A's to play home games in San Francisco?

[soxhop411]

 
Major League Baseball would help theOakland A's move across the bay and play at rival Giants' AT&T Park in San Francisco if Coliseum officials don't come to terms on a new short-term lease for the team, sources tell us.
The A's two-year home stint at AT&T Park, which would start next season, would probably be the first step toward moving the team out of the Bay Area.
The league's hardball warning was passed on to Coliseum officials at a closed-door meeting by Jon Streeter, the San Francisco attorney who is representing the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority in the stadium lease negotiations.
We're told MLB is also demanding that the Coliseum give the A's just a two-year lease extension - not the five- to eight-year deal the authority has been pushing.
The short-term lease would give the A's more flexibility should the team's owners swing a deal to move to San Jose - or beyond.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/MLB-may-help-A-s-play-in-S-F-if-no-deal-sources-4952005.php?cmpid=twitter
 
I think this is a smart move by MLB and it will allow the A's to eventually move to a new stadium of their own faster then if they were tied down to the Coliseum

 

[TomRicardo]

So the A's can't play in San Jose because that would be infringing on the Giants market but they can play in AT&T Park?
 
I really hate Bud Selig.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

It's a negotiating tactic. But the worst thing the A's could do is go "Ewwww, yucky!" and moan about the idea of being tenants of the Giants. They'd make more money in AT&T Park renting than at the Coliseum, and since they aren't going to get a stadium in San Jose they could actually put some pressure on Oakland to stop being a dysfunctional bunch of morons and actually work with the A's to put together something more enticing than skipping the Bay Area entirely. 

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

So the A's can't play in San Jose because that would be infringing on the Giants market but they can play in AT&T Park?
 
I really hate Bud Selig.

From the Giants perspective, they'd be getting them as tenants for 2 years and then they'd be gone forever from the Bay Area, no? That's how I'm reading it. 

 

[plucy]

Since the Giants own the stadium, would any revenues generated from A's games be counted in the Giants liability for revenue sharing? If not, seems like a good way for the A's to payoff a bounty to the Giants for allowing them to move to SJ. Otherwise the Giants should care less if the A's wallow in OAK. They control the Bay Area already through ticket sales and a more favorable RSN and media coverage.

 

[Winger 03]

If they do this, it will be hell on the field.  My assumption is that while the Giants are home, the A's are on the road and vice-versa (no wired day night DH's with different teams).  Thus the field will get 6 straight months of use without a break.

 

[Infield Infidel]

If they do this, it will be hell on the field.  My assumption is that while the Giants are home, the A's are on the road and vice-versa (no wired day night DH's with different teams).  Thus the field will get 6 straight months of use without a break.

 
Eh, it's not football. It would be worse than every other field, but not a speckled cabbage patch it would be for football. But it would really be hell on the park itself, fans in there every night using seats, bathrooms, concessions, etc. 

 

[gaelgirl]

Yes, the field and stadium would probably get torn up a bit.
 
There are issues with the schedule already -- they are both scheduled to play at home on nine dates. Secondly, the Giants usually have at least one non-baseball event scheduled at the ballpark over the course of the season. Free opera, for example, or maybe even a concert. The A's would also have to work around those pre-existing contracts/events. 
 
I'm guessing the Giants don't really want the A's playing in their ballpark, even if they do get rent and a cut of concessions. I think the chances of this happening are very, very slim. It's just MLB's way of forcing the Oakland Coliseum Authority or whatever it's called to actually sign a freaking lease. 

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

So the A's can't play in San Jose because that would be infringing on the Giants market but they can play in AT&T Park?
 
I really hate Bud Selig.

 
The "San Jose is in Giants' territory" argument is beyond stupid.  They're already drawing fans from the same markets being just across the Bay.  San Fran is 42 miles from San Jose.  Oakland is 41 miles from San Jose.  If anything, they are moving further from San Fran and opening up a congested market a bit.  I know TV deals are a big part of why Bud gets in the way there, but if that's the crux of your argument, the entire country is already carved up and dished out to the teams, so how can you ever justify allowing a team to move into any other market?

