Do You Know the Way to Fremont A's?
One thing you can say about the Athletics is that their offseasons are never, ever dull. They don't sit around wringing their hands for news.
It appears like the inevitable will finally soon be announced. The Oakland Athletics are going to be moving to Fremont, California. (can you believe they misspelled Lew Wolff's name?)
This will obviously disenfranchise many an Oakland resident, but ultimately, we all knew this was coming. Many of us didn't want it to happen, but the truth is that Oakland has much greater problems to deal with than whether or not they can keep our Athletics. On the grand scale of societal issues, placating a major league team was way down on the list with many thanks due to how Al Davis screwed the city.
Any way, I feel much the same way about this as I do about Ron Washington leaving. A legacy will be lost, and likely a bit of soul along with it. At the same time, the opportunities for the A's (don't know whether to call them the "Oakland" A's now or not) will be abundant in Fremont. They should be able to draw quite a few businesses from the Silicon Valley just because of the team's proximity to those businesses now. And we all know in this new sports world where the real money is...it isn't from John Q. Public and his measly season tickets, it's from huge corporate sponsors and luxury boxes. The Coliseum, while it's a nice home, was essentially destroyed by Mount Davis.
There are many different ways this can work out. This can wind up being a Pirates situation where the new ballpark doesn't do much for the team in terms of attendance OR as I think it will probably go, a new ballpark is a drawing card for Californians. Californians are a different breed. While many of us here on AN live and die with every single move our A's make, the majority of those who follow baseball casually in the Bay Area probably don't realize Macha has been fired and Ron Washington is now the manager of a rival team. In order to fill a stadium regularly, you need to get those people there. And I'm sorry, but the Coliseum was woefully inadequate on nights when it was full. I remember going to the ALCS game and not being able to move in the walkways just to go get a freaking soda. It would take 20 minutes to a half an hour just to get to the front of a line and order a Mountain Dew.
I'm hoping that the A's work some elements of the Coliseum into the new stadium, like I love the excessive foul ground because it shows off players amazing abilities (like Chavez), but the truth is that I'm going to miss that old concrete bowl. It's given me a lot of great memories.
Again, I know many of you are going to be pissed off about this, but I'd like to think that the A's being able to stop losing players like Tejada, Giambi, Hudson, Mulder and Zito will help alleviate your pain. More revenues from a stadium means more long-term Athletics. Fortunately, many of those players broke down after they left the A's, but many fans are still attached to those players.
I'm excited about the concept of a new stadium and what it could do to help the A's in the long-term. I don't think it means that they will be more likely to re-sign someone like Zito this year, but when some of the other contracts come up down the road, like Nick Swisher and Milton Bradley, perhaps the A's open the wallet a little more. It also puts a little needle right into the Giants because the A's are essentially moving right next door to where the Giants draw the majority of their fanbase. The tide may turn in the Giants/A's casual fan battle just by simple geography.
Any way, right now, it still remains speculation until we see it in multiple places. It's funny, I told an AN member as we were leaving our last game this year, I think the A's are going to announce a move to Fremont this offseason. I just didn't expect it to happen so soon.
What do you think, AN? Good move? Bad move? Could the A's have done anything to remain in Oakland? Or was this destiny?
I can say this, I'm just happy the team is staying in the East Bay. Hopefully they retain the name "Oakland Athletics" as well. Hell, if the Pistons can do it, why can't the A's? Then again, calling themselves the "San Jose Athletics" might be advantageous to garnering additional business support. Just don't call yourselves something silly like, "The Bay Area Athletics of Fremont."
0 recs |
299 comments
Comments
Oh and for anyone wondering
Thanks.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Nov 6, 2006 11:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
sorry bout that
by fadedash on Nov 6, 2006 11:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No apology necessary
by Tyler Bleszinski on Nov 6, 2006 11:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good or Bad is sort of pointless.
by alox on Nov 6, 2006 11:16 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I say they'll still be the Oakland A's
The Giants can't do anything about the A's moving to Fremont, but since SJ is their "territory" still, they have a say on whether or not the A's can re-name themselves the San Jose A's. Therefore, I still see "Oakland A's in their future."
by gmoneymcg on Nov 6, 2006 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
like blez said
Keep the legacy of 4 championships alive. Even though the "franchise" officially has 9, those Philadelphia ones don't count in my eyes.
by smash on Nov 6, 2006 6:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've probably been to my last A's game
But all my childhood experiences and emotions are tied up with the team being in my hometown.
Fremont is another country to me. I think they have a Fry's, right?
And before you tell me I'm a fairweather fan, save it for all those who wouldn't go to the Coliseum because of Mt. Davis. WTF? The Coliseum was a fine place to a game.
I've been to Pac Bell or whatever they're calling it, and the cutesy beauty of it was fine for an inning -- but I was still bored out of my mind.
Watching sports is all about emotion for me. A's, Raiders, Warriors. As each team moves or dies, my life as a professional sports fan dies with it.
When the Raiders move back to LA, I'll be down to the Warriors. How pathetic is that! But more time for my kids...
by billy north hitting the wall on Nov 7, 2006 7:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Totally respect
by Salvatore on Nov 7, 2006 10:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
CONSPIRACY!!!
by Gerard on Nov 6, 2006 11:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Maybe there is one...
Maybe someone wants the current A's story in the local media to be about the move to Fremont, and not about grumbling that the A's let Wash get away.
by socal on Nov 6, 2006 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mixed emotions
by billyball1981 on Nov 6, 2006 11:21 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
how about the Fremont Mutineers?
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 11:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
fremont mutineers
by xbhaskarx on Nov 6, 2006 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I love it...
by OaktownPower on Nov 6, 2006 11:23 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
As a relatively new Portland resident,
Plus... Fremont kind of ... um... sucks. Almost anything is better than the colliseum, though.
by HugeAthleticSupporter on Nov 6, 2006 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Portland is a minor league town
My condolences on your move to the foggy Northwest.
by BubbaDude on Nov 6, 2006 12:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice to see you don't generalize much.
by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There is life after Portland
And no, I didn't.
by BubbaDude on Nov 6, 2006 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In any case
by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What politics?
I observed that Portland is a minor-league town, which it is (home of the Portland Beavers, a Padres farm team), and you accused me of "generalizing."
Are you having a bad hair day?
by BubbaDude on Nov 6, 2006 4:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
if having a minor-league team...
And here's the best one: NYC would be a minor league town, because Brooklyn and Staten Island have single-A teams from the NY-Penn League.
A better example of a minor league town is Rochester, NY, home to the AAA Red Wings and the Sabres' AHL affiliate, the Americans. No major league teams, multiple minor league teams.
by Cutthemullet on Nov 6, 2006 11:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
by jeepers on Nov 7, 2006 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A statement
by jeepers on Nov 7, 2006 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Trust me
by Joey C. on Nov 6, 2006 5:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exiled in Portland
Living there will make you realize how special it is to be in a place where you can cruise on down to the BART station and be carried to the ballpark with a plate of baby back ribs from Willy's 81+ times a year.
by BubbaDude on Nov 6, 2006 6:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
barbarian
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 6:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Real BBQ
by BubbaDude on Nov 6, 2006 6:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
zactly
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 7:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
With that being said
by BubbaDude on Nov 6, 2006 7:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
if it's a minor league town...
by Cutthemullet on Nov 6, 2006 11:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Think they would go Bay Area Athletics?
by OaktownPower on Nov 6, 2006 11:23 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Do you really think they give a sh*t...
I'll answer my own question: No!
by FoolshGame22 on Nov 6, 2006 11:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course not....
by OaktownPower on Nov 6, 2006 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If a team can appropriate a name like...
by FoolshGame22 on Nov 6, 2006 11:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Moreno did it, and he has
by salb918 on Nov 6, 2006 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Golden State Athletics
by AlwaysSweatin on Nov 6, 2006 11:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't Know
by Athletix Man on Nov 6, 2006 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If they have to change the name--
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Nov 6, 2006 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It won't be East Bay A's.
