15 June 2009

Coyotes sale struck down, pro leagues can exhale now

A bankruptcy judge in in Phoenix has struck down the sale of the financially desperate Phoenix Coyotes to Blackberry co-founder and wannabe NHL team owner Jim Balsillie. The reason had little to do with principle, as Judge Redfield T. Baum explained that Balsillie's deadline of June 29 to wrap up the deal was to quick to resolve the myriad issues complicating the future of the Coyotes. (Text of ruling here [PDF].)

Balsillie has tried to acquire and move an NHL team to the Hamilton, Ontario area three times. Initially, he wanted to move the Pittsburgh Penguins in 2006, as there appeared to be no replacement for antiquated Mellon Arena (The Igloo) on the horizon. His bid was rejected, and eventually an investment group fronted by Mario Lemieux bought the team. A new Pittsburgh arena is under construction. Balsillie then moved on to Nashville, where the Predators haven't been setting league attendance records. The league instead preferred Preds ownership to keep the team in town, and an ownership group headed by San Jose financier William "Boots" Del Biaggio was chosen instead. If that name sounds familiar, it's because Del Biaggio recently pled guilty to securities fraud. Apparently, Boots was running a Ponzi scheme to finance his high-rolling lifestyle and to provide capital for his failed purchase of the Preds. After being rebuffed twice, Balsillie turned his attention to the Phoenix franchise, whose team name should be changed to the Phoenix Wile E. Coyotes.

In the last few weeks, a handful of speculative articles have surfaced with the thinking that should the sale be allowed, it would send shockwaves throughout the four major North American pro sports leagues, as there would be precedent to take on various antitrust protections and/or league ownership covenants. Even though the time issue was the major concern, Baum definitely sided with pro sports leagues in his opinion:
"This court can not find that antitrust law, as applicable nonbankruptcy law, permits the sale free and clear of the relocation rights of the NHL," Baum wrote.

He added, “It is not an antitrust violation for professional sports leagues to have terms and conditions on relocations of its members.”
Judge Baum also felt the incredibly bizarre case was unprecedented:
“The legal issues trigger not only bankruptcy law, but antitrust law and commercial law in the context of a professional sports team, as a Chapter 11 debtor, which team has for years incurred, and is continuing to incur, very serious financial losses and problems,” Baum wrote. “No cases have been found that precisely or even closely fit this scenario.”
I'm not going to rehash all of the sordid details of this Coyotes mess, you're better off going to Five for Howling and then read from there.

The four major commissioners can sleep well. It's not that there would be some mass exodus of teams in the coming months, the economy simply isn't ripe for it. Still, the NHL asked the other three leagues to pen a brief on its behalf. But leave it to someone to try to draw the A's situation into it, and this time it's not a Bay Area sports writer - it's LA Times baseball writer Bill Shaikin. Over the weekend, Shaikin mused that a decision one way or the other could spur either the A's or Giants to act. If Balsillie won, the floodgates could be thrown open and the A's could have better footing to fight T-rights. Then again, that same outcome could cause the Giants to sue to protect their territory, a battle which could be waged for several costly years. Either would be done with the thought that the MLB Constitution was somehow weakened by the decision.

For now it's all moot. MLB's antitrust provision remains unthreatened, and territorial rights stay as is. It hasn't stopped the media from revisiting the issue yet again, as Friday's Chronicle Live and a followup by John Shea indicates. The last word comes from Judge Baum, who had two sentences in the 21-page ruling that I felt was even somewhat relatable:
There are a (sic) some reported decisions allowing franchises to be relocated short distances within the area of their existing business without the consent or over the objection of the franchisor; excising such restriction from the contract.
As noted above, antitrust claims are inherently factually driven cases and it is not an antitrust violation for professional sports leagues to have terms and conditions on relocations of member teams.
In other words: status quo.


Ezra said...

Is there any possibility that this decision could be appealed?

Anonymous said...

"Bud Selig says the same thing about his league, but his lieutenants appear more than a little worried about the Coyotes case and the precedent it might set. The commissioner's office has intervened in the bankruptcy court, in support of the NHL, at a time when Selig has committed himself to getting the Oakland Athletics into a new ballpark."

Just build the damn thing in Oakland already!! I don't even think the Giants' t-rights will ever even be looked at by the Blue Ribbon Committee as long as the city presents a viable stadium plan within "Oakland's territory" which they've already done and is looking pretty promising.