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

BTW, don't blame Bud Selig for the A's not being able to move to San Jose. The A's made this mess when they conceded their SJ rights to SF back in the early 90s when it looked as if the Giants were going to move to San Jose (or Tampa).

 

[Gdiguy]

Yes, the field and stadium would probably get torn up a bit.
 
There are issues with the schedule already -- they are both scheduled to play at home on nine dates. Secondly, the Giants usually have at least one non-baseball event scheduled at the ballpark over the course of the season. Free opera, for example, or maybe even a concert. The A's would also have to work around those pre-existing contracts/events. 
 
I'm guessing the Giants don't really want the A's playing in their ballpark, even if they do get rent and a cut of concessions. I think the chances of this happening are very, very slim. It's just MLB's way of forcing the Oakland Coliseum Authority or whatever it's called to actually sign a freaking lease. 

 
Any possibility this is MLB putting pressure on the Giants to allow the A's to move to San Jose?
 
I'm not sure how much the Giants think losing San Jose is worth monetarily, but if MLB could actually 'force' AT&T park to host the A's for a year or two, that significantly changes the calculus there - I'd have to imagine they would cut their demands by a lot to avoid having that kind of disaster (which I agree with, having them both play in AT&T park would be a complete nightmare... and I'm not sure how much San Francisco would love that either, traffic in that area (vehicle and foot) & the Caltrain become horrible when there are night games, I can't imagine San Francisco really wants that to happen every single weeknight for 6 months)

 

[nattysez]

Who gets the concessions money?  Do the A's have to give up all signage income for two years?  There are so many problems w/ this beyond the overlapping dates and the damage the field and stadium would sustain.
 
An alternative would be to put the A's in Candlestick next year -- that's basically free money for the city of SF, which otherwise was going to demolish the building within a week or two of the end of the 49ers season.

 

[cannonball 1729]

 
Any possibility this is MLB putting pressure on the Giants to allow the A's to move to San Jose?
 
I'm not sure how much the Giants think losing San Jose is worth monetarily, but if MLB could actually 'force' AT&T park to host the A's for a year or two, that significantly changes the calculus there - I'd have to imagine they would cut their demands by a lot to avoid having that kind of disaster (which I agree with, having them both play in AT&T park would be a complete nightmare... and I'm not sure how much San Francisco would love that either, traffic in that area (vehicle and foot) & the Caltrain become horrible when there are night games, I can't imagine San Francisco really wants that to happen every single weeknight for 6 months)

 
 
No way.  The Giants have to be helping out (and probably bluffing) here. If MLB tried to force a team to take on another team as tenant, the 28 other teams would revolt.

 

[axx]

They're already drawing fans from the same markets being just across the Bay.

 
Not really. The east side of the bay (and the south where SJ is) is where the money is. Oakland's basically a ghetto. Overly simplistic, but you get the idea.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

San Jose is overwhelmingly Giants territory, in terms of fans and corporate bucks. There is really nothing the A's could offer that would ensure they get a new ballpark while placating the Giants.

It would be like if the NFL asked the Pats if it was cool if they put a team in Cambridge.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Not really. The A's have been in the Bat Area since the late 60s. It would be like your example if there was an NFL team in Franklin (or Providence).

 

[gaelgirl]

 
The "San Jose is in Giants' territory" argument is beyond stupid.  They're already drawing fans from the same markets being just across the Bay.  San Fran is 42 miles from San Jose.  Oakland is 41 miles from San Jose.  If anything, they are moving further from San Fran and opening up a congested market a bit.  I know TV deals are a big part of why Bud gets in the way there, but if that's the crux of your argument, the entire country is already carved up and dished out to the teams, so how can you ever justify allowing a team to move into any other market?

There is no city called San Fran. 
 