It'll stay Oakland, at least for a while, which will help take the sting out for the longtime fans.
by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the East Bay A's
by SD Erik on Nov 6, 2006 3:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i'm sad and excited at the same time
THE A's ARE FINALLY GETTING A NEW BALLPARK!!!!
IN THE BAY AREA!!!
by gotgreen on Nov 6, 2006 11:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Goodbye Raiders
by SacTownAthletic on Nov 6, 2006 11:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
the name should still be "Oakland"
Blez mentioned the Pistons, but a few weeks ago I was thinking of all the pro teams that play in different cities than their team name reflects; let's see how many I can remember:
Pistons play in Auburn Hills
The Jets and Giants play in a different STATE (East Rutherford, NJ)
The Lakers used to play in the Forum in Inglewood
Dallas Cowboys play in Irving, TX
The Buffalo Bills play in Orchard Park, NY
by money baller on Nov 6, 2006 11:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Two more...
The Washington Redskins in Landover, Md.
The only other one from the past that I can remember is before the NFL Cardinals were Arizona, they were called Phoenix, but they played in Tempe.
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Nov 6, 2006 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Miami Dolphins/Florida Marlins
The Ottawa Senators play in the middle of nowhere; their arena, the Corel Centre, is apparently pink and in the midst of cornfields. Quite the venue.
Lions used to play in Pontiac, Mich, back in the glorious days of the Silverdome.
The Arizona Cardinals' new stadium is, if I remember correctly from the MNF game a few weeks ago, 40 miles away from Phoenix...yeah, they're not the Phoenix Cardinals anymore, but that's quite a distance away from a big city.
Foxborough, MA may be the strangest location for a stadium in pro sports. Small town that's none too close to either Boston or Providence...
that's all I've got
by Cutthemullet on Nov 6, 2006 11:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Silicon Valley Athletics
by socal on Nov 6, 2006 11:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
It sounds like a soccer team name.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Nov 6, 2006 2:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Never happen.
Then, and only then, will they change it to the San Jose Athletics.
by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 3:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone still believe Oakland was Plan A?
Whether one loves or hates the Fremont move, we should all admit the reality that Wolff et al decided Oakland wasn't going to happen from before the day they bought the team. I will forever despise Wolff for blowing off Oakland and lying about it along the way.
All that said: I may still support the Fremont plan when more facts are in.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 6, 2006 11:30 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
but at the same time
by gotgreen on Nov 6, 2006 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cart/horse
Larry Reid was the guy who said he'd stake his political career on the 66th Ave site working out. His words on Oakland will or anything else are especially hollow.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 6, 2006 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The die was cast...
by BleacherDave on Nov 7, 2006 3:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed (that's a-"greed"), but ...
Not that they should have, IMSO.
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 11:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I always thought Fremont was the plan...
by FoolshGame22 on Nov 6, 2006 11:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You should be angrier at Jerry Brown
by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 11:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In other words
by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jerry Brown has no soul
But while Jerry killed a great possible site, he did not himself move the A's out of Oakland. Wolffish consciously chose a period of political flux in Oakland (lame duck, polarizing successor candidates, Raider-caused negatives to pols in favor of stadia) in which to give the city a one year ultimatum...and then Lew stopped meeting with Oakland and started meeting with other towns within six months. So while Jerry gets a lot of my anger in other forums, in matters Athletic Brown is the Otis (Ned Beatty) character to Wolffish's Lex Luthor.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 6, 2006 12:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let's be honest here.
If you're going to hate anyone, hate everyone, but also be sure to take into account that Wolff could have made a shedload of cash moving the team to Vegas, and instead he sent it 30 minutes down the BART line.
As someone who has to cross an international border and travel four hours to see a Major League ballgame... wear it.
by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Vegas?
by andeux on Nov 6, 2006 3:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ladies and gentlemen, your Las Vegas Husseins!
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 4:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Brown deserves more blame than you are giving him
by willcmatthews on Nov 6, 2006 10:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let's remember...
by BleacherDave on Nov 7, 2006 3:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wolff has been involved for a long time
The city government of Oakland has made it clear that it has bigger issues than dealing with a sports team (which if you live in Oakland you should praise at least at face value) and hasn't hidden that fact.
The economics of baseball forced the A's to complete this process in a timeline that Oakland could not meet. The timeline was addressed up front, the need was obvious, and Oakland couldn't move forward. Pretty simple business decision.
by titaniumaardvark on Nov 6, 2006 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
uptown site in 02
this is probably a bit reductionist, but it was 4 years and several brain cells ago (spent on lack of sleep...and keeping track of youngins.) So there are probably some details that complete a more detailed picture...
by giambizombie on Nov 6, 2006 5:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree 100%, FSU--
by Nico on Nov 6, 2006 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just to properly calibrate my credul-o-meter
Lew's motives are pure and sincere: pure dedication to maximizing his asset value, and sincerely not giving a fuck about Oakland and the working class fanbase. Again, that's entirely his right. Doesn't mean I won't hold it against him.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 6, 2006 1:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh...
While it makes a nice us vs. them story -- and one that I've subscribed to over the years -- is this really true?
by salb918 on Nov 6, 2006 1:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't mean to suggest a proportion
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 6, 2006 1:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
<snerk>
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Since the low end rarely showed up in numbers...
Oakland residents just didn't want it enough.
Sure, you did, but you only had about 18,000 friends matching you, and if the people won't come out to play, why should the owner?
by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think his exploration was as full and sincere
by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought you believed...
And "maximizing the asset" and "delivering fan value" are far from mutually exclusive--just ask Arte Moreno. The Coliseum is a, well, dump for baseball. I think the new stadium maskes many things possible.
I'm also not buying the class warfare nonsense. What--nobody works in Fremont? Oaklanders don't own cars? I really think the A's draw from all over now, and that the SiliValley crowd (workers all) will take to this team like flies to honey. This is a great move that keeps our team around these parts for-just-about-ever.
by The Dogfather on Nov 6, 2006 2:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
On belief: I'm with the Buzzcocks
BTW, in that thread you also questioned how much development was going on near the Coli absent the A's. Have you checked out the sprawl of building off San leandro Blvd near 66th Ave. lately?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 6, 2006 5:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And I said they'd be trading those rights...
Haven't checked on development along San Leandro Blvd--when I drive I take Seminary from 580. I think somebody might have painted his house during the past two seasons, but that's about it. If you're saying it's a $billion development, then Oakland maybe made the right choice. If not...not so much?
by The Dogfather on Nov 6, 2006 5:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
Hallelujah. Teaming with the tech-heads at Cisco is brilliant. I think the new digs'll be a geek wonderland, and great fun. Let the Halos have their Disneydiorama--this stadium will redefine the fan experience. Bring it on!
by The Dogfather on Nov 6, 2006 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know about Plan A.
I think once Lew was certain that the political will for keeping the team was lacking, he started searching elsewhere. I don't blame him. It's easy for us to offer our social idea's, as long as someone else is paying the bills. Besides which, how long would you expect Lew to wait? He's in his seventies after all. He may not live to see the Fremont site come to fruition as it is.
by alox on Nov 6, 2006 2:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True enough
The bottom line is that Fremont had the site that Wolff wanted, with room for his "ballpark village" development, and Oakland didn't, and that's not really anyone's fault. But given that the 66th ave. plan was such an obvious non-starter from the beginning, I can't see why Wolff bothered to propose it other than as a public relations ploy.
by andeux on Nov 6, 2006 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but at least he gave them
by alox on Nov 6, 2006 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Unrealistic subsidies?
