HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

OT: San Jose city suing MLB (anti-trust, etc.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-22-2013, 04:30 PM
  #76
Audio Outlaw
Jaded Sharks Fan
 
Audio Outlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,513
vCash: 1185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
And giants fans wonder why fans outside their fan base can't stand them...
I certainly don't wonder about it. Other fan bases thoughts and opinions do not concern me in the slightest bit. I only root for and care about the well being of 1 MLB team, and that is the San Francisco Giants.

SF Giants fans do not want the A's down her in San Jose, neither does the Giants organization obviously. The A's team and fan base are not welcomed here by Giants fans. I understand it is frustrating and unfair, but we are rivals and that is life.

Would you want an unwelcome rival coming into your house to take food off of your plate?

I don't want to be the bad guy here, I just want to represent those who do not want the A's in San Jose.

Audio Outlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2013, 07:02 PM
  #77
nabbyfan
Registered User
 
nabbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SJC
Posts: 489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audio Outlaw View Post
I certainly don't wonder about it. Other fan bases thoughts and opinions do not concern me in the slightest bit. I only root for and care about the well being of 1 MLB team, and that is the San Francisco Giants.

SF Giants fans do not want the A's down her in San Jose, neither does the Giants organization obviously. The A's team and fan base are not welcomed here by Giants fans. I understand it is frustrating and unfair, but we are rivals and that is life.

Would you want an unwelcome rival coming into your house to take food off of your plate?

I don't want to be the bad guy here, I just want to represent those who do not want the A's in San Jose.
Not calling you a bad guy, no worries about that- its just baseball! However at the same time I know many Giants fans who don't care if the A's move to SJ... They'll still prefer Caltrain up to SF to see their team. I guess I just don't understand your reasoning that the A's moving farther away from SF than they currently are in Oakland constitutes them moving into The "giants backyard". Most Giants fans don't care about the A's at all, sure they're a rival during interleague forced rivalry weekend, but the Giants hate the Dodgers and a few other NL teams before the A's.

Just would be nice for Giants fans to acknowledge that the A's helped keep them in the Bay Area,
And the Giants have a chance to return the favor. It's not like 49ers Raiders where the two fanbases can't stand each other.

nabbyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 12:33 AM
  #78
krudmonk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 5,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audio Outlaw View Post
I just want to represent those who do not want the A's in San Jose.
just don't present this as majority opinion.

krudmonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 06:38 AM
  #79
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
 
HabsByTheBay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London
Country: United States
Posts: 1,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabbyfan View Post
Not calling you a bad guy, no worries about that- its just baseball! However at the same time I know many Giants fans who don't care if the A's move to SJ... They'll still prefer Caltrain up to SF to see their team. I guess I just don't understand your reasoning that the A's moving farther away from SF than they currently are in Oakland constitutes them moving into The "giants backyard". Most Giants fans don't care about the A's at all, sure they're a rival during interleague forced rivalry weekend, but the Giants hate the Dodgers and a few other NL teams before the A's.

Just would be nice for Giants fans to acknowledge that the A's helped keep them in the Bay Area,
And the Giants have a chance to return the favor. It's not like 49ers Raiders where the two fanbases can't stand each other.
Don't be obtuse, the Giants have a strangehold on the Valley in terms of fan and corporate support. The Giants already have large fan support in the East Bay and there's only a handful of big corporations out there. The Giants are obviously going to lose out somewhat on corporate and fan support in the South Bay and that crimps on their plans to become a mega-franchise like the Red Sox or Phillies.

That said I don't think it will be as bad as they think. The A's have been around for almost 50 years and have been a more successful franchise than the Giants until recently. I don't know how many San Jose people will change allegiances but the Giants have the city, the brand and the recent success. I know people in the South Bay that are 2nd and 3rd generation Giants fans, are they really gonna change because a team that's been in the area since 1968 moved closer to home? It's not like SJ is DC, which tepidly supported the Orioles except for a period in the late 70s/early 80s when the Redskins owner owned the Orioles. SJ is a strongly Giants area.

Likewise with the corporate support, AT&T is not going to stop being a beautiful ballpark in a destination city with a successful team on the field. They'll have to work harder but they'll get through it. My hope is the two teams hammer out an agreement at some point. There are rumors it may have already happened given the gag order both teams are under right now.

But the A's didn't really help at all. The Giants were still going to Tampa before the Magowan group bought the team and built a ballpark in the City without asking the taxpayers for a handout.

HabsByTheBay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 12:43 PM
  #80
nabbyfan
Registered User
 
nabbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SJC
Posts: 489
vCash: 500
For sure, Giants fans outnumber A's fans in the South Bay probably by a 4-1 Ratio... But the Giants could've built their park down here if it was that important for them to get the South Bay fans. The Giants will never be a mega franchise like the phillies... MLB made sure the Bay Area would stay a 2 Team market back when it was the A's who had the overwhelming support in the Bay. There are more than enough corporate dollars to go around both teams, and Oakland is slowly dying as a sports market. If the A's move goes through, the Raiders will be the only team left in that complex once the Warriors new stadium is up in SF.

I just hope they come to an agreement of some sort, it isn't really fair for fans of the team to be unsure of what's going to happen to the franchise.... At least Lew signed an extension of the Oakland lease so it's not like being a Coyotes fan.

nabbyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 11:33 PM
  #81
DrewRemendasBaldHead
Registered User
 
DrewRemendasBaldHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Bay Area
Country: United States
Posts: 597
vCash: 341
When Wolff bought the A's didn't he know that they did not have territory rights to SJ? Why should he be allowed to just move there when the Giants already have the rights?

As for the deal where the A's owner gave the Giants owners rights to SJ for free, that occurred before either of the present ownership groups were in place, and were thus included in the cost of the team purchases (I'm 99% sure this is true, someone correct me if I'm wrong). Why should the Giants give up the rights if they think it will hurt them financially? I'm not really sure why the Giants ownership is being vilified for not giving their territorial rights away.

Honestly, I feel bad for SJ baseball fans, but if the territory rights are agreed upon and part of the rules of the league it doesn't seem like they really have a very good case.

DrewRemendasBaldHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2013, 11:37 AM
  #82
nabbyfan
Registered User
 
nabbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SJC
Posts: 489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrewRemendasBaldHead View Post
Honestly, I feel bad for SJ baseball fans, but if the territory rights are agreed upon and part of the rules of the league it doesn't seem like they really have a very good case.
But why should SJ be the only city that is explicitly not allowed to have a certain team play there? From what I understand, no other 2 team market has any restrictions like this....if the Mets wanted to build across the street from Yankee stadium, nothing in the MLB rules prohibits that.

nabbyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2013, 12:18 PM
  #83
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
 
HabsByTheBay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London
Country: United States
Posts: 1,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabbyfan View Post
But why should SJ be the only city that is explicitly not allowed to have a certain team play there? From what I understand, no other 2 team market has any restrictions like this....if the Mets wanted to build across the street from Yankee stadium, nothing in the MLB rules prohibits that.
Well politically the Yanks would kick up a big stink but you're right.

I've looked into this myself and according to a great post on Athletics Nation it seems to have been a favor to the Giants to help them get a publicly funded ballpark down in SJ. Before 1990 or so the rights were split just as they were in every other area.

As for the Giants never being able to become the Phillies, they're within $20 million in revenue. They want to enter that class of economically elite teams.

HabsByTheBay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2013, 12:33 PM
  #84
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabbyfan View Post
But why should SJ be the only city that is explicitly not allowed to have a certain team play there? From what I understand, no other 2 team market has any restrictions like this....if the Mets wanted to build across the street from Yankee stadium, nothing in the MLB rules prohibits that.

Yup. C & P from the last San Jose A's thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Why should Oakland have that territory? They gave it up to San Francisco. They may end the A's in Oakland but that's only to the Giants' benefit. And to say that the Giants wouldn't lose any revenue by allowing the move is simply false.
The real question is why wasn't the South Bay already part of the Giants & A's territories. In every other shared market - NY, Chicago, & LA/Anaheim - the two teams territories are shared.