By the way, you're also completely off-base. The A's fanbase is almost entirely in the East Bay. The Giants fanbase is the rest of the Bay Area, including a significant portion in the South Bay. There are far, far more Giants fans in the Bay Area than A's fans. Logically, there should be a pretty equal divide. If the Giants stayed in Candlestick, maybe there would be. But they opened up AT&T Park and at the moment enjoy the benefits of more fans, a larger fanbase and significantly more money from corporations. I can see how a well-designed ballpark in San Jose would attract significant Silicon Valley corporate investment. It's a lot easier to give clients/reward employees with tickets to a ballpark that's 20 minutes away rather than an hour or more. 
 
Regardless, according to the San Jose Mercury News, the A's and the Coliseum Authority are working toward resolving their differences, with the Coliseum folks "softening" on their demands over signage and concession revenues. Basically, the A's will stay in Oakland for two years. That also gives them the flexibility to leave town pretty quickly, should they get a stadium somewhere else. 
 
The Coliseum is awful, I can see why they want a new place. 

 

[Burn Out]

There is no city called San Fran.
/quote]

Which side of the whole frat/fraternity debate are you on?

 

[Euclis20]

There is no city called San Fran. 
 
By the way, you're also completely off-base. The A's fanbase is almost entirely in the East Bay. The Giants fanbase is the rest of the Bay Area, including a significant portion in the South Bay. There are far, far more Giants fans in the Bay Area than A's fans. Logically, there should be a pretty equal divide. If the Giants stayed in Candlestick, maybe there would be. But they opened up AT&T Park and at the moment enjoy the benefits of more fans, a larger fanbase and significantly more money from corporations. I can see how a well-designed ballpark in San Jose would attract significant Silicon Valley corporate investment. It's a lot easier to give clients/reward employees with tickets to a ballpark that's 20 minutes away rather than an hour or more. 
 
Regardless, according to the San Jose Mercury News, the A's and the Coliseum Authority are working toward resolving their differences, with the Coliseum folks "softening" on their demands over signage on concession revenues. Basically, the A's will stay in Oakland for two years. That also gives them the flexibility to leave town pretty quickly, should they get a stadium somewhere else. 
 
The Coliseum is awful, I can see why they want a new place. 

 
Agreed, on all this.  The San Fran thing is something I didn't get until I moved here.
 
I wonder what the attendance for A's games would be like, if they played at AT&T.  I couldn't care less about the A's, but I will definitely miss having cheap, available baseball a couple BART stops away.  AT&T is not nearly so convenient for East Bay folks.

 

[gaelgirl]

There is no city called San Fran.
/quote]

Which side of the whole frat/fraternity debate are you on?

Whatever side doesn't say San Fran. 

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

Whatever side doesn't say San Fran. 

 
How about Frisco, then?

 

[gaelgirl]

Frisco is annoying, but San Fran is really, really horrible. SF. SF is easier to type anyway. 

 

[Fred not Lynn]

I thought Frisco was in Texas.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Who gets the concessions money?  Do the A's have to give up all signage income for two years?  There are so many problems w/ this beyond the overlapping dates and the damage the field and stadium would sustain.
 
An alternative would be to put the A's in Candlestick next year -- that's basically free money for the city of SF, which otherwise was going to demolish the building within a week or two of the end of the 49ers season.

If there's a ballpark in the SF Bay Area country worse that the Coliseum, it's Candlestick. At night, it's colder than a welldigger's ass all summer long, drafty, smelly. Just listen to Mike Krukow or Duane Kuiper talk about Candlestick, if you ever get a chance. 
 
Actually, never been there, but the Rays park may be worse than Candlestick. At least the Stick has grass now. I've been there when it was artificial surface, like Tampa, and it was an eyesore, like Tampa. 

 

[terrisus]

So the A's can't play in San Jose because that would be infringing on the Giants market but they can play in AT&T Park?
 
I really hate Bud Selig.

 
That was my first reaction as well. 
This makes negative amounts of sense.
 
EDIT: Also, regarding names, "San Fran" is, in my book at least, better than calling New Jersey "Jersey," which is a British Crown dependency near France.
Of course, what's even worse is sports teams calling themselves "New York" when they play in New Jersey (or the whole "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" mess)

 

[JimD]

 
Any possibility this is MLB putting pressure on the Giants to allow the A's to move to San Jose?
 
