Tuesday, June 18, 2013

A Variety of Topics and Items to Mull; San Jose's MLB Lawsuit

Quick Bullet Points:

*I'm studying the San Jose lawsuit against MLB. Fact is, baseball has an anti-trust exemption and therefore, the idea that any suit is a prelude for the A's eventual move from Oakland to the Southbay is premature at best.

Years and years of litigation, and that's the practical situation here only means just a lot of lawyers billing...this situation isn't about to be resolved quickly one way or another.

**I'm on radio right now; check back later for a more thorough analysis.



14 comments:

  1. I don't think the point of the lawsuit is to get it decided in court. I think San Jose is looking at previously successful cases (Seattle & Tampa) where cities made a similar filing that ended up getting teams and deciding to force MLB's hand (or get them to negotiate). MLB is not going to want to risk losing their anti-trust exemptions in a court battle, so they're very likely to try to work something out rather than let the city depose Selig and put him on the stand.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Apples and Oranges...Seattle and Tampa situations didn't include moving a team into another team's existing territory. Yes this puts the anti-trust exemption on the table, but it could also create a precedent where teams can move into another's territory; affecting their revenue. For example, if Tampa wanted to move to Brooklyn. Don't think for a minute that MLB (and especially the Giants) weren't "locked and loaded" for this. The bad thing out of all of this is a cheap guy like Lew Wolff is just going to sit back and watch the dust fly...and continue to play victim. Watch for other suits to be filed in retaliation (Wolff's land purchases in SJ, people against ballpark in SJ, etc.).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Besides the Giants, which other teams have territorial rights, and are such rights really good for baseball when they are misapplied as they are with the A's situation? Ironically, a SJ A's stadium would put the A's much farther from SF than their current Oakland sewage pit. Those territorial rights were only granted because SF wanted to move into SJ. But they couldn't get a stadium built. Now the A's want to privately finance a SJ stadium and the Giants are trotting out these questionable territorial rights in response. Its sad when a sports team is afraid to compete.

      Delete
  3. Guess Chuck Fixed all the Roads and Locked up all the criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I hope the suit has merit. I cannot see how the Giants can claim San Jose as their territory and Oakland was not.. Or why the A's were allowed to move to Oakland and the Giants failed to contest. MLB baseball explain that..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect media rights has a lot to do with it. There was no MLB Extra Innings or consumer satellite TV at that point. Nowadays, pretty much every game is carried on the TV outlet for one team or the other, and in many cases, both. CSN paid a lot of money for the rights to Giants & A's games, they don't want you watching those same games on the feed from their opponents (no matter how annoying the local announcers may get)

      Delete
  5. the A's move to San Jose with in five years, I decree it!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pull an Al Davis and move the team anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Giants territorial rights aren't "questionable." It was a deal made with MLB when they moved here, and then the A's followed. That the Giants fan base would come from that region was a major part of the reason, and now the A's want to move their team there.

    I'm an A's fan, but the reality is this deal was made, and when the A's moved here they were aware of the situation. Now they want their stadium in a more desirable area, and the Giants, recognizing where the money is, don't want to see it happen.

    It's entirely understandable. Whether it holds up through mediation, or court of law, I have no idea, but for anyone to suggest this is somehow made-up, or without merit, they have no idea what they're talking about.

    This isn't too much different than someone buying a business and signing a non-compete within a certain area.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It raises another question as well, this one about another major league sport,the NBA. If you think the A's should be able to entertain the option to move to San Jose and contract accordingly, why should the NBA be able to block a better business deal for the Maloofs and the Kings? Compared to Sacramento, Seattle is a real city, with less need to suck up public dollars for private profit. Seattle doesn't sit on a flood plain with decaying levees and doesn't have an urban sewer system which is collapsing and in need of expensive, tax-payer funded revamps.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow! You are so right on with this post, Christine. Good luck, Kings. The Kings would be better off in Seattle and the NBA (David Stern) knows it.