Just look at the Mt Davis travesty as evidence.
Lew didn't ask for a new stadium, or part of a new stadium, or even renovations to the existing stadium. He didn't ask for eminent domain to be used to get land for him (like Bush did in Arlington), he didn't hold the city to ransom (like they did in Washington), or ask for a sales tax to pay for his dream (a la Cincinnati).
All he asked for was the right to build a new stadium, at his expense, on land the city had zoned for other things.
Unrealistic? Maybe. But that's Oakland problem, not his. Lew Wolff offered the best baseball stadium deal for any city that I've seen in my existence.
by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 3:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
City across the bay's deal, excepted?
by BleacherDave on Nov 7, 2006 3:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
City across the bay?
News to me.
by Ozzz on Nov 7, 2006 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In a nutshell,
I wish I knew how to make those kewl quote boxes. This snippet deserves one.
by BleacherDave on Nov 7, 2006 3:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I still think Oakland was Plan A...
by gmoneymcg on Nov 6, 2006 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Blame it on Jerry Brown
Love them politics!
by OaktownWarrior on Nov 6, 2006 11:32 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Finally out of that hellhole! </reztips>
by salb918 on Nov 6, 2006 11:40 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm disappointed in you.
by Jennifer on Nov 6, 2006 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No creepy-ass emoticon.
by Jennifer on Nov 6, 2006 11:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You mean....
<;)>:)~~((*#:M<AMGL"?#$:Q#@OIM?GSR#E(WTF~~~
by salb918 on Nov 6, 2006 11:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There it is!
by Jennifer on Nov 6, 2006 11:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you know where you stand in a hellhole
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 12:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Big Bottom....?
by franks a lot on Nov 6, 2006 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
couple more thoughts
next, I hope Oakland bucks the recent trend of cities building all-american retro style ballparks and builds sometihng innovative and modern. I tihnk with Cisco's influence, we should build something along the lines of the Arizona Cardinal's new stadium or Allanz Arena (sp?), the soccer stadium in Germany that hosted a few world cup matches.
by money baller on Nov 6, 2006 11:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
design ...
by devo on Nov 6, 2006 11:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pac Bell will still have it corporate ties...
But I see it evenly distributed when the moving vans head south on the 880.
by gmoneymcg on Nov 6, 2006 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's definitely a good location
It'll be a reasonable drive for pretty much anyone in the area not from SF or Richmond.
My feelings will hinge a lot on the name ... I'm willing to accept that Fremont is just an Oakland suburb housing our team, so if the name doesn't change, I won't mind too much. The Fremont A's, East Bay A's and, especially, the Silicon Valley A's will be tough to stomach. As much as I've ragged on the halos (who aren't and never have been from LA), I could deal with the Oakland A's of Fremont.
by devo on Nov 6, 2006 11:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Believe it or not
by Tyler Bleszinski on Nov 6, 2006 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Counter-commute over the Sunol grade...
by FoolshGame22 on Nov 6, 2006 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've only ever taken 680 once
by devo on Nov 6, 2006 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
correction
Two minor League teams in Southern Califronia prior to the Brooklyn LAndgrabbers: Hollywood Stars and Los Angeles Angels.
Congrats on the new stadium.
by RevHalofan on Nov 6, 2006 2:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
my bad ...
by devo on Nov 6, 2006 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget the Kansas City A's!
by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Difference between Anaheim and Fremont...
Fremont is looking to expand the dollars going into their city. I don't see them as trying to become the fourth city in the Bay Area behind SF, SJ and Oakland. They'll be happy with the flux of new buisness and entertainment that the stadium will bring and not worry about getting the name "Fremont" somewhere in the A's title.
by gmoneymcg on Nov 6, 2006 2:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
for facts sake
by rjcicc on Nov 6, 2006 4:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Its All Good
R.I.P
Honda Hills
by MajorRager on Nov 6, 2006 11:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Clover leaf bowl is there...
Honda hills brings back memories.
Now back to your regularly scheduled topic.
by whyareyou on Nov 6, 2006 5:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Fate of the A's
Dela Fuente would give nice lip service...until it came time to running for mayor. The talk then quieted down (as if supporting a baseball team would be politcally incorrect) and we can see where that landed him. Furthermore, any word from Dellums? We'll get the " I'm personally disappopinted" speech along with a reference about eminent domain. Let's see, wasn't that Mayor Wilson about 25 years ago who tried that?
I blame the poticians in Oakland for this more than anyone else. The sad part is that, as Thomas Walker stated, it will be multiple youth groups and kids who will lose out on what the A's of Oakland meant to this community.
by Gerard on Nov 6, 2006 11:49 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I am so FREAKING HAPPY!
I think this is fabulous news. They need a new stadium desperately and if it can't be in Oakland, I am more than happy to welcome them to my home town! They are still in the East Bay and that is what matters most!
Recently I have been driving past the area where the ball park will be and I could almost see a ghostly image of the new stadium. It is as if a ball park was meant to be there.
I know this won't happen before 2010, but I am glad that we are seeing things moving. The questions will all soon be answered and speculations will turn to facts. This is the first step on a very exciting road. This is going to be some very fun years we have coming up! Can't Wait!
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 11:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
AN Day at BCG's pad!
by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 3:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ill bring Bobby Crosby...
by Amnesiac727 on Nov 6, 2006 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Once I get my own place
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 9:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A little help
As for the move, if it puts more money into the salary budget I'm all for it. However, that opinion is obviously biased from my above question. I could have an entirely different opinion if I lived in the Bay Area.
by IndianaAsfan on Nov 6, 2006 11:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Not really.
by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 12:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There was an article this weekend
Currently the Fremont Station is rather far from the Stadium sight. But the Warm Springs Station, (Warm Spring is the most southern district of Fremont, incase anyone didn't know) will be much closer and much more convinient. If it is located where I believe it will be, it won't be walking distance, but a shuttle will be much less of a issue. Maybe a short 5 minute trip. Not too bad!
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A ground-based shuttle
by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know how familiar you are with the area
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 12:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think they'll bother with a shuttle
by AlamedaAphid on Nov 6, 2006 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
not to mention parking fees
Fans taking PT to the game don't increase the revenue stream.
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yes they do!
by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
to clarify ...
Those who arrive via car add revenue stream via parking fees (and, I'd be willing to bet, "personal premium parking spot licenses").
Those who arrive via PT don't add revenue via parking. And cheapskates who arrive via PT are likelier than the drivers to have stocked up on peanuts and Aidell's at Costco in advance.
Revenue per fan who takes PT <<< revenue per fan who drives to the game.
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 4:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Warm Springs is far, far from a done deal
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 6, 2006 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It will require a shuttle
by titaniumaardvark on Nov 6, 2006 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fremont in DA HOUSE!!
by SoCal As Fan on Nov 6, 2006 12:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Oaklands loss is Fremonts gain
by DCinWC on Nov 6, 2006 12:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
This is great news
About the name, I doubt they will have the Fremont name associated with the team. Why would they, do they want Fremont to become some tourist destination, or have the desire to be a "big city"? Doubtfull. Fremont is suburbia with a few light industry tech companies in the warm springs area. I think all Fremont cares about are the tax dollars this would bring in.
by pickinmachine on Nov 6, 2006 12:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Actually
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 12:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
bah
I could be very wrong though, I havent lived in Fremont for 8 yrs.
by pickinmachine on Nov 6, 2006 1:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Totally opposite end of town
They have been talking about having a Downtown near the Hub, which is central Fremont, but they have never been able to get organized enough to make it work. The area where they are building the stadium is a fresh space, open land. Like working on a blank canvase. Which makes it perfect!