I'm not sure how much the Giants think losing San Jose is worth monetarily, but if MLB could actually 'force' AT&T park to host the A's for a year or two, that significantly changes the calculus there - I'd have to imagine they would cut their demands by a lot to avoid having that kind of disaster (which I agree with, having them both play in AT&T park would be a complete nightmare... and I'm not sure how much San Francisco would love that either, traffic in that area (vehicle and foot) & the Caltrain become horrible when there are night games, I can't imagine San Francisco really wants that to happen every single weeknight for 6 months)

 
Not necessarily.  The Yankees and Mets both played at Shea Stadium for the 1974 and 1975 seasons while Yankee Stadium was being renovated.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

JMOH, you're missing the point. I'm not arguing history, I'm saying that there is zero reason for the Giants to give up their rights. Argue all you want about how it's stupid the Bay Area is divided in two when other markets aren't and I agree on principle. But there isn't a situation where the two teams can both win if the A's play in San Jose. In any scenario the Giants lose. There's nothing for them to negotiate over as far as they're concerned.

Also, as a native, I am far more opposed to San Fran than Frisco. At least Frisco comes from the ports.

 

[Morganwerk]

Frisco or San Fran is the equivalent of saying Beantown. You just don't do it. SF if you must shorten it. Ess Eff if you remember the late great Herb Caen...

I would be interested to see if A's attendance would increase if they had to move to AT&T.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

 
Not necessarily.  The Yankees and Mets both played at Shea Stadium for the 1974 and 1975 seasons while Yankee Stadium was being renovated.

 
And the Angels and the Dodger shared Chavez Ravine from 1962-1965.

 

[gaelgirl]

I think A's attendance would absolutely increase, probably by a lot. First, there's the novelty of seeing the A's play other AL teams in AT&T Park (especially teams that have rarely been to AT&T). Secondly, there's the novelty of seeing your favorite team play in a stadium that isn't horrible and on a field that isn't literally on the verge of being covered in shit. Thirdly, AT&T Park is accessible and relatively easy to get to, and the East Bay fans can use BART. Fourthly, I am guessing the tickets might be cheaper than the Giants, so people who just want to see a game will come out. That includes a lot of tourists who otherwise wouldn't see a baseball game (because they sure as fuck aren't going out to Oakland to do so). 
 
I also agree with Bonger about the Giants and San Jose: Nothing good (from the Giants' business perspective) comes from the A's moving to San Jose. I can see why they're being obstinate about it. You can argue that it's bullshit (and it sort of is), but I can see why they've taken the position they have. 

 

[skunk]

The Coliseum is awful, I can see why they want a new place.

Clearly the A's don't like it but it is a great park from a fan's perspective: good public transportation, lots of parking and easy freeway access, good food, decent sight lines. I don't think these decisions have much to do with doing what's best for the fans or city.

We have these ball parks and stadiums that are empty 6 to 8 months of the year. It's crazy. Teams didn't want to share facilities but they are more than happy to have a Bowl game there, have soccer games, etc.

 

[nattysez]

Calling the Coliseum "a great park from a fan's perspective" is ridiculous.
 
The park is decrepit.  The food is terrible.  Mount Davis is a travesty.  The atmosphere in that place during your average game is rotten.  There is no place nearby to get food, meet up, etc.  The area around the park is somewhere between dangerous and rundown.  
 
AT&T is a "great park."  The Coliseum is a dump.

 

[LondonSox]

Clearly the A's don't like it but it is a great park from a fan's perspective: good public transportation, lots of parking and easy freeway access, good food, decent sight lines. I don't think these decisions have much to do with doing what's best for the fans or city.

We have these ball parks and stadiums that are empty 6 to 8 months of the year. It's crazy. Teams didn't want to share facilities but they are more than happy to have a Bowl game there, have soccer games, etc.

Err..... What?
It's a complete shit hole. I went last season a couple times and was blown away by its awfulness. It takes forever to get the fans in and out, it's badly laid out and horrible concessions.

Compared to the Giants it's even worse because that is beautiful. Given the option, which many have, which would you choose?