Why are the Giants granted a special privilege enjoyed by no other MLB team in a shared market?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MLB Constitution Art. VIII, Sec. 8
MAJOR LEAGUE CONSTITUTION
MLC Art. VIII, Sec. 8

(a) National League. The National League Clubs shall have the following
operating territories:
...
Chicago Cubs: Cook, Lake, DuPage, Will, Kendall, McHenry and
Grundy Counties in Illinois; and Lake and Porter
Counties in Indiana; provided, however, that this
territory shall be shared with the Chicago White Sox
franchise in the American League;
...
Los Angeles Dodgers: Orange, Ventura and Los Angeles Counties in
California; provided, however, that this territory shall
be shared with the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
franchise in the American League;
...
New York Mets: City of New York; Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland and
Westchester Counties in New York; Bergen, Hudson,
Essex and Union Counties in New Jersey; and that
portion of Fairfield County in Connecticut located
south of Interstate 84 and west of Route 58; provided,
however, that this territory shall be shared with the
New York Yankees franchise in the American League;
...
San Francisco Giants: City of San Francisco; and San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Cruz, Monterey and Marin Counties in
California; provided, however, that with respect to all
Major League Clubs, Santa Clara County in California
shall also be included;
...
(b) American League. The American League Clubs shall have the following
operating territories:
...
Chicago White Sox: Cook, Lake, DuPage, Will, Kendall, McHenry and
Grundy Counties in Illinois; and Lake and Porter
Counties in Indiana; provided, however, that this
territory shall be shared with the Chicago Cubs
franchise in the National League;
...
Los Angeles Angels of
Anaheim: Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura Counties in
California; provided, however, that this territory shall
be shared with the Los Angeles Dodgers franchise in
the National League;
...
New York Yankees: City of New York; Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland and
Westchester Counties in New York; Bergen, Hudson,
Essex and Union Counties in New Jersey; and that
portion of Fairfield County in Connecticut located
south of Interstate 84 and west of Route 58; provided,
however, that this territory shall be shared with the
New York Mets franchise in the National League;
...
Oakland Athletics: Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in California;
...

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2013, 01:39 PM
  #85
Vamos Rafa
ˇVamos!
 
Vamos Rafa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Clay Court
Country: Spain
Posts: 10,852
vCash: 500
Mets and Yankees share the same city. Same with the White Sox and Cubs. The Angels have an escape clause after the 2016 season. Since there seems to be no plan for a new stadium, they are forced to stay until 2029 if they don't exercise that clause.

Vamos Rafa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2013, 01:57 PM
  #86
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafa Nadal View Post
Mets and Yankees share the same city. Same with the White Sox and Cubs. The Angels have an escape clause after the 2016 season. Since there seems to be no plan for a new stadium, they are forced to stay until 2029 if they don't exercise that clause.
The Mets (Flushing) and Yankees (Bronx) and Dodgers (Los Angeles) and Angels (Anaheim) share metro areas. No different than San Francisco and Oakland in the Bay Area.

9 miles from NYY to NYM
10.5 miles from CHC to CWS
16.4 miles from SFG to OAK
32 miles from LAA to LAD

During interleague meetings in Oakland, they'll turn the cameras on the upperdeck and zoom on on the Giants park in the distance.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2013, 02:57 PM
  #87
Vamos Rafa
ˇVamos!
 
Vamos Rafa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Clay Court
Country: Spain
Posts: 10,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
The Mets (Flushing) and Yankees (Bronx) and Dodgers (Los Angeles) and Angels (Anaheim) share metro areas. No different than San Francisco and Oakland in the Bay Area.

9 miles from NYY to NYM
10.5 miles from CHC to CWS
16.4 miles from SFG to OAK
32 miles from LAA to LAD

During interleague meetings in Oakland, they'll turn the cameras on the upperdeck and zoom on on the Giants park in the distance.
I'm not talking about metro areas. NYY and NYM are within the NYC city limits. Same with CHC and CWS. San Jose and San Francisco are two different major cities. That's where it gets complicated.

Vamos Rafa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2013, 03:04 PM
  #88
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafa Nadal View Post
I'm not talking about metro areas. NYY and NYM are within the NYC city limits. Same with CHC and CWS. San Jose and San Francisco are two different major cities. That's where it gets complicated.
Anaheim and LA are two different cities - and Orange County is larger than any county in the Bay Area - but the Angels & Dodgers share the same territorial rights.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2013, 03:12 PM
  #89
Vamos Rafa
ˇVamos!
 
Vamos Rafa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Clay Court
Country: Spain
Posts: 10,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Anaheim and LA are two different cities - and Orange County is larger than any county in the Bay Area - but the Angels & Dodgers share the same territorial rights.
You are right but the difference is that the two SoCal teams don't have any split territorial right agreement. The Giants want to keep the big dog (SJ) away from the A's because of an agreement in the 90s. Again, their situation is still different from Sox-Cubs and Mets-Yanks. Sox and Cubs aren't fighting for another city since they are both in Chicago. Yanks and Mets are both in NYC.

