mcj882000 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 You know, the Giants are putting up such a big fight to keep SJ, sometimes I wonder if it'd actually be comparatively easier for the A's to move back to Philly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Why wouldn't the Giants fight to keep the San Jose market? It's one of the club's assets, and a valuable one to boot. They'd be foolish to just give it away to their competitors without fair compensation. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBGKon Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Just now, Gothamite said: Why wouldn't the Giants fight to keep the San Jose market? It's one of the club's assets, and a valuable one to boot. They'd be foolish to just give it away to their competitors without fair compensation. And their Calid League affiliate is there, as well as the fact that I'm sure SJ is a huge growing region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Is it true that the Giants have only held territorial rights to SJ / SC since 1990 and were given them for free by the A's so that they could move there, and then they just kept it after they didn't move? "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 25 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said: Is it true that the Giants have only held territorial rights to SJ / SC since 1990 and were given them for free by the A's so that they could move there, and then they just kept it after they didn't move? That's the story with the most legs. From 2008. And from 2012 when the Giants opened up a team store in Walnut Creek (Contra Costa County) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Ok, so while I totally get why they want to keep the rights and don't blame them fighting, let's not pretend that they paid an arm and leg for those rights or were owed them or something. Just a bad deal by the A's, who were trying to do the Giants a solid and didn't build a "return if no move" clause in the deal. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 The original owners may not have paid for the rights, but the subsequent owners have. Yes, the contract should probably have returned the San Jose territorial rights to MLB after a period of time. But it didn't, and the current owners paid for those rights. The rights were one more asset owned by the club, and were factored into the valuation and eventual purchase price. There is, however, a possible solution, however difficult. The A's need to make a fair-market offer for those rights. That, or just give it up. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kroywen Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 I do wonder if some sort of territory swap could occur in which the A's would give the Giants territorial rights on the East Bay (including Oakland) in exchange for a reduction of the price of territorial rights in San Jose. Granted, I'm not sure the Giants would be terribly interested in the rights to the East Bay, but they could try and move the San Jose Giants to the East Bay (and capture some disaffected A's fans there in the process). It's probably a non-starter, though. It would be tough for the A's to get out of this without either paying market value for the rights, given that the presence of SJ rights was priced into the latest sale of the Giants, and the lack of SJ rights absolutely depressed the price of the latest sale of the A's. The A's absolutely got hosed on the SJ rights transfer in 1988 (which was a terrible business decision by Walter Haas, and one that the Giants obviously aren't keen on repeating), but fact of the matter is that both franchises have been sold since then, and priced into their respective values were their territorial rights. Larry Baer paid market value for those rights; Lew Wolff did not. (Of course, the A's would be smart to come close to a tentative stadium deal in or around Oakland, to make clear that the Giants can't push them out of the Bay Area vis a vis blocking a move to SJ. That would knock the asking price on SJ rights down quite a bit, though I bet the Giants would still prefer the A's in a new park in Oakland to being in a new park in SJ.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 47 minutes ago, Gothamite said: The original owners may not have paid for the rights, but the subsequent owners have. Caveat Emptor On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kroywen Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 10 minutes ago, rams80 said: Caveat Emptor I don't think it's fair to say to Larry Baer "you essentially paid for the rights to SJ and Santa Clara when you bought the Giants, you've aggressively marketed there and have a significant proportion of your revenue from there, and you have a minor league team there, but we're taking away those rights based on a nonexistent imagined clause a 1988 agreement involving previous ownership." FWIW, I don't believe the A's ever held the rights to SJ. I believe it was neutral territory, and the Giants asked to receive rights "in relation to another major league team" (i.e. not in relation to MiL teams) in order to build there. Unfortunately for the A's, they agreed to give the Giants rights without a.) insisting on partial compensation for lost future revenue in SJ based on no longer being able to market their team there, and b.) insisting on it reverting to neutral or shared territory if the Giants' move fell through. Their oversight. It's a shame too, because I think an A's move to SJ makes so much sense, and I'd like to see it happen. But the Giants deserve some compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 What sort of compensation are the Giants entitled to when all other two-team metropolitan areas and some two-team states have coterminous territories? ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kroywen Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Just now, the admiral said: What sort of compensation are the Giants entitled to when every similar two-team metropolitan area or state has coterminous territories? The Bay Area should have had coterminous territories from the start. The ideal solution would probably be making the entire Bay Area coterminous, and having each team pay the other indemnities for half (or some other agreed-upon percentage) the fair market value of their territory. Of course, the Giants would never agree to that, since it would both allow the A's to move to SJ, and allow them to advertise within San Francisco and the SF peninsula as well. Meanwhile, the Giants would simply get rights to advertise in two counties on the East Bay, which is way, way, way less valuable. The A's would have to pay through the nose in order to make that exchange viable (or fair). But why are the Giants entitled to compensation? Because regardless of whether the territories should be coterminous, the fact is that they're not. Both teams have the value of their territories (including exclusive rights to market there, establish stores there, and ability to prevent other teams from moving in) priced into their fair market value. Territorial rights are valuable assets on the books of each team. Just as a team wouldn't give up a player under contract to another team without compensation, or give up TV revenue without compensation, nor should they give up territorial rights without compensation. They're intangible assets, but assets nonetheless. Just like intellectual property, proprietary software, or goodwill. Just saying "combine your territories without paying indemnities, even though your respective territories have vastly different values" doesn't make any sense from an economic perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterchaoss Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Could MLB potentially force the giants to give up the territory or face major sanctions because they are keeping the As in a god awful situation, which is bad for league. Kershaw is GOD! Kershaw is LIFE! Kershaw is ALL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Yeah, I mean if the Rangers and Astros share the entirety of Texas, then the Giants and A's can share Santa Clara. It's in the best interest of baseball to settle this as equitably as possible, but settle it. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Can't force if there's a binding agreement. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 I don't feel bad for the A's AT ALL on this particular situation. They had nearly two decades (and, like, three different ownership groups) where they could've claimed the rights back to the San Jose area free of charge and let that lapse rather than doing so. The A's have nobody but themselves to blame for missing out on the San Jose area and not being forward-thinking enough to realize how much the area was growing (they were basically the ONLY ones who didn't have the awareness to realize this). On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 44 minutes ago, masterchaoss said: Could MLB potentially force the giants to give up the territory or face major sanctions because they are keeping the As in a god awful situation, which is bad for league. MLB has enforced their own constitution three times which given the Giants Santa Clara. MLB and its member owners are cool with their antitrust exemption and forcing the Giants to give up a territory would assist to destroy it from the inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kroywen Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Yeah, using a "best interests of baseball" clause to rip San Jose away from the Giants would essentially undermine both baseball's antitrust exemption, and send a message to all 30 owners that MLB can unilaterally strip away assets from the team in the name of the "best interests of baseball." The A's were incredibly shortsighted in letting the Giants gain rights to SJ without any sort of compensation, or agreement to relinquish rights if their Santa Clara stadium deal fell through. MLB can't just take away assets from the Giants and give them to the A's just to make up for a super poor business decision by the A's three decades ago. I really wish there could be a solution where the A's purchase shared territorial rights to San Jose (or the entire Bay Area), but the asking price may be beyond their means. The Giants have the right to ask for whatever to sell those rights to the A's. To undermine that would be to undermine both the MLB constitution and the antitrust exemption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 FWIW, there was an unsolicited mail offer for the Coliseum Complex from a Milwaukee investment group to redevelop the area for a Raiders stadium. http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/09/20/investment-group-offers-to-purchase-coliseum-keep-raiders-in-oakland/ However, the Oakland City Council apparently reached a 90-day MOU with Ronnie Lott's group. Lott's also includes Egbert Perry, CEO of Fannie Mae, who is part of the unsolicited offer. Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 Nevada special legislative session started today Link provided is a Las Vegas Sun reporter live tweeting the session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.