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hehe
Never been to the Saddle Rack, but I'll take your word for it. I hope your right BCG, they really do have a blank canvas to work with, so it should be awesome.
by pickinmachine on Nov 6, 2006 4:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to be taken the wrong way, but
by RayRay59 on Nov 6, 2006 12:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's true
by darooster on Nov 6, 2006 12:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I suspect that Wolff and Fremont will...
Unlike Oakland, those looking for a nice restaurant or bar will be able to find one within walking distance of the new stadium.
by FoolshGame22 on Nov 6, 2006 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is the best possible outcome
- Are staying in the Bay Area
- Not moving to Portland or Vegas
- Getting a brand new stadium
by darooster on Nov 6, 2006 12:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
A's / Angels
Fremont to Oakland = 26.40 Miles
by Colorado Fan on Nov 6, 2006 1:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Detroit to Auburn Hills
by Colorado Fan on Nov 6, 2006 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Carson, CA, where C.D. Chivas USA play...
Oakland to Fremont ain't so bad.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Nov 6, 2006 1:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Stadium Site
by SacTownAthletic on Nov 6, 2006 1:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
thanks
by SacTownAthletic on Nov 6, 2006 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Google map link
It's around 2 miles from 680 to the ballpark site.
by vertig0 on Nov 6, 2006 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't there a DUMP right there:
Now, the A's offense won't be the only thing stinking until Mid June!!!
by saint on Nov 6, 2006 3:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Dump is in Milpitas
But on warm summer mornings, especially the first weekend in August, you can smell the garlic from Gilroy! It is rather nice!
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 3:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gilroy, Baby!
If you can imagine the drive from Gilroy to Oakland 10 times a year to take in a game...my attendance just quadrupled in one day.
Now, season tickets are realistic for me, as the drive is under an hour.
I'm sure 10,000 south bay fans like me will be thinking thew same thing.
Oakland had it's chance. I went to my first game there in 1969. I'm an A's fan since childhood and still have my 1971 programs.
This move singlehandedly almost doubled their attendance.
This is going to hurt the Giants, who counted on that $80million for San Jose. People in the south bay don't really think of much of a difference between San Jose and Fremont. It's all the same thing. The A's get San Jose for free. F*** you GIANTS!!!!
by Gain on 10 on Nov 7, 2006 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
how to do this drive
If there's no traffic, I-80 to I-880 is shortest and fastest by about 10 minutes.
If there's a lot of traffic, 680 to Fremont Blvd. is faster and will keep you saner. That's not to say there can't be traffic on 680 northbound, but it won't be a problem after a night game.
If there's traffic through the maze but 880 is clear, take 680 to 24 and go thru the Caldecott.
by vk on Nov 6, 2006 4:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Coliseum has been dead to me...
Throughout the '80s, I used to sit out in the great old left-field bleachers (with a number of future ANers). That was the Coliseum I loved, a stadium that, despite its multipurpose origins, was a great place to watch a ball game. But it hasn't existed for years. I can't say I'll much miss today's Mac, though admittedly, I've been living away from the Bay Area for years now, and I've only been to three games in the new configuration. Still, when I have been to A's home games in recent years, it's always been a little sad. At any rate, I won't find it hard to say goodbye.

by GreenNGoldSooner on Nov 6, 2006 1:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm fine with this
I'm really eager to learn two things in the coming months, or perhaps years:
1)What will the public transportation access look like? (I dearly hope for BART, or at least a BART to bus/walk design thats not a headache. (Taking BART into San Francisco and then walking the rest of the way to The Phone Book isn't particularly bad. If it's at least along those lines I'll be alright.
2)What do we call them? I want to see them just stick to being called the Oakland A's. I could live with San Jose A's, and I suppose even East Bay A's. But, as Blez mentioned, nothing silly, and I'd rather them not be the Fremont A's.
by walk off bunt on Nov 6, 2006 1:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
SHOCKING!
I'm with Blez- at least the A's are still in the East Bay.
Haha, any bets on the Fremont Warriors?
by Atma Brother ONE on Nov 6, 2006 1:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The Fremont plan blows
Though I saw it coming, this is a bad fucking day for a lifelong A's fan with a ton of Coliseum memories before and after the abysmal addition of Mt. Davis.
by Sashulia on Nov 6, 2006 2:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
Fremont folks...best known for Tri City Sporting Goods. That didn't turn out so well.
by southofcruiseamerica on Nov 6, 2006 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The public transportation
The lack of decent public transportation just kills me on this issue. Two miles to Warm Springs BART will be damn FAR.
It just seems like a sign that Lew's going to choke us with ticket and parking costs.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Nov 6, 2006 2:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fremont is a dump?
by salb918 on Nov 6, 2006 3:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree on the public transportation issue
by snowflake on Nov 6, 2006 4:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If I were a betting monkey ...
My reasoning:
- "Fremont" adds precisely nothing to the marketing value of the team (which would, not to get all reztips, probably be an improvement over the negative connotations of "Oakland")
- "Silicon Valley" is both geographically incorrect and is likely to incur the wrath of Magowan
- "Oakland," as stated above, is probably gone, less for reasons of geography than for the negative connotations it brings to the minds of the intended audience demographic
- "Golden State" I would guess has little chance, as (a) the Warriors don't have enough of a crossover audience with the A's or the target demographic, (b) still retains implicit assocations with Oakland, (c) has no real chance of building a geographic affinity (who inside the state actually ever calls CA "The Golden State"?)
- "East Bay" has the geographic affinity and actual geogrpahy going for it -- but excludes San Jose and environs from the geographic target
- "San Francisco Bay"/"... Area" would probably get Magowan's knickers in a twist, and would reinforce the "San Jose = 2nd-tier city" messaging
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 2:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
but it's awful
by ArakSOT on Nov 6, 2006 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well, yeah
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 2:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lots of good points ...
eg - Buy your 2011 season tickets for the World Champion A's today and guarantee your chance to enjoy the game in their wonderful new park in Fremont ... just a 20 minute drive from your home in San Jose, Walnut Creek, Palo Alto or the East Bay ... yada yada yada
by devo on Nov 6, 2006 2:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Monk
I still think it remains Oakland, just b/c of the rich baseball heritage we've seen for decades now.
San Jose Athletics totally pisses on MaGowan but I wouldn't put it past Wolff as this will be used to attract large amount of silicon $$$.
I think we should name the team the "MonkeyBay Athletics"
by Gerard on Nov 6, 2006 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
spelling error
by Gerard on Nov 6, 2006 2:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
don't underestimate Magowan
You and devo have a good point that ownership may not wish to alienate the preexisting fanbase by ditching "Oakland" -- but then again, they've always been much more forward-looking than backward-looking ... and they haven't hesitated to do things (such as tarping the 3rd deck) that were in their long-term interest but that also were unpopular with the established fanbase.
As for "Alameda" -- again, it specifically excludes San Jose/SCC. It also draws the geography too tightly, without having the communal rallying point of a signature urban location.
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't much matter
by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 2:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dodgers didn't have territorial rights
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 2:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, that's right.
by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Dodgers are still protesting
by socal on Nov 6, 2006 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They changed it
Dodgers and Angels SHARE Los Anegles County as territory (Autry paid O'Malley quie handsomely for the privilege), hence the inability for the Dodgers to do anything about the name change (other than pout).
by RevHalofan on Nov 6, 2006 7:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
His legal standing would have to be based on
by alox on Nov 6, 2006 2:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe yes, maybe no
You could be right -- but I strongly suspect that whether the geographic naming rights are written down or not, Magowan would cause enough problems for Seligula and his cronies that they'd preemptively put the kibosh on any usurpation of Giant-territory place names.
