22 July 2008

Around the league, Dog Days edition

Major intrigue surrounds the Marlins' stadium situation, as opponent and former Philadelphia Eagles owner Norman Braman's lawsuit enters its second week. This followed an unsuccessful mediation period. Braman argues, among other thing, that the use of redevelopment money for the ballpark is illegal without a referendum. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel's Sarah Talalay has a great running tab on the case.

On Friday, case judge Jeri Beth Cohen struck down numerous smaller claims made by Braman, but not the core issue:
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jeri Beth Cohen said she believes it does, but is "torn" because a Florida Supreme Court ruling, which states property tax money pledged to finance bonds for more than a year for major projects are subject to a referendum, is being reconsidered and is unclear how it should be applied until it is final. In that case, Gregory Strand sued Escambia County over spending property tax money without a referendum.

"The way I read Strand, it applies to this funding scheme. However, I'm torn because of the way the court issued the opinion on how to apply it," Cohen said.

Braman contends the public has a right to vote on the financing for $3 billion in Miami projects, including a $515 million ballpark. He calls it a "shell game" for relying on property tax dollars meant for impoverished neighborhoods to pay off debt on the performing arts center to free up hotel bed taxes for the ballpark.
Braman has said throughout that he'd drop the case if Miami/Miami-Dade officials would simply put the whole development plan, which is far more extensive than just a ballpark, to a vote. If he wins the matter will undoubtedly go to appeal, where Braman has shown the willingness to keep fighting. Fish Stripes notes that a recent Miami Herald poll shows that 57% of respondents believe the ballpark is a bad investment.

Braman also talked out of school when discussing the Marlins' financial situation:
Braman attorney Bob Martinez said the document shows the team was $150 million in debt and had no equity. Braman later slipped in that he turned down the team’s request to invest because “I could not invest in a company that had $163 million…” but he was again cut off.
The issue with the Marlins has always been Loria/Samson. Ownership groups are expected to meet a certain bar in order to operate properly. $163 million in debt? That's Selig's fault. I guess Loria had Selig over a legal barrel when Expos were "contracted."
In New York the Yankees are in a battle to secure $350 million that they feel is needed to complete the new Stadium. Here's the scoop, courtesy of Newsday:

February 2008: Planned upgrades to the scoreboard, concession stands and luxury suites spark the Yankees to seek an additional $350 million in tax-exempt borrowing via the city's EDC. The problem lies in potential revision of an Internal Revenue Service regulation - a revision proposed shortly after the Yankees and Mets got IRS approval for their tax-exempt financing in 2006.


The proposed regulation under review by the U.S. Treasury Department and IRS would impose stricter interpretation of rules governing PILOTs. The proposed regulation would require PILOTs to be closely tied to "applicable taxes" such as a real estate tax, rather than a fixed payment - in the Yankees' case, a PILOT equal to the debt service on the bonds. The change could disqualify the Yankees from benefiting from further tax-exempt government financing via PILOTs. The Yankees are trying to persuade Treasury and IRS officials to drop the proposed regulation.
Should the feds rule that PILOTs are to be restricted to specific (non-stadium) uses, it's likely that PILOTs could never be used as a financing instrument ever again. That would affect all three New York area venue projects: New Yankee Stadium, CitiField, and Barclays Center. It could also affect plans to renovate Madison Square Garden. Since it's the feds pressing the case, the restrictions would apply throughout the nation, not that many projects were looking to use PILOTs (most publicly-funded venues use sales or hotel/car rental taxes).


Anonymous said...

I'm witnessing the slow death of the Oakland Athletics. Apathy is nearing an all time high because of foolish policies emanating from Lew Wolff and Billy Beane.

The Fremont Albatross still hangs around this lame-duck franchise's neck. Why not put this deterrent to increased enthusiasm and increased season ticket sales to rest? Why alienate a good portion of Oakland A's fans with a plan to build a ballpark twenty miles from Oakland, on a site with no public transportation and next to a congested highway in a time of nearly five dollar per gallon gasoline. Also, linking the funding for a new ballpark with the current downtrodden real estate market is pure lunacy.

To add insult to injury, Wolff and the ownership propose changing the name of the franchise to "Silicon" something @ Fremont. This moniker change is a slap in the face to 40 years of Oakland A's tradition. It's a slap in the face to long-time Oakland A's fans and further siphons away a portion of the former fan-base.

