http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/97/Oakland_Athletics_Insignia.svg/150px-Oakland_Athletics_Insignia.svg.png
Oakland Athletics

9x Champion:
1910, 1911, 1913, 1929, 1930,
1972, 1973, 1974, 1989

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_Field

Latest renderings:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XnsBmpz0kTI/TGY03lY-GQI/AAAAAAAAFFI/nM3b83ncW4M/s400/photo+5%283%29.JPG

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XnsBmpz0kTI/TGY3wF1KOPI/AAAAAAAAFF4/RNVUup8SZW0/s1600/photo+2%284%29.JPG

Love that design more than the previous brick design. Seems to flow right into its surroundings and the infield seats look classic and retain their slight nod to Fenway. Always like to see something a little different. Would love to see more angles.

Very interesting, looks like they are trying to bring the budget down, maybe private financing? Looks like the upper deck's columns coming down in the lower bowl which is a little alarming, and that is a lot of outfield seating, but other than that it looks good and quite unique, and looks like they could keep the pricetag well under $400 million. I wonder how they are planning to handle club seats, can't see any obvious areas, though the area right behind home plate could have some that are obscured by the sign at the moment. Still one expects (even if we don't desire) to see a seperate club concourse somewhere with at least a couple thousand seats.

Wait is this back on the map? Story?

New site, new renderings at any rate, looks to be in town somewhere which makes more sense to me, maybe San Jose can support a team financially if they can get the territorial rights.

New site, new renderings at any rate, looks to be in town somewhere which makes more sense to me, maybe San Jose can support a team financially if they can get the territorial rights.
San Jose has a greater population than both Oakland or San Francisco. In terms of MLB territorial rights, San Jose belongs to the Giants. That issue must be resolved. In addition:

1-The city still must approve this project. At first the vote was to take place in November, but MLB asked them to delay the vote and will pay for part of the cost of a separate, later ballot measure.

2-AT&T owns land within the footprint which the city needs to make the A's project a reality and they are currently refusing to sell.

I noticed the proposed site is right next to the hockey arena. Would they take on the San Jose name? It would be kind of strange to have the "San Jose Sharks" and "Oakland A's" playing directly across the street from one another.

from Baseball San Jose blog
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_HDMi-qgsh1Y/THLrxALxvhI/AAAAAAAAACc/VRD9W0BNXIg/s1600/EastView_wContext.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_HDMi-qgsh1Y/THLrylrjs6I/AAAAAAAAACs/O2gWVPWANtk/s1600/LF_View_wContext.jpg
[img]

Liking it more and more, feels pretty unique despite the brick/kelly green thing going on, really seems to fit its site pretty well too. Interesting little box looking thing going on in right field.

At least in this stadium, green seats actually make sense. <cough>Baltimore<cough>

Are the A's moving to AAA? That stadium does not give off a "major league" vibe

New site, new renderings at any rate, looks to be in town somewhere which makes more sense to me, maybe San Jose can support a team financially if they can get the territorial rights.

Fremont, California? This proposal was struck down.

No this is a new one in San Jose, right next to the HP Pavilion, read the header.

Are the A's moving to AAA? That stadium does not give off a "major league" vibe

Agreed, 32k seems too small for a major league franchise.

Too small and that many outfield seats will make this a pretty poor place for an alarmingly high percentage of people there to watch the game. It also looks like the supports for the second level will cause some obstructed seats, but that could just be in the concourse. It's hard to tell from the renderings.

Agreed, 32k seems too small for a major league franchise.

32 k is more than enough for a small market team. For example, the Pittsburgh Pirates have been getting about 20,000 people per game for the last few years yet made have made a very healthy profit in those years, taking in a $15 million in profit in 2007, $14 million in 2008 and $5 million in 2009.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100823/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbn_pirates_finances

Site adjacent to downtown San Jose

http://i898.photobucket.com/albums/ac185/boddingtonmeister/aerial.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XnsBmpz0kTI/TGY3wF1KOPI/AAAAAAAAFF4/RNVUup8SZW0/s1600/photo+2%284%29.JPG
^^
Would they really look at putting in support pillars for the upper tier? Surely that's taking the retro elements of old ball parks a bit too excessively leading to restricted views from the seats underneath the overhang?

A lot of the complaints seem to be complaints at existing ballparks. I know they could simply cantilever the upper deck or move it back, but this setup seems to work ok where it exists, and gets the upper deck much closer. The way the renderings are, they are unnecessary, but we shall see. More like The small capacity = see Fenway and is probably more of a correct size for many teams. The outfield seats are perfect. There really isn't that many and the upper deck isn't too close. Seems that recently designers want to cut off the view of part of the field from the outfield. Not having that problem here.

It would have to be a money issue, cantilevering a stand out is pretty expensive, and they already showing a full span cantilever in the outfield, so it may be a dollars and cents issue. The outfield stand though, I would say get a long ways back, looks like 30 rows behind the deeper side of the outfield, we are talking 430'-480' from the plate minimum to the back row out there. Imagine if that second level weren't overhung though, it would be like the Metrodome's baseball configuration, now there were some terrible outfield seats.

I noticed the proposed site is right next to the hockey arena. Would they take on the San Jose name? It would be kind of strange to have the "San Jose Sharks" and "Oakland A's" playing directly across the street from one another.



Not really the new york jets and giants both played right next to the new jersey devils home arena :banana:

I noticed the proposed site is right next to the hockey arena. Would they take on the San Jose name? It would be kind of strange to have the "San Jose Sharks" and "Oakland A's" playing directly across the street from one another.

Of course they would change the name. San Jose is a much larger market than Oakland. There is absolutely no reason not to change it.

32 k is more than enough for a small market team. For example, the Pittsburgh Pirates have been getting about 20,000 people per game for the last few years yet made have made a very healthy profit in those years, taking in a $15 million in profit in 2007, $14 million in 2008 and $5 million in 2009.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100823/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbn_pirates_finances

The Pirates made a profit because of revenue sharing, I'm not sure anyone views Pittsburgh as a model franchise.

The Pirates made a profit because of revenue sharing, I'm not sure anyone views Pittsburgh as a model franchise.

True but they still made money. A lot of it. Here's another great example. The Marlins. They made over $38 million dollars in profit in 2008 thanks to revenue sharing and hid it so that they could cry poor and get Miami to build a ballpark for the team. Civic leaders are such suckers. The team only has to pay $155 million towards the $634 million dollar project. Hell, the team paid of part of that amount in 2009 and still made $11 million in profit.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AiW2Ihc3dXT.AP5GDgQfQ1Y5nYcB?slug=jp-marlinsfinancials082410

The big teams make money, and the small teams make money. They are very happy with the status quo. It's the ones in the middle that may be in a bit of trouble when trying to compete.

True but they still made money. A lot of it. Here's another great example. The Marlins. They made over $38 million dollars in profit in 2008 thanks to revenue sharing and hid it so that they could cry poor and get Miami to build a ballpark for the team. Civic leaders are such suckers. The team only has to pay $155 million towards the $634 million dollar project. Hell, the team paid of part of that amount in 2009 and still made $11 million in profit.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AiW2Ihc3dXT.AP5GDgQfQ1Y5nYcB?slug=jp-marlinsfinancials082410

The big teams make money, and the small teams make money. They are very happy with the status quo. It's the ones in the middle that may be in a bit of trouble when trying to compete.

You should not compare the revenue streams from MLB to any other sport. Plus, we really have no idea in which all those six financial records are true. While I think they are probably correct, we do not know if they really are. It a city who is lacking in money voted to construct a facility for a private business, that is not the fault of the business, that is the fault of the city.

If Miami had no money in 2001, then why vote for a stadium in 2006 the think that the team would have a higher payroll to compete in the NL?

At least in this stadium, green seats actually make sense. <cough>Baltimore<cough>

Green seats don't "make sense" in Baltimore? You would rather have orange and black seats at Camden Yards? :crazy2:

This would actually look better without green and yellow seats. The outfield wall already bears those colors, as is standard. Oh, and that field, too.

Well those are their colors so I'm fine with it, though green is overplayed in ballparks these days, still wish the twins had gone with blue, my one complaint with Target Field.

At least in this stadium, green seats actually make sense. <cough>Baltimore<cough>

This comment makes no sense.

The proposed capacity of this version of Cisco Field is 32,000, there are some here who have stated that is a sufficient figure for the market and the A's franchise. Is 30,000 sufficient? Is 31,000 sufficient? What about as small as 25,000, if they sold out every game, they would draw just over 2 mil for the season. This ballpark doesn't seem big enough, like a AAAA park.

This comment makes no sense.
He means that the seats at least match the team's colors.

I love it, but San Jose is on the wrong side of the bay from Oakland

The proposed capacity of this version of Cisco Field is 32,000, there are some here who have stated that is a sufficient figure for the market and the A's franchise. Is 30,000 sufficient? Is 31,000 sufficient? What about as small as 25,000, if they sold out every game, they would draw just over 2 mil for the season. This ballpark doesn't seem big enough, like a AAAA park.

The largest AAA ballpark (once Rosenblatt is gone) is CocaCola field in Buffalo, it's current capacity is 18,500. Average is around 8000 which is near the top of the minor leagues. 32,000 is definitely adequate for MLB

I love it, but San Jose is on the wrong side of the bay from Oakland
Oakland is the wrong side of the bay

I love it, but San Jose is on the wrong side of the bay from Oakland
The bay does not separate one from the other.
Oakland is the wrong side of the bay
Relative to what? It's not a bad place, really.

If you love weed its one of America's finest cities.:)

Nnzw_i4YmKk

The largest AAA ballpark (once Rosenblatt is gone) is CocaCola field in Buffalo, it's current capacity is 18,500. Average is around 8000 which is near the top of the minor leagues. 32,000 is definitely adequate for MLB

Well, if 32,000 is more than adequate for a new MLB park (in the SF Bay area no less), then it might be time to revisit contraction. The top American athlete doesn't play baseball and hasn't for some time. That has been proven with the downward run production this season.

Well, if 32,000 is more than adequate for a new MLB park (in the SF Bay area no less), then it might be time to revisit contraction. The top American athlete doesn't play baseball and hasn't for some time. That has been proven with the downward run production this season.

Well, San Jose's metropolitan area population, I believe is smaller than Kansas City's but greater than Milwaukee's. Both Kauffman and Miller Park have capacities larger than this version of Cisco.

Yeah but Kaufmann is never full, i know the team is garbage, but I went to a Twins game down there last year and there couldn't more than 25,000. I think there are a number of factors involved with how a team will fare beyond population.

Gotta say though its the most underrated park in baseball, Cool Sort Jetsons futurist feel, good sightlines, easy access to pretty big concourses and a wonderful outfield. Oh and really cheap tickets (perfect away game). The only knock on it I can think of is the location.

It's an interesting design. The seating arraningment kinda reminds me of Pittsburgh's PNC Park.

What is the outfield dimensions?

Sorry what is the differnt between san jose and santa clara. Cos I have been looking at google maps and bing maps and it just look like one big city. Is it two towns that grow to be next too each other but never changed into one big city with just one name? Sorry to ask just well iam british.

Sorry what is the differnt between san jose and santa clara. Cos I have been looking at google maps and bing maps and it just look like one big city. Is it two towns that grow to be next too each other but never changed into one big city with just one name? Sorry to ask just well iam british.

I'm not from California and I've sadly never been, but I'm pretty sure Santa Clara is just a neighboring city like Minneapolis and St. Paul but on a smaller scale. Santa Clara has a lot of the headquarters for the big technological businesses in Silicon Valley and the San Jose Earthquakes currently play in Santa Clara. It's the same metro area I believe.

Sorry what is the differnt between san jose and santa clara. Cos I have been looking at google maps and bing maps and it just look like one big city. Is it two towns that grow to be next too each other but never changed into one big city with just one name? Sorry to ask just well iam british.

In big metropolitan areas in America, cities border each other all the time. Actual cities can be separated by things like a residential street. One side of the street is one city, and when you kick your soccer ball across the street you're in another. It's not like in England where you leave town, drive 5 miles through the countryside, get to another town, drive 5 more miles through farmland and get to another town. Look at a map of greater Los Angeles. There are probably at least 85/90 separate cities in the LA metro area, but when you look at a map, it looks like it all runs together.

from http://ballparksofbaseball.com/future/CiscoField.htm

Fremont, California's proposed Cisco Field

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/cisco751.jpg

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/cisco753.jpg

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/cisco754.jpg

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/cisco755.jpg

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/cisco756.jpg

has a slightly larger capacity than its San Jose namesake.

In big metropolitan areas in America, cities border each other all the time. Actual cities can be separated by things like a residential street. One side of the street is one city, and when you kick your soccer ball across the street you're in another. It's not like in England where you leave town, drive 5 miles through the countryside, get to another town, drive 5 more miles through farmland and get to another town. Look at a map of greater Los Angeles. There are probably at least 85/90 separate cities in the LA metro area, but when you look at a map, it looks like it all runs together.


