SAN JOSE - Cisco Field / Oakland Athletics Ballpark (32,000) - Page 14

Nikola10 · June 8th, 2012, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vadin

Some scenes were at Fenway in Boston, Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, and the Oakland Coliseum.

thanks Vadin for the reply

thewesthammatt · June 8th, 2012, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will101

I'm back in Salem right now. Getting used to the worst roads in the US once again. And reading in the Oregonian and Statesman Journal about drivers with multiple DUIs just get tickets, and how virtually every municipality is laying off teachers and firemen, just so the rich get richer. I would kill to be able to live in the Bay Area full time again.

I think you could say the same thing about the whole of the country with all the austerty measures being implemented nationwide.
Oregon does have a policy of alcahol and drug rehabilitation before jailtime which I happen to agree with.
Agreed oregon does have some of the worst roads but Portland cosistently ranks in the top 10 most livible cities in the Nation and Oregon 101 has to be one of the best in the world.
PGE park played on astroturf shared with the Portland state vikings football was hardly a destination ballpark and Oregonians voted on this fact with their attendance.If Portland had ine of those gorgeous rertro small ballparks like you see around the nation Portlands attendance figures would've been comparable.
Portland is a city of sports and beer fanatics,a great combination,just look at the Blazers and Timbers.Terrible teams but sold out every week,the Timbers for the whole season pretty much.
I think the new MLB park in Portland should be modeled on a traditional pub with cheap beer and wine and 20 oz pints with beer gardens all over the place.

eMKay · June 8th, 2012, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingmanIII

Why didn't more Minnesotans and Winnipeggers go to Moose games?

The top draw in MiLB, the Lehigh Valley IronPigs, averaged 9,248 fans per game last year.

Now, imagine what 9,248 fans look like in a 20,000-seat stadium. Yeah.

Cavernous stadium = poor atmosphere = lower attendance. It's a vicious cycle.

It would look like what we have in Buffalo, but to be fair, our ballpark was built when we were trying to get a MLB team, and was built to be easily expandable. So the lower and club level are MLB sized. I'm predicting a major downsize when it gets renovated, which it needs soon. Bisons are averaging around 6000 right now, was 16,000 the first decade or so the ballpark was open. I love this ballpark, it was the one that started the whole "retro" trend, but it's just too big.

pesto · June 8th, 2012, 05:43 PM

Fascinating: how did the SJ Cisco Field discussion become a comparison of Salem and Stockton?

will101 · June 9th, 2012, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

Fascinating: how did the SJ Cisco Field discussion become a comparison of Salem and Stockton?

It isn't exactly that. 'thewesthammatt' was going off on how Oregon is paradise in Earth and would be a perfect place for an MLB team to move to. I took exception to some of his descriptions, and mentioned just how bad the attendance was for the AAA Portland team. and 'eMKay' has mentioned how the ballpark in Buffalo NY is too big for the team there. Haven't noticed anything about Stockton, although I admit I played a part in taking this discussion away from the saga of the A's needing a new home.

pesto · June 9th, 2012, 05:23 PM

lol. KingmanIII mentioned Stockton up above, and I brought up Ashland, so we're all to blame. But that happens here regularly since Bud is so slow.

surrill · June 10th, 2012, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

lol. KingmanIII mentioned Stockton up above, and I brought up Ashland, so we're all to blame. But that happens here regularly since Bud is so slow.

Pretty much all up to Bud now. Lew Wolfe and Larry Baer apperantly have met and discussed the issue of TR and both mentioned that it's all on Bud now. They were on 95.7 last week and mentioned this.

will101 · June 10th, 2012, 07:33 AM

Is it possible that Bud died a couple of years ago, and no one noticed?

pesto · June 10th, 2012, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will101

Is it possible that Bud died a couple of years ago, and no one noticed?

That would explain a lot. And the 20M salary goes directly to his estate? Maybe pay it to the Giants for a couple of years and they would relent.

pesto · July 12th, 2012, 10:05 PM

Bud hints that the delays in reaching a decision arise from new issues and new facts being developed re the Giants "ownership" of SJ. This seems very likely to relate to the not-so-subtle comments from legal counsel that litigation could arise if there is no decision soon.