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you're right...
by gojohn10 on Nov 6, 2006 3:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I can certainly see your reasoning,
I suspect the Mcgowan has backed himself into a corner with his insistence on his "rights". He gets to bear the full brunt of competetion with the A's without the benefit of being bought out. He may have screwed the Giants over for years to come.
by alox on Nov 6, 2006 3:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm still betting on San Jose A's
Remember that MLB owners are prohibited from suing one another, so McGowan can't even use that threat if/when Wolffish try to stake out the SJ name. MLB doesn't even need to force owners to follow that rule...it's in the constitution, as it were.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 6, 2006 3:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
While the NFL had no say with...
by Gerard on Nov 6, 2006 2:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That repeated "-ay A's"
The South B'A's ? Then someone would inevitably end up going all Tampa on us and we'd end up as the S-B'A's.
Oh the places you'll go, the punctuation you'll see ...
by green star oakland on Nov 6, 2006 2:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Giants' rights...
There's little doubt this new stadium will cost them value, but hey--maybe MLB will take a cue from the PGA and start a real Senior Circuit. The Gig-aunties are built for just such a league.
by The Dogfather on Nov 6, 2006 2:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The San Jos A's?
by The Dogfather on Nov 7, 2006 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Blame Oakland Politicians..
Celebrate the fact that the A's will remain in the Bay Area. Remember not too long ago, small market teams were candidates to be moved or disbanded.
At least we have a Bay Area community, not far from Oakland, with the guts and committment to getting a new stadium deal put together.
Who's ready to buy a condo that is sure to be a part of the plan?
by TahoeDon on Nov 6, 2006 2:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's not ubsurd ...
Oak to 9th? The site is barely large enough to fit the park. It doesn't have enough transportation access for 10k residents, much less 40k fans. It's also terribly expensive to build there.
Across from the current site? It's a marsh and would have significant environmental problems and tons of costs associated with them.
The only real chance was the uptown site -- and Jerry Brown let that slip away, but once he did there wasn't much that could be done.
by devo on Nov 6, 2006 2:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Am I missing something?
To attract corporate entertainment dollars, the event, the happening, the thing - it needs to be cool. What company would risk taking clients to a place that isn't cool. And there is nothing about Fremont that is cool. Companies may plop down for tickets/boxes for one year. When they realize they can't give away their tickets to respectable clients (due to Fremont being a cesspool), they will not pay again.
by Sashulia on Nov 6, 2006 2:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
You are being very offensive, sir
I don't know if you have ever been to Fremont, but one thing it is NOT is a cesspool. It is a very lovely, safe and warm town. So please stop insulting my home the way you have in your last two comments.
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 2:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well since you put it that way.....
by Sashulia on Nov 6, 2006 3:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for your apology
I have to disagree with you on the lack of the corporate dollar. I think there will be MORE due to the proximity to Silicon Valley. The first, largest, and most obvious corporation that will be HIGHLY invested will be Cisco. I could see many others getting involved as well, such as, Texas Instruments, Adobe, Yahoo, Google, E-Bay and many others. They are all based in Santa Clara/San Jose/Silicon Valley area and I believe they would be on board immediately. I think the geography of Fremont actually makes those types of things MORE convinient for South Bay Corporations. Many businesses go to SF to see the Giants, but if given the choice, they would go to Fremont first.
My company for example has a program we call "Baseball with the Boss" where the CEO will take a handful of employees to a game once a month. They get a little suite, food, and a limo ride. If the game was right up the street, they would be more likely to go to an A's game.
We will get a large number of cross over corporate dollars due to companies that would rather go to the near by, new, A's stadium than travel all the way up to SF! Silicon Valley is a large, untapped resource. And with Fremont right there, they can take full advantage of that. Which I believe, is the primary reason for chosing Fremont for the new location.
As for the BART thing, I have a feeling Lew has a plan for it. I don't think that he is going to let it slide by the way it is now. I don't know what that plan is, but he was so adimate about BART being part of the new sight, I don't think that will change just because we are moving to Fremont. I think he has something up his sleeve and we just have to wait and find out what that might be.
I realize that just because I am totally stoked about this, that doesn't mean everyone is. But I do hope that everyone understands that if Oakland is NOT an option, then this really is best for the team overall. If it is either Fremont or Portland/Vegas, we should be counting our blessings that Fremont will work out!
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have to disagree
by alox on Nov 6, 2006 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and thank you for reminding me
by Sashulia on Nov 6, 2006 6:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And how much are the corporate dollars paying in..
Fremont is an upgrade alone just because it can't get any worse. But I think Fremont will work beyond anyone's imagination.
by gmoneymcg on Nov 6, 2006 3:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cool?
Also, there are quite a few corporations in Fremont, Union City, Newark, and Milpitas. That doesn't include the businesses that are in San Jose as well. On the business side, this seems to be a winning situation for the A's.
Emotionally, I can see your point. But I like this better than Portland, Vegas, or even Sacramento (sorry, that's more from my point of view).
by nateboegel on Nov 6, 2006 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Napa Hike
by Steve in Napa on Nov 6, 2006 2:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The plan will not work for everyone...
Bottom line: does it help your team stay competitve? If the answer is yes, then it's a good plan. DO NOT look at this from your own personal viewpoint, because if you would rather have the A's stay in Oakland, at the Coliseum, and continue the same way they have been because McAfee is "easier" for you, then... oh... I better stop here before I really ruffle feathers.
by gmoneymcg on Nov 6, 2006 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
by nateboegel on Nov 6, 2006 3:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Santa Rosa hike!!!
by Eric95403 on Nov 7, 2006 2:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Once again...
If the A's thought that Santa Rosa was the best place for the ballpark in term of demographics and corporate dollars, then I'm all for it. Yes it would be a bigger pain in the ass for me, but I would rather travel a little farther to see my favorite team that is doing something to try and improve their product rather than sit on their hands.
by gmoneymcg on Nov 8, 2006 5:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Those 40 miles...
I'd rather drive the 90.
by BleacherDave on Nov 7, 2006 3:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sory but How Exactly Did Al Davis Screw The City?
by BornInOakland on Nov 6, 2006 2:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
What's In a Name?
- Oakland A's
- Bay Area A's
The only reason I mention the "Bay Area's A's" is that it's been my experience that when you mention that you are from the "Bay Area" most people in the USA think of The San Francisco Bay Area as opposed to the areas of "Tampa Bay" or "Green Bay" or whatever.I want the name to be Oakland A's but I do think it's kind of classy and prideful to be known as the "Bay Area A's".
by TahoeDon on Nov 6, 2006 2:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
How about the Bay A's
by BruceBochte on Nov 6, 2006 2:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
<checks out Pelosi's butt>
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
lol, politics again?
by alox on Nov 6, 2006 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oakland Athletics of Fremont?
by OaktownRajah on Nov 6, 2006 2:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I blame Oakland politicians
The writing was on the wall the day those numbskulls gave Al Davis the moon.
Bunch of clowns cost Oaktown its pride and joy!
by BruceBochte on Nov 6, 2006 2:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Devo
I just find it very hard to believe that a site couldn't have been found along the Oakland estuary, Jack London, Alameda or near the port that would have been viable. The issue of wanting and needing a new home for the A's goes back umteen years. This ain't a new problem. It's one that should have been solved many years ago when land options were more readily available.
Thanks for your comments.
by TahoeDon on Nov 6, 2006 2:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
the problem isn't new ...
Ten years ago no one wanted to develop Oakland -- all of that money was going to the 'burbs. There was no money moving around to help with the construction of the new park. Anything that happened would have been a pure outlay by the team and/or the city. In that atmosphere, it was very unlikely anything would get done.
The big problem with a waterfront ballpark is that Oakland still has a working waterfront. Unlike San Francisco, whose waterfront hasn't been used for anything except tourists in decades, Oakland as one of the largest ports in the country, as well as the airport, taking up a huge portion of the waterfront. Also, I doubt an estuary front ballpark would have really had the much appeal, which eliminates everything not in the immediate vacinity of the port.