Oh ok thanks. Bit like london boroughs then. Sure some towns folk have to drive miles to the next town. Yeah have seen the LA metro area on google maps :nuts:

That Fremont design looks better, but it's a shame there's not enough space for it.
Oh ok thanks. Bit like london boroughs then. Sure some towns folk have to drive miles to the next town. Yeah have seen the LA metro area on google maps :nuts:
It happens elsewhere: Newcastle/Gateshead, Manchester/Salford, Birmingham/West Bromwich, etc.

That Fremont design looks better, but it's a shame there's not enough space for it.

It happens elsewhere: Newcastle/Gateshead, Manchester/Salford, Birmingham/West Bromwich, etc.


Well newcastlegateshead has the river tyne to break it up. Must people think salford is apart of manchester. birmingham is a dump lol.

Really like that design - feels nice and enclosed.

A few comments, mostly for non-locals:

Only 12 of 32 MLB teams are averaging over 32k this year, so 32k is not nonsensical. However, it will make it the smallest in MLB and, more importantly psychologically, it also makes it smaller than the SF Giant’s stadium.

There will be a disproportionately large number of boxes since the Silicon Valley tech companies are expected to be big purchasers so revenues should be adequate. The South Bay is a growing, booming area, with loads of disposable income and there will be very extensive train and streetcar transit to the door so there is little reason for them not to sell out regularly. If room permitted, I would like to see larger, though not of NY or LA size.

btw, in Oakland the A’s are drawing in the teens this year and last. But a stadium in SJ would probably attract both SJ and East Bay A’s fans.

Santa Clara (where the SF 49ers are likely to move) is a suburb of SJ. Their new stadium will be about ¼ mile outside the SJ city limits in the north end of Santa Clara). For the time being they will not change their names but as noted above, the A’s certainly will.

The bay does not separate one from the other.
.

Yeah, it does.

from http://ballparksofbaseball.com/future/CiscoField.htm

Fremont, California's proposed Cisco Field

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/cisco751.jpg

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/cisco753.jpg

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/cisco754.jpg

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/cisco755.jpg

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/cisco756.jpg

has a slightly larger capacity than its San Jose namesake.

Meh. Like the other proposal better.

Yeah, it does.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=san%20jose%20to%20oakland&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

Meh. Like the other proposal better.

Fremont Cisco>San Jose Cisco.
The Fremont version is the one that got everyone excited that there was indeed a possibility that the A's could exist and flourish away from Mt. Davis.

Fremont Cisco>San Jose Cisco.
The Fremont version is the one that got everyone excited that there was indeed a possibility that the A's could exist and flourish away from Mt. Davis.

Bricks...........wow. Are bricks the dominant architecture in that area?

Not too many bricks; this is earthquake country. Facing bricks maybe but few real ones.

In any event, the A's are fully committed to SJ at this point which makes sense both from the point of view of transit access, DT presence (food, bars, hotels within blocks) and density of population. Fremont gets some mention mostly because it's not in Giant's "territory" (that it, it is in Alameda County, although closer to SJ than Oakland). But it sounded like another "ballpark with retail and offices" in the burbs.

I drive the Oakland-SJ route regularly. Never noticed a bay there.

wonder what right-handed hitters will think of the odd configuration in left-field. I guess it's designed to give some crazy hops off the wall...certainly is a LOT more friendly and inviting than the Oakland Colosseum but it doesn't seem to have the intimacy of AT&T park

The ballpark is designed by ThreeSixty Architecture, at least it's not by the firm formerly known as HOK.
It's weird that while the ballpark will only have a capacity of 32,000 it unfortunately has 2 decks in left field. You would think with a capacity that small, the majority of seats would be located in foul territory. Oh well, at least it's not the Mausoleum.

The ballpark is designed by ThreeSixty Architecture, at least it's not by the firm formerly known as HOK.

360 was formed by the merger of CDFM2 and Heinlein-Schrock-Stearns, the latter of which was started by former HOK people in 1998 (they designed Safeco, Nationwide Arena, American Airlines Arena, etc.).

http://www.stadiumpage.com/cisco/Cisco_082810_aerial.jpg
http://www.stadiumpage.com/cisco/Cisco_082410_1000_5.jpg

http://www.stadiumpage.com/stpages/sja.html

360 was formed by the merger of CDFM2 and Heinlein-Schrock-Stearns, the latter of which was started by former HOK people in 1998 (they designed Safeco, Nationwide Arena, American Airlines Arena, etc.).

NBBJ designed Safeco Field. Mr. Schrock had a hand in the design of Safeco's luxury suites however.

sbutlik: very nice graphic.

For out of towners: just to the left of the ballpark is the main SJ train station, which connects to the entire Peninsula (and, when built, via HSR to Fresno and LA; you can literally get to a SJ game in 1 hr. from Fresno, 2 hrs. from LA). Immediately south is the local light-rail station connecting South Bay.

North, beyond the parking lot is HP Pavilion, where the Sharks play, and toward the east is the main part of DT, with lots of streetlife, dining, hotels, bars, clubs, etc. The ballpark is really a perfect addition to a already solid DT.

The ballpark is really a perfect addition to a already solid DT.

Let's hope it becomes a reality, the A's have been in limbo long enough.

Limbo prolonged: no decision from MLB on the A's move yet, but Billy Beane (general manager of the A's) believes it will be "sooner rather than later". He also asserted that being in Oakland holds up their ability to attract quality players.

btw, 360 Architects has been retained to design both the new DT SJ stadium and a new 20,000 seat soccer stadium for the Earthquakes near SJ airport.

Limbo prolonged: no decision from MLB on the A's move yet, but Billy Beane (general manager of the A's) believes it will be "sooner rather than later". He also asserted that being in Oakland holds up their ability to attract quality players.

btw, 360 Architects has been retained to design both the new DT SJ stadium and a new 20,000 seat soccer stadium for the Earthquakes near SJ airport.

Why? So you can trade them at the deadline? Is moneyball a product of poor stadium location?

Why? So you can trade them at the deadline? Is moneyball a product of poor stadium location?

Yes! Very difficult to pay for quality free agents or retain players without strong corporate support. Oakland has very little corporate base. San Jose area has Apple, eBay, google, intel, cisco,adobe,AMD,yahoo, facebook, HP etc...

"Asserted" is the word since Billy is obviously in "not my fault" mode at this point. But his point is that players in demand don't want to play in a dilapidated empty park. Plus once the Raiders start playing the infield becomes the worst in the league.

And, of course, you have little choice but to trade players at the deadline if you are failing with what you have and will lose them as soon as they can get out.

Their draw in Oakland was second lowest in the majors plus, as surrill notes, there is a huge amount of money in SJ waiting for luxury boxes.

Oakland wants to keep the A's in Oakland (http://www.mercurynews.com/southbaybaseball/ci_16630862?nclick_check=1)

Oakland wants to keep the A's in Oakland (http://www.mercurynews.com/southbaybaseball/ci_16630862?nclick_check=1)
No shit, eh?

Also, that Dean Myers is an idiot.

It does seem like every team in Ca. is considering moving somewhere (Raiders, 49ers, Chargers, Warriors, A's) and some of it could be negotiating ploy to get a new stadium in their current hood. But the A's seem to have done everything possible to dissuade Oakland and are sure putting on a good fake if they are not set on SJ.

It would certainly annoy MLB if their committee OK's the move and then they decide to stay in Oakland.

It does seem like every team in Ca. is considering moving somewhere (Raiders, 49ers, Chargers, Warriors, A's) and some of it could be negotiating ploy to get a new stadium in their current hood. But the A's seem to have done everything possible to dissuade Oakland and are sure putting on a good fake if they are not set on SJ.

It would certainly annoy MLB if their committee OK's the move and then they decide to stay in Oakland.

Maybe not all looking to relocate, but definitely quite a few franchises looking for new venues:


NFL
49ers - New stadium plan for Santa Clara
Raiders - Need new stadium, talk of moving back to LA
Chargers - New stadium plan, but also talk of moving to LA if it can't be worked out

MLB
Giants - AT&T Park brand new
A's - Stadium talk for San Jose, but also the desire to stay in Oakland
Dogers - Dodgers stadium. Just recently renovated
Angels - Angels Stadium, could use an update perhaps, but still viable?
Padres - Petco Park, brand new

NBA
Warriors - Oracle Arena fairly recently renovated, but that seems to mean nothing in the NBA (See Key Arena)
Kings - Trying to work on new arena for years. Still need one. Rumors flying about that they could get bought by Steve Balmer and moved to Seattle (Karma's a bitch)
Lakers - Staples Center (perhaps it needs to be renovated to ad a 4th and 5th level of luxury boxes sarcasm)
Clippers -Staples Center, but really, why do the Clippers still insist on being the red-headed step child of LA?

NHL
Sharks - HP Pavilion, On the small side for the NHL, but no imminent plans for the teams relocation or the arena's replacement.
Kings - Staples Center
Ducks - Honda Center. Not really new, but not really old either. It's not exactly tiny, but it's not all that big. But maybe that all still fits? Never heard the Ducks mentioned as a candidate for relocation, or being in urgent need of a new arena, but no idea their financial situation either.

MLS
Galaxy - HDC, Works fine for them.
Chivas USA - Looking into their own stadium on some level. Still makes perfect sense to me that they end up in San Diego in their own stadium.
Earthquakes - Still working on getting their new stadium. Could we see two California teams relocated twice (raiders and earthquakes)?

Clippers -Staples Center, but really, why do the Clippers still insist on being the red-headed step child of LA?

The Clippers owner is a billionaire real estate mogul who doesn't seem to care about having the number one team in town. To him the Clippers are just an amusing diversion--like a pet chihuahua. If anything, to him it's been a great investment--he bought the team for $12 million and today they're valued at almost $300 million.

Sterling is an L.A. guy with deep and long roots in the city, and as long as he owns the team they're not moving anywhere. Staples is a great world-class venue in a revitalized part of town--why would Sterling want to leave paradise?

Well, the thread here is San Jose and the A's. I can understand discussing the 49ers move to Santa Clara or maybe the Warriors possible move, but discussions of the Clips or Chivas (which strike me as zeros on the move probability scale) seem a bit off topic.

Oakland gains A's stadium edge as San Jose waits

Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, December 2, 2010

For a team with the second-lowest home attendance in baseball, the Oakland Athletics sure have a lot of stadium offers.

San Jose and Oakland are both plowing forward with plans to build a state-of-the-art ballpark for the A's with little public financing and loads of amenities. On Tuesday, Oakland's plan was poised for a significant step forward, while San Jose's suffered a setback.

In Oakland, about 200 green-and-gold clad A's fans packed a planning commission meeting to support the city's plans for a waterfront stadium near Jack London Square. The public input wraps up preliminary steps before the city launches an environmental impact report.

Meanwhile, in San Jose, the city missed its Tuesday deadline to place the A's stadium on the March ballot. Voters need to approve the use of city land for the ballpark, which is slated for the downtown area near the Sharks' hockey arena.

In the end, it will be Major League Baseball officials who decide which stadium is built. A special commission has been considering for almost two years whether to grant A's owner Lew Wolff's request to move the team to San Jose, where the San Francisco Giants currently hold the league's territorial rights.

Fervid A's fans made their case Tuesday for keeping the team in its home of 43 years.

"We're here to look the city in the face and say, 'We want to get this done as badly as you do,' " said lifelong A's fan Maurice Greer, 29, of El Cerrito. "The A's are to Oakland like how Lake Merritt is to Oakland. It's beautiful, it's pride."

Oakland's proposed ballpark would be on the Embarcadero at Oak Street. The 20-acre site would include a 39,000-seat stadium, parking lot and possibly retail, housing and office space. The site is near the Lake Merritt BART station and Interstate 880.

As with San Jose's plan, the city would provide the land and infrastructure and the team would pay for the stadium.

If it's built, the ballpark would open in 2015.

The city's hearing Tuesday was a "milestone" for keeping the A's in Oakland, said Planning Commissioner Doug Boxer .

"It demonstrates the city's willingness to move forward with a baseball-only home for the A's," he said. "It shows Oakland is stepping up."

A baseball-only stadium is what Wolff desperately wants for his team. The A's share the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum with the Raiders, and complain of torn-up grass and an awkward configuration that discourages players and fans alike.

San Jose's plan for the A's calls for a 32,000-seat ballpark on a 14-acre site near a Cal Train station downtown. Retail, housing and office space would also accompany the stadium, which, like Oakland's, is a redevelopment project.

San Jose is postponing the stadium ballot measure until Major League Baseball decides on the Athletics' new home, said Michele McGurk, spokeswoman for Mayor Chuck Reed.