It's one thing to be ugly. It's another to be competing directly with a supermodel.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Calling the Coliseum "a great park from a fan's perspective" is ridiculous.
 
The park is decrepit.  The food is terrible.  Mount Davis is a travesty.  The atmosphere in that place during your average game is rotten.  There is no place nearby to get food, meet up, etc.  The area around the park is somewhere between dangerous and rundown.  
 
AT&T is a "great park."  The Coliseum is a dump.

Hadn't thought of that but it's true. When I go there, it's off the freeway, park, walk into the stadium and reverse all of that right after the game. It is a shitty area and I have never in 30+ years of going there for Sox games have considered or even known about a restaurant in which to meet up with people. Last time there for an Indians game in August, after the game, some assholes were throwing cherry bombs in the parking lot, some landing very near. There was even a car fire during the game and the smoke came wafting over the third base stands. Lovely. After the game we just kept walking as fast as possible and hightailed it out of there and luckily got no cherry bombs in the face. That place sucks and blows. One thing is that it is hard by the freeway and nowhere near downtown Oakland, which is about the only positive about the place there is. Well, they keep the grass nice. 

 

[nattysez]

Looks like the A's and Raiders are going to sign short-term deals to stay in the Coliseum.  
 
http://www.sfgate.com/athletics/article/Short-term-Coliseum-deals-for-A-s-Raiders-5008766.php

 

[TomRicardo]

JMOH, you're missing the point. I'm not arguing history, I'm saying that there is zero reason for the Giants to give up their rights. Argue all you want about how it's stupid the Bay Area is divided in two when other markets aren't and I agree on principle. But there isn't a situation where the two teams can both win if the A's play in San Jose. In any scenario the Giants lose. There's nothing for them to negotiate over as far as they're concerned.

Also, as a native, I am far more opposed to San Fran than Frisco. At least Frisco comes from the ports.

 
Those rights are given by MLB.  It is in the best interest of baseball to have two healthy teams instead of one fledgling dying small market team and one super duper healthy team.
 
It is not the Giants to give up.  It is for MLB to step in and do what is best for MLB.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

 
Those rights are given by MLB.  It is in the best interest of baseball to have two healthy teams instead of one fledgling dying small market team and one super duper healthy team.
 
It is not the Giants to give up.  It is for MLB to step in and do what is best for MLB.

If Bud's total inaction has shown anything, it's that the Lords of Baseball very much consider it the Giants' call on whether they want to give up those rights.

The A's have some use where they are, they're a handy team to entice municipalities to build ballparks and they won't upset the salary structure. Two things the LOBs definitely care about.

 

[derekson]

 
Those rights are given by MLB.  It is in the best interest of baseball to have two healthy teams instead of one fledgling dying small market team and one super duper healthy team.
 
It is not the Giants to give up.  It is for MLB to step in and do what is best for MLB.

 
While this may be true, the other teams won't vote in support of it because it establishes a precedent that they don't want to touch with a pole of any length. Once MLB gains the right to tell teams they can force them to allow another team to relocate within their territory, it's only a matter of time until someone looks at the same scenario with regards to moving the Rays to New Jersey or Brooklyn or the Royals to somewhere in New England within the Red Sox territory. It's a slippery slope that the large market owners don't even want to take a step towards.

 

[DanoooME]

A's and Raiders sign short term leases that will end in 2015.
 
Two more years of raw sewage and flooding.

 

[Average Reds]

 
While this may be true, the other teams won't vote in support of it because it establishes a precedent that they don't want to touch with a pole of any length. Once MLB gains the right to tell teams they can force them to allow another team to relocate within their territory, it's only a matter of time until someone looks at the same scenario with regards to moving the Rays to New Jersey or Brooklyn or the Royals to somewhere in New England within the Red Sox territory. It's a slippery slope that the large market owners don't even want to take a step towards.

 
The Athletics already share the market with the Giants.  The issue is how they divide their territory. 
 
I take no position on whether the Giants are right or wrong as it relates to their claim to San Jose, but to say that intervention by MLB to resolve the dispute would set a precedent that could allow the Royals to move to New England is just flat our incorrect.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

 
The Athletics already share the market with the Giants.  The issue is how they divide their territory. 
 