PacBell was a very different situation. They had a perfect geographic location, that was almost completely unused. It's a lot easier to find nice waterfront property in a city that is surrounded on three sides by water and has almost no port facilities of any relevence. Most of the business operating on the waterfront are just there because of the cheap warehouse space. In Oakland, the waterfront is already one of the most effectively used parts of the city, in San Francisco, it was one of the least.
What would have made a lot more sense is a downtown stadium, since Oakland's downtown (unlike San Francisco) is one of the least effectively used parts of the city.
I agree that there were opportunities (or at least opportunity) -- I just think that a waterfront park is a combination of wishful thinking and an eagerness to keep up with the Giantses ...
by devo on Nov 6, 2006 2:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
an interesting read
http://bballbiz.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-oakland-as-plan-to-pay-for-their.html
by jono997 on Nov 6, 2006 2:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Good. Closer to me.
by Poppy on Nov 6, 2006 2:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I was just interviewed by NBC on this subject:
by saint on Nov 6, 2006 2:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
My opinion on this? Good.
The problem is the city has been burned in the past and most of that is thanks to Al Davis and the Raiders. Yet, they welcomed Davis back with open arms about a decade ago. Meanwhile, the A's have put out a much better overall product for years - the best in the East Bay by far when compared to the Warriors and Raiders (the Sharks are South Bay) and they can't get anywhere on a new ballpark in Oakland.
Maybe they don't REALLY need one. Enough people have said they do that there have been threats of contraction or a move in the past. At least if Fremont happens, we get a new ballpark and we keep the A's in the Bay Area. Fremont is 27 miles from Oakland and I live almost right between the two. It won't make it any harder for ME to go to games and the A's want a piece of that South Bay pie. There's still a big corporate influence down there and that means more money for a team.
I hope it works. A's baseball in Fremont is far better than no A's baseball in the East Bay at all. It's also a little weird. I remember when my brother and I were kids and my father took us to the Baylands racetrack. To go to A's games in the same area some 25 years later? Feels strange.
by Flashfire on Nov 6, 2006 3:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The South Bay Pie
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 3:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
on the subject of teams outside of their area
by sdawg11 on Nov 6, 2006 3:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
And how effective is that for the Marlins...
That park makes sense for the Dolphins: games are mostly on Sunday's when there is no rush hour traffic. For the Marlins it just never makes sense.
by gmoneymcg on Nov 6, 2006 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Whoever said Fremont was 35 miles...
Thanks.
by The Dogfather on Nov 6, 2006 3:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
AutoMall
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hope this works!
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you, m'dear.
Go BLUE!
by The Dogfather on Nov 6, 2006 4:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
more good news
Yes, yes, I know. To those of you on the home front it seems like they're moving "away", but to those of us looking from 800 miles away, they haven't left town at all. So now they're 20 miles down the street. No big deal. It still means when I go back to visit my friends in Oakland I'll be able to see a home A's game. Not like if they were moving to Las Vegas or something.
What town they're in makes less difference than things like how well the BART will connect to the stadium, how efficient the parking lot is, etc.
by iglew on Nov 6, 2006 3:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
the a's are stupid
by Rx31 on Nov 6, 2006 3:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
second-biggest mistake in years ...
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 4:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The reality is and always has been
by china bob on Nov 6, 2006 3:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
china bob, agree
by Salvatore on Nov 6, 2006 4:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you make your destiny
To build a ballpark in an area so far away from public transportation (the most optimistic Warm Springs BART projections don't have it open before 2013, and that's assuming many hurdles including financial are met -- and even then it won't be near the ballpark), and so far from the center of the Bay Area fanbase for the A's, means some pretty gnarly 880 traffic for fans who can drive or are willing to do so. It also may mean assuming that the decrease in fan attendance from the farther reaches will be made up by new and increased southern fan base attendance (or maybe fan numbers aren't as important?)
All I can say is "Good Luck". I can tell you I won't be going to many games to a ballpark that I cannot reasonably reach via public transportation.
As for Wash: I'm happy for him, and feel the Rangers made a good choice. His loss to the A's will be significant.
by OaklandSi on Nov 6, 2006 4:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
How about
"A's of the Bay".
Oh god that is lame. I just dont get why they have to be named after the city in whcih they play. When reading box scrores, am I uncertain which A's are being referenced?
by mikedaviswhereareyou on Nov 6, 2006 4:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
As one who grew up in Oakland
As a young teen I would take bart to games by myself and I have many many memories of sitting in the wooden bleachers....
This just makes me sad...
A part of me, a part of my youth, is going to die when the A's say goodbye to Oakland for the last time.
by Athletics fan and runner on Nov 6, 2006 4:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Sympathize greatly...
by Salvatore on Nov 6, 2006 4:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A few thoughts
San Jose Athletics sounds realllly cheesy. I hope it's still Oakland. fremont Athletics sounds okay, but then people would go "where the hell is Fremont?" It's sounds very Double A-esque
And one more thing, is there any water ways in Fremont to where we can have the awesomeness of a splash down homerun? I would love to see Milton crush some shots into that pond
by WhatElse on Nov 6, 2006 4:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
it's in downtown Pittsburgh
by OaklandSi on Nov 6, 2006 4:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
again as one who grew up in oakland
by Athletics fan and runner on Nov 6, 2006 4:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I agree with Oakland Si
by iceplant on Nov 6, 2006 4:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
wow, really?
i've grown up loving the OAKLAND A's too but just because their name is changing doesn't mean i'm going to stop rooting for chavvy, swish, huston, harden, etc.
by gotgreen on Nov 6, 2006 4:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
South Bay A's fans
by Cherry22 on Nov 6, 2006 5:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Iceplant:
That means the A's are playing in Oakland for three more seasons. Why not respect those three seasons? Remain an A's fan for as long as they're in Oakland. Then when they actually move, THEN switch to the Giants.
by iglew on Nov 7, 2006 1:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If they only could pick up Stanford
by oblique on Nov 6, 2006 4:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
LOL
by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 5:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Some of these responses are ridiculous
Not to say people aren't perfectly within their rights to complain, but, "I'm through with this team," over this is stupid. Plain and simple.
by walk off bunt on Nov 6, 2006 5:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
This does seem to be a tempest in a teacup.
by alox on Nov 6, 2006 5:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As a college student
by walk off bunt on Nov 6, 2006 7:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gawd...
by alox on Nov 6, 2006 7:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hahaha
Also a journalism major, so that small budget figures to last quite a long time.
by walk off bunt on Nov 6, 2006 8:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bottom line questions
- Will the move to Fremont result in more revenue for the team?
- Will the team get a higher payroll?
- Will the new stadium have less foul territory?
- Will the new stadium offer garlic fries and good beer?
- Will the Oakland A's of Fremont win the World Series in its first three years in the new park?
- Will the whining ever cease?
by BubbaDude on Nov 6, 2006 5:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
My bottom line
by socal on Nov 6, 2006 6:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Allure of the Coliseum
by spicadog on Nov 6, 2006 6:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps you should go shopping for some new...
: )
by gmoneymcg on Nov 8, 2006 5:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Since I live in Fremont..
We are only 20 minutes away (without traffic) from Oakland, so its not too far out of the way for people, unlike some has said. The new stadium will be right on 880. It will be short drive from 237 and 580 and you know they will come up with a way, probably a shuttle or, hopefully, a rail system to BART, so getting here shouldn't be a problem. We are a short drive from SJ and Mnt. View area, and I know lots of A's fans there that were hoping they would head to Fremont.
Plus there are already new shopping centers around Fremont and still lots of land to expand in to, so the whole area should be beautiful. The city of Oakland can't offer all of that. There just isn't the room there any longer.
We are lucky for the owner we have. The A's could have easily been sold and moved way out of this area. Let celebrate we still have the A's here and now, we will have more money to contend. And, Billy with more money, THAT makes me excited!
by ChickenStanley on Nov 6, 2006 6:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
PSLs?
by skigurl on Nov 6, 2006 6:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Excellent question
Most new ballparks have used seat licenses to some degree. A well constructed program can provide up to 10% of the necessary funding.
I wouldn't be too optimistic about keeping those primo seats without a seat license.
by vertig0 on Nov 6, 2006 7:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fremont....
by ak_A on Nov 6, 2006 7:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ah-
by mikeA on Nov 6, 2006 7:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well, no problem then
by ak_A on Nov 6, 2006 7:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When is Alaska
by Salvatore on Nov 6, 2006 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe late in this century.
by ak_A on Nov 6, 2006 7:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
heh
by Cutthemullet on Nov 6, 2006 11:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
good bye A's, and everyone here
After the NHL Seals and then the Raiders (at the time), it is the A's turn to leave.
That only leaves the Warriors, who aren't even given Oakland in their name.
Who do we blame????
The Oakland City leaders? --yes
Wolff? --I suppose
Selig? --obviously.
Steve "no-way-in-Oakland" Shott--perhaps.
The A's for not winning the World Series in '06--hard to say
A's fans? --no comment. We could have sold out every game, and this still may have happened.
Al Davis?--I'll leave that one up to anyone who actually cares.
It was nice meeting some of you on here, but my days of baseball are over. Thanks for some of your efforts upon deaf ears of people who felt that the Raiders coming back was more important than keeping the A's. The limited amount of my A's merchandise/caps will be discarded, and my baseball cards will find a way to exit my possession.
I hope you all have a great life, even without the A's in Oakland. Maybe I'll meet/see you around the city soon to have no MLB team.
-David
by wolffpackdavid on Nov 6, 2006 7:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Somebody check the Bay Bridge...
by gmoneymcg on Nov 8, 2006 5:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm
by bluelightrain84 on Nov 6, 2006 7:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Status Quo
All of that being said, I think the overall change is going to be for the better for the team. When facing the possibility of leaving the area entirely, this has to be a better choice. It may not have been the only choice but it was the only one truly presented. I'd rather look at the positives of what I have than look wistfully and sadly at the maybes of pipe dreams that passed by. I also would rather look positively at what I have than whine about how it's going to inconvinience me. (Guess what, it's going to increase traffic around me...oh well, I'll get over it. I still have my team.) And what I have is still my team within driving distance and getting a new stadium. And those are good things.
by nateboegel on Nov 6, 2006 7:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well
Its in the Bay area, they could float it out in the Bay for all I care.
For all its drawbacks the Oak Coliseum leads baseball in one pretty important stat, WINS
hopefully the A's do better in their new stadium than Stanford
new stadiums and 68 wins wont do it
by forester on Nov 6, 2006 8:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
can't believe it's really happening!



by gotgreen on Nov 6, 2006 8:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Are these renderings still accurate?
by alox on Nov 6, 2006 8:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not that hard to get to 40K
by vertig0 on Nov 6, 2006 9:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, No kidding?
by alox on Nov 6, 2006 9:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What is that tower?
by streetfan on Nov 6, 2006 9:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not accurate!
by OaktownRajah on Nov 6, 2006 9:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep. Still ugly.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Nov 7, 2006 7:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is just terrible
25 miles from Oakland ...
I know mt. davis ruined it for most.
but that is still the same field that where 4 world championships were played.
it's gonna be major loss.
there are lots of A's fans north of Oakland, and its even worse a deal for them.
by GrewUpAtTheColiseum on Nov 6, 2006 9:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Oakland or Fremont - Go A's!
by DieEarthlingScum on Nov 6, 2006 9:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
all wrong
The A's biggest fans have always been to the east like Sacramento, Modesto, Reno and the North Portland, Humboldt etc.
San Jose is full of people that dont really care about baseball-half of them want a professional World of Warcraft team and the other half want a Cricket Team.
Bad research of the market.
Wulff never had any intention of keeping the team in Oakland.
by apilgrim on Nov 6, 2006 9:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, immigrants and computer nerds
by salb918 on Nov 7, 2006 7:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and freedom.
by green star oakland on Nov 7, 2006 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
oh yea?
by wordfromthewise on Nov 7, 2006 4:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Geez, I go away for 1 day...
I'm really sad I won't see Wash on that 3rd base corner anymore, waving his arms like a madman telling someone to keep running in from 2nd....
I feel slightly less sad about the move, only because it puts the team about an hour closer to me! I'm excited to see what happens.
by streetfan on Nov 6, 2006 9:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I hate it....
by jjham15 on Nov 6, 2006 11:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The A's should move to PacBell
otherwise, build it in lake merritt.
by danh on Nov 6, 2006 11:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
floating park in lake merritt!
by Jjjsixsix on Nov 6, 2006 11:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I always thought
It would've been perfect. Maybe.
by senork on Nov 7, 2006 2:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm just glad they're staying.....
So what's the new cheer? Instead of Lets Go Oak-Land? Is it: Lets Go Silicon Valles A's of Freemont? :)
by polytician on Nov 7, 2006 6:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
This is fantastic news!
by groversson on Nov 7, 2006 6:08 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
agreed
BUT ... it was heartbreaking to see those small crowds during weekday games and especially when the A's were in the heat of the pennant race. the A's deserve so much more support (even though those 11,000 are THE most diehard fans!) and they deserve to play in a beautiful ballpark of their own.
by gotgreen on Nov 7, 2006 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Goodbye, home.
I was born in the East Bay. I'm a third generation East Bay resident, and in that sense, I feel a hell of a lot more like a team in Oakland is 'my team' than a team in Fremont (the edge of the BART line, the edge of the world).
I'm not optimistic. I'm not optimistic that increased revenues will go to keeping our stars, I find it more likely that they'll go to the owners' pockets while they spend years saying that all the money they're ripping out of our pockets is going to pay off the new stadium. I'm not optimistic about the effect on the fans, other than the fact that for those who can afford to keep going to tons of games, they'll have some sort of pretty scenery to look at. Personally, the only pretty scenery I care about is the one on the field, the ones wearing the home whites. I want Lew Wolff to stand up and tell us flat out that he's making the existing A's fanbase a priority. He's here for money, and I don't blame him -- a move will increase the franchise's value a good amount. But I don't have to like a guy that doesn't care about me and what we represent, do I?
That's why I love the Coliseum, because I care about the team, and the Coliseum lets me go and see them. The Coliseum is home to me, it's the worn out sneakers that hold fuzzy memories despite falling apart. It's a place to see baseball, and as an A's fan, that's what I want to see -- not corporate jackasses on cell phones everywhere, not craptastic distractions and wine vendors, I want to see a goddamn game. Put the boys out in an open field, give 'em a bat and a ball, let's see baseball. I don't like all the frippery that a lot of the new parks have. Okay, places like SafeCo are damn sexy, but a lot try too hard to be overboard. Give me a GAME.
Guess I'd better load up on gear before they move, because there's no way in fuck I'll be able to buy something with 'Fremont' or 'Silicon Valley' on it without drinking a couple R&Cs first.
Actually, screw the name. Let's forget all regional affilations, let's go for the ultimate cool. 'The Athletics'. No place at all. Because if Lew wants to go where the money is an uproot a team that's already got a nomadic history, let's just own it.
I'll never give up my A's, or going to games, but this is gonna hurt. And I know people are rolling their eyes over my blind hatred of Wolff, but hell. We're all allowed to have our opinions, and mine's just an irrationally cynical one. Someone's gotta have Wolff-rage here, I don't see enough of it! :-D
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Nov 7, 2006 8:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ah, it's not that bad Kyli.