"We're waiting and eager to hear from Major League Baseball," she said. "We think we have one of the best sports markets in the country, and we're ready to play ball.

source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/02/BABJ1GKK0Q.DTL&type=newsbayarea

source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/02/BABJ1GKK0Q.DTL&type=newsbayarea


lol comedy!! how does oakland have an edge? sj has completed EIR and renders, theyre ready to break ground! oakland is barely working out the EIR process! SAN JOSE has aquired land for the park, has oakland? how will oakland pay for the park? Lew Wolff will privately finance a park in SJ, but not in Oakland. Cisco has commited to naming rights in SJ ONLY, not in Oakland. Does Oakland have a corporation ready to fork over $$ for naming rights? typical SF GATE garbage!

surrill: amen. The first thing to check is if "sfgate" appears on the page. Then you know you can disregard the contents, except as low humor.

The article says that Oakland has 200 people who want them to stay and otherwise no plan, no money, no permits, no consensus on location, no anything. SJ has money, land, EIR, sponsorship, a strong economy, clear majority support and no hold-up except the Giant's trying to squeeze money out of the process.

Also bogus is that Oakland's "waterfront" stadium is sandwiched between at-grade heavy rail tracks and a raised freeway. The nearest water is the little slough that dumps water from Lake Merritt into the estuary. I have no problem with Oakland trying to keep the team and I'd be fine if they stayed, but the arguments are so full of shit at times.

It is a little silly that they titled it 'Oakland gains A's stadium edge as San Jose waits' when clearly that is not the case. However, this push forward may be an attempt to sway MLB officials into keeping the A's in Oakland.

Well, no law against doing your best and I would expect SF, Oakland and the Giants to fight a move to SJ.

But what possible argument is there for MLB to want to keep the A's in Oakland? Attendance is miserable and has been for years; the economy is weak; the team is losing money. SJ is bigger, richer, growing, has more big companies and is much further from the Giants than Oakland is. And it has supported hockey for years and is likely to get NFL in the neighborhood, so there is a track record of others thinking that the future lies in the area. Sounds like very low risk.

The latest seems to be criticism of a swap between the city and ATT, where (simplifying)ATT gets the right to build housing near Santana Row, where there is huge demand, instead of commercial, which is in zero demand. I won't post any links because the ones I saw are insistent that this is some form of corruption on the city's part.

First of all, the city could have used eminent domain. But the main point is that you end up with a ballpark DT and dense housing around Santana Row. This brings density to two areas that already have housing, retail, nightlife, parking, and (in DT) rail transit. What better could SJ hope for than developing two areas as part of a single transaction?

Strikes me as what cities should be doing every day. Actually it's not that different from the earlier swap for land needed for the ballpark that traded away DT parking lots which will presumably now be developed. Win-win.

Yeah, people are critical of housing over business, but the land was not currently used and the resulting residential does not require much infrastructure on the city's part, since they are infill townhomes.

But the city had to wrap up the Diridon site if it's going to employ any grand plan, ballpark or not.

MLB should be announcing their decision soon about territorial rights for San Jose. Cisco Field in downtown looks like it might become a reality.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mark-purdy/ci_19493556

Mark Purdy: More signs point to San Jose for the Oakland A's

By Mark Purdy

Mercury News Columnist
Posted: 12/07/2011 08:31:51 PM PST
Updated: 12/07/2011 08:31:52 PM PST

The saga continues. The A's ultimate ballpark destination remains up in the air, a high and deep fly ball, with the entire Bay Area waiting to see in which glove it lands.

And despite what you hear, nothing is certain. Major League Baseball's so-called "blue-ribbon panel" still has not made public its report. Commissioner Bud Selig has not ruled on whether the Giants' territorial rights claim to San Jose should be overturned. Or whether A's owner Lew Wolff can pursue a San Jose stadium project.

However, the fly ball seems to be descending rapidly. Two recent developments -- a pointed comment by a powerful baseball owner and a lawsuit filed by a front group for the San Francisco Giants' interests -- seem to indicate that Selig and MLB are leaning toward a San Jose solution to the A's problem.

That should come as no shock. If the idea is for MLB to have two healthy Bay Area franchises, common sense says they should be located in the region's two largest cities, more than 40 miles apart, with both teams residing in modern new ballparks. That's instead of the current situation, with the Giants and A's just a short drive across the Bay Bridge from each other and the A's playing in a substandard, outdated and bleak hunk of concrete.

That common sense, however, acquired a strong voice this week at baseball's winter meetings in Dallas. Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf told the San Francisco Chronicle that he was "totally
Advertisement
supportive" of Wolff being able to pursue a ballpark project in San Jose.

"He needs to be there," Reinsdorf said. "It has to come to a head soon."

The "soon" probably translates to sometime in the next few months, most likely at an owners meeting in Arizona scheduled for next month. And for those who believe Oakland might still be in the picture, Reinsdorf threw in jabs at both the Oakland Coliseum and Oakland, saying the stadium was "past its time" and so was the city.

"Oakland's had plenty of opportunity to build a stadium and hasn't gotten it done," Reinsdorf said.

Those words could not have been spoken casually and cannot be overestimated. Reinsdorf has owned the White Sox since 1981. He is not only one of MLB's longest-tenured proprietors but also one of the most powerful, known to have Selig's ear. Reinsdorf also led the relocation committee that oversaw the Montreal Expos' move to Washington, D.C., and conversion into the Nationals.

Reinsdorf's statement about Oakland, meanwhile, outlines a chapter of the A's stadium pursuit that many East Bay citizens either forget or refuse to acknowledge. The chapter dates to 1994, not long after the Haas family sold the team to Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann. The two men had big plans for remodeling the Coliseum into a fine baseball-only structure. They requested a meeting with the Coliseum commission.,

"Here's what we'd like to do," Schott told the commission, outlining his remodeling ideas.

"That's all very nice," the commission replied, more or less. "But we have some news. The Raiders want to come back to Oakland, and we've got a financing plan to make it happen that will include building a new center field addition. You can't fight this, because the important people in Oakland want it to happen and they'll make it difficult on you if you try to get in the way."

Schott and Hofmann acquiesced. From that moment forward, the A's long-term future in Oakland was probably doomed. Years later, after Wolff and partner John Fisher bought the team, Wolff did assemble a new ballpark proposal near the Coliseum site. His plan involved mixed-use redevelopment and required Oakland's assistance to acquire the necessary land. The project went nowhere when the city did not or could not cooperate. Wolff then looked south to Fremont and spent years on another failed plan before finally settling on San Jose as his last, not first, resort.

All of that information is contained in the "blue-ribbon" report. The hunch here is that Reinsdorf has already seen it, which explains his assessment about Oakland.

It is possible, in fact, that the Giants also have seen the report, which might be why they backed a lawsuit filed last week by a group called "Stand For San Jose," which curiously is represented by a lawyer and public relations firm from San Francisco.

The lawsuit cites flaws in the environmental impact report for the proposed downtown San Jose ballpark and charges that the city's decision to give Wolff an option on the proposed ballpark property is illegal because the public didn't vote on it -- even though no ballpark could be built there without a public vote. Attorneys will hash out the whole thing. But we all know what this is about: The Giants want to delay and/or subvert any San Jose deal.

Clearly, the Giants are afraid that Selig will soon decide against them. Otherwise, why file the lawsuit at all? Why not let the other MLB owners decide the right thing to do? Perhaps because, as Reinsdorf's comments demonstrate, the Giants already know what that decision will be.

And that fly ball may plop into San Jose's mitt before pitchers and catchers report to spring training.

Looks like Santa Clara Stadium ("the Apple Orchard"?) has to move to "under construction" soon.

As for A's stadium (Cisco Field), I think it's coming. But I like the gossipy news better: Lew Wolff has bought the Sainte Claire Hotel in DT SJ, an easy walk from Cisco. Could it be for visiting teams to stay at? Ya think Albert Pujols would draw attention strolling on Almaden or picking up a Psycho Donut?

He is also pushing along the land acquisition and issuing PR on seating packages. The new rumor is that the park has been expanded to 36k, based on demand. All in all, it seems that someone thinks something is going on.

Looks like Santa Clara Stadium ("the Apple Orchard"?) has to move to "under construction" soon.

As for A's stadium (Cisco Field), I think it's coming. But I like the gossipy news better: Lew Wolff has bought the Sainte Claire Hotel in DT SJ, an easy walk from Cisco. Could it be for visiting teams to stay at? Ya think Albert Pujols would draw attention strolling on Almaden or picking up a Psycho Donut?

He is also pushing along the land acquisition and issuing PR on seating packages. The new rumor is that the park has been expanded to 36k, based on demand. All in all, it seems that someone thinks something is going on.

I'm glad capacity has been increased to 36,000.. Now if they can just fix those field dimensions

I'm glad capacity has been increased to 36,000.. Now if they can just fix those field dimensions
It's great if they increase the capacity, but 36,000 still seems too small. It would still make it the second smallest stadium in the league. ~40,000 sounds about right to me.

As far as the field dimensions, are you referring to that wierd looking right-center field? When I first saw the renderings, I was thinking that this might be because of limited space due to the lot being bounded by the street beyond right field, but who knows. I hope it's not there just being the architects are being gimicky to create some sort of faux "character".

Looks like Santa Clara Stadium ("the Apple Orchard"?) has to move to "under construction" soon.

As for A's stadium (Cisco Field), I think it's coming. But I like the gossipy news better: Lew Wolff has bought the Sainte Claire Hotel in DT SJ, an easy walk from Cisco. Could it be for visiting teams to stay at? Ya think Albert Pujols would draw attention strolling on Almaden or picking up a Psycho Donut?

He is also pushing along the land acquisition and issuing PR on seating packages. The new rumor is that the park has been expanded to 36k, based on demand. All in all, it seems that someone thinks something is going on.

It's about time that the A's got out that hole of a Coliseum.

I still think Oakland is too much of a dump to keep the A's in.

I don't like to dump on Oakland since I have family and friends there and it has lots of good aspects. But it is struggling economically and it doesn't look like it will be in position to build or improve ballparks soon. In any event, SJ is now more than double Oakland's size and growing, with a great corporate base in SC County. It's just economics and demographics.

32k capacity is embarrasing. 36k is at least reasonable since the trend is toward smaller full parks rather than large half empty ones. My guess is that space is too limited to go much larger than that. And you do have to be a bit cautious; for years the A's haven't drawn more than half that.

32k capacity is embarrasing. 36k is at least reasonable since the trend is toward smaller full parks rather than large half empty ones. My guess is that space is too limited to go much larger than that. And you do have to be a bit cautious; for years the A's haven't drawn more than half that.
The Phone Booth opened with 40,000 capacity, and the Giants have been among the leaders in attendance ever since. And people (especially in the Comicle) thought the Giants were being optimistic at the time.

What I would love to see is some sort of permanent superstructure built in, where you could easily add 5-10,000 seats for the post season, but the rest of the time it would look like an unfinished construction project. The A's would get their small capacity park for the regular season, and Selig and the rest of the vampires would get a larger park for postseason. I'm just thinking out loud (so to speak), but would this be feasible?

Angels - Angels Stadium, could use an update perhaps, but still viable?


It looks nice, but my neck has never hurt more after seeing a game there.

What the hell ?

Oakland will play at San Jose. SF will play at Santa Clara.



Stay in there's city !!!!

What the hell ?

Oakland will play at San Jose. SF will play at Santa Clara.



Stay in there's city !!!!

Bro, if you have t been paying attention or don't understand the situation, stay quiet, read and learn.

What the hell ?

Oakland will play at San Jose. SF will play at Santa Clara.



Stay in there's city !!!!

The A's will change their name to San Jose Athletics (it's in the SJ law). The 49ers will remain "San Francisco", although some die-hard fans say that they should be REQUIRED to remove the name.

Certainly the Raiders will become the LA Raiders even if they move to Industry, 20 miles away from LA. But I've never heard that they might change to San Jose Raiders if they move to Santa Clara, even though the park is about 1/4 mile from SJ. I doubt if the SJ brand is strong enough to change the well-established Oakland brand.

Certainly the Raiders will become the LA Raiders even if they move to Industry, 20 miles away from LA. But I've never heard that they might change to San Jose Raiders if they move to Santa Clara, even though the park is about 1/4 mile from SJ. I doubt if the SJ brand is strong enough to change the well-established Oakland brand.

I thought the Raiders were supposed to move into Farmers Field if they were to relocate to Los Angeles?:?

(Sorry to steer this thread away from the A's.)

I thought the Raiders were supposed to move into Farmers Field if they were to relocate to Los Angeles?:?

(Sorry to steer this thread away from the A's.)

This is an open issue at this point. Farmer's Field has more momentum behind it but there have been hints that the Raiders are not the preferred tenant for AEG. I didn't mention Farmer's because it's obvious they would be the LA Raiders if they moved there.

But the A's should be pretty clean: named for SJ and play in SJ.

What's the deal with this? I keep hearing about all these proposed stadiums in San Jose (baseball, soccer, football) but nothing is happening.

San Jose is getting a new Soccer specific stadium, for baseball its all just a talk at the moment, politics, once thats done its pretty much a go.

What's the deal with this? I keep hearing about all these proposed stadiums in San Jose (baseball, soccer, football) but nothing is happening.
Who told you nothing is happening? Land clearing has been completed for the soccer stadium, and detailed drawings came out last week. Probable date of opening April 2013. The Niners announced the financing plan that will guarantee 100% of the cost of their new stadium, and think that the stadium might open earlier than the planned summer of 2015. The only plan not moving forward is the A's, and they have a specific legal roadblock to negotiate before making further progress.