While officials could not confirm the exact location, Mayor Dellums’ spokesperson David Chai says a recent meeting between city officials and representatives for Major League Baseball proved hopeful, “They left that meeting very impressed by our overall efforts and we’re going to be in a process over the next month, making sure that our presentation and all of the details that go into it are sound.”

Anonymous said...

There is no need for an appeal, as the judge left the door open on this case. He only blocked the sale because the would-be buyer put too short of a time limit on his offer. The judge indicated that he needed more time.
Despite the judges words that sounded somewhat sympathetic to the NHL owners, he also made a remark indicating that he didn't see this case involving relocation rights as being so different from other cases that have nothing to do with pro-sports:

...The judge compared that claim to "a purchaser of a bankrupt franchise in a remote location asserting that it can be relocated far from its original agreed site to a highly valuable location, for example New York City's Times Square."

Baum said that because he was rejecting the motion, he need not rule at this time on whether Moyes and Balsillie could void Glendale's lease.
If a local buyer's group doesn't step forward with a good offer for the ailing club, then it could still very well end up in Hamilton, no matter what the NHL owners' territory issues and relocation rights are supposed to be.

Jeffrey said...

So David Chai speaks for MLB?

That is posturing, plain and simple.

From what we have all heard in news reports the site du jour is Howard Terminal, already presented and ruled out nearly a decade ago.

The other potential sites? What are they, where are they?

Jesse said...

Isnt there a precedent with the Raiders moving to LA against the wishes of the NFL?

Marine Layer said...

The Raiders-LA Coliseum lawsuit was cited twice. It doesn't appear to be a similar enough case to make a difference. Baum made it clear that he doesn't object to changes of ownership as long as they are to league-approved parties, and that leagues can impose restrictions on movement.

Tony D. said...

I was going to respond to anon 9:20, but i find that way to easy at this point; like taking candy from a baby (he/she is obviously covering their eyes to everything ML has put out on this blog over the past 2 months).

I guess Lew Wolff being optimistic regarding San Jose and working out the territorial issue (see 6/11 SJ Neighborhood Committee meets) doesn't mean anything. Heck, I guess the A's will also embrace the proposed ticket surcharge to help bail out the city of Oakland financially. OK, OK, that's enough already.

Anonymous said...

"The case depends upon whether the NHL denies relocation under any circumstances and thus violates antitrust laws," Moyes said, "or specifies a relocation fee that is reasonable in this case."

One reason given by Baum for rejection of Balsillie's antitrust claims was the fact that the league had not made a decision on whether the franchise could be relocated.

The NHL, meanwhile, was left to find an owner who would buy the franchise and keep it in Glendale, where it has lost $36 million each of the past three years...

[The change in ownership is not likely to be an issue here] ... The real challenge, the judge said, was over relocation.

Left unanswered was Glendale's claim that the Coyotes can't get out of their lease agreement.

A ruling upholding an anti-relocation clause prevented Balsillie from moving the Penguins to Canada three years ago. The Penguins came back to thrive in Pittsburgh and won the Stanley Cup last week.

Attorney Eric Schaffer wrote that clause for the Penguins. He said the Coyotes' status remains shaky, despite the judge's ruling.

"Significantly, he does not foreclose future efforts to move the team, if the team and its proposed buyer can satisfy the factual prerequisites," Schaffer said in an e-mail. "At the same time, he leaves open the possibility that he will enforce the lease prohibition on relocation. ...So for now, the team stays. But the story is not over."

Lauren said...

The thing is, the Coyotes have done horribly the past few years, and finally have a young core in place to lead them out of it. Of course, that's not going to happen when they have the completely incompetent Wayne Gretzky as their coach, who makes around $7M per year (most coaches make $1M). That translates to a significant portion of the money they are losing. If they get a competent and cheaper coach, I could see the team turning things around and start making money.

And to back up what Anon 3:14 said - I believe the NHL is having a series of auctions with pre-approved buyers, with one auction for a buyer committed to keep the team in Phoenix for the next 7+ years, and another auction after that if no buyers turn out for the first one, to keep the team in Phoenix for at least one more year, with relocation a definite plausibility. Basically, no matter what happens the franchise will be in Phoenix this season, but after that its up in the air depending on who buys it. And the NHL already approved Balsillie as an owner back in 2006, so he can purchase the team during the auctions without having to get approved again.

