"There Is No A In Fremont" Day

There

is, however, an "A" in Las Vegas...2 to be precise...

seriously, if they're not going to move to Providence, RI...then I hope they stay in Oaktown, but I just have a sneaking suspicion that they will end up in Vegas.

But if your life is such a big joke, then why should I care?

by johnspaz7 on Aug 3, 2006 7:59 AM PDT reply actions

I agree

My exact thoughts, are you from Providence too?

"We've never been in that position. We wouldn't know how to operate, I mean, do we get him a corsage?"-Beane on Big name free agents

by pbruins92 on Aug 3, 2006 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions

yes,

yes I am

But if your life is such a big joke, then why should I care?

by johnspaz7 on Aug 3, 2006 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions

There are 3 A's in Bay Area...

...and Alameda County...

I think they should stay in Oakland, too, but I'd rather see them in Fremont than GONE to where I can't go watch them.

"He should have been out for blood, like a two-mouthed bear at a monkey eating contest!" ~ McFood

by Poppy on Aug 3, 2006 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions

When I'm convinced that City/County are unable to make a new Oakland park happen, and that Fremont/San Jose are the only hope of keeping the team around the bay, then I'll support the local option. But all the evidence to me points to Wolff not wanting to stay in Oakland, for reasons that have everything to do with condo development cash and little to do with what's best for the team and its fans. It is not OK to just say the highest bidder gets the team.

As long as I feel Oakland could still work, I'm anti-Fremont. When Oakland bows out, then the other local sites become more palatable.

"I don't want to 'Wear It.' It doesn't match my shoes." --Jennifer

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 3, 2006 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions

Precisely:

Free Seat has hit the nail directly on the head.

While taint is everywhere and baseball is certainly no different, it's important that it be treated with open attention-Devo

by saint @ Athletics Nation on Aug 3, 2006 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm not completely up on the econopolitics of it..

...and I don't live/vote in Alameda County. So I just kind of watch & wait.

"He should have been out for blood, like a two-mouthed bear at a monkey eating contest!" ~ McFood

by Poppy on Aug 3, 2006 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions

Fremont is a done deal...

Wolff had Supervisor, Scott Haggerty (a Fremont boy), sitting next to him at a game last week. The i's aren't dotted and the t's not crossed, but the A's are moving to Fremont. It was a nice run in Oaktown, but the A's will be moving into their new stadium in Fremont in 2011.

If you haven't already heard it, then, you heard it here first. ;-)

by FoolshGame22 on Aug 3, 2006 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions

Means little

Wolff had San Jose Councilman Mulcahy, a major Baseball to SJ player, sitting next to him during the opening series against the Yankees. While Fremont may be Wolff's target, it is far from a done deal.

"I don't want to 'Wear It.' It doesn't match my shoes." --Jennifer

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 3, 2006 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions

you probably voted for Kotsay, too... ;-)

It is as close to a done deal as it gets, without ink on the signature lines. You'll be seeing the headlines before this season ends.

by FoolshGame22 on Aug 3, 2006 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions

Unless there is a signature on the line

It ain't a done deal.

"it's like an alarm clock, WOOT WOOT!" -Bubb Rubb

by secret ASian man on Aug 4, 2006 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions

Fremont

is NOT a done deal.

by RF A-hole on Aug 3, 2006 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions

For the final time

MLB will NEVER put a baseball team in Vegas. Stop dreaming.

by RF A-hole on Aug 3, 2006 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions

what

are you basing that on? There's a AAA team there and Las Vegas has been lobbying for a team...they've been talking to the Marlins. Is this just your opinion or do you have something to backup that statement?

But if your life is such a big joke, then why should I care?

by johnspaz7 on Aug 3, 2006 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions

gambling rights

That is one reason why they wouldn't put the A's there. There is too much money involved in betting on baseball and, unless things have changed, you are unable to bet on sports that take place in the city.

"If you're surprised by getting the job done, that means you didn't expect it out of yourself." -Huston Street

by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 3, 2006 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions

regardless

they could move to Nevada (outside of Vegas) and still be referred to as Las Vegas. And I don't think MLB cares about gambling...if Vegas is lobbying for a team it doesn't appear to be an issue to them either.

But if your life is such a big joke, then why should I care?

by johnspaz7 on Aug 4, 2006 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions

I'll be there

And thank you, organizers, for keeping this drumbeat going.

"I don't want to 'Wear It.' It doesn't match my shoes." --Jