Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

Sir, this is an Arby's. 

Well played sir. Well played. 

 

With that said, while I would love to see this diatribe continue, I gotta ask that we get back to the A's potential move. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mod edit 

Edited by Ice_Cap
you were told, my a mod, to drop this line of discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A's to Portland

Rays to Nashville

 

Expansion to somewhere in North Carolina & Montreal

 

AL EAST

Baltmore

Boston

NY Yankees

Toronto

 

AL CENTRAL 

Chi. White Sox 

Cleveland 

Detroit 

Minnesota 

 

AL SOUTH

Houston

Kansas City 

Nashville 

Texas

 

AL WEST

Colorado

LA Angels 

Portland

Seattle 

 

 

NL EAST

Montreal 

NY Mets

Philadelphia 

Pittsburgh 

 

NL CENTRAL

Chi. Cubs

Cincinnati 

Milwaukee 

St. Louis 

 

NL SOUTH

Atlanta 

Carolina

Miami

Washington 

 

NL WEST

Arizona 

LA Dodgers 

San Diego 

San Francisco 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than "they don't want to pay for it themselves" why can't the A's just build the new stadium in the parking lot while they play the next two years at the Coliseum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there room to start on that or do they have to demolish the arena first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

Other than "they don't want to pay for it themselves" why can't the A's just build the new stadium in the parking lot while they play the next two years at the Coliseum?

Because they can’t pay for it themselves 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dont care said:

Because they can’t pay for it themselves 

 

This is the age old line they always use. I wonder if it's true that they really can't pay for it themselves (In which case, they shouldn't be allowed to own a Major League Baseball team) or they're just trying to cry poor and make it look to the public like they can't pay for it themselves (In which case they REALLY shouldn't be allowed to own a Major League Baseball team).

 

 

I've never really understood why the A's have always seemingly had such impoverished ownership groups. You would think with all the money in the Bay Area that you'd be able to find at least ONE extremely rich billionaire :censored: who could buy the team and foot this whole thing themselves (or at least have the tangible ability to). :censored:, just look at Lacob and Gruber. They added BILLIONS to the value of the Warriors and just got them a new arena right in the middle of San Francisco, which is a damn near impossible task. You're really telling me they (or someone with similar financial clout) couldn't do the same thing with the A's? I don't believe it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

This is the age old line they always use. I wonder if it's true that they really can't pay for it themselves (In which case, they shouldn't be allowed to own a Major League Baseball team) or they're just trying to cry poor and make it look to the public like they can't pay for it themselves (In which case they REALLY shouldn't be allowed to own a Major League Baseball team).

 

 

I've never really understood why the A's have always seemingly had such impoverished ownership groups. You would think with all the money in the Bay Area that you'd be able to find at least ONE extremely rich billionaire :censored: who could buy the team and foot this whole thing themselves (or at least have the tangible ability to). :censored:, just look at Lacob and Gruber. They added BILLIONS to the value of the Warriors and just got them a new arena right in the middle of San Francisco, which is a damn near impossible task. You're really telling me they (or someone with similar financial clout) couldn't do the same thing with the A's? I don't believe it. 

When stadiums cost billions even billionaires can’t afford it and keep their other businesses afloat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you’re right, and I get that. It's not just as simple as opening up a wallet and digging in some pockets. But the A's have been run like one of those old Chinatown eateries where the floor is about to fall in and kill everyone because the owners are 97 years old, blind, work 7 days a week, and can barely afford to keep the lights on. That's a sign that the ownership group is in WAY over their heads, are greedy to the point where they don't mind risking the well-being of the public, or (gulp) both. Something has to give. I'm just hoping it isn't the upper deck onto a group of unsuspecting fans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dont care said:

When stadiums cost billions even billionaires can’t afford it and keep their other businesses afloat.

 

The Giants built their own park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

The Giants built their own park.

 

In San Francisco, of all places! 

 

 

The logistics were a bit different back then, but not by that much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time (2000) AT&T park only cost 357 million. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wings said:

A's to Portland

Rays to Nashville

 

Expansion to somewhere in North Carolina & Montreal

 

AL EAST

Baltmore

Boston

NY Yankees

Toronto

 

AL CENTRAL 

Chi. White Sox 

Cleveland 

Detroit 

Minnesota 

 

AL SOUTH

Houston

Kansas City 

Nashville 

Texas

 

AL WEST

Colorado

LA Angels 

Portland

Seattle 

 

 

NL EAST

Montreal 

NY Mets

Philadelphia 

Pittsburgh 

 

NL CENTRAL

Chi. Cubs

Cincinnati 

Milwaukee 

St. Louis 

 

NL SOUTH

Atlanta 

Carolina

Miami

Washington 

 

NL WEST

Arizona 

LA Dodgers 

San Diego 

San Francisco 

A's to Portland

Rays to Montreal full-time

 

Expansion to Charlotte and Vancouver

 

AL East:

Baltimore

Boston

New York Yankees

Toronto

 

AL North:

Chicago White Sox

Cleveland

Detroit

Minnesota

 

AL Central:

Colorado

Kansas City

Houston

Texas

 

AL West:

Los Angeles Angels

Portland

Seattle

Vancouver

 

NL East:

Montreal

New York Mets

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

 

NL South:

Atlanta

Charlotte

Miami

Washington

 

NL Central:

Chicago Cubs

Cincinnati

Milwaukee

St. Louis

 

NL West:

Arizona

Los Angeles Dodgers

San Francisco

San Diego

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

I've never really understood why the A's have always seemingly had such impoverished ownership groups.

 

They had some decent Levi's money behind them until the mid-'90s, but then the patriarch died and thus began the series of piecemeal ownership consortiums (consortia?) that were only just getting by, which in turn begat Moneyball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken Hoffman & Steve Schott come to mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

They had some decent Levi's money behind them until the mid-'90s, but then the patriarch died and thus began the series of piecemeal ownership consortiums (consortia?) that were only just getting by, which in turn begat Moneyball.

Raiders moving back didn't help and then-mayor Lionel Wilson saw then leave under his watch only to lure them back and still only get cold feet at the last minute to no avail after he received 40K signatures in a petition for a ballot measure. 

 

12 hours ago, Wings said:

Ken Hoffman & Steve Schott come to mind. 

 

@Wings has it right.  Hofmann and Schott bought the team from the Haas family, but were underfunded and out of their element.  They were real estate guys, specifically homebuilders.  They decided it was better to cut payroll and use young players at about the same time the new CBA gave them a revenue sharing check from the likes of the Yankees, Braves, Red Sox...

 

Schott claims they tried to get a new stadium at in the Coliseum complex parking lot. From 2005:

Quote

One thing Schott couldn't get done as owner was put the A's in a new stadium. Attempts to move the A's to the South Bay failed because the San Francisco Giants have territorial rights to that area. Talk of building a new ballpark next to Network Associates Coliseum, where the A's have played for nearly 40 years, hasn't gone beyond the talking stage with East Bay officials.

 

Schott said not being able to work out a stadium deal played a part in the decision to sell the A's. Since he "did not feel up to challenge" any longer, Schott thought a change in ownership would be in the best interest of the team.

 

"Being an owner is like being the caretaker of a franchise. (This organization) is well over 100 years old, and there haven't been that many owners - I think we were the seventh," he said. "I felt 10 years, almost complete, was enough for me to carry the torch, and now the franchise can take the next step: to be more competitive. To get to the World Series on a regular basis, you need a new stadium, which will lead to more revenue."

 

 

And them selling to Lew Wolff and John Fischer was backed with Fisher's money, not Wolff's.  Fisher had 80% when the bought it in 2005 and got Lew's 10% in 2016.  Sadly, Fisher, like Wolff is looking towards more soccer investments with Celtic and he'll have more cash to spend when Gap officially spins off Old Navy and it goes public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I'm pretty sure that hasn't been mentioned or posted, since I haven't done either, but earlier in October before this thread was made, the city of Oakland filed suit against Alameda County to prevent the county from selling their 50% of the Coliseum Complex to the Athletics.

 

Note/Warning: I'm posting you a link to an independent, Oakland blog (not anything from Zennie Abraham, for those Bay Area folks), which heavily leans to the Left, but the links within the blog are to major papers and websites which will produce the actual court filings in PDF. 

 

LINK

 

From the blog:

Quote

The Oakland City Attorney’s Office filed a lawsuit against the County of Alameda (Case NO. RG19036930), on September 27, 2019, at the direction of the Oakland City Council to block the sale of the Coliseum complex property to the Athletics Investment Group, LLC (Oakland Athletics).

 

Earlier today, reportedly Alameda County Court Judge Frank Roesch issued a temporary restraining (TRO) to block the sale of the property. A hearing has been set for November 14, 2019, when the City of Oakland can make its case to explain why the County of Alameda should not be able to sell its 50 percent share of the Coliseum complex property to the Athletics Investment Group, LLC, a.k.a. Oakland Athletics.
 

According to the lawsuit, the County of Alameda and its Board of Supervisors failed to make an effort to either comply with the procedures of the Surplus Land Act or even ensure its public lands will be used to fulfill the statutory aims of the act.

When the County of Alameda entered into a binding agreement for the sale and transfer of the property (publicly owned land) to the Athletics Investment Group, LLC, in violation of the Surplus Land Act’s strict requirements, the City of Oakland’s opportunity to explore whether the property could be developed for affordable housing, continued recreational uses or other public good would be extinguished. The Act requires that a local agency proposing to dispose of surplus land must negotiate in good faith for a period of not less than 90 days. Allegedly, the County failed to do so, and did not comply with this mandate.

 

Edited by dfwabel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 11:29 AM, McCarthy said:

Other than "they don't want to pay for it themselves" why can't the A's just build the new stadium in the parking lot while they play the next two years at the Coliseum?


Because they don’t own the land?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:


Because they don’t own the land?

Apparently they've tried

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.