I take no position on whether the Giants are right or wrong as it relates to their claim to San Jose, but to say that intervention by MLB to resolve the dispute would set a precedent that could allow the Royals to move to New England is just flat our incorrect.

 
MLB would be changing the Giants' territory against their objections. That's no different than allowing the Royals to move to Worcester. 

 

[timlinin8th]

MLB would be changing the Giants' territory against their objections. That's no different than allowing the Royals to move to Worcester. 

...if the Royals played in Cambridge right now.

Look, I agree the A's deserve this since they handed the rights to San Jose over to SF years ago but saying a team that would be moving 1500 miles and landing in another teams territory and one that would actually be moving further away is disingenuous. In the long term its probably in the best interests of MLB to get the A's to SJ so they should be doing a better job of sweetening the pot for SF to get this deal done. Some percentage of the gate and TV deals over the first 10 seasons in SJ for allowing the A's to take over ownership of that area perhaps?

 

[Average Reds]

 
MLB would be changing the Giants' territory against their objections. That's no different than allowing the Royals to move to Worcester. 


Yeah, that's not even close to the same thing, but from your posts in this thread we're not going to find common ground here.

 

[santadevil]

I'm definitely baffled as to the new 10 year lease signed today.
 
I really thought they wanted out of Oakland.
Or do they think they can make strides with a new comissioner over the next few years with San Jose and get a stadium built for the 2025 season?

 

[Al Zarilla]

I'm definitely baffled as to the new 10 year lease signed today.
 
I really thought they wanted out of Oakland.
Or do they think they can make strides with a new comissioner over the next few years with San Jose and get a stadium built for the 2025 season?

There was some talk about building a new ballpark in one of the parking lots next to the coliseum, or maybe that was just bartalk. 10 more years in that dump would be brutal.

 

[mabrowndog]

I'm definitely baffled as to the new 10 year lease signed today.
 
I really thought they wanted out of Oakland.
Or do they think they can make strides with a new comissioner over the next few years with San Jose and get a stadium built for the 2025 season?

There was some talk about building a new ballpark in one of the parking lots next to the coliseum, or maybe that was just bartalk. 10 more years in that dump would be brutal.

 
Brutal doesn't begin to describe what that crystal ball shows. Seriously, aside from the Tropicana Dome, is there a worse facility in the four major North American professional sports?
 
Here's what appears to have happened:
 
* The A's had reached a tentative agreement with Oakland for a 10-year lease that allowed for rent payments to be reduced from $1.75M in year one to $1.25M in year ten.
 
* The city leadership balked at the reduced income and backed out, thinking the club had no other options.
 
* Selig made a power play to back the city into a corner earlier today by granting the A's permission to play in a temporary or permanent home outside of Oakland.
 
* The city leadership, exposed as both novices and fools by a guy who turns 80 in a few weeks, and having no other recourse, capitulated and agreed to the previously negotiated terms -- which also include an opt-out if the club moves into a new facility in Oakland.

 

[jimc]

I mean, nobody wants to see the Coliseum in use for 10 more years, but this seems like a half decent compromise in a tricky dispute. Still on the hook for 10 years of lease money if they leave Oakland, so the city is somewhat protected, but lease forgotten if they move within Oakland. I sentimentally want them to stay in Oakland in the long term so I'm hoping this might slightly increase the odds of that happening.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

The Raiders are as good as gone. They can break the lease next year, and when they are gone the A's & Warriors can work towards refurbishing the Coliseum & Oracle.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

The Warriors are gone, they'll be relocating to San Francisco. Site's bought and paid for and the City is more than happy to help since it's not at the controversial Pier 32 site.
 
Frankly it's the best move for the city of Oakland - ploughing anything toward a football team is a terrible idea given that football stadiums stand empty for most of the year (yeah, there's other events, but 95% of those can also be hosted by a baseball stadium, eg concerts and soccer games). 
 
Hopefully Wolff and Fisher sell up and the Howard Terminal site gets moving.