Skip to content

A’s release statement on desire to move to San Jose

Mar 7, 2012, 1:01 PM EDT

Responding to recent reports that suggested the A’s lack the support of MLB’s owners as they attempt a move to San Jose, the club went public with a statement Wednesday. Here it is in its entirety:

Recent articles claiming that Major League Baseball has decided that the A’s cannot share the two-team Bay Area market were denied by baseball Commissioner Bud Selig last weekend.

Currently the Giants and A’s share the two-team Bay Area market in terms of television, radio, sponsors and fans. Last year, the Giants opened a specialty store in the middle of the A’s market (Walnut Creek). At the time, Lew Wolff commented that he was ‘fine with the Giants store and wished there was an A’s store in San Francisco.’

Of the four two-team markets in MLB, only the Giants and A’s do not share the exact same geographic boundaries. MLB-recorded minutes clearly indicate that the Giants were granted Santa Clara, subject to relocating to the city of Santa Clara. The granting of Santa Clara to the Giants was by agreement with the A’s late owner Walter Haas, who approved the request without compensation. The Giants we unable to obtain a vote to move and the return of Santa Clara to its original status was not formally accomplished.

We are not seeking a move that seeks to alter or in any manner disturb MLB territorial rights. We simply seek an approval to create a new venue that our organization and MLB fully recognizes is needed to eliminate our dependence on revenue sharing, to offer our fans and players a modern ballpark, to move over 35 miles further away from the Giants’ great venue and to establish an exciting competition between the Giants and A’s.

We are hopeful that the Commissioner, the committee appointed by the Commissioner, and a vote of the MLB ownership, will enable us to join the fine array of modern and fun baseball parks that are now commonplace in Major League Baseball.

So, it seems that the A’s have decided to try the court of public opinion. And, let’s face it, the idea that their moving further away from San Francisco is a problem for the Giants has always seemed rather silly, even though the Giants have very good reason to want to keep San Jose for themselves.

  1. Ben - Mar 7, 2012 at 1:12 PM

    It’s all about the $$. San Francisco isn’t going to be able to sell so many boxes to silicon valley companies if there’s a gorgeous stadium in the valley.

    • blabidibla - Mar 7, 2012 at 1:29 PM

      Absolutely true. The Giants will feel the pinch if there’s a nice new park in the South Bay Area. As a San Jose native, I really hope the A’s move there, but I would still love my Giants. I just wouldn’t get to as many games in SF.

  2. El Bravo - Mar 7, 2012 at 1:26 PM

    “We are hopeful that the Commissioner, the committee appointed by the Commissioner, and a vote of the MLB ownership, will enable us to join the fine array of modern and fun baseball parks that are now commonplace in Major League Baseball.”

    It’s sad for baseball that any owner comes out and feels required to say something like this.

  3. smcgaels1997 - Mar 7, 2012 at 1:38 PM

    Did they just really compare the opening of a team store to the opening of a new stadium?!…what a bunch of morons no wonder this is a circus

    • nategearhart - Mar 7, 2012 at 2:10 PM

      Nope, they sure didn’t.

  4. paperlions - Mar 7, 2012 at 1:40 PM

    The San Francisco A’s of San Jose just rolls of the tongue.

  5. raidernation831 - Mar 7, 2012 at 1:44 PM

    Let them move! San Francisco fans shouldn’t be so scared, this would be good for baseball!

  6. calbeartc - Mar 7, 2012 at 1:50 PM

    Walnut Creek is definitely Giants country as are all affluent areas of the Bay. The separation of the two fanbases isn’t about geography…it’s about income level.

  7. AlohaMrHand - Mar 7, 2012 at 2:33 PM

    If not San Jose.Las Vegas perhaps????

  8. sjsharksfan11 - Mar 7, 2012 at 3:43 PM

    I have an easy solution….contract that loser organization that is the Oakland Pathetics. High school teams get larger crowds.

    • thomas2727 - Mar 7, 2012 at 4:03 PM

      Not as pathetic as the Sharks.

      Never has a franchise done less with their talent.

      The Athletics do have 9 World Series Titles so it is hard to call them pathetic.

      I am sure you remember the huge 8,000 Tuesday night crowds and 22,000 weekend crowds at The Stick? And that was in the 90s with Barry Bonds playing left field.

  9. APBA Guy - Mar 7, 2012 at 5:28 PM

    I suppose my first reaction to reading the A’s Press Release is “better late than never’ when it comes to courting public opinion. Their past comments, particularly from co-owner Wolff with respect to Oakland, too often had a whiff of fan alienation in them that certainly has contributed to the A’s ongoing attendance issues. Although, to be honest, that contribution is small compared to the lackluster, boring spectacle that has been the A’ s over the last few years. This year the A’s could lose 100 games. Reports by professional observers from Spring training so far are not encouraging. In the face of that the A’s need to ramp up their PR and go full-court on wooing fans, not just in South Bay, but in the East Bay also.

  10. raidernation831 - Mar 7, 2012 at 5:28 PM

    :) VERY well said Thomas! Facts…gotta love’m

  11. pantherpro - Mar 7, 2012 at 7:30 PM

    Hey Thomas2727. The A’s win the Series and you get 5,000 people in Jack London Square. Giants win and there’s a million plus fans. There’s a reason why your team is on FM radio and switches every year. The Stick hurt attendance but ownership always knew how popular the Giants were because of tv and radio rating that dwarfed those of Oaktown! You and Raiders will always be SF’s bitch. That’s why Oakland fans are so bitter. We barely recognize you exist! Ouch!

    • jlove42 - Mar 7, 2012 at 11:34 PM

      You pasted this post onto another thread, so I’ll copy and paste my reply to it.

      So I spent 6 months in the Bay Area last fall-spring, and got to experience many Giant tools who were just like you. Yes, I was drinking champagne in the middle of 22nd and Mission when the Giants won the World Series. No, I don’t think the fact that the streets were mobbed with morons like you somehow makes Oakland and its baseball franchise your “bitch”. It was one World Series championship, and as we saw from the results this previous season, it was a lucky one. On the field, The Oakland A’s have accomplished much, much more than the San Francisco Giants; I think that alone beats the hell out of winning some kind of popularity contest.

      All that “we’re more popular, therefore we’re better” talk reminds me a lot of what Cubs fans yell well they’re trying to salvage some self-respect in the face of White Sox fans. It just makes all of you sound really dumb.

  12. simon94022 - Mar 7, 2012 at 8:55 PM

    This statement is flat out wrong about the territorial rights. Regardless of what “MLB minutes” say about the San Jose rights being conditional when they were granted, the fact is those rights were subsequently incorporated into the MLB Constitution with no conditions. All 30 Clubs approved and signed the MLB Constitution with those rights spelled out, INCLUDING THE A’S.

    Wolff bought the team at a lowball price because it had a lousy facility, small and passive fanbase, and few geographic options. This is about getting him a massive return on his investment without paying for it.

    I think the move to SJ makes sense in a lot of ways, but let’s not pretend it is about fairness. It is about a billionaire who is trying to make a very lucrative real estate play, nothing more.

  13. imaduffer - Mar 8, 2012 at 12:25 AM

    San Jose is a dump. If you have ever been there in the summer time you will understand. Terrible place for a ball park. All the air pollution from the north settles in the south bay.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. Y. Puig (1839)
  2. G. Springer (1833)
  3. D. Span (1832)
  4. H. Olivera (1816)
  5. C. Sabathia (1789)