Sharkspage with a more in-depth look:

As much as I dislike the guy for trying to circumvent NHL rules and continually screwing over team's fans (he sold season tickets to Hamilton residents while trying to relocate the Predators), Balsillie is doing a great job at playing the nationalism card with the slogan, "Make it Seven." Of course, all its doing online is making it into a US vs Canada issue, which its not, but it definitely got support for Hamilton from people from Canada.

Oh, and as much as I'd hate for the fans in Phoenix to lose their team, it would be interesting to see Shane Doan on his third team without ever being traded or becoming a free agent.

Anonymous said...


No one said anything about David Chai speaking for MLB. The article was simply indicating that he's obviously at all the meetings and probably knows a hell of a lot more than any of us do. Besides, from the sound of things it doesn't appear that these meeting with MLB include Lew Wolff. Also the fact that LW has made it pretty clear that he understands that it is now in the hands of MLB, and in my opinion the more noise he makes with San Jose and the A's, the worse it does for their cause.

Also no one said that Howard Terminal was actual site. I'm pretty sure MLB is aware that site was proposed in the past so there's no reason to think that they would be "very impressed" with their overall efforts on that site alone.

I still say territory rights won't ever even get looked at and MLB tells LW and the A's to build in Oakland.

Marine Layer said...

The meetings usually do include Wolff. He had to go to the one that was reported after our breakfast chat last month.

We say it's Howard Terminal because the intersection named in the article is Market/Embarcadero. What's at that intersection? Howard Terminal. There's no point in denying this unless they're trying to dress it up as new (and improved).

Anonymous said...

This is off the topic, but does anyone know when the next meeting is with the howard terminal proposal? I just remember the kron 4 video showed the mayors representative saying they will meet again sometime in June.

Anonymous said...

So the quotes that are being used here regarding Oakland meeting with the MLB blue ribbon committee were from more than a month ago--when Oakland was to have presented their sites. More meetings must have taken place since then---has there been any updates that anyone is aware of?

As I recall ML said to expect their report before the All-Star break which I beleive is July 14th-

Jeffrey said...

Look, I am all for a ballpark in Oakland. I sat in the third deck at AT&T Park last Friday ngiht and wished that there was a park witha similar atmosphere for me to go to on a regular basis (I don't go to AT&T unless the A's are playing there).

You have underscored my point Mr/Mrs. Anon with this statement:

Also no one said that Howard Terminal was actual site. I'm pretty sure MLB is aware that site was proposed in the past so there's no reason to think that they would be "very impressed" with their overall efforts on that site alone.

The person who said that MLB was "very impressed" is someone from Oakland. Not MLB.

What we know is that Mattier and Ross and KRON both have reported the site is Howard Terminal. They aren't reporting this out of speculation but based on anonymous sources who can't go on record.

My other question was a serious one... Howard Terminal will not fly. What are the other two sites hinted at in the original report by Mattier and Ross? Being a skeptic, I feel like they are not all that great or we would hear about them.

Why the secrecy? Where's the plan? Where are the meetings with people in the neighborhood where the park is proposed to be built? Why some lame online petition? Why the proposal to tax tickets?

All of this stuff says to me "things ain't going so well in Oakland."

The secrecy is because there is no plan. No meeting with people in the neighborhood, because there is nothing new and they can't expose that as the truth by being public. The online petition is because they don't really have much support for the concept of a new park in general. The ticket tax is to get something from the A's on their way out of town.

All speculation, admittedly. I am frustrated.

Anonymous said...

Actually I'm pretty sure from what I've been hearing around the campfire is that LW might have attended a meeting here or there, but he has not been involved with the others between Oakland Officials and MLB. Why else haven't you heard any other news regarding these meetings ML??

I still also feel that everyone here is only speculating Howard Terminal based on an article that clearly also states that it COULD be built NEAR Market and Embarcadero.

"For now it's all moot. MLB's antitrust provision remains unthreatened, and territorial rights stay as is...In other words: status quo."

I'm glad you've finally realized this yourself ML. Thanks for making it clear to everyone.

Marine Layer said...

9:09 - You make it sound like there's some super-secret partnership between Oakland and MLB right now. That's now how this is constructed. The panel's tasks are to figure out what went wrong in Oakland, then to see if there are any remaining avenues, then to see if any such avenues make sense from a cost/benefit standpoint.