Certainly the Raiders will become the LA Raiders even if they move to Industry, 20 miles away from LA. But I've never heard that they might change to San Jose Raiders if they move to Santa Clara, even though the park is about 1/4 mile from SJ. I doubt if the SJ brand is strong enough to change the well-established Oakland brand.
The Oakland Raiders of San Jose? That sounds just as bad as the Angels. :ohno:

The Oakland Raiders of San Jose? That sounds just as bad as the Angels. :ohno:

The Oakland Raiders of Near San Jose. Although you might very well park in SJ and walk across the Guadalupe River to go to the game.

When you say "legal" roadblock what do you have in mind? I think of the major issue as being permission from MLB, which is more contractual than legal.

The Oakland Raiders of Near San Jose. Although you might very well park in SJ and walk across the Guadalupe River to go to the game.

When you say "legal" roadblock what do you have in mind? I think of the major issue as being permission from MLB, which is more contractual than legal.
Unfortunately it's very legal. Congress back in the early part of the 20th Century gave MLB exemption from the Sherman Antitrust Act. And MLB turned right around and granted territorial protection to several teams under that exemption.. Which is how the Giants can exercise a veto on this whole thing.

Unfortunately it's very legal. Congress back in the early part of the 20th Century gave MLB exemption from the Sherman Antitrust Act. And MLB turned right around and granted territorial protection to several teams under that exemption.. Which is how the Giants can exercise a veto on this whole thing.

I would call that contractual since it requires no act of any legislature or court, but only MLB. Of course, someone (the Giants) could choose to sue for damages, but that's true of pretty much everything these days, from holding a party to breaking up with your girlfriend.

But, as you know, the SJ Giants are already litigating and I'll grant that we haven't seen the last of lawyers and judges.

Forgive me if this has been addressed before.

But where exactly in San Jose will this new ballpark be built?

If it is going to be built near the HP Pavilion, there isn't much space to work with in that area.

^^ yeah it's gonna be a tiny footprint

http://probaseballforsanjose.com/images/stadiumsmall/JPEG/SitePlan_regional.jpg

Forgive me if this has been addressed before.

But where exactly in San Jose will this new ballpark be built?

If it is going to be built near the HP Pavilion, there isn't much space to work with in that area.
Yes, the ballpark will be couple of blocks from the Pavilion. You can see the exact location here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.328093,-121.900672&hl=en&ll=37.328468,-121.900563&spn=0.005673,0.013078&num=1&vpsrc=6&t=m&z=16
The site boundaries are Autumn St., San Fernando St., Park Ave., and the railyard. Montgomery St. between San Fernando and Park will be removed for the stadium. Most of the land, which was previously privately owned, has already been purchased by the city, and the city has reached an agreement to sell it to Lew Wolffe, the A's owner. There are still a couple of parcels left that still need to be purchased, but they are confident that they will get all of the land to complete the site.

Yes, the ballpark will be couple of blocks from the Pavilion. You can see the exact location here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.328093,-121.900672&hl=en&ll=37.328468,-121.900563&spn=0.005673,0.013078&num=1&vpsrc=6&t=m&z=16
The site boundaries are Autumn St., San Fernando St., Park Ave., and the railyard. Montgomery St. between San Fernando and Park will be removed for the stadium. Most of the land, which was previously privately owned, has already been purchased by the city, and the city has reached an agreement to sell it to Lew Wolffe, the A's owner. There are still a couple of parcels left that still need to be purchased, but they are confident that they will get all of the land to complete the site.

The theory is to take advantage of already existing DT parking normally empty evenings and weekends. There will also be excellent transit since the main SJ train station is literally next door. A real downtown experience.

I love the fact that it's a park that has to be fit into an existing street grid.

http://probaseballforsanjose.com/images/stadiumsmall/JPEG/SitePlan_regional.jpg

Wow. The most oddly-shaped ballpark since AT&T Park.:nuts:


The site boundaries are Autumn St., San Fernando St., Park Ave., and the railyard. Montgomery St. between San Fernando and Park will be removed for the stadium. Most of the land, which was previously privately owned, has already been purchased by the city, and the city has reached an agreement to sell it to Lew Wolffe, the A's owner. There are still a couple of parcels left that still need to be purchased, but they are confident that they will get all of the land to complete the site.

Are they going to knock down all the small buildings and establishments along Montgomery St.?

Wow. The most oddly-shaped ballpark since AT&T Park.:nuts:



Are they going to knock down all the small buildings and establishments along Montgomery St.?
Yes, they'll need to knock all of the buildings down. Currently, Montgomery St. is located right in the middle of where the baseball field will eventually be located - it roughly bisects the field from straight left field directly to 1st base. There will be no stadium/field if they don't knock down EVERYTHING in the area mentioned above.

I love the fact that it's a park that has to be fit into an existing street grid.
It's still a gimmick to me. AT&T Park fits right up against the property lines and streets. This park has been shifted east, away from the property line, to create an artificially odd boundary.

It's still a gimmick to me. AT&T Park fits right up against the property lines and streets. This park has been shifted east, away from the property line, to create an artificially odd boundary.

I think the reason it is shifted east is because of the existing PG&E sub plant that can not be relocated.. This park will definitely be shoehorned

I think the reason it is shifted east is because of the existing PG&E sub plant that can not be relocated.. This park will definitely be shoehorned

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/264/sanjoset.jpg

Excited at the prospect of the A's heading to San Jose, but really, really bummed its going to come at the expense of Patty's Inn. San Jose is going to loose one of the best landmarks it has :(

Excited at the prospect of the A's heading to San Jose, but really, really bummed its going to come at the expense of Patty's Inn. San Jose is going to loose one of the best landmarks it has :(

True, but maybe it will relocate. Not only does the ballpark get rid of parking lots and underutilized light industrial, but it should bring new food/drink places or the conversion of older homes into them. And increased usage of the hotels in DT.

I think the reason it is shifted east is because of the existing PG&E sub plant that can not be relocated.. This park will definitely be shoehorned
I've seen that multiple times, but never really paid attention to it. Alas, betrayed by my lack of observational skills again. Thanks to Pelt for posting the nice pic.
One other thing that I hadn't realized was the impending loss of Montgomery Street. Having one way routes to and from the Tank and train station is nice.

Excited at the prospect of the A's heading to San Jose, but really, really bummed its going to come at the expense of Patty's Inn. San Jose is going to loose one of the best landmarks it has :(

It could always be put into the ballpark.

Excited at the prospect of the A's heading to San Jose, but really, really bummed its going to come at the expense of Patty's Inn. San Jose is going to loose one of the best landmarks it has :(
As I understand it, part of the Redevelopment plan is the redevelopment of the properties across from the stadium on Autumn St. All of the these properties back up to Los Gatos Creek which connects to the Guadalupe River about a block downstream. The city has been trying to feature and integrate the Guadalupe River with new projects surrounding the river for years. From what I was told, the new developments on Autumns St. will be required to integrate with and provide access to Los Gatos Creek. Maybe Patty's Inn will be a part of this.

Can't Wait!....
http://www.mercurynews.com/athletics/ci_19614944

Oakland A's reportedly granted permission to move to San Jose

By Joe Stiglich

jstiglich@bayareanewsgroup.com
Posted: 12/24/2011 12:33:49 PM PST
Updated: 12/24/2011 12:33:51 PM PST

A's general manager Billy Beane declined comment on a report that the A's will receive permission by February to move to San Jose.

USA Today's Bob Nightengale tweeted Saturday morning: "All signs and top MLB sources say that the Athletics will be granted permission by Feb to move to San Jose."

Beane said he was unaware of any such news when reached by phone Saturday and didn't want to comment further. A's co-owner Lew Wolff could not be reached for comment, and team spokesman Bob Rose said the team continues to wait for Major League Baseball's report on the A's stadium situation and would have no further comment until then.

MLB commissioner Bud Selig appointed a committee to research the A's stadium options in March 2009, but there has been no public revelation of those findings. But Beane has expressed optimism this winter that a decision will come soon.

Beane's reasoning for his optimism has remained vague, but he did say on a media teleconference Friday night: "We just keep hearing (a decision will come) soon. Any other information I have I'd probably rather keep to myself."

Can't Wait!....
http://www.mercurynews.com/athletics/ci_19614944

Sounds good!

This has been rumored in many places now for a month or so. But my favorite "gossip" is still that Wolff is buying the Sainte Claire Hotel, which wouldn't make much sense if he is getting turned down on the ballpark.

I would assume the delay in announcement is to allow him to finish preparations for the announcement, new renderings and details for the park, a firmer time-schedule, partnerships and related development around the area, ticket plans, etc.

Do they plan to change the team name? Also, has the territory restrictions issue for the Giants been resolved?

Do they plan to change the team name? Also, has the territory restrictions issue for the Giants been resolved?

No idea and nope

Do they plan to change the team name? Also, has the territory restrictions issue for the Giants been resolved?They will still be the A's. The A's logo is clearly shown on the stadium in renderings on the first page of this thread.

The word is that the territory issue will be decided at the next owner's meeting, which is later this month. The rumor is that MLB will give the A's the go-ahead to make the move.

Do they plan to change the team name?

Odds are they would be renamed the San Jose Athletics. Having Oakland in the name wouldn't make any sense, nor would changing the nickname which has been around for more than 100 years and has a lot of history behind it, and besides--they're not relocating that far--just to a different part of the same greater Bay Area metro region.

Odds are they would be renamed the San Jose Athletics. Having Oakland in the name wouldn't make any sense, nor would changing the nickname which has been around for more than 100 years and has a lot of history behind it, and besides--they're not relocating that far--just to a different part of the same greater Bay Area metro region.

For sure San Jose is in the name (that's requried under San Jose statutes). But the rest of the discussion is basically rumors and supposed leaks.

On the SJ threads I suggested changing the name from "Athletics" to something else and pretty much got booed off-stage.

Enjoy live Barclays Premier League match Live streaming between Tottenham vs West Brom live live on your PC on HD TV. grab this exciting match live on your PC in this site. Catch the match live here it provide crystal clear HD video and smooth clear sound so stay tune and enjoy the match here is live streaming tv link Tottenham vs West Brom live.


Barclays Premier League

Tottenham vs West Brom Live (http://gate.hyperpaysys.com/?PID=065d9b27-b316-4b38-9f51-8fb1bd7c360d)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CoTv9fi5aJY/TuyaV3Qlw8I/AAAAAAAAAC8/SR5uCt0kAQA/s200/soccer+01.jpg (http://gate.hyperpaysys.com/?PID=065d9b27-b316-4b38-9f51-8fb1bd7c360d)

MATCH DETALAS
Competition: Barclays Premier League
Date: Tuesday, 3 January 2012, 2012
Time: from 19:45 GMT
Live/Repeat: Live


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DKonqKpeMAc/Tv3N22efm2I/AAAAAAAAAE0/3itcqeriiOU/s1600/all+watch.png (http://gate.hyperpaysys.com/?PID=065d9b27-b316-4b38-9f51-8fb1bd7c360d)



Tottenham vs West Brom Live Stream (http://gate.hyperpaysys.com/?PID=065d9b27-b316-4b38-9f51-8fb1bd7c360d)

Here live Stream of match between Tottenham vs West Brom live in HD Free Online. Wonderful Match both teams will be belligerent for a victory that will allow them to maintain top position and also allow them to wash away the remembrances of enormous errors and dissatisfaction of past. We will amuse you with live high quality video streaming of this match on your pc.

Tottenham vs West Brom Live TV Link (http://gate.hyperpaysys.com/?PID=065d9b27-b316-4b38-9f51-8fb1bd7c360d)



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wrVVyAs2g_E/Tuyauya39ZI/AAAAAAAAADE/TmqDiqabQJI/s320/soccer+04.jpg (http://gate.hyperpaysys.com/?PID=065d9b27-b316-4b38-9f51-8fb1bd7c360d)


Tottenham vs West Brom streaming link (http://gate.hyperpaysys.com/?PID=065d9b27-b316-4b38-9f51-8fb1bd7c360d)




Tottenham vs West Brom live streaming, Tottenham vs West Brom live, Tottenham vs West Brom live stream, Tottenham vs West Brom live online, Barclays Premier League live Video, Free live streaming Barclays Premier League net tv, Tottenham vs West Brom live broadcast, Tottenham vs West Brom live feed, Tottenham vs West Brom live free, Tottenham vs West Brom live free link on pc, Tottenham vs West Brom live hd video, Tottenham vs West Brom live link free online.

Do they plan to change the team name? Also, has the territory restrictions issue for the Giants been resolved?

No, they would still be the Athletics. There are many A's fans who will follow the team 40 minutes south, so why alienate them?

No, they would still be the Athletics. There are many A's fans who will follow the team 40 minutes south, so why alienate them?

I didn't mean the nickname. I don't see any reason to change that.

Well why would they move to a new city and keep the old city's name?

Well why would they move to a new city and keep the old city's name?

Isn't there a local football team about to do the same? Ask them.

Well the Jets & Giants call themsefts New York teams but don't play in the state

Isn't there a local football team about to do the same? Ask them.Wolffe has close ties to San Jose and wants the team to be associated with San Jose. When they were attempting to move to Fremont, he was going to rename the team "The San Jose A's of Fremont", borrowing from the Angels. They will be the San Jose A's if and when they move to downtown.

Well the Jets & Giants call themsefts New York teams but don't play in the state

Yeah, but they still play within the Greater New York Metro area.

The A's would not be playing in the "Greater Oakland Metro Area" because there is no such thing.

Isn't there a local football team about to do the same? Ask them.

Not quite. The 49ers will still be playing in the "San Francisco Bay Area" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area), which includes Santa Clara.

Again, there is no such thing as the "Oakland Metro Area" in Santa Clara or San Jose.

It would be as stupid sounding as if the NHL's Ducks moved to Pasadena and still called themselves the "Anaheim Ducks".

Not quite. The 49ers will still be playing in the "San Francisco Bay Area" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area), which includes Santa Clara.

Again, there is no such thing as the "Oakland Metro Area" in Santa Clara or San Jose.

It would be as stupid sounding as if the NHL's Ducks moved to Pasadena and still called themselves the "Anaheim Ducks".

And the Raiders? I haven't heard one person or media outlet mention that they would even consider changing their name, even if they did move to Santa Clara as well.

And the Raiders? I haven't heard one person or media outlet mention that they would even consider changing their name, even if they did move to Santa Clara as well.

If they do and keep Oakland it will be stupid, and I believe unprecedented.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any team that has ever done such a thing.

If they do and keep Oakland it will be stupid, and I believe unprecedented.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any team that has ever done such a thing.

I think branding is the driver. The Bay Area generates these issues because SJ is the biggest city; SF the best known; and Oakland closely associated with the Raiders (not so much with the A's).

There may not be anything strictly analogous, but look at Dallas. They played in Arlington and kept the name Dallas even though they were about as close to Ft. Worth (which is going to pass Dallas in population) but they never considered changing the name to Ft. Worth Cowboys.

NJ, of course, has no cities big enough to challenge NYC but one could imagine a team moving from NJ to NY and calling themselves the Brooklyn Nets or Brooklyn Jets or Long Island XYZ's. Again, it's a matter of what is likely to sell.

And, conversely, the Angels went from Anaheim to LA without moving an inch.

Well fort Worth is part of Dallas-Fort Worth metro area.

Well fort Worth is part of Dallas-Fort Worth metro area.

...I don't know how to respond to that.

You didn't just Dallas Metro Area. :)

Isn't there a local football team about to do the same? Ask them.
From a technical perspective, Santa Clara is not San Jose. From a marketing perspective, Oakland is not San Francisco.

^^Is Santa Clara a suburb of San Jose?

For example, let's say that there's a U2 concert at this new Niners stadium.

Would it be appropriate for Bono to address the audience by saying "Thank you San Jose"?


For the record, Bono DID say "Thank you Los Angeles!" after the U2 concert at Angel Stadium back in June.:sly:

^^Is Santa Clara a suburb of San Jose?

For example, let's say that there's a U2 concert at this new Niners stadium.

Would it be appropriate for Bono to address the audience by saying "Thank you San Jose"?


For the record, Bono DID say "Thank you Los Angeles!" after the U2 concert at Angel Stadium back in June.:sly:

Yes, Santa Clara is connected to San Jose. It is pretty much all one continuous city. If you didn't know the area you wouldn't know whether you were in San Jose or Santa Clara when driving through.

Yes, Santa Clara is connected to San Jose. It is pretty much all one continuous city. If you didn't know the area you wouldn't know whether you were in San Jose or Santa Clara when driving through.

Thats the points alot of folks are saying about which city has the bigger name in the usa

Thats the points alot of folks are saying about which city has the bigger name in the usa

San Jose has a much bigger name than Santa Clara. San Jose has close to a million people where Santa Clara has less than 120,000. The San Jose Earthquakes play in Santa Clara. They would never name a professional sports team after Santa Clara when San Jose surrounds it.

So yes, Santa Clara is a suburb or San Jose and "Thank you San Jose" would be appropriate. Much more so than "Thank you Los Angeles!" in Anaheim.

Looks interesting

The San Jose Earthquakes play in Santa Clara.
Lame trivia: Santa Clara will join Daly City in hosting sports teams named for two other cities. The San Jose Sharks and San Francisco Warriors both played at the Cow Palace.

The San Francisco 49ers and San Jose Earthquakes have each had home games at Stanford/Palo Alto, but neither was there for any lengthy period.

^^Is Santa Clara a suburb of San Jose?

For example, let's say that there's a U2 concert at this new Niners stadium.

Would it be appropriate for Bono to address the audience by saying "Thank you San Jose"?


For the record, Bono DID say "Thank you Los Angeles!" after the U2 concert at Angel Stadium back in June.:sly:

Addressing just this narrow point, I was at a blues concert in Sunnyvale and the band said "thank you SF". Stony silence. After a brief discussion, they said "thank you Sunnyvale" and got a better response. Very similar to the Mt. Winery, where concerts are held. The experienced bands say "Thank you, Saratoga" to moot the SF vs. SJ issue. But no one would say "Thank you Oakland" in the South Bay.

Lame trivia: Santa Clara will join Daly City in hosting sports teams named for two other cities. The San Jose Sharks and San Francisco Warriors both played at the Cow Palace.

The San Francisco 49ers and San Jose Earthquakes have each had home games at Stanford/Palo Alto, but neither was there for any lengthy period.

That's actually kind of interesting.

San Jose Raiders, South Bay Raiders, Silicon Valley Raiders, etc.? They all would take some time to get used to. I never really got used to LA Raiders even though they were there for years.

That's actually kind of interesting.

San Jose Raiders, South Bay Raiders, Silicon Valley Raiders, etc.? They all would take some time to get used to. I never really got used to LA Raiders even though they were there for years.

I wonder how the Oakland city officials would react if the Raiders left town but still used "Oakland".

I wonder how the Oakland city officials would react if the Raiders left town but still used "Oakland".

Poorly. But they don't own the name.

SF had some issues with the Niners as well (legislation was introduced to not allow them to use the name, but it went nowhere). This makes a lot of sense because the name is widely used by the Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican Churches and (in its English, French, Italian, etc. forms) by cities, streets, mountain ranges, bodies of water, etc., all over the world. In fact, the City of SF was named much later than the SF Bay, so it's tough to build any kind of theory of ownership rights.

Poorly. But they don't own the name.

SF had some issues with the Niners as well (legislation was introduced to not allow them to use the name, but it went nowhere). This makes a lot of sense because the name is widely used by the Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican Churches and (in its English, French, Italian, etc. forms) by cities, streets, mountain ranges, bodies of water, etc., all over the world. In fact, the City of SF was named much later than the SF Bay, so it's tough to build any kind of theory of ownership rights.

You can't have a copyright on the name of a city. You could call a team in SF the Miami or Seattle or New York whatevers, but it wouldn't make any sense. It would make sense to call the 49ers the San Francisco 49ers after the move because the name is so well established, and it is still the SF bay area. Less so for the Oakland A's.

I remember Gavin Newsom saying that if the team moved the city wouldn't let them use the San Francisco name. It didn't go anywhere because San Francisco can't do that.

I remember Gavin Newsom saying that if the team moved the city wouldn't let them use the San Francisco name.

These are the brainacs we elect to run cities. :nuts:

You can't have a copyright on the name of a city. You could call a team in SF the Miami or Seattle or New York whatevers, but it wouldn't make any sense. It would make sense to call the 49ers the San Francisco 49ers after the move because the name is so well established, and it is still the SF bay area. Less so for the Oakland A's.

I remember Gavin Newsom saying that if the team moved the city wouldn't let them use the San Francisco name. It didn't go anywhere because San Francisco can't do that.

I am sure it WOULD stand up in court. Why should they continue to be called the "San Francisco" 49ers when they have abandoned their home city? It doesn't make sense to me. Why should the Green Bay Packers still continue to be called thus, if they up and moved to San Diego? It is misleading and deceptive. :ohno:

I am sure it WOULD stand up in court. Why should they continue to be called the "San Francisco" 49ers when they have abandoned their home city? It doesn't make sense to me. Why should the Green Bay Packers still continue to be called thus, if they up and moved to San Diego? It is misleading and deceptive. :ohno:

How would it stand up in court if they, in fact, ARE still in the SF Bay Area?

"San Francisco" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area) is more than just the city of San Francisco you know.

I am sure it WOULD stand up in court. Why should they continue to be called the "San Francisco" 49ers when they have abandoned their home city? It doesn't make sense to me. Why should the Green Bay Packers still continue to be called thus, if they up and moved to San Diego? It is misleading and deceptive. :ohno:
You didn't even offer any real reason as to why you are so sure:lol:

How would it stand up in court if they, in fact, ARE still in the SF Bay Area?

"San Francisco" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area) is more than just the city of San Francisco you know.

Then they should go with the name "San Francisco Bay Area" 49ers!! Because San Francisco 49ers by itself is DECEPTIVE and MISLEADING since they no longer play within the geographic limits of the city they purport to represent nor generate any income for the entity whose name they are using. If you don't understand "deception" and "mislabelled" branding, then I can't help you.

Then they should go with the name "San Francisco Bay Area" 49ers!! Because San Francisco 49ers by itself is DECEPTIVE and MISLEADING since they no longer play within the geographic limits of the city they purport to represent nor generate any income for the entity whose name they are using. If you don't understand "deception" and "mislabelled" branding, then I can't help you.

It's your opinion that using "San Francisco" means the city of.

Lots of teams play, or have played in different cities, including SF teams:

Dallas Cowboys (City of Irving 1971-2008)
Dallas Cowboys (City of Arlington 2009-present)
Los Angeles Lakers (City of Inglewood 1967-1999)
Los Angeles Kings (City of Inglewood 1967-1999)
Los Angeles Rams (Anaheim, California 1979-1994)
San Jose Sharks (Daly City, California 1991-1993)
San Francisco Warriors (Daly City, California 1962-1971)
New York Jets & Giants (East Rutherford, New Jersey)
Miami Dolphins (City of Miami Gardens 1987-present)
Washington Redskins (Prince George's County, Maryland)
Washington Bullets/Wizards (Landover, Maryland)
Washington Capitals (Landover, Maryland)

...and on and on and on....

Did any of these teams get sued for not playing in the "city of" that their name represented?

It's your opinion that using "San Francisco" means the city of.

Lots of teams play, or have played in different cities, including SF teams:

Dallas Cowboys (City of Irving 1971-2008)
Dallas Cowboys (City of Arlington 2009-present)
Los Angeles Lakers (City of Inglewood 1967-1999)
Los Angeles Kings (City of Inglewood 1967-1999)
Los Angeles Rams (Anaheim, California 1979-1994)
San Jose Sharks (Daly City, California 1991-1993)
San Francisco Warriors (Daly City, California 1962-1971)
New York Jets & Giants (East Rutherford, New Jersey)
Miami Dolphins (City of Miami Gardens 1987-present)
Washington Redskins (Prince George's County, Maryland)
Washington Bullets/Wizards (Landover, Maryland)
Washington Capitals (Landover, Maryland)

...and on and on and on....

Did any of these teams get sued for not playing in the "city of" that their name represented?

All the current ones I could find where a specific city is named, but the team does not play within the city limits. I ruled out any team that has a vague place name (e.g. Colorado Rapids name the whole state of Colorado rather than just Denver, so who cares that they play in Commerce City, CO instead of Denver?). Let me know if I missed any

New York Jets and Giants: East Rutherford NJ
New York Red Bulls: Harrison, NJ
Phoenix Coyotes and Cardinals: Glenndale, AZ
Detroit Pistons: Auburn Hills, MI
Miami Dolphins: Miami Gardens, FL (Not the City of Miami)
Buffalo Bills: Orchard Park, NY
Philadelphia Union: Chester, PA
San Jose Earthquakes: Santa Clara, CA (Tho that will be an interesting one to work out when the "San Francisco" 49ers are playing just up the road :D
FC Dallas: Frisco, TX
Los Angeles Galaxy: Carson, CA
Chicago Fire: Bridgeview, IL
Washington Redskins: Landover, MD

Someone may have pointed this out already, but:

There is no such city as "Tampa Bay, Florida", only a body of water. The city is "Tampa, Florida". So the Tampa Bay Bucs, Lightning, Rays, and formerly the Mutiny were all named after a body of water rather than a city. They were based in communities surrounding Tampa Bay:

Tampa Bay Bucs: Tampa, FL
Tampa Bay Rays: St Petersburg, FL
Tampa Bay Lightning: St Petersburg, FL

Food for thought for those pointing out the "San Francisco Bay" thing...