Vamos Rafa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2013, 04:02 PM
  #90
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,113
vCash: 500
The Angels entered the league playing in (and representing) Los Angeles, so their territory was the same as the Dodgers.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2013, 04:34 PM
  #91
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,564
vCash: 500
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/08/563...#mi_rss=Sports

MLB seeking dismissal of case

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2013, 05:08 PM
  #92
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafa Nadal View Post
You are right but the difference is that the two SoCal teams don't have any split territorial right agreement. The Giants want to keep the big dog (SJ) away from the A's because of an agreement in the 90s. Again, their situation is still different from Sox-Cubs and Mets-Yanks. Sox and Cubs aren't fighting for another city since they are both in Chicago. Yanks and Mets are both in NYC.
The main reason their situation is different is because of the cocktail napkin agreement on San Jose. The original agreement was: Oakland for the As, San Fran for the Giants... that's it. The A's said "yeah, we'll let the Giants go to San Jose" back in the 90s. The Giants are saying that's THEIR terroritory now because the A's gave it to them.

It's no different than the Rangers/Islanders. The Islanders can put an arena anywhere in Nassau, Suffolk, Queens or Brooklyn; the Rangers can't. If the Islanders said "Hey, we can't get an arena deal done within those counties/boroughs. Would you object to us going to White Plains or Rye?" And the Rangers said sure, fine... only to see Barclays become an option... and then in 2030, the Rangers get evicted from MSG and Manhattan can't fit them so THEY want to go to White Plains and the Islanders say "Sorry, that's OUR city now."

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2013, 05:41 PM
  #93
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Makes me wonder if MLB will settle if the case doesn't get tossed.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 10:13 PM
  #94
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,564
vCash: 500
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...rticle-9239452

SJ fights back. Brief filed to see case go forward.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2013, 04:25 PM
  #95
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,564
vCash: 500
DeuceMason 10:57am via Web Selig on A's stadium issues @CBSSportsRadio (part 1): "You have one team that wants to move and the other team doesn’t want them to move..."

DeuceMason 10:58am via Web Selig on A's @CBSSportsRadio (part 2) "..it’s a very complicated situation. Before I leave, I’m satisfied we’ll work out something.”

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2013, 05:03 PM
  #96
nabbyfan
Registered User
 
nabbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SJC
Posts: 489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
DeuceMason 10:57am via Web Selig on A's stadium issues @CBSSportsRadio (part 1): "You have one team that wants to move and the other team doesn’t want them to move..."

DeuceMason 10:58am via Web Selig on A's @CBSSportsRadio (part 2) "..it’s a very complicated situation. Before I leave, I’m satisfied we’ll work out something.”
I'm sure his Blue Ribbon panel is going to figure this all out right away...

nabbyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-27-2013, 12:49 PM
  #97
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 16,882
vCash: 50
Selig is a moron and you can't take those quotes seriously. if he hasn't done anything in 3+ years what makes you think he'll do something in less than a year and a half?

he's simply biding time so he doesn't have to do anything about it.

Clowe Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-27-2013, 05:46 PM
  #98
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
Selig is a moron and you can't take those quotes seriously. if he hasn't done anything in 3+ years what makes you think he'll do something in less than a year and a half?

he's simply biding time so he doesn't have to do anything about it.
Selig's NOT a moron... insofar as his operations in the job of Commissioner. He's doing the bidding of the owners. If you want to ascribe to him the mythical position of "HE RUNS THIS SPORT," that's your prerogative and your problem.

Now, was he a moron as an owner? Possibly. Are the owners he answers to morons. In the collective, more than likely. Just keep in mind that Fay Vincent got run for growing a brain and, therefore, you're wise to wonder why you even follow that little tidbit about baseball.

PCSPounder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-27-2013, 07:55 PM
  #99
gee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCSPounder View Post
Selig's NOT a moron... insofar as his operations in the job of Commissioner. He's doing the bidding of the owners. If you want to ascribe to him the mythical position of "HE RUNS THIS SPORT," that's your prerogative and your problem.
but he also has a preferred direction and is in a position to sell that vision to the other owners.

gee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2013, 12:40 AM
  #100
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,564
vCash: 500
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...ment-shutdown/

Lawsuit may be delayed due to US Federal Government shut down.

Hearing scheduled for 10/4. There may be funds available to operate courts for ten days.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:12 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.