The burden is equally on Wolff and the City, and Wolff's already done his part with his presentation. Now the burden is on Oakland. Wolff's already made it clear that he feels the future isn't in Oakland, so it makes sense that he wouldn't be involved in sussing out the possibilities there.

So it really comes down to Oakland's proposal(s) against Wolff's preso, of which I wrote a little regarding Coliseum South. That alone is quite damaging to Oakland's cause, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Knowing what I know about how the panel is constructed and that preso, the City really needs to step up its game considerably if this is going to carry on past the summer. The panel is made up of guys who know the stadium game in and out. They know the difference between a rushed, half-baked proposal and a fully vetted one. The burden is on Oakland.

Anonymous said...

So many doubtful people who obviously feel like they need to be "in the know" with the stadium plans that Oakland is coming up with. Why doesn't everyone just chill out and wait to see what happens rather then all the assuming going on. All it does is creates more rumors and gets people riled up for nothing than a possible disappointment.

I'm sure the people of Minnesota or St. Petersburg didn't know of all the different sites that was being proposed in their city until after they came to the agreement to actually build the new ballparks.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:09,

What the hell has ML finally realized? Thanking him for clearing things up for everyone? He's only stating what all of us have realized for a long time: the anti-trust remains and the T-Rights remain as is...for now. You make it seem as if some big revelation was made by ML. Seiously, you bringing in all of your nonesense here is like bringing milk to a bar! Why don't you try reading all of ML's posts before you type another word here.

By the way, I heard Dellums the other day on KCBS talk about the dire straights of Oaklands financial crisis, putting all it's marbles on the federal stimulus package. It sounded like Mr. Dellums wanted to cry. By the way, how does his spokesman all of a sudden have more insight on the A's future than Lew Wolff himself or Marinelayer?

Jeffrey said...

The article said:
A City Hall source identified one of the waterfront sites as the Howard Terminal near Jack London Square and the other as a strip known as "Oak to Ninth" - part of a 65-acre site slated for development next to the Oakland Estuary.

Anonymous said...

Pay no attention to that anon. He doesn't even know the secret Oakland/MLB handshake. I do. At the last meeting we sacrificed a goat and burnt an effigy of former Mayor Brown. At the next meeting, we're going to dance naked around a fire of eucalyptus and green tea leaves. So you can see, much progress is being made.

bartleby said...

"The ticket tax is to get something from the A's on their way out of town."

You hit the nail right on the head, Jeffrey. If Oakland had any serious hope of keeping the A's (or the Raiders, for that matter), there is no way they would even publicly speculate on something like this right now, when both franchises are deciding their futures. It would be monumentally stupid.

Oakland is competing to host the A's with a much stronger economic location. Adding a major additional cost to the team which would not exist in San Jose makes it even more unlikely a deal in Oakland can pencil out. This move just screams "we have about five years left to milk these teams for some contribution toward the massive coliseum debt before they're gone."

Oakland needs to be really careful. The Warriors are wildly successful there and would otherwise have little reason to consider a move, but a huge additional tax certainly gives them one. The A's and Raiders are stuck in Oakland for a while because there is no place for them to move, but the Warriors have a state of the art arena right down the street in their home market, HP Pavilion. They could be gone the moment their lease is up (or some arcane "out" clause is triggered in their contract).

Let's not forget, Oracle Arena directly competes with HP Pavilion for concerts and other events. A 10% ticket tax would undoubtedly cause a large number of these events to move south.

Jeffrey said...

Anon 10:06-

Hogwash. Tampa Bay and Minneapolis/St. Paul openly discussed potential ballpark sites. In fact Tampa Bay still is.

In fact, San Francisco publicly speaks about potential sites for the 49ers as well. I can not think of a single city/franchise that was looking for a new stadium and didn't float ideas in full public view before reaching a deal.

Anonymous said...

Everyone just needs to stop assuming stuff, and stop listening to one persons opinion. Until we find out the latest official news on the situation, we are all just wasting our time. The whole thing is so unpublicized that everone is pretty much playing a guessing game of what might happen next. Hopefully some news will come out by the end of this month, cause we are all sick of being on the edge of our seats. This has gone on for what seems like forever, they really aren't doing a good job of letting the people know whats going on until something relatively big happens.

Anonymous said...