All the current ones I could find where a specific city is named, but the team does not play within the city limits. I ruled out any team that has a vague place name (e.g. Colorado Rapids name the whole state of Colorado rather than just Denver, so who cares that they play in Commerce City, CO instead of Denver?). Let me know if I missed any

New York Jets and Giants: East Rutherford NJ
New York Red Bulls: Harrison, NJ
Phoenix Coyotes and Cardinals: Glenndale, AZ
Detroit Pistons: Auburn Hills, MI
Miami Dolphins: Miami Gardens, FL (Not the City of Miami)
Buffalo Bills: Orchard Park, NY
Philadelphia Union: Chester, PA
San Jose Earthquakes: Santa Clara, CA (Tho that will be an interesting one to work out when the "San Francisco" 49ers are playing just up the road :D
FC Dallas: Frisco, TX
Los Angeles Galaxy: Carson, CA
Chicago Fire: Bridgeview, IL
Washington Redskins: Landover, MD

The only one that comes to mind that you missed is the Cowboys who play in the city of Arlington.

All the current ones I could find where a specific city is named, but the team does not play within the city limits. I ruled out any team that has a vague place name (e.g. Colorado Rapids name the whole state of Colorado rather than just Denver, so who cares that they play in Commerce City, CO instead of Denver?). Let me know if I missed any

New York Jets and Giants: East Rutherford NJ
New York Red Bulls: Harrison, NJ
Phoenix Coyotes and Cardinals: Glenndale, AZ
Detroit Pistons: Auburn Hills, MI
Miami Dolphins: Miami Gardens, FL (Not the City of Miami)
Buffalo Bills: Orchard Park, NY
Philadelphia Union: Chester, PA
San Jose Earthquakes: Santa Clara, CA (Tho that will be an interesting one to work out when the "San Francisco" 49ers are playing just up the road :D
FC Dallas: Frisco, TX
Los Angeles Galaxy: Carson, CA
Chicago Fire: Bridgeview, IL
Washington Redskins: Landover, MD

Granted. But these teams continue to operate with the blessing of the anchor city they are named after, don't they? The move of the 49ers is NOT sanctioned by the City of San Francisco. THAT's THE DIFFERENCE!!

Granted. But these teams continue to operate with the blessing of the anchor city they are named after, don't they? The move of the 49ers is NOT sanctioned by the City of San Francisco. THAT's THE DIFFERENCE!!

Complete nonsense: the name "San Francisco 49ers" is owned by the organization that owns the team or held by some related entity. The city has NO rights in the name. A proposal to change California law to forbid the use of names after a team moves was laughed out of the legislature since tradenames are first of all federal jurisdiction and secondly the action was obviously unconsitutional. You may still be able to find some of the jokes about it on the internet.

The irony is that SF would be shooting itself in the foot by even trying to insist on this. It already has no hockey, basketball, soccer or women's basketball team; losing the Niners would leave only the Giants as a major sport with the name SF in it. (This is not a dig against SF, which is a beautiful and thriving city; only a comment on who owns a name.)

btw, I doubt if all of the cities mentioned gave their blessing to the team moving to a suburb.

Granted. But these teams continue to operate with the blessing of the anchor city they are named after, don't they? The move of the 49ers is NOT sanctioned by the City of San Francisco. THAT's THE DIFFERENCE!!

Your logic is so flawed it borders on the ridiculous. Any company can name their product after a city, state or whatever locality or location they want.

Just a few of millions of examples for you to try and wrap your head around:

Every big city in America has independent businesses called things like "NY Deli"; "Chicago Pizza restaurant"; "Brooklyn Deli"; "Coney Island Hot Dogs"; "Santa Fe Clothing Shop"; "Palm Springs Golf Shop"; "Hollywood Poster Shop"; "California Health Food Cafe"; "Morocco Cafe'; "Miami Clothing Shop"; "New Orleans Pub"; "London Fish and Chips"; "Glasgow Pub"; "Bangkok Pho Restaurant"; "Seoul BBQ"; "Memphis Rib Shack"; "Nashville Music Shop"; "Las Vegas Lingerie"....

And on...and on....and on a million times over.

:doh:

Detroit Lions played in pontiac in the old silverdome for years

Wolff's purchase of the Hotel Sainte Claire in downtown SJ has been drawing mention as an indicator of what he believes MLB will say (has already said?) about the A's moving to SJ. The hotel is one VTA stop from Cisco Field, or a 10 minute stroll on those beautiful summer evenings, when Pujols, A-Rod, Teixeira, etc., drop by Original Joe's for a bit of refreshment.

Gonna be a beautiful sight seeing HP, Cisco and the rest of DT lit up for a night game. And with some more money coming in, maybe some October games as well.

Good news! BART now has funds to get it from Fremont down to Berryessa in North SJ. This allows for connection onto VTA, which will help get people to Cisco Field (VTA goes to Diridon Station, right at the ballpark).

The last few miles to downtown SJ is supposed to be subway, but it does not have funding yet. When this piece is complete, there will be direct BART connection to the front door of Cisco. This will make the any location in the East Bay near BART an easy ride to/from the park.

BART will still not connect to Cisco from SF or San Mateo County. You have to use Caltrain or VTA for this, which is not so bad since it comes right to the stadium as well.

San Jose Earthquakes: Santa Clara, CA (Tho that will be an interesting one to work out when the "San Francisco" 49ers are playing just up the road :D
Actually, by the time the Niners move to Santa Clara, the Quakes will have moved into their own permanent home. The site is only a mile away from Buck Shaw Stadium, but back within San Jose city limits.

Well, Selig is using expressions like "front burner" and "quick pace" for getting MLB approval (or rejection) of the move to SJ. But he also noted that they would want to resolve the lawsuit against SJ that the Giants are funding before the public vote is held. This makes sense from MLB's perspective, because they want to minimize both litigation and any chance the SJ vote would fail.

This seems to imply that the owners will vote to allow the move, but the Giants are not on-board. If they have to be on-board before the public vote, this could delay things further.

Well, Selig is using expressions like "front burner" and "quick pace" for getting MLB approval (or rejection) of the move to SJ. But he also noted that they would want to resolve the lawsuit against SJ that the Giants are funding before the public vote is held. This makes sense from MLB's perspective, because they want to minimize both litigation and any chance the SJ vote would fail.

This seems to imply that the owners will vote to allow the move, but the Giants are not on-board. If they have to be on-board before the public vote, this could delay things further.
That seems to sum it up fairly well.

I forget: is this going to be on the June ballot?

That's my question. It sounds like they are going to fund a special election if necessary. Last I saw, it would pass with well over 60 percent and a special election would probably attract more supporters than opponents, except for the tiny group of hard-core haters.

MLB likely to uphold San Francisco Giants' territorial rights in San Jose, leaving the A's stuck in Oakland (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mlb-uphold-san-francisco-giants-territorial-rights-san-jose-leaving-a-stuck-oakland-article-1.1032531?localLinksEnabled=false)

From the story....

1. The Giants’ territorial rights to San Jose are part of the MLB constitution as a result of former A’s owner, Levi-Strauss heir Wally Haas agreeing to cede them in 1989 to Giants owner Bob Lurie, who, frustrated in his efforts to get a new stadium in San Francisco, was looking to relocate the team.

2. Even if Selig did invoke his “best interests of baseball” powers and allowed the A’s to move to San Jose, he probably doesn’t have the votes.

Lurie never did try to move the Giants to San Jose, but the fact that he now held those territorial rights to the rich high-tech Silicon Valley enhanced the Giants’ value, and was a prime reason why Lurie, who bought the Giants in 1976 for $8 million, was able to sell them for $100 million in 1993 to a group headed by former Safeway magnate Peter Magowan. The San Jose rights were also the reason why Magowan was able to secure financing for the new ballpark in San Francisco, as the Giants now maintain the crux of their constituency — season box and suite holders — is from the Silicon Valley.

To strip the Giants of their territorial rights to San Jose would require a three-quarters vote of the clubs, and as one baseball lawyer observed: “Clubs would realize what a terrible ‘there but for the grace of God go us’ precedent that would create in which all of their territorial rights would then be in jeopardy.” As an example of that, one can’t imagine the Yankees, Mets or Phillies voting to take the Giants’ territorial rights to San Jose away when it could conceivably open the doors for a team seeking to re-locate to New Jersey.

I thought that clause has been rather overlooked in the discussions about the stadium, and it hadn't really been answered until now.

territorial rights are fucking lame

not like the Giants need them to survive, of all teams...

It was not that long ago when the Giants were a consistent money loser. In 1996 they were 13th out of 14 NL teams in attendance, and in 1999 they were still 10th out of 16.

It was not that long ago when the Giants were a consistent money loser. In 1996 they were 13th out of 14 NL teams in attendance, and in 1999 they were still 10th out of 16.
Candleshit probably had a lot to do with that...

Candleshit probably had a lot to do with that...
Oh, it had an enormous amount to do with Candlestick. No one denies this. But my point is the Giants aren't a long-term cash cow in the class of the Yankees, Dodgers or Cubs, and they do still have a sizable mortgage to deal with.

And I'm not saying this to justify the rumored ruling, either. I live in SJ, and I've been a fan of both teams for a long time. To say my feelings are mixed would be an understatement.

What did the Giants pay for it? That would be one good measure of its value.

Another would be any damages they could prove. Perhaps the decline in their average attendance for the next two years times times, say, $20, with some adjustment if their record is substantially worse.

It's interesting that no other 2 city team has this arrangement, yet their attendance is typically very good. Makes you wonder if a "personal fiefdom" has any value at all other than to stifle competition.

So you get territorial rights on San Jose because you plan to build an stadium there, then you never build that stadium because you leverage those rights to get one in downtown SF, but when another team gets a deal to build a stadium in San Jose, they won't get permission because the territorial rights belong to a team that never built the stadium in the first place...

Uhm... Yeah, nice.

If I'm the major of San Jose, I'm going forward with some pretty serious legal action on this.

So you get territorial rights on San Jose because you plan to build an stadium there, then you never build that stadium because you leverage those rights to get one in downtown SF, but when another team gets a deal to build a stadium in San Jose, they won't get permission because the territorial rights belong to a team that never built the stadium in the first place...

Uhm... Yeah, nice.

If I'm the major of San Jose, I'm going forward with some pretty serious legal action on this.

I agree. MLB has antitrust exemption on many areas, but this is one I don't think it should cover.

I agree. MLB has antitrust exemption on many areas, but this is one I don't think it should cover.

Could happen if the A's are rejected. MLB is ripe for getting it's anti-trust exemptions limited. If the GOP gains solid control of Congress, I would expect all the major sports will be getting a working over.

But another possibility is for Wolff to sell to interested groups in Las Vegas or the IE.

Could happen if the A's are rejected. MLB is ripe for getting it's anti-trust exemptions limited. If the GOP gains solid control of Congress, I would expect all the major sports will be getting a working over.
I see several problems with this statement. First, Congress cannot overrule the Supreme Court. It actually goes the other way around. I'm pretty sure the Supremes would have to revisit this, which might take several years to unfold. Second, Almost every sports owner is a member of the '1%', and would not likely be a target of the GOP. And third, it is extremely rare for a congressional election to go against an overwhelming vote for a Presidential candidate, and at the moment President Obama is looking like he will get well over 400 electoral votes in November. He's even leading in South Carolina, of all places (although I'm not holding my breath on him keeping that lead).

So you get territorial rights on San Jose because you plan to build an stadium there, then you never build that stadium because you leverage those rights to get one in downtown SF, but when another team gets a deal to build a stadium in San Jose, they won't get permission because the territorial rights belong to a team that never built the stadium in the first place...

Uhm... Yeah, nice.

If I'm the major of San Jose, I'm going forward with some pretty serious legal action on this.
I would consider the legal action a last resort. San Jose already has a working relationship with the San Francisco Giants, as one of their feeder teams plays in San Jose.

Hopefully they get booted if this all goes to shit.

Could happen if the A's are rejected. MLB is ripe for getting it's anti-trust exemptions limited. If the GOP gains solid control of Congress, I would expect all the major sports will be getting a working over.

But another possibility is for Wolff to sell to interested groups in Las Vegas or the IE.

Why would Wolff sell the asset to someone in the Inland Empire when he lives in L.A.?

I would consider the legal action a last resort. San Jose already has a working relationship with the San Francisco Giants, as one of their feeder teams plays in San Jose.

Not that I don't agree with you, but after five years of waiting for a ruling on the matter, and being left twice without a MLB team, I think it's time for that last resort.

Maybe it's because I look at it from outside (and quite far away, actually), but I also don't think that the Giants will make many friends, or fans, in San Jose this way. I mean, if I were a baseball fan in San Jose and had no previous allegiance to the Giants or the A's (which can easily be the case with loads of people working for Silicon Valley companies), being told that I can't have a MLB team in my city because some team claims that I absolutely have to go to their games in SF... well, that's the best way of making sure I won't ever support the Giants or ever go to a game. :ohno:

Not very intelligent marketing, IMO.