As far as I know, no one doubts that MLB has violated the basic antitrust law; their only defense is that they are not subject to it. Given the egregious facts of the case (the A's losing money, the Giants getting rich, a top 10 city eager to use the stadium to revitalize it's downtown; the Giants being located 50 miles away) it seems likely the A's win. Then the court needs to decide how much of the antitrust "exemption" should remain in place; and there will be calls for Congressional hearings, which will prove to be a year-long embarrassment and will likely end in the exemption being chipped away or even eliminated.

I would guess that's more or less what the owners are talking about.

pesto · July 17th, 2012, 06:54 PM

Mayor KJ bids for the A's and is quickly, but politely, shot down by A's ownership, who seem to rank them below Oakland, which has previously been described as not being of interest.

Not exactly a step forward for Cisco Field, but there certainly don't seem to be any legit rivals on the horizon.

pesto · August 5th, 2012, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

Mayor KJ bids for the A's and is quickly, but politely, shot down by A's ownership, who seem to rank them below Oakland, which has previously been described as not being of interest.

Not exactly a step forward for Cisco Field, but there certainly don't seem to be any legit rivals on the horizon.

The MLB committee on the relocation of the A's was in town and met with Oakland and SJ. Apparently nothing noteworthy in SJ, where they were told that the funding and site are ready to build when the decision is made.

The Oakland discussions are a bit more interesting since reportedly Coliseum City (which Quan has pushed) was not discussed but a new proposal was.

Just as speculation, MLB may have already written off the economics of Coliseum City and wants to determine if the new proposal makes any economic sense. If it doesn't then they would seem to be in a weak position to bar the A's from moving to SJ. Blocking a team from making a business judgement to move to a potentially profitable location when no other viable alternatives are available is a sure loser under antitrust law.

This would seem to explain why there were no meetings with the Giants or Wolff, whose input on the viability of Coliseum City or new proposal would not be particularly useful.

pesto · August 6th, 2012, 06:44 PM

An interesting additional note. It surfaces that Brad Ruskin, an antitrust trial attorney, also attended the meeting between SJ and MLB. Presumably he was getting some background so as to give an opinion to MLB, since the A's already have retained Alan Ruby, another antitrust stud (it would seem overkill for them to bring in Ruskin as well).

This seems to support the theory that MLB is trying to determine how badly they will get clobbered if the A's right to move goes to trial. I can't imagine what subtleties Ruskin was focusing on, but the general concept still seems to be that you can't keep someone who is losing money from exploring possibilities that would allow them to make money, especially when it is their direct competitor that is blocking them from putting themselves in a position to compete and bring a better product to the consumers in the area.

Of course, the other possibility is that MLB is really just giving the appearance of doing something and hoping that somehow everything works out.

surrill · August 7th, 2012, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

An interesting additional note. It surfaces that Brad Ruskin, an antitrust trial attorney, also attended the meeting between SJ and MLB. Presumably he was getting some background so as to give an opinion to MLB, since the A's already have retained Alan Ruby, another antitrust stud (it would seem overkill for them to bring in Ruskin as well).

This seems to support the theory that MLB is trying to determine how badly they will get clobbered if the A's right to move goes to trial. I can't imagine what subtleties Ruskin was focusing on, but the general concept still seems to be that you can't keep someone who is losing money from exploring possibilities that would allow them to make money, especially when it is their direct competitor that is blocking them from putting themselves in a position to compete and bring a better product to the consumers in the area.

Of course, the other possibility is that MLB is really just giving the appearance of doing something and hoping that somehow everything works out.

Probably the latter. Selig is too spineless to make a decision and prefers that everything just magically work itself out.

pesto · August 7th, 2012, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surrill

Probably the latter. Selig is too spineless to make a decision and prefers that everything just magically work itself out.

Don't we all. But is that what they pay him 20M a year for? Maybe.

pesto · September 5th, 2012, 07:25 PM

It looks like the antitrust litigation is getting fleshed in. SJ is now exploring the organizational structure of the "local" group that is suing to stop Cisco Field. It has long been common knowledge that the Giants and city of SF have been funding it, but now SJ (under the guise of determining if the "locals" have standing to sue) is trying to document it for future litigation and for PR purposes.

Meanwhile, one of the "locals" has taken down her Facebook site, where she used to show off her allegiance to the Giants; and a team spokesman who had previously said that they were affiliated with the "locals" has said that all affiliation was severed some time ago. Can't wait for the details of their depositions to leak.

