4 minutes ago, Das Texan said:

They arent going to leave the #6 market for what?  #15?  or lower?

Follow the dollars.  Always. 

If they can't get a stadium built, yeah they will.

They're not going to play in that dump forever.

Edited May 12, 20213 yr by rmc523

Just now, rmc523 said:

If they can't get a stadium built, yeah they will.

Manfred needs to focus his energies on getting the deal done in Oakland though I guess this is his way of doing it.

He needs to make this relocation edict with Tampa though.

2 minutes ago, Das Texan said:

Manfred needs to focus his energies on getting the deal done in Oakland though I guess this is his way of doing it.

He needs to make this relocation edict with Tampa though.

Again, they've been working over a decade on it.  I'd have to assume they've already "focused his energies on getting a deal done in Oakland", and are getting close to exhausting options, hence a potential look at relocation.

 

Agreed on Tampa - just move them to Montreal and call it a day.  This split city idea is absurd.

4 hours ago, rmc523 said:

Again, they've been working over a decade on it.  I'd have to assume they've already "focused his energies on getting a deal done in Oakland", and are getting close to exhausting options, hence a potential look at relocation.

 

Agreed on Tampa - just move them to Montreal and call it a day.  This split city idea is absurd.

Yeah split cities is stupid as hell.

 

I always bring up Charlotte for an MLB team. Still don’t know how they would do it with them just building that nice triple A stadium downtown.

If you build it, they will come

On 5/13/2021 at 3:10 PM, Iowa said:

If you build it, they will come

Is this heaven?  No it’s Iowa. 

On 5/11/2021 at 4:21 PM, SonOfJack said:

Hope they change their name if they move. Las Vegas A's sounds stupid to me.

The A's is such a historic name and it really holds no ties to the city they are playing in. They have relocated multiple times and the Athletics name is the one thing that has stuck.

3 hours ago, FishFan95 said:

The A's is such a historic name and it really holds no ties to the city they are playing in. They have relocated multiple times and the Athletics name is the one thing that has stuck.

They actually should keep the name no matter where they go. It's a historic name, it has no specific ties to any city, it means the same thing mo matter where it is, and it's already relocated not once but twice before anyways so why not keep it? A new name would be stupid as it wouldn't be a new team anyways.

The Oakland City Council said this today:

 

TLDR:  They're set to vote on it on July 20, so they're not sure why the threat of relocation came now.

 

Here's the full report.

Oakland vice-mayor Rebecca Kaplan has requested that the Oakland City Council vote on the Athletics’ ballpark term sheet on July 20, according to Matt Kawahara and Sarah Ravani of The San Francisco Chronicle.  The City Council also sent a letter to Major League Baseball on Friday stating that “The Oakland City Council is committed to negotiating in good faith for a strong future for the A’s in Oakland, and we invite the A’s and MLB to do the same by agreeing not to seek relocation while the A’s complete the project process as the Council moves forward.”

The letter also feels there was some “incorrect information” within MLB’s statement, noting that the Council has not been “delaying or refusing to consider the A’s project proposal.”  The letter also questioned MLB’s designation of the Coliseum as “not a viable option,” referring to that statement as an “unsupported conclusion.”

“In any case, we hope you will understand that the shifting ‘demands’ on what Oakland must do, combined with your public threat to allow the team to leave, even while the City is undertaking the items that you and the A’s have urged, might leave the impression that there never has been any good faith intent on your part to work on a future ballpark in Oakland.  However, we remain open to working together.  It is possible that you didn’t intend to threaten relocation from a city, in the absence of that city’s leadership even being given an opportunity to consider a proposal from the team.”

Quote

The letter also questioned MLB’s designation of the Coliseum as “not a viable option,” referring to that statement as an “unsupported conclusion.”

I think anyone with eyes would designate it as not a viable option.

That letter was passive aggressive and it doesn't seem like it'll help their case of retaining the team. Just delaying the inevitable.

8 hours ago, rmc523 said:

The Oakland City Council said this today:

 

TLDR:  They're set to vote on it on July 20, so they're not sure why the threat of relocation came now.

 

Here's the full report.

Oakland vice-mayor Rebecca Kaplan has requested that the Oakland City Council vote on the Athletics’ ballpark term sheet on July 20, according to Matt Kawahara and Sarah Ravani of The San Francisco Chronicle.  The City Council also sent a letter to Major League Baseball on Friday stating that “The Oakland City Council is committed to negotiating in good faith for a strong future for the A’s in Oakland, and we invite the A’s and MLB to do the same by agreeing not to seek relocation while the A’s complete the project process as the Council moves forward.”

The letter also feels there was some “incorrect information” within MLB’s statement, noting that the Council has not been “delaying or refusing to consider the A’s project proposal.”  The letter also questioned MLB’s designation of the Coliseum as “not a viable option,” referring to that statement as an “unsupported conclusion.”

“In any case, we hope you will understand that the shifting ‘demands’ on what Oakland must do, combined with your public threat to allow the team to leave, even while the City is undertaking the items that you and the A’s have urged, might leave the impression that there never has been any good faith intent on your part to work on a future ballpark in Oakland.  However, we remain open to working together.  It is possible that you didn’t intend to threaten relocation from a city, in the absence of that city’s leadership even being given an opportunity to consider a proposal from the team.”

my point.

makes no fucking sense.

Manfred continues to show why he is a dope. 

5 hours ago, SonOfJack said:

I think anyone with eyes would designate it as not a viable option.

That letter was passive aggressive and it doesn't seem like it'll help their case of retaining the team. Just delaying the inevitable.

 

To be fair, when I read it, I took that to mean the Coliseum site (as in redevelopment), not necessarily the Coliseum itself even though it's not written that way.

As you point out, I doubt anyone thinks the existing Coliseum is viable.....then again, it is government lol.

 

2 hours ago, Das Texan said:

my point.

makes no fucking sense.

Manfred continues to show why he is a dope. 

 

I think he's just applying extra pressure for them to vote in favor of the project.