      Delete
  9. Rich keeps talking about baseball's antitrust exemption as if it's cast in stone. But courts can, and do, throw out bad laws and this lawsuit is a direct challenge to MLB's controversial antitrust exemption.
    The lawsuit’s arguments focus on the national antitrust law which, let's face it, is a controversial subject for MLB and one they would rather avoid putting in front of a judge. The exemption was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1922, back when baseball was mostly local and we did not have national TV rights, teams traveling from state to state and other issues that clearly relate to interstate commerce.
    Then there is the troubling fact that no other business in the country has this exemption. What possible reason could MLB offer to defend its monopolistic practices?
    There is also the issue MLB’s interference in the contract between the city of San Jose and Wolff, who put a deposit down on property that would be used for the San Jose stadium. When you add it all up this case may never see the inside of a courtroom. MLB has many reasons to grant San Jose's request in order to avoid the direct challenge to the anti-trust exemption. History shows us that on three occasions, cities have sued MLB based on antitrust laws, and all three times the league settled out of court. That's why we have teams in Tampa and Seattle, and why when the dust settles the A's will be playing in San Jose. When this happens, and it will, baseball, and A's fans, will be the better for it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well said, 10:19.

    It's been bandied about that what if the A's and San Jose went ahead and built the stadium, and the A's announced that when the stadium was ready, the A's were moving in? What would happen?

    What could MLB actually do? Well, they could 'order' the A's back to Oakland. And the A's could refuse. At that point, what recourse would MLB have? Perhaps MLB could penalize the A's in some way or another, but they couldn't prevent it.

    Would MLB go to court for an injunction ordering the A's back to the Coliseum? Maybe, the NFL did that to the Raiders decades ago. But the whole thing about the antitrust exemption is that MLB is the authority; for MLB to take the case to court basically undermines the whole idea of the exemption. MLB would be exposing that it is powerless, its exemption is and always has been a farce.

    The only argument that supports MLB and the Giants' stance here is "the exemption has been there for like 100 years, so it's never going to change." Even from educated and informed 'baseball (and media) people.'

    Is anyone who promotes this argument (hi, Rich; hi also, Damon Bruce) aware that once upon a time, for a long, LONG time, blacks weren't allowed to play baseball. Over time, that changed. Does anyone remember something called the reserve clause? The reserve clause said that every player was the property of the team he was currently with; once his contract ended, he could not seek employment with another team. He was forced to accept what his current team offered him. A guy named Curt Flood challenged this injustice. He lost in court and got blackballed from baseball. A few years later, Charlie Finley breached a contract with Catfish Hunter, and an arbitrator ruled Catfish a free agent. The reserve clause was dead, and rightfully so. Curt Flood sacrificed his career so that future players would have the right to negotiate with the highest bidder.

    This is history here, folks. Don't lose sight of that just because this ('territorial rights') is the 'way it's always been.' It hasn't been this way, ever. 'Territorial rights' don't exist except in the minds of those who keep parroting this nonsense. (Hi Larry Baer.)

    Because the more they repeat this, the more people actually believe it.

    MLB doesn't have an argument to justify this atrocity.

    -- From Gaga V

    ReplyDelete
  11. Actually the south bay was 'neutral territory' until the Haas family, which owned the A's in the early 1990s and were doing quite well on the field and at the gate, was approached by Giants' owner Bob Lurie.

    Lurie wanted to get permission from the A's to move intothe 'neutral' south bay territory, as he was working to get another ballot measure to build a stadium in San Jose. Like the previous two in SF and the one he tried in Santa Clara, they all failed to sway the voters, and that's why Lurie sold the team to the Magowan group in late 1992.

    The territory issue never became a factor until recently, because the Giants don't want to give up valuable Silicon Valley sponsorship and corporate dollars. It isn't so much about fans as it is about money. The Giants would probably be happy to let the A's move to San Jose if the Silicon Valley wasn't so prosperous.

    Now there is no way they'll stand for the A's to move down there, even though they would be further away from SF than they currently are. However, MLB officials may overrule the Giants wishes sometime in the not too distant future.

    ReplyDelete