The showing that SF, the Giants and the "locals" were acting in concert would be another piece toward establishing a conspiracy beyond MLB to keep the A's out of the Giants' market. Plus it puts the Giants in a bad light with the public and press and may provide some owners enough cover to not object to permitting the move to happen.

When you look guilty enough, it's sometimes not necessary to convict you.

pesto · September 21st, 2012, 07:21 PM

Time for the regular "pre-MLB meetings" buzz.

A couple of sources claim that MLB is near a proposed agreement, whereby the Giants get a small amount; Wolff and Fisher commit to sufficient equity fundng to make the A's a real "playah"; and Cisco (or others) contribute more for naming rights. The goal is to get a solid, financially secure team providing a quality product into a major growth area. It seems do-able since Wolff has already proposed putting equity into building Cisco Field.

The motivation here may be the 49ers, who have recently been raking in pots of money from Silicon Valley, and the surprising play of the A's, which could make suites a hot commodity. Strike while the iron is hot.

theskythelimit · September 22nd, 2012, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

Time for the regular "pre-MLB meetings" buzz.

A couple of sources claim that MLB is near a proposed agreement, whereby the Giants get a small amount; Wolff and Fisher commit to sufficient equity fundng to make the A's a real "playah"; and Cisco (or others) contribute more for naming rights. The goal is to get a solid, financially secure team providing a quality product into a major growth area. It seems do-able since Wolff has already proposed putting equity into building Cisco Field.

The motivation here may be the 49ers, who have recently been raking in pots of money from Silicon Valley, and the surprising play of the A's, which could make suites a hot commodity. Strike while the iron is hot.

The source is the LA Times. As others have pointed out, the Giants need to agree, which they won't, IMO, and a vote still bees to be had by the owners. Wolf already said that he would not support a suit by San Jose to push the issue. A lawsuit by the Giants will push it out another year or two. In the end, I think wolf and fisher will throw in the towel and sell the team.

pesto · September 22nd, 2012, 05:45 PM

Not sure the Giants can do much if MLB says this is the deal. Other than sue, which makes them the bad guys not only with MLB but all over the Bay Area and invites a countersuit on antitrust grounds, with the threat of treble damages.

No vote is needed (Selig can act alone). But (per the rumors) it would be an easy win since the Giants are viewed as opportunists on this issue. Plus the example of the 49ers shows the owners that the Giants are costing MLB a billion in foregone revenue and the possibility of getting a struggling franchise back in the black.

pesto · September 23rd, 2012, 07:22 PM

Rumors: Buster Olney reports that Bud Selig may be near the 3/4 vote he needs to settle the A's dispute with the Giants (he could also take unilateral action). The terms seem to be the same (small payment to Giants, new equity for A's). Wolff says he believes there will be some resolution soon and that he has no inclination to litgate, sell or leave the Bay Area. The stadium plan has also been expanded to 36,000 in light of expected demand.

The NY Times and others note that MLB has more motivation to get Cisco built than just the money being lost from suites sales. With the A's likely to get into the playoffs, there will be at least one series played in a dilapidated multi-purpose bowl with visible football markings, poor site-lines and (if they don't sell-out) acres of tarp-covered seats. Or maybe even a World Series...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

June 8th, 2012, 05:43 PM	#264
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,169 Likes (Received): 27	Fascinating: how did the SJ Cisco Field discussion become a comparison of Salem and Stockton?

June 9th, 2012, 05:23 PM	#266
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,169 Likes (Received): 27	lol. KingmanIII mentioned Stockton up above, and I brought up Ashland, so we're all to blame. But that happens here regularly since Bud is so slow.

June 10th, 2012, 07:33 AM	#268
will101 Registered User Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: silicon valley or Salem Posts: 1,502 Likes (Received): 13	Is it possible that Bud died a couple of years ago, and no one noticed?

July 12th, 2012, 10:05 PM	#270
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,169 Likes (Received): 27	Bud hints that the delays in reaching a decision arise from new issues and new facts being developed re the Giants "ownership" of SJ. This seems very likely to relate to the not-so-subtle comments from legal counsel that litigation could arise if there is no decision soon. As far as I know, no one doubts that MLB has violated the basic antitrust law; their only defense is that they are not subject to it. Given the egregious facts of the case (the A's losing money, the Giants getting rich, a top 10 city eager to use the stadium to revitalize it's downtown; the Giants being located 50 miles away) it seems likely the A's win. Then the court needs to decide how much of the antitrust "exemption" should remain in place; and there will be calls for Congressional hearings, which will prove to be a year-long embarrassment and will likely end in the exemption being chipped away or even eliminated. I would guess that's more or less what the owners are talking about.