I like the Coli too. I really enjoyed the pricing structure as compared to other MLB venues. But alas, all good thing must end. And as fans we had it good for a very long time. But parting is such sweet sorrow. I understand the sentiment.
The game will always be down there on the field. Ignoring yuppies has become a life long trend for me, but they do have their good points. Ignore them and focus on the field, you just might convert a few into hard core fans.
Another positive note is that if or when you have kids, all their memories will be built in a park that will be around for a while. The future of A's baseball in the bay will shine bright for years to come for them.
I don't think the move to ATT has hurt the Giants payroll. I would venture to say that they actually spend more on players than they ever did in the stick. The have to in order to survive, even with the debt load. Lew's finance plans don't seem to place such a burden on the A's, which is another positive. We have a creative owner and a brilliant GM. What's not to love after the sting of relocation subsides?
by alox on Nov 7, 2006 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I couldn't agree more
The A's will always be my team, always, but I am never going to buy any gear that says "San Jose" or whatever else on it......
As the time passes I am seeing a silver lining in that Fremont is a hell of a lot closer than (insert portland, Las Vegas, or another city here).
by Athletics fan and runner on Nov 7, 2006 1:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I love
So who cares if he's being selfish? At least his interests coincide with that of the welfare of the team over all. All these other blowhards selfish interests, on the other hand, are contrary to overall success of the team. Yea..lets stay in Oakland and draw 11,000 fans on Tuesday nights and lose all our good players year after year. Start thinking of the team for once and not about how you're gonna get to the games now. Real fans will find a way to go to games
by wordfromthewise on Nov 7, 2006 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's his right to be selfish.
The only thing the A's are opening up is the chance for more corporate money. The A's don't just draw from Oakland, they draw from the whole Bay Area. I'm not sure why Fremont is magically going to provide another 20,000 fans on Tuesday nights. They gain the South Bay and lose the North Bay. It's just a redistribution of the same problems in a shiny packaging that will prove to be a temporary panacea on a problem that involves a hell of a lot more than mere location, while creating new problems like public transit.
The question is really whether the new park will lead to better media deals -- that's going to be what's really helpful to the team.
The question is whether Fremont is somewhere that the A's expect to stay for 50+ years. Baseball is a game about stability in franchises -- if a team is going to be constantly moving, like the A's, that isn't helpful for building up the long-term, generational fanbase that teams on the East Coast benefit from. If Fremont is the final stop for the A's, that's a different story, but I honestly believe that two or three decades down the line, we're going to be asking the same damn question about sustainability in Fremont.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Nov 7, 2006 5:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's brilliantly expressed.
by jeepers on Nov 7, 2006 5:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just really don't think
by wordfromthewise on Nov 8, 2006 10:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's a professional, absolutely--
From a fan's perspective, the franchise as a whole and its long-term health is important. We've got a lifetime investment in the team.
Wolff's concern only has to extend to as long as he intends to be owner -- so what's good for the team during the timespan he intends to own the team doesn't mean that it's good for the A's as a whole, in the long-term sense.
Stadiums have a shelf life -- places like Tiger Stadium that last for decades upon decades seem to be the exception rather than the rule. It just seems like ballparks have begun to work in waves, other than McAfee and Shea and a couple others, all the parks of the 80s have been rebuilt in the past decade, lasting only 30-40 years. We don't know how long this park will last, but it's not unreasonable to expect that it'll have a shelf life and the A's will be once again faced with what to do about a new park. Making it so that the solution to building a park is just to move in order to facilitate ease in the process seems dangerous to the stability of establishing the franchise. Hell, I've run into plenty of people that still consider the A's the "upstarts new guys" in town compared the Giants, and they've been here 40 years.
I think Ray Ratto DID make a good point -- there may be more ideal locations, but Fremont has the power of being available NOW. As an owner, Wolff will make the best return off of his investment by going with a mediocre guarantee rather than hoping for an ideal future. But it means that he doesn't have to concern himself with the eventual fate of the franchise because this move will radically increase the value of the franchise for more than a decade once the new park is built.
He'll make money in a speedy and efficient manner. But that purpose isn't necessary good for stability for the A's.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Nov 9, 2006 6:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No I don't buy it
by wordfromthewise on Nov 9, 2006 3:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
why are people so obsessed with ...
Lew's interest in the team as an economic engine is predicated on:
- Franchise appreciation
- Franchise appreciation
- Franchise appreciation
- Sales and rents of housing units in the new complex
- Rents from businesses in the new complex
- Overall complex appreciation
- Sales of increased capacity of luxury boxes in the new stadium to businesses and HNW individuals
The simple novelty of a shiny new stadium -- combined with the "artifical" reduction in overall seating capacity (especially non-luxury-box seating capacity) and with the various bells and whistles of the whole "So KrAZeE You'll Forget You're at a Boring Ol' Ballgame!!!" klown karnival komplex -- will virtually guarantee consistent sellouts the first 2 years.
And after that, when the new-stadium-smell-Brasso has sublimated into a component part of the ever-more-LA-riffic Bay Smog, it still won't be worth the extra marketing expenditure to get those marginal 5K-10K fannies in the (not-so-cheap-anymore) seats.
Overall team attendance figures are the errors (in both senses of the word) of baseball business stats: irrelevant and misleading tallies with an overlay of mistaken moralism (Oakland/the East Bay doesn't "deserve" a team because of the "18K" nightly attendance; errors are an indicator of the defensive prowess of individual fielders).
by monkeyball on Nov 9, 2006 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am so sick of hearing all of the:
I don't want to sound rude - but my god. The A's aren't moving away - they are building a brand-spanking-new revenue generating stadium 20 miles south of there current location. This is good/great on many fronts - but most importantly will help keep the A's competitive in the current marketplace with a baseball stadium that will not have an outfield torn up and dead come September.
And for all of those whoe is me's out there - save that for the fans that had to watch the Browns leave overnight to Baltimore, who had to endure their franchise leave to Indy. I mean the Raiders packed up and left to LA - only to come back and ruin the Coliseum for the A's and baseball.
I just don't understand all the grief over something that should be getting cheered. This will keep the A's relevant for years to come - without any thoughts of truly relocating or being contracted - as this will keep the A's in the Bay Area for decades to come.
So I just want to let out one big Hoorah for the long overdue new stadium - and the decades of A's baseball to be experienced and enjoyed by all A's fans in the Bay Area - right where they should be!!!
by SD Erik on Nov 7, 2006 9:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Contraction is an empty threat.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Nov 7, 2006 10:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Amen Erik.
by The Dogfather on Nov 7, 2006 10:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Moving...
by doubleplayer on Nov 7, 2006 9:40 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
i hate that the A's are moving out of oakland
by gotgreen on Nov 7, 2006 9:42 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Drama Queens
Please turn in your A's gear at the door. And good riddance. Your loyalty is clearly stronger to your beloved city than it is to the Athletics. Your incessant whining wont be missed.
The rest of us true A's fans will continue to root for them 20 miles down the road.
BTW, Oakland peering down its nose at Fremont, are you kidding? That's rich . . . .
You had your chance. Turn your ire to your elected leaders.
Go A's
by Surfin in Santa Cruz on Nov 7, 2006 4:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
No elegant way of saying it......
But the A's are stuck - it simply cannot be Fremont and OAK doesn't work anymore. For mostly intangible reasons, 'Bay Area' is just too weak sounding. South Bay is weak too.
I see only two choices, both of which are less than satisfactory: San Jose and Silicon Valley. Nevermind the inconvenient argument that to many, Fremont is not even in the Silicon Valley. But realistically it is the only thing that works for this franchise in this location. Take cue from the Newark 'W' Hotel - the Silicon Valley A's it must be.
by Sashulia on Nov 7, 2006 4:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's worse for us.
by jeepers on Nov 7, 2006 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 



