No one is going to build a ballpark anywhere in this economy. The city which has the ML venue already built will keep the team. Oakland is way ahead of San Jose in this regard. Oakland has a ballpark. San Jose has dreams, a few separate parcels which need to come together, and a massive budget deficit of its own. No municipality will be allowed to spend a dime on a boondoggle for millionaires in these downtrodden economic times. The citizenry will not tolerate it. The Mayor of San Jose knows this, the Santa Clara County Assessor knows this, and more importantly MLB and Lew Wolff know this. It's time to make nice with Oakland Mr. Wolff. They have a very serviceable ballpark with access to their dwindling but potentially huge fanbase.

Anonymous said...

anon 8:39,

i agree and think that maybe is why freemont backed out. which was a great option for a new high tech cisco field. now cisco field is either oakland or san jose. i do think with money a little tight it can still be build and it definatly is a must because the colesium is way too old.

i guess just build it in the parking lot of the current stadium and arena area in oakland. or san jose, or option 3, pleasanton area, waterfront oakland. when blown out of proportion it almost becomes confusing. losing the freemont deal in a bad economy took alot of the momentum away and its time to get that momentum back. its almost like build it 1/2 way between san jose and oakland like originaly planned just not in fremont. maybe like 1/3 from san jose and 2/3's of the distance. or 1/4- 3/4. new 'east bay' ballpark...

Anonymous said...

"No one is going to build a ballpark anywhere in this economy."

Really? That's interesting, because Lew Wolff says he is going to.

Love your absolutes there 839; care to back your opinions up with some facts?

San Jose land - aquired, zoned appropriately, with an approved EIR.

Perhaps you are right, no new ballpark will be built in the Bay Area, but your statement is already incorrect - a new park is being built, as I type this, in Minnesota, and the Marlins new park was approved and ready to begin construction.

Anonymous said...

Ah, wonderful. The delusional, anonymous blowhards are back. What would this board be without 'em.

The economy will stay terrible forever, San Jose voters will vote against having $500 million of private money pumped into the economy just on general principle, MLB and the other owners will happily continue to spend tens of millions a year subsidizing the A's to stay in a wretched concrete dump where the fans have never supported them, blah, blah, blah.

Anonymous said...

I look forward to the '9ers opening day in Santa Clara, A's opening day in San Jose--both in 2014--who knows where the Raiders will go--Santa Clara or out of the area---and the Warriors?? My bet is SF will work to build an arena out by AT&T and the Warriors will be back in SF--

For those who believe the economy will keep things from moving forward---come on---world is not coming to an end--in fact all predictions have 2010 looking up---and construction doesn't begin for any of these until 2012---by than the economy will be back in full swing--

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:58 its funny how stupid you are. The A's aren't for sure moving to San Jose. Anything could happen, at the rate it's going they wont leave the coliseum for a long while. Your hoping for a SJ park so much that your delusional. I bet you cried when you found out the fremont plan was a bust.

Anonymous said...

Cried? Hardly---because I new there was a much better option in downtown SJ---and your right--they won't leave the "C" for a long time--5 years is a long time in my book, before opening day in SJ--

Delusional is what the good folks of Oakland have been doing for the past 15 years spinning circles trying to find a ballpark site--while footing a $20M annual bill for screwing up the current one--

Stupid? your right---SJ is not a guarantee---but if the A's are going to stay in the Bay Area its the only hope---and a damn good one at that---stupid is believing that Oakland will ever be able to put anything together, find the money to purchase the land, complete the EIR and be prepared to manage infrastructure improvements--

Let's all convene next June---and see who is stupid, delusional and who is crying---

Anonymous said...

Well we will all have to watch and see how this clusterfuck folds out.

Jeffrey said...

Assuming stuff?

Two quick things- first, no one is assuming that Oakland is working on Howard Terminal, Oak to Ninth or the Coliseum Parking Lot. Those are sites the inside sources are discussing anonymously through the press.

Second- why the hell comment on a blog about things that are in motion if not to speculate about how they might end up? I see nothing wrong with fact based assumptions.

Anonymous said...

geographically its the .mlb. american league triangle;
oakland, sacramento, stockton.

(A's) (AAA)(A advanced - per

Jeffrey said...

What is this "geographically" comment all about? I don't follow?

Anonymous said...

I was thinking the same thing???

Anonymous said...

There's a difference between fact based assumptions, and guys who say "can't wait till A's opening day in San Jose" I want the A's to stay in Oakland, but I'm not going "Woohoo can't wait till the Howard Terminal Park opens!" It's just kinda annoying and childish. It is not a fact that the A's are moving to San Jose, and I know a lot on here are pulling for that to become reality, but it's bs how one sided this blog is at times.

