayward), to name a few. I've heard that Singleton runs the Denver Post (Denver is his home city) like Walter Haas used to run the A's, but on the other hand I've heard he runs ANG like Steve Schott runs the A's. So, if he bought the A's, I hope we'd get his "Denver Post" point of view.
On the other hand, when Singleton was part of the Dolich/Piccinini group, I read in the papers once that when he was talking to the Rockies' owner (McMorris?), who was in favor of contraction at the time, he told the owner: "Well, if we get rid of enough teams, maybe your crummy franchise might win something one of these days."
He gets bonus points for being a smart-ass to a greedy owner, but if it's true, is it any wonder he's never been approved by Bud Lite and the Cartel?
| By diamond_lil on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 11:06 pm:|
In 1999, I remember that Scott McKibben, the Publisher of the Oakland Trib was always present during the City Council meetings and was always with Andy Dolich and Co.
But you're right Chris, these guys can't go around burning bridges when/if they want to join their Cartel. However, we do know how the Lords all badmouth eachother and one of the reasons they can't run their franchise businesses as they should is because how they all try to cut eachother's throats.