July 17th, 2012, 06:54 PM	#271
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,169 Likes (Received): 27	Mayor KJ bids for the A's and is quickly, but politely, shot down by A's ownership, who seem to rank them below Oakland, which has previously been described as not being of interest. Not exactly a step forward for Cisco Field, but there certainly don't seem to be any legit rivals on the horizon.

August 6th, 2012, 06:44 PM	#273
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,169 Likes (Received): 27	An interesting additional note. It surfaces that Brad Ruskin, an antitrust trial attorney, also attended the meeting between SJ and MLB. Presumably he was getting some background so as to give an opinion to MLB, since the A's already have retained Alan Ruby, another antitrust stud (it would seem overkill for them to bring in Ruskin as well). This seems to support the theory that MLB is trying to determine how badly they will get clobbered if the A's right to move goes to trial. I can't imagine what subtleties Ruskin was focusing on, but the general concept still seems to be that you can't keep someone who is losing money from exploring possibilities that would allow them to make money, especially when it is their direct competitor that is blocking them from putting themselves in a position to compete and bring a better product to the consumers in the area. Of course, the other possibility is that MLB is really just giving the appearance of doing something and hoping that somehow everything works out.

September 5th, 2012, 07:25 PM	#276
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,169 Likes (Received): 27	It looks like the antitrust litigation is getting fleshed in. SJ is now exploring the organizational structure of the "local" group that is suing to stop Cisco Field. It has long been common knowledge that the Giants and city of SF have been funding it, but now SJ (under the guise of determining if the "locals" have standing to sue) is trying to document it for future litigation and for PR purposes. Meanwhile, one of the "locals" has taken down her Facebook site, where she used to show off her allegiance to the Giants; and a team spokesman who had previously said that they were affiliated with the "locals" has said that all affiliation was severed some time ago. Can't wait for the details of their depositions to leak. The showing that SF, the Giants and the "locals" were acting in concert would be another piece toward establishing a conspiracy beyond MLB to keep the A's out of the Giants' market. Plus it puts the Giants in a bad light with the public and press and may provide some owners enough cover to not object to permitting the move to happen. When you look guilty enough, it's sometimes not necessary to convict you.

September 21st, 2012, 07:21 PM	#277
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,169 Likes (Received): 27	Time for the regular "pre-MLB meetings" buzz. A couple of sources claim that MLB is near a proposed agreement, whereby the Giants get a small amount; Wolff and Fisher commit to sufficient equity fundng to make the A's a real "playah"; and Cisco (or others) contribute more for naming rights. The goal is to get a solid, financially secure team providing a quality product into a major growth area. It seems do-able since Wolff has already proposed putting equity into building Cisco Field. The motivation here may be the 49ers, who have recently been raking in pots of money from Silicon Valley, and the surprising play of the A's, which could make suites a hot commodity. Strike while the iron is hot.

September 22nd, 2012, 05:45 PM	#279
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,169 Likes (Received): 27	Not sure the Giants can do much if MLB says this is the deal. Other than sue, which makes them the bad guys not only with MLB but all over the Bay Area and invites a countersuit on antitrust grounds, with the threat of treble damages. No vote is needed (Selig can act alone). But (per the rumors) it would be an easy win since the Giants are viewed as opportunists on this issue. Plus the example of the 49ers shows the owners that the Giants are costing MLB a billion in foregone revenue and the possibility of getting a struggling franchise back in the black.

September 23rd, 2012, 07:22 PM	#280
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,169 Likes (Received): 27	Rumors: Buster Olney reports that Bud Selig may be near the 3/4 vote he needs to settle the A's dispute with the Giants (he could also take unilateral action). The terms seem to be the same (small payment to Giants, new equity for A's). Wolff says he believes there will be some resolution soon and that he has no inclination to litgate, sell or leave the Bay Area. The stadium plan has also been expanded to 36,000 in light of expected demand. The NY Times and others note that MLB has more motivation to get Cisco built than just the money being lost from suites sales. With the A's likely to get into the playoffs, there will be at least one series played in a dilapidated multi-purpose bowl with visible football markings, poor site-lines and (if they don't sell-out) acres of tarp-covered seats. Or maybe even a World Series...