Anonymous said...

What is annoying to me are the Oakland types who claim to be fans as long as the A's stay in Oakland but will disown the team when it moves to San Jose---now that is BS

Anonymous said...

When it moves to San Jose?? First of all it's not it, it's they. And second who said they're going anywhere??

What's annoying to me are the San Jose types who thinks this is a done deal for them when at the current moment they have a much better chance at staying in Oakland than they do with moving to the South Bay. San Jose isn't even in any position to negotiate anything with the A's and MLB has been meeting with Oakland Officials.

Jeffrey said...

Anon 11:51

From a neutral perspective (I sound like a broken record saying I don't care if a new stadium is in Oakland or San Jose), what I meant by "fact based assumptions" is the FACT that the City of Oakland is running out previously dismissed stadium sites. Sites even Doug Boxer admitted had "challenges."

If you are running MLB, and you see that, coupled with a potential ticket surcharge that has nothing to do with actually building a stadium how could you not be thinking about moving the Bay Area AL franchise to San Jose?

Add to it, San Jose has already moved through several steps in making a ballpark happen. Meanwhile, in Oakland they are dusting off outdated proposals and pitching them as new. But, hey the Mayors guy says MLB is impressed.

Those are the facts. There are only two things going for Oakland right now... the team plays there currently and territorial rights are a barrier to the A's moving.

It isn't hard to see, all tings considered, that San Jose has a very good chance at landing the A's. Would you not agree that there are better odds for an A's move to San Jose than on a ballpark being built at Howard Terminal, 0ak to 9th or the Coliseum parking lot?

Anonymous said...

It's not bs when your a fan of the legacy of the Oakland A's. It's disrespectful of the fans and the city to move em. If the A's leave Oakland, they leave there legacy in Oakland. Yes anon 1:16 your a fan, but theres different types of fans. Im for tradition, and keeping the team where it won 4 world series. You like the team, but are more for a new venue than preserving the history in Oakland. You clearly don't give a shit about preserving the Oakland A's history. Cause a nicer ballpark is more important to you.

Anonymous said...

Yeah Jeffrey I agree.

Anonymous said...

I think both sides are pretty annoying and arrogant.

Anonymous said...

What really gets me is the arrogance of some of the San Jose types. It goes something like this. "We have more money than you therefore we should have your team." "Please hand it over, it will be good for the Bay Area." Go take a hike!

Since when has the "Bay Area" given a rat's ass about Oakland? San Jose is being an opportunist in trying to snatch a neighbor's team in order to enhance its weak National profile.

If, and when, the OAKLAND A's no longer exist, I will be done with Major League baseball. I will never set foot in any ballpark in San Jose. In fact, I've already lost a lot of loyalty and respect for Lew Wolff's vagabond team.

Frankly, I no longer consider them the "OAKLAND A's." As a matter of fact, a few years ago, being swept by San Francisco would have bothered me for a month. Now, I view it as San Francisco sweeping San Jose and it doesn't really bother me. Thanks Lew for all you've done in destroying this once proud franchise. Thanks to you, not many people care anymore.

Anonymous said...

anon 8:38 I couldn't agree more. Uou made some valid points. I'm glad I'm not the only one on here who is against them moving.

Anonymous said...

I think there's been more A's fans at Petco Park this weekend then at the Coliseum. Its amazing what a new yard in a downtown setting will do for attendance, even if its 400 miles to the south. 35 miles south will work just fine; delusional blowhards be damned!

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:38 and 11:29---oh well---your emotional rants that defy logic are always amusing. Don't let the door hit you on your way out---if the A's are successful in staying in the Bay Area and moving to San Jose there will be plenty of fans to make up the blowhards like you that are not true A's fans--but rather Oakland fans---btw--where is the cry of the '9er fans that they will no longer support their team if it moves to Santa Clara---real fans support their teams regardless of which local they play in--no different than me supporting the A's in Oakland all of these years--

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:38. Yah, it's pretty obvious you don't care anymore about the A's. If you loved the A's so much then why would you care where they play? I'd just be happy that the team gets to stay in the Bay Area. By the way, the people of San Jose have greatly supported all the Bay Area sports teams for many years. Why can't you do the same?

Marine Layer said...

That's enough.