I see several problems with this statement. First, Congress cannot overrule the Supreme Court. It actually goes the other way around. I'm pretty sure the Supremes would have to revisit this, which might take several years to unfold. Second, Almost every sports owner is a member of the '1%', and would not likely be a target of the GOP. And third, it is extremely rare for a congressional election to go against an overwhelming vote for a Presidential candidate, and at the moment President Obama is looking like he will get well over 400 electoral votes in November. He's even leading in South Carolina, of all places (although I'm not holding my breath on him keeping that lead).

I doubt that the President has meaningful influence on this; Congress would drive it and a veto seems unlikely. I agree that if the Dems retain the Senate, there is less chance of a review.

btw, the franchise owners are not 1 percenters: they are .0001 percenters. The rest of the 1 percent have no great sympathy for them especially if they are trying to screw their city, team, local businesses, etc.

On a related issue, the "purchase price" argument also seems pretty much nonsense. The Giants didn't pay anything for it as far as I can tell. And subsequent purchasers didn't rely on it in valuing the team since they were aware that the territorial right could be withdrawn by the Commissioner and team owners at any time. They would have adjusted their purchase price to reflect this and therefore would not lose anything now that they shouldn't have already benefited from in making their purchase at a lower price.

Why would Wolff sell the asset to someone in the Inland Empire when he lives in L.A.?

He should just pack up and move to the IE. According to reports I've seen it's the only new place in North America financially ready for a MLB team.

He should just pack up and move to the IE. According to reports I've seen it's the only new place in North America financially ready for a MLB team.

Can you provide a link to those reports please? Thank you

Comment from the A's re territorial rights.

http://bayarea.sbnation.com/oakland-athletics/2012/3/7/2852102/oakland-as-statement-on-san-jose-territorial-rights-giants

Surrill: I don't have reports, but it has long been discussed that the IE is the top or among the top areas for getting a new baseball team. It has about 5M people and is growing; it has three minor league teams who are popular; and it's the 13th largest metro area in the country, far larger than many who have teams.

Others commonly mentioned are LV, Northern NJ, and a number of southern locations.

But I would call SJ a far better choice than any of these.

Of course, the Dodgers and Angels would resist this vigorously, so I doubt it would happen.

Can you provide a link to those reports please? Thank you

Here's one. I read a similar article somewhere, but can't remember the site.

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2011/08/baseball-has-few-options-for-expansion.html?appSession=68778755224468&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=5&CPISortType=desc&CPIorderBy=Metropolitan_area

Here's one. I read a similar article somewhere, but can't remember the site.

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2011/08/baseball-has-few-options-for-expansion.html?appSession=68778755224468&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=5&CPISortType=desc&CPIorderBy=Metropolitan_area

Very interesting. I'm not very familiar with the IE.What would be considered the central city of this region? Riverside? San Bernardino?

They should build this stadium in downtown Portland.

Very interesting. I'm not very familiar with the IE.What would be considered the central city of this region? Riverside? San Bernardino?

You have asked an explosive question. Riverside is the largest but San Bernardino is about equal prestige. There are about 5 other cities that are in the 200k range (Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Moreno Valley, Corona, Pomona (technically in LA County).

It is part of the greater LA area (continuous housing and industry) but at some point it becomes a bit too far to conveniently get to LA or coastal OC. The location of the proposed football stadium in Industry (well inland) also takes into account this large population.

Like the OC, they tend to share facilities (stadia, concert venues, transit hubs, recreation).

I see several problems with this statement. First, Congress cannot overrule the Supreme Court. It actually goes the other way around. I'm pretty sure the Supremes would have to revisit this, which might take several years to unfold. Second, Almost every sports owner is a member of the '1%', and would not likely be a target of the GOP. And third, it is extremely rare for a congressional election to go against an overwhelming vote for a Presidential candidate, and at the moment President Obama is looking like he will get well over 400 electoral votes in November. He's even leading in South Carolina, of all places (although I'm not holding my breath on him keeping that lead).

My understanding is that Congress has control of this. The Supreme Ct. is already uncomfortable with it earlier ruling that baseball is not "interstate commerce" but wants to let Congress determine the appropriate antitrust exemptions, rather than trying to build legislation that makes sense itself.

They should build this stadium in downtown Portland.

Portland doesn't have the income to support MLB...nor the willingness to build a stadium....nor enough corporate support...nor the available space for a stadium...nor citizens who care about baseball (They've already lost 5 minor league baseball teams due to poor fan support).

Portland doesn't have the income to support MLB...nor the willingness to build a stadium....nor enough corporate support...nor the available space for a stadium...nor citizens who care about baseball (They've already lost 5 minor league baseball teams due to poor fan support).

Maybe Vancouver then. Should be somewhere on the West Coast.

Maybe Vancouver then. Should be somewhere on the West Coast.

Inland Empire :banana:

Inland Empire :banana:

Ugh. How about someplace INTERESTING. Like, I dunno. Oakland?

Yeah that could work !

Portland doesn't have the income to support MLB...nor the willingness to build a stadium....nor enough corporate support...nor the available space for a stadium...nor citizens who care about baseball
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG.

Portland has had plans for an MLB park on the table for YEARS:

http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/stadium_concept.htm

http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/images/stadium/render_lg.gif

http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/images/stadium/003_lg.jpg

http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/images/stadium/stadium.jpg

(They've already lost 5 minor league baseball teams due to poor fan support).
Or maybe it's because they played in a 20,000-seat stadium that was originally built for football...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG.

Portland has had plans for an MLB park on the table for YEARS:

http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/stadium_concept.htm

http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/images/stadium/render_lg.gif

http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/images/stadium/003_lg.jpg

http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/images/stadium/stadium.jpg


Or maybe it's because they played in a 20,000-seat stadium that was originally built for football...

Those plans have been long, long dead. Marckymarc is completely right. It would never pass if brought to city council and the people anyways.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG.

Portland has had plans for an MLB park on the table for YEARS:

http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/stadium_concept.htm

http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/images/stadium/render_lg.gif

http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/images/stadium/003_lg.jpg

http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/images/stadium/stadium.jpg


Or maybe it's because they played in a 20,000-seat stadium that was originally built for football...

Those plans were all pipe dreams that had very little chance of ever coming to fruition for all the reasons I previously stated.

Fact: Portland doesn't have the income base nor the corporate base to support MLB.

Fact: Citizens groups vehemently opposed recent attempts to build a new minor league stadium anywhere in the PDX metro area.

Fact: Jeld-wen Field was a great baseball venue with a prime central location served by many mass transit options.

Fact: Portlanders don't give a rip about baseball.

Fact: None of those stadium proposals were ever supported with more than token gestures by city leaders due to overwhelming opposition by civic and citizen groups.

Opinion: Portland will NEVER host a MLB franchise.

I'm afraid that I'm with Marckymarc and carnifex on this one. I have a lot of family in NW Oregon (I'm actually in Salem right now) and this area simply does not have the population, money or desire for MLB. As it stands now, the nearest professional baseball is here in Salem, 40 miles south. And that's a short-season Class A team. Most people don't know that this is farming country, so Portland is functionally Des Moines West. Those plans are a joke anyway, as Portland is at least as rainy as Seattle, so a Seattle-style roof would be needed. And the last I heard was Portland School District was going to put up a legal fight to avoid giving up the land for the ballpark.

Portland has great sports fans and would be awesome to see a downtown stadium, but for the reasons outlined above, it's unlikely. If they are going to move, I like the idea of Vancouver or Las Vegas. The Dodgers and Angels would put up a fuss, so it's probably more of a hassle than it's worth to try and get a deal done in the Inland Empire.

Fact: Portland doesn't have the income base nor the corporate base to support MLB.
<-----------

Fact: Citizens groups vehemently opposed recent attempts to build a new minor league stadium anywhere in the PDX metro area.
because it's f**king minor-league baseball

Fact: Jeld-wen Field was a great baseball venue with a prime central location served by many mass transit options.
that was too big for f**king minor-league baseball

Fact: Portlanders don't give a rip about motherf**king minor-league baseball.
fixed

Fact: PDX is the most populous MSA without an MLB franchise, moreso than 4 current MSAs with franchises (and barely trailing Pittsburgh, whose population is declining while Portland's is rising).

Opinion: Portland will NEVER host a MLB franchise.
A'right then, let's see what happens the next 5 years if Tampa Bay keeps waffling on building a new park...

Fact: PDX is the most populous MSA without an MLB franchise, moreso than 4 current MSAs with franchises (and barely trailing Pittsburgh, whose population is declining while Portland's is rising).



Portland's income base (a key factor in determining a city's viability for a MLB franchise which you conveniently are ignoring) is well below the minimum requirements.

Portland's income base is roughly the same as Tulsa, Oklahoma.

You need to get a clue as to what it takes for a city to qualify for a ML team. Population is not the be-all-end-all of determining factors. Income base (both personal and corporate) are far more important--and Portland is insufficient in both of those categories.

Fact: PDX is the most populous MSA without an MLB franchise, moreso than 4 current MSAs with franchises (and barely trailing Pittsburgh, whose population is declining while Portland's is rising)..

Fact:

TPI of Pittsburgh: $103 Billion
TPI of Portland: $41 Billion

Fact: MLB minimum requirement: $85 Billion

Portland's income base (a key factor in determining a city's viability for a MLB franchise which you conveniently are ignoring) is well below the minimum requirements.

Portland's income base is roughly the same as Tulsa, Oklahoma.

You need to get a clue as to what it takes for a city to qualify for a ML team. Population is not the be-all-end-all of determining factors. Income base (both personal and corporate) are far more important--and Portland is insufficient in both of those categories.

Fact:

TPI of Pittsburgh: $103 Billion
TPI of Portland: $41 Billion
Fact: You're only off by...I dunno, about $50 BILLION:
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/mpi/2010/pdf/mpi0810.pdf

Portland's $90B TPI is higher than:

$85B Kansas City
$84B Cleveland
$84B Cincinnati
$68B Milwaukee

Is $50Billion alot of money :dunno:

Is $50Billion alot of money :dunno:
About 35 thousand million pounds, if I have the American/British conversions right.

About 35 thousand million pounds, if I have the American/British conversions right.

Now thats alot of Tea :lol:

Umm, I think Portland's stadium is facing the wrong way. It should be facing the river and downtown, methinks.

Fact: You're only off by...I dunno, about $50 BILLION:
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/mpi/2010/pdf/mpi0810.pdf

Portland's $90B TPI is higher than:

$85B Kansas City
$84B Cleveland
$84B Cincinnati
$68B Milwaukee

I stand corrected. I was going off this business journal article (http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2011/08/baseball-has-few-options-for-expansion.html?appSession=68778755224468&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=5&CPISortType=desc&CPIorderBy=Metropolitan_area) which was obviously using wrong info. However, I stand by my opinion that Portland will not have a MLB franchise any time soon. Name me another MLB expansion market in the past 50 years that didn't have a successful minor league team preceding it.

Saying that Jeld-wen was "too big" is a bullshit argument, IMO. The Denver Bears played in 75,000-seat Mile High Stadium, but fans still showed up to support the team. Portland just isn't a baseball town.

Umm, I think Portland's stadium is facing the wrong way. It should be facing the river and downtown, methinks.

You can't build a ballpark with the sun setting in the batter's eyes--which is where it would if the ballpark were facing south-west as you suggest it should.

If Bud and his friends don't get around to business we can rename this the "Portland Stadium" thread and just keep right on going.

I suppose chatting up Magic, Stan Kroenke, Steve Cohen and various other billionaires is keeping the MLB owners too busy to think about poor San Jose.

If Bud and his friends don't get around to business we can rename this the "Portland Stadium" thread and just keep right on going.

I suppose chatting up Magic, Stan Kroenke, Steve Cohen and various other billionaires is keeping the MLB owners too busy to think about poor San Jose.
Well, you know what an intellectual giant they have in Bud Selig. We should do nothing but defer to his wisdom.

And keep shelling out tons of money, of course.

A bit off-topic, but I just don't see a MLB stadium in Portland working without some kind of roof involved (preferably a retractable one).

Portland would definately draw 25 to 35,000 per game although traffic issues would have to be addressed.
A better location would have been where they built those worthless condos down by the Ross island bridge.

A glimmer of movement. SJ and the A's both seem interested in getting a vote on the move onto the agenda at the MLB meeting in May. Apparently the idea is to get an up or down vote, or get Bud Selig to exercise his "best interests of baseball" power to allow the move, or set the stage for litigation.

Litigation is the hydrogen bomb in the closet since MLB is currently exempt from anti-trust law but there is a lot of reason to believe they could get the exemption thrown out if the issue is litigated, say, by an owner going broke in one location that requests a move to a few miles away where much of his fan and sponsor base is located, but is blocked by a competitor who "owns" that location. The factual record is one that brings a tear of joy to the eye of stud litigator Alan Ruby (who by some coincidence is the A's newly appointed counsel) and not so much to the Giant's counsel, Ron van Buskirk.

