SAN JOSE - Cisco Field / Oakland Athletics Ballpark (32,000) - Page 9

Marckymarc · January 9th, 2012, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knitemplar

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.

Darloeye · January 9th, 2012, 10:35 PM

Detroit Lions played in pontiac in the old silverdome for years

pesto · January 12th, 2012, 05:58 PM

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.

pesto · January 12th, 2012, 08:54 PM

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.

will101 · January 13th, 2012, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoulderGrad

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

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.

pesto · January 13th, 2012, 07:39 PM

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.

will101 · January 14th, 2012, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

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?

pesto · January 16th, 2012, 07:13 PM

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.

carnifex2005 · March 4th, 2012, 05:08 PM

MLB likely to uphold San Francisco Giants' territorial rights in San Jose, leaving the A's stuck in Oakland

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.

slipperydog · March 4th, 2012, 05:48 PM

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

KingmanIII · March 4th, 2012, 06:20 PM

territorial rights are fucking lame

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

will101 · March 4th, 2012, 08:27 PM

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.

KingmanIII · March 4th, 2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will101

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...

will101 · March 4th, 2012, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingmanIII

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.

pesto · March 4th, 2012, 11:13 PM

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.

tommassi · March 6th, 2012, 02:14 PM

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.

bewilder2 · March 6th, 2012, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommassi

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.

pesto · March 6th, 2012, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bewilder2

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.

will101 · March 7th, 2012, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

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).

will101 · March 7th, 2012, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommassi

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.

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

January 9th, 2012, 10:35 PM	#162
Darloeye Registered User Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: County Durham, England Posts: 1,666 Likes (Received): 20	Detroit Lions played in pontiac in the old silverdome for years

January 12th, 2012, 05:58 PM	#163
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,159 Likes (Received): 26	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.

January 12th, 2012, 08:54 PM	#164
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,159 Likes (Received): 26	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.

January 13th, 2012, 07:39 PM	#166
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,159 Likes (Received): 26	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.

January 16th, 2012, 07:13 PM	#168
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,159 Likes (Received): 26	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.

March 4th, 2012, 05:08 PM	#169
carnifex2005 Registered User Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 665 Likes (Received): 14	MLB likely to uphold San Francisco Giants' territorial rights in San Jose, leaving the A's stuck in Oakland 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.

March 4th, 2012, 05:48 PM	#170
slipperydog Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,794 Likes (Received): 40	I thought that clause has been rather overlooked in the discussions about the stadium, and it hadn't really been answered until now.

March 4th, 2012, 06:20 PM	#171
KingmanIII Registered User Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Killa City, Misery Posts: 2,036 Likes (Received): 7	territorial rights are fucking lame not like the Giants need them to survive, of all teams...

March 4th, 2012, 08:27 PM	#172
will101 Registered User Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: silicon valley or Salem Posts: 1,497 Likes (Received): 13	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.

March 4th, 2012, 11:13 PM	#175
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,159 Likes (Received): 26	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.

March 6th, 2012, 02:14 PM	#176
tommassi Registered User Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Madrid Posts: 84 Likes (Received): 3	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.