Furthermore, Billy Beane is using the lame-duck Oakland years as some sort of laboratory for his ego inflating experiments. Oakland gets screwed twice. Oakland gets to have the privileged of hosting Billy's development squad in order for the techies in Silicon Valley to enjoy the fruits of Oakland's loses. Think again, Mr. Beane and Mr. Wolff, Oakland isn't buying.

These mad men are driving this franchise so far under water that it may never recover. But, do they really care? Why should they? If Billy burns the house down Uncle Lew can still make out like a bandit. Wolff, will use the "we tried to build a ballpark but got no support from Oakland" BS, and then, sell the team to out of State interests or have his frat brother Selig contract the Oakland Athletics franchise.

Wolff and Beane are slowly suffocating this franchise and soon it will be on life-support. They've drained all of the good will from the fan base and no one seems to care much anymore. All anyone has to do is look at the dwindling attendance which is a direct result of the policies instituted by these two mad men. Is there any hope left?

Marine Layer said...

Nice cut-n-paste job. Drama queen much?

I'm not going to get into the same old argument yets again that's been addressed elsewhere on this site and others except to say this: The A's will not be contracted. To do so would require contraction of a second team, which would mean a payout of $600 million from MLB and the other team owners. These men have made livings on not spending their own money while making more for themselves. Do you honestly think they'll pay that out? Contraction has always been nothing more than a negotiating tactic.

Next time, stick with the topic at hand.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps not contraction, but everything else in this guy's post is quite accurate (or potentially quite accurate). Or have you not noticed the apathy that currently surrounds this franchise. The payroll is sinking quicker that the home attendance figures. Wouldn't surprise me in the least when Wolff sells to outside interests due to problems in the Fremont plan as well as lack of interest in the Bay Area.

Marine Layer said...

Anon lost credibility when crying about contraction.

Wolff/Fisher aren't selling for several years. Why? Because the tax benefits of owning a team last for a decade. In the meantime they can ride out the recession and real estate market stagnation.

Owning a team isn't like owning stock. Owners tend to hold teams for several years if not decades. It's a privilege to own a team, they're not commodities. Everything in anon's comment is as "potentially quite accurate" as me claiming that I'm going to hook up with a bunch of Victoria's Secret models in the future.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I guess all the local columnists that have stated that the Fremont talks have "stalled" are wrong and everything's peachy.


Marine Layer said...

What columnists? A side note from Susan Slusser with no specifics? Nothing has to happen until the EIR is completed and there are still several months to go until that happens.

As for stalling, there are numerous places the business side of the deal could stall:

1. Lease/ownership terms of the land.
2. Development of the school.
3. Who pays for the shuttle system?
4. Day/night schedule of games.
5. Parking guarantees for surrounding businesses.
6. Financing of the project: when/how (bonds/loans, insurance)?

Both the city and the A's have been aware of these matters for a year. It takes time. Thankfully, the A's have baked in a lot of time for these issues to shake out. The critics, who seem to have little patience but a lot of wishful thinking, are just going to have to suck it up like everyone else.

Zonis said...

You act as if Oakland fans have always been argent supporters of the A's, with high attendance through out the team's tenure in Oakland, instead of being one of the lowest attended franchises in the game over that time, with the exception of the late 80's teams that went to the World Series.

But after the team's fortunes fell, and especially after Oakland decided that the Raiders were more important than the A's and built Mt. Davis, attendance has been crap.

I ask again; how can Oakland demand loyalty from the A's if they have never been loyal to the A's themselves?

reztips said...

The belly-aching about Fremont and Billy Beane come from a devout OAFC poster. These pathetic fools think that there is some way that the A's will find a way to stay in a bankrupt, crime-ridden city who only supported the Athletics during the LaRussa Dynasty when the team had All Stars at every position. In other years, even under the ownership of OAFC saint Walter Hass, the A's didn't draw any better than they have under the current ownership or, for that matter, Schott/Hoffman...

Mr. Plainview said...

yes, we all know the A's don't lead the mlb in attendance, especially in the last couple of years...

however, if you actually look at the attendance prior to 2006 the A's rank consistently around 19th highest in the league, give or take, which is a little below the league average...

But it you consider what the Oakland A's fans have to put up with, 19th in the league ain't to shabby...3rd oldest stadium to date, voted 2nd filthiest facility in the MLB, a region where the Giants dominate, Mt. Davis, controversial management, consistently trading great players, we all know the list can go on...

And the funny thing is it wasn't until 2006, when Wolf announced he was taking the team to Fremont, that the A's attendance dropped to the bottom 5...don't believe me check the records yourself...

Oakland has some of the most loyal fans in the nation in my opinion, its just over decades and decades of not getting the same respect back from the managers, fans will naturally start fading away, its like that with any team...

When Oakland teams finally get what they deserve, I promise you, the fans will come out...with a city as deprived as Oakland anything shinny and new like a ballpark will bring em out for decades...but when you take away a team from a city whose already'll see deprived results

Anonymous said...

Come on, "a city as deprived as Oakland?" I walked around beautiful Lake Merritt this morning along with hundreds of yuppies, and then toured the brand new Christ the Light Cathedral on the shores of Lake Merritt before heading up Harrison for a bite to eat at the new Whole Foods market. I saw a beautiful and active city.A city the Oakland A's should embrace and incorporate into their plans.

Until the Oakland A's embrace this community, nothing will change. Lew Wolff, made a huge mistake by shunning Oakland, tarping the third deck, increasing ticket prices, and trading away popular players. This is a recipe for disaster. A disaster happening before our eyes. Attendance this year will be the lowest in ten years.

The A's drew tremendously in Oakland during the Walter Haas years. Even during the unpopular Steve "one foot out of Oakland" Schott, the A's drew consistently between 2.4 and 2.2 million fans and where in the middle of the pack in attendance. It's only until recently under the Lew "I tried to build a ballpark in Oakland" Wolff that attendance has plummeted. These are facts. You can sugar coat all the revenue figures that you want along with the "standard deviation" but this is a dying franchise being smothered by Wolff & Co.

Marine Layer said...

I find it odd that one Oakland partisan argues that the city is deprived while another claims it is thriving. At least get on the same page guys!

This has little to do with the city and much more to do with the difficulty of building a ballpark.

Mr. Plainview said...

I'm glad you agree with me on the most part, but anyone who doesn't believe the city of Oakland is deprived has obviously never really been through Oakland...

Downtown is nice, but there is a lot more to Oakland than the yuppies who run around Lake Merrit who are afraid to venture off into anywhere else in Oakland...

If you think a city that has the highest unemployment in the Bay Area and ranked as the 4th most dangerous city in the nation isn't deprived then you should walk a walk a few blocks down 66th Ave where the A's play now and you'll quickly rethink those words...

And...I think anyone who honestly believes that Wolf actually tried to keep the A's in Oakland is naive...Wolff doesn't care about the fans, hes using the A's for his own selfish reasons which why I hate when people defend him...If he actually wanted to build a ballpark he would be first in line at the Army Base by the Bay bridge...perfect for a ballpark, and instead of housing he would surround the park with commercial stores. Close to the freeway, close to West Oakland Bart, and Mayor Dellums has already said he is open for any ideas for the army base, including a ballpark...

Wolff has been plotting to move this team closer to his home town forever...were just lucky Wolff isn't from Oklahoma City like Clayton Bennett is...

Anonymous said...

"Wolff has been plotting to move this team closer to his home town forever."

Yup , Fremont IS closer to Beverly Hills where he lives , and also closer to San Jose , where his manu of his COMPANIES source most of their local income . He makes money ALL OVER the world - we just talk about his SJ interests 'cause his baseball team ( the A's ) is local to Bay Area and we can relate to SJ , not to his investments worldwide in hotels or shopping centers , etc. in many states .

Anonymous said...

"Even during the unpopular Steve "one foot out of Oakland" Schott, the A's drew consistently between 2.4 and 2.2 million fans and where in the middle of the pack in attendance."

Anon 4:38, you are just absolutely full of crap. The A's have only drawn more than 2.2 million fans 7 times in their entire 40 year history in Oakland, and 5 of those were '88 - 92, when they had one of the highest payrolls in baseball and were winning pennants. The A's have only topped 2.2 million twice since (2 out of the 10 Schott years, by the way), and then only barely (2003, 2,216,596; 2004 2,201,516). They have not gotten anywhere close to 2.4 million since 92.

Face it: When you consider the quality of the team on the field, attendance in Oakland has ranged from mediocre to miserable the entire time the team has been here. This has been consistent through all ownership groups - yes, even including Haas.

Attendance is down this year, yes. However, it is still dramatically higher than it has been during 3/4 of the A's history in Oakland. When you consider economic factors, and when you consider the fact that the A's are no longer papering attendance with 13,000 $2 seats in the upper deck every Wednesday, I'd consider this a resounding endorsement of current management.

When you have to resort to outright lies to make your case, it doesn't say much for your cause.

Here are actual A's attendance figures for those interested in, y'know, actual facts:

Jeffrey said...

Yeah, is it interesting that the low attendance at the start of the Schott years was really a continuation of the trend started in the end of the Hass years? I was completely blown away when i looked at this a couple weeks back and realized that much of the OAFC attendance arguments were weak.

In the past 40 years, the A's have been at or above the league average for attendance only 8 times. It seems odd for a franchise that has been in the post season 15 times over that period.

linusalf said...

your anti-oakland attendance arguments are weak,
pleanty of cites with lower attendance have gotten new ballparks in their city. (SF, Clevland, Det, Pitt ect.)

and besides since the "attendance problem" is Oakland's and only Oakland's fault how is a move to a city with 1/2 the population going to fix this?

Marine Layer said...

You've partly answered your own question there, linusalf. It's not about Oakland or Fremont for that matter. It's about the A's being a regional team.

Jeffrey said...

explain how the anti-attendance arguments are weak?

The A's have drawn league average or above 8 times in 40 years. Even under Hass, the A's were below league average more than they were above.

And honestly, low attendance doesn't mean Oakland should not get a new stadium. I was pulling for the uptown park before it got Robert Bobb fired.

Anonymous said...

Brown's Uptown decision was the real death knell for a new Downtown Oakland stadium, not some Schott/Wolff/Selig conspiracy. Nonsense like that is the reason no one takes you OAFCers seriously.

freddy said...

I moved to downtown Oakland 11 years ago. I was taking a break from life in the fast lanes, the media business, London, NYC, LA.

I loved it - there wasn't a hipster in sight. Not even a single trendy bar, awesome. Had it all to myself. When the Ruby Room opened, it felt like Williamsburg, 1989. Here we go, I thought.

And sure enough, downtown Oakland is Hipster Central now. It was inevitable. Market forces, cheaper rent, kids and young families relocating from SF.

For a brief time, this influx intersected with the Oakland Athletics. I took a lot of cats to their first A's game - sometimes their first ballgame ever - and they loved it. The A's - and their fans - were hip. I personally filled probably 500 seats/year.

With the tarping of the third deck, that came to an abrupt end. For me and a lot of other folks. The message was pretty clear - I took it as a slap in the face - my attendance was no longer desired. The third deck had such a great sense of democracy, diversity, what the USA is (was?) all about. Along with a bit of dirt and drunk, but hey - my gang never complained, that was part of the fun.

The A's are no longer "cool" and that's that. You don't see the hip kids at the ballpark - they've got better things to do. Stuff that's more cost-effective, too. It's no problem at all finding where they are hanging now. It's real easy to see who's marketing to them.

The A's mean nothing to them - and you can see it. It's a big contrast to my hipster pals in New York, for instance - the Knicks suck, but Knick fans are still hip. Why? It's their team - in their eyes, ownership is just along for the ride. That passion is shared by the elitest of the elite and the plebiest plebe. In a stratified society, it's Superglue.

That fellow at AN who persists with the Ramones/BeeGee's quote - forget it man. That quote was pre-tarp. I've worked with the Ramones - and zillions of their fans - they have no interest in you.

The A's are no longer cool, plain and simple. Too bad - they had a real long legacy in that department. Call me OAFC and move on if you like, but if this were a real* business, you'd want to take it up with the marketing department.

(*There's nothing terribly cool about a real estate front.)

Marine Layer said...

Interesting idea. How much could the A's really rely on the so-called hipster segment? Most of them grow up, get domesticated/gentrified, move onto different things. The original drummers did.

Would things be any different if the A's were winning? If they had a bigger payroll and more willingness to hang onto talent?

Hmmm, this may be worthy of a separate post.

Anonymous said...

If you really were cool, you'd know that hipsters aren't. Whatever. Your wannabe friends wouldn't drop the Knicks if they moved to another neighborhood in New York, which would be the equivalent of this move if our cities had coalesced into much larger entities like New York did way back when. Otherwise, it's just another move across town.

Marine Layer said...

The Knicks are a terrible comparison. The phenomenon there is just as much about MSG and its history as a basketball mecca as it is the team. MSG is in its 4th incarnation and has moved around, but not out of, Manhattan. Nothing about the vagabond A's is comparable, even though the A's have won more championships in the last 40 years than the Knicks.

Georob said...

I've stayed out of this one long enough.

The true reason for the attendance decline is simply the quality of the team right now. On top of that, so much is determined by how a team does the year before, and the first under .500 season in many years was likely the reason this team drew lower than usual in April and May even when they were playing well.

I think we all saw this coming, though. The OAFC'ers, or whatever you want to call them; have another reason to protest the Fremont move. Namely, that it's a direct cause and effect relationship with the attendance, and that the main reason Wolff and Beane are trading established players is to purposely dampen the quality of the product in Oakland so that no one goes to games. By doing so, the A's are further justified in moving the team.

No matter where your point of view lies, I think all of us can agree that Oakland gets "dumped on" in the media and elsewhere far more than it's entitled. But what that has manifested is a group of people with an ongoing chip on their shoulder. If any business or organization is having problems with or wishes to leave the city, it's automatically because they're either bigoted or wish to "diss the working class"

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not worth the time and effort arguing with these people any more. They believe that they belong to an oppressed and disenfranchised group, and until they start feeling otherwise(like when the original drummers moved on), it's always going to be "Us versus them". In many ways, it's what they live for. It gives them purpose. And maybe that's really not a bad thing.

But when Freddy talks about the "diversity and democracy" of the third deck, my diplomacy goes out the window. For my friend, you're just plain full of crap.

Jeffrey said...

How could freddy be full of crap? He's lived the fast lane and is friends with the Ramones!

Jeebus... blow it out your backside.

Anonymous said...

Of course it has to do with the team abandoning Oakland, and, to add insult to injury, changing the team name. That's a huge slap in the face, whether you want to believe it or not.

My family and I were the biggest
Oakland A's fans around before Wolff pulled his shenanigans. My kids were huge Oakland A's fans. We relished going to the games, listening on the radio when we were out of town, watching every inning on TV. Wolff betrayed us. He told us we didn't matter. He told Oakland to get lost. He went to San Francisco, of all places, and rubbed Oakland's nose in this mess when he told SF business men that Oakland was not an option.

What a clueless ownership. We haven't gone to a game since Wolff announced that he was abandoning Oakland. I know many other people who feel the same way. These people use to be hard-core loyal Oakland A's fans. They no longer care.

I agree with Freddie, a team which is successful becomes part of the fabric of a city. You see it with New York, Boston, Chicago, and because of the commitment of ownership to build a ballpark in the heart of the city, you even see it in San Francisco. The people in these cities know that the team is theirs, win or lose. That makes all the difference in the world. That's why the Giants are still drawing crowds in the 30,000 range.The ownership embraced the city and the community and invested in becoming part of the fabric of San Francisco.

Wolff, on the other hand, has shown contempt for Oakland and thinks he's bigger than the community. He thinks he's doing Oakland a favor by his team's mere presence within the city limits. Fans have had enough of Wolff's contemptuous attitude. The same magic, and feeling of pride in community, which exists in Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, etc., could have been created in Oakland with a downtown or waterfront ballpark. Instead, Wolff dismissed Oakland with the back of his hand.

The man has shown contempt and disrespect for Oakland as a city, ever since he became owner. He made cracks about "where to hold the parade" after winning the World Series. How about Market Street in San Francisco, Lew? Obviously, Lew doesn't give Oakland much credit. He thinks of Oakland as a place without a downtown, kind of like Anaheim. Lew, how about a parade around Lake Merritt, through Grand Ave. with a left turn on Broadway, with speeches and awards in front of City Hall at Frank Ogawa Plaza?

The lack of respect for Oakland, and for long-time Oakland A's fans, is at the heart of the attendance and ratings failures of this ownership. It's a franchise which is know reaping what it has sown. When you're arrogant and think you're above the city which has hosted you for forty years, this is what happens.

Mr. Plainview said...

anon, couldn't have said it better myself...

Some people still just don't get it...If Wolff is just moving the team "down the street" like he claims, why won't he just keep the team name under Oakland, plenty of teams play in ballparks that the team doesn't represent, it would sure create less controversy, instead he feels the need to spend money on changing the merchandising, the logo, and jerseys...

All Wolf did was create this dog and pony show trying to make everyone think he tried to stay in Oakland so he can place all the blame on the city...just like Clay Bennett did with the Sonics...they announced they found email conversations from Bennett in 2006 discussing how he would plan to move the team to OKC in the future...

some of these owners are so evil...

Anonymous said...

What you don't get is that for Chicago, New York, Boston and our very own San Francisco, for crying out loud, that "fabric of the city" doesn't end at some administrative boundary line. Those teams are a part of the community, and that community includes everyone in the region (and beyond). I've been an A's fan my entire life too. But I've never lived in the city of Oakland. I don't care what city collects their business license fees. They are a Bay Area team. Our community. Only people like you make it about a line on a map. The A's aren't doing any of the crazy things you people accuse them of. They are moving to a nearby location that allows them to fund and build the stadium and village. And stay in the community.

You think the Giants draw well because the taxpayers of the city of San Francicso feel the Giants have "respected" them or something? That place is still relatively filled because they are a regional draw. Why do you think they protect the South Bay so strongly? Because they're sucking money out of there like a vacuum cleaner in a bank vault. The A's will do the same thing in their new digs. If some people like you aren't a part of it because you don't like the logo on the police cars out front? Oh well. Can't really blame Wolff for your hang-ups.

Anonymous said...

Plainview - I would like to see the name remain unchanged too. But I don't think it's in the cards. If he's going to go head-to-head with the Giants for the South Bay, Wolff is going to need a big advantage because they are already more established there (with the big money, not Joe fan). I think the more localized name will be that advantage. I can live with it if it means they can compete better and fund a better team.

Anonymous said...

Oakland is the center of the East Bay region, not Fremont.

The "fabric of a city" is established by linking the franchise to the city and vise a versa. No one is going to feel that Fremont is going to create any kind of aura around the team. Oakland is a major city that's well known Nationally. Oakland has won six World Championships in the three major sports.

Oakland has high-rises, theaters, two waterfronts, 890 restaurants, and 420,000 residents, along with being the capital of the Oakland Metro Area with a population of 2.4 million residents. Oakland is also easily accessible from San Jose, San Francisco, and the North Bay.

No one is saying Oakland is going to support the Oakland A's all by itself. But, Oakland is a major well known California city which gives the A's a lot more cachet than does Fremont, or anything named Silicon @ Fremont. That's plain sterile and has no emotional pull. You can't create any kind of aura or any type of fabric with that type of generic identity.

Anonymous said...

Well, you're wrong and obviously know nothing about branding. You can create an "aura" around any name. Just look around a sporting goods store. This mythical center of the East Bay region lives in your imagination only. The only center of anything that is widely considered in the Bay Area is San Francisco. Yes, Oakland is known nationally. Unfortunately, it isn't for anything positive. It's not fair or accurate, but the reality is it's not known for its good qualities by others.

Only people who apparently never set foot over the Oakland city limit line stop thinking about their home, their community at some invisible administrative boundary. The rest of us enjoy everything the region has to offer.

Look, you guys are jacked-up because you feel like this is somehow making Oakland less than it was. It's not. Get over it. You still live in a place with two baseball teams. You just have to cross a city line to get to both of them now. It's not a big deal. Millions of people have done it before and will do it again. It doesn't change anything about the city of Oakland as a place to live.

Anonymous said...

You're wrong. The A's relocating to Fremont diminishes Oakland and it diminishes the A's. Having three professional franchises within its city limits gives Oakland additional entertainment options other cities don't have. As a matter of fact, I picked up a "Destination Oakland" magazine at the Airport, and along with all of the attractions, restaurants, theaters, parks, museums etc., the fact that Oakland has three pro sports franchises was used in the same context to promote the city as were the Oakland Symphony, the Oakland Ballet, Yohsi's, or any other entertainment option.

Why would I want to support a baseball team in Fremont who wants to represent a mythical "Silicon Valley?" What does THAT have to do with my roots, my reality, my kids memories? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

The fact that I can still get to a balllpark to support a franchise I don't recognize, and doesn't represent my sense of history, my reality, and my memories, means nothing to me. They might as well be in Portland or Las Vegas.

The Silicon Valley A's @ Fremont? What in the world does that have to do with my memories and my kids memories of the Oakland Athletics?

Anonymous said...

Nothing, I guess. You're too narrow-minded and superficial to understand, apparently. So just wallow in your misery of Oakland only having two professional sports teams and how that makes it such a terrible place to live. The rest of us will go enjoy some baseball.

Anonymous said...

I see, having a sense of history and caring about the legacy of the Oakland A's makes me superficial and narrow minded. I guess that's reasonable. I plead guilty as charged.

Anonymous said...

No, putting all the value of the city of Oakland into how many sports teams it has makes you superficial. And your inability to still enjoy A's baseball because they've crossed some random administrative line on a map makes you narrow-minded. I guess that all went over your head.

Anonymous said...

What about the history and legacy of the Philadelphia A's?