Never one to be subtle, Ruby has said he looks forward to watching an A's game in SJ in the near future. (However, he did not add that he hopes that the federal pen has the game on TV that week so that Bud and the Relocation Committee could watch it as well.)

Of course both the A's and SJ deny any interest in litigating and express confidence that MLB will soon decide in their favor.

If San fran Giants dont allow them to move to SJ what happens? Oakland cant go anywhere. NO cities will build a baseball stadium only to HOPE for someone to come.

Portland would definately draw 25 to 35,000 per game although traffic issues would have to be addressed.
Not even. The AAA team had trouble drawing 5,000 per game.

And the stadium would definitely need a roof. There has been almost 1/4 of an inch of rain today.

Not even. The AAA team had trouble drawing 5,000 per game.

And the stadium would definitely need a roof. There has been almost 1/4 of an inch of rain today.

A MLB team in PDX might work...might.

I don't think the Beavers were ever marketed properly, AAA or not.

A roof would be needed but the good thing, unlike Miami, is that it would be open most of the time from June to September, and it wouldn't need to be climate controlled--just a cover like Safeco.

Traffic and location would be two major issues. No one wants a stadium in their neighborhood...and traffic in Portland sucks as it is...throw in a 35,000 seat stadium and God knows what a nightmare it would be, MAX or not.

MLB in Portland is just a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.

Not even. The AAA team had trouble drawing 5,000 per game.


This is the case for most AAA teams. It is not a reliable indication of MLB attendance.

This is the case for most AAA teams. It is not a reliable indication of MLB attendance.
I should have mentioned that this was the lowest attendance in AAA, by a fair margin.

OK, so a bunch of guys from Oakland and LA want to buy the A's, but they're not for sale according to Wolff. Bud is king of dissing the Giants but in a nice way. The state is going after the land but that will get worked out in court, since the state will presumably sell the land in any event.

Anything else new? Oh, the A's attendance in Oakland is the 2nd lowest in the majors; what happened to Cleveland to make them that unpopular?

what happened to Cleveland to make them that unpopular?

In the last 10 years the Indians have only made the playoffs once. And in that time they've only had 2 seasons over .500.

That's usually enough, especially considering their long history of bad baseball and poor attendance.

In the last 10 years the Indians have only made the playoffs once. And in that time they've only had 2 seasons over .500.

That's usually enough, especially considering their long history of bad baseball and poor attendance.
True story: back before Christmas of '97 I called the Indians box office long-distance (Mom damn-near killed me :lol:) to ask if there were any seats left for the '98 season and the lady said all that only SRO tickets were available.

Hadn't seen this angle yet.

LINK (http://newballpark.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/lf-cf-high-560.jpg)

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/9423/85447881.jpg

Not sure I like how little seating this creates down the right field line.

Hadn't seen this angle yet.

LINK (http://newballpark.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/lf-cf-high-560.jpg)

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/9423/85447881.jpg

Not sure I like how little seating this creates down the right field line.

yeah its a little cut off. Its also seems to be shoehorned into that location

Considering its a singe instance I really like it. Despite the retro look it doesn't feel like Camden Yards Mk XII. Considering the capacity I think its fine, though you do lose some pretty good seats and end up with a bunch in the outfield.

I'm sort of torn. It does look awfully cramped, but then again you could say that about Fenway and Wrigley and some of cool stadiums that were torn down for anonymous looking, half-filled monsters. With both the Giants and A's in the same metro, 35k should be enough seating. Less than that starts to get embarrassing.

Here was an idea from a few years ago in the same Diridon Station site that was on my hard drive from... I can't remember when, so I can't list the source. :p

It's slightly oriented differently, which seems to give it more seating down the right field line. But I guess I still like the current design better.

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1801/sanjose1.jpg

Ouch. A kick from Bud and MLB. Seems that he is not going to worry about what the A's do. This could mean a move to the Inland Empire or out of state.

But we're going to hear a number of interpretations, I'm sure.

Ouch. A kick from Bud and MLB. Seems that he is not going to worry about what the A's do. This could mean a move to the Inland Empire or out of state.

But we're going to hear a number of interpretations, I'm sure.
A non-decision decision. Which is what Bud does best. I suspect that he's hoping the status quo continues until he retires.

We would gladly take the Sacramento Kings and Oakland A's. Those drives from Orange County and San Bernardino to downtown LA are pretty horrible.

We would gladly take the Sacramento Kings and Oakland A's. Those drives from Orange County and San Bernardino to downtown LA are pretty horrible.
The same perverted laws that are preventing the A's from moving to SJ will also prevent them from moving anywhere in southern California.

Hadn't seen this angle yet.

LINK (http://newballpark.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/lf-cf-high-560.jpg)

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/9423/85447881.jpg

Not sure I like how little seating this creates down the right field line.
Not only that, but those seats sticking out of the building in the left field corner are terrible.

Im sorry if this offends anyone, but from a frustrated A's fan.........

Fuck You Bud Selig, you slithering, spineless coward !!

That is all, carry on

Im sorry if this offends anyone, but from a frustrated A's fan.........

Fuck You Bud Selig, you slithering, spineless coward !!

That is all, carry on
You should quit holding back, and tell us what you really think.

Im sorry if this offends anyone, but from a frustrated A's fan.........

Fuck You Bud Selig, you slithering, spineless coward !!

That is all, carry on

I you trying to say you're not a fan of Mr Bug Selig :dunno:

I you trying to say you're not a fan of Mr Bug Selig :dunno:

It's been a very frustrating process for us A's fans. We need some kind of decision already. Either work something out with Oakland or lets get the ball rolling in SJ already. Being in limbo sucks! Selig is too chickenshit to make some kind of decision. Leaving the bay would crush us A's fans.!

You just have to look at the attendace figures for the Blazers and Timbers to see that a mlb would work in this town no problem.And if Mr Phillip Knight wanted one it would happen.

Nothing personal against Portland, but Seattle is much bigger and the Mariners are right at the bottom of attendance. Hard to imagine who is going to buy the 10k luxury boxes that the A's are talking about.

Pro sports are becoming more about the media rights, and a team that only covers the state of Oregon is going to be at a huge disadvantage.

Nothing personal against Portland, but Seattle is much bigger and the Mariners are right at the bottom of attendance.
they used to be near the top of attendance back when Safeco opened and they were playing good baseball

they used to be near the top of attendance back when Safeco opened and they were playing good baseball

Nothing against Seattle either, but it has the mid-market problems that Portland is going to have, only Portland is much worse, since it is smaller.

1. Almost all new stadiums generate crowds. Then the interest wears out.

2. Almost all cities support their teams pretty well when they're winning. But you have to support them when they are losing as well, since most teams are serious contenders maybe 1/3 of the time.

Nothing against Seattle either, but it has the mid-market problems that Portland is going to have, only Portland is much worse, since it is smaller.

1. Almost all new stadiums generate crowds. Then the interest wears out.

2. Almost all cities support their teams pretty well when they're winning. But you have to support them when they are losing as well, since most teams are serious contenders maybe 1/3 of the time.
In Portland there are thousands of fathers and sons who would love to spend regular quality time with their sons who haven't got a chance of getting a timbers ticket or the totally overpriced Blazer tickets who haven't made the play offs in god knows how long.Just look at the fanatasism of the Timbers and Blazers fans to realise baseball would work in this town.Portland /Vancouver is a huge market and there are plenty of businesses to buy the luxury boxes,Intel,Nike,addidas,tektronix,HP to name a few plus the untold software millionaires and the old Portland money,schnitzers etc.I think a 30000 capacity ballpark would work perfectly,the two big problems why it probably won't happen are Paul Allen's stranglehold on the Rose Garden area(he nixed an nhl team coming when the Winterhawks regularly draw 12000 plus at memorial coliseum)and the strange liberal politicians we have running the city,we don't even have paved roads in huge swaths of our city.I really hope the A's get their move as I truly beieive the fans deserve it with their rich baseball heritage.Seattle is a different kettle of fish altogether.like a different country up there with many choices to spend their entertainment dollars.Plus Portland has a fantastic rail system that would bring fans in from all over the city cheaply.Also from Vancouver WA in the near future.

I certainly don't want to get into a discussion of Portland baseball (or Seattle hoops).

I'm sympathetic to the arguments, but just trying to give perspective. The same sort of argument is being made by Vancouver, LV, Sacramento, the IE, Salt Lake (and Tucson and Albuquerque, for all I know) just in the far west; probably 20 more cities nationwide. And the fact is that baseball attendance in Seattle is poor and Portland is smaller, both in people and as a media market and national draw.

Lew Wolff has some decisions to make on where to focus. It shouldn't be thought of as an insult to Portland either way since its a business decision.

Interesting to see a SF giants tickets banner below our discussion.Certainly wouldn't want a team to relocate to portlandhave to be an expansion for me.Think it is just the most terrible part of sports.
Don't know much about Oakland but isn't their a waterfront area that could be developed,Those area's usually become pretty vibrant and successful in a short space of time.

Interesting to see a SF giants tickets banner below our discussion.Certainly wouldn't want a team to relocate to portlandhave to be an expansion for me.Think it is just the most terrible part of sports.
Don't know much about Oakland but isn't their a waterfront area that could be developed,Those area's usually become pretty vibrant and successful in a short space of time.
they had plans for a ballpark at Jack London Square but I think they fell through

In Portland there are thousands of fathers and sons who would love to spend regular quality time with their sons who haven't got a chance of getting a timbers ticket or the totally overpriced Blazer tickets who haven't made the play offs in god knows how long.Just look at the fanatasism of the Timbers and Blazers fans to realise baseball would work in this town.Portland /Vancouver is a huge market and there are plenty of businesses to buy the luxury boxes,Intel,Nike,addidas,tektronix,HP to name a few plus the untold software millionaires and the old Portland money,schnitzers etc.I think a 30000 capacity ballpark would work perfectly,the two big problems why it probably won't happen are Paul Allen's stranglehold on the Rose Garden area(he nixed an nhl team coming when the Winterhawks regularly draw 12000 plus at memorial coliseum)and the strange liberal politicians we have running the city,we don't even have paved roads in huge swaths of our city.I really hope the A's get their move as I truly beieive the fans deserve it with their rich baseball heritage.Seattle is a different kettle of fish altogether.like a different country up there with many choices to spend their entertainment dollars.Plus Portland has a fantastic rail system that would bring fans in from all over the city cheaply.Also from Vancouver WA in the near future.
This is so much horsepucky it's not funny. Portland is not a huge market. New York and Los Angeles are huge markets. Portland has 2.3 million in the metro area. That makes it a small market.

Maybe there are thousands of fathers who want to take their sons to baseball games. So why didn't they go to Beavers games? The Beavers had the lowest attendance in all of AAA baseball, and was only a few hundred per game higher than the Short Season A Volcanoes, who play 35 miles down the road. That's pretty bad when you can barely outdraw a team that is four rungs lower on the ladder, that plays in a metro area 1/5 the size.

And you still haven't mentioned where the billion dollars for the domed stadium is coming from.

In Portland there are thousands of fathers and sons who would love to spend regular quality time with their sons who haven't got a chance of getting a timbers ticket or the totally overpriced Blazer tickets who haven't made the play offs in god knows how long.Just look at the fanatasism of the Timbers and Blazers fans to realise baseball would work in this town.Portland /Vancouver is a huge market and there are plenty of businesses to buy the luxury boxes,Intel,Nike,addidas,tektronix,HP to name a few plus the untold software millionaires and the old Portland money,schnitzers etc.I think a 30000 capacity ballpark would work perfectly,the two big problems why it probably won't happen are Paul Allen's stranglehold on the Rose Garden area(he nixed an nhl team coming when the Winterhawks regularly draw 12000 plus at memorial coliseum)and the strange liberal politicians we have running the city,we don't even have paved roads in huge swaths of our city.I really hope the A's get their move as I truly beieive the fans deserve it with their rich baseball heritage.Seattle is a different kettle of fish altogether.like a different country up there with many choices to spend their entertainment dollars.Plus Portland has a fantastic rail system that would bring fans in from all over the city cheaply.Also from Vancouver WA in the near future.

I hear what you're saying, but PDX is still a smallish mid-market as far as MLB markets go.

Metro Populations 2.0 to 2.4 million:

Pittsburgh, PA MSA: 2,359,746
Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro, OR–WA MSA: 2,262,605
San Antonio–New Braunfels, TX MSA: 2,194,927
Sacramento–Arden–Arcade–Roseville, CA MSA: 2,176,235
Orlando–Kissimmee–Sanford, FL MSA: 2,171,360
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN MSA: 2,138,038
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH MSA: 2,068,283
Kansas City, MO-KS MSA: 2,052,676

-=-=-=-

As far as the Winterhawks hockey team--they wished they drew 12,000. They have averaged less than 5,000 per game over the past 5 seasons.

And you still haven't mentioned where the billion dollars for the domed stadium is coming from.

How about a 10% tax on beer, coffee and strip clubs? :lol:

They'd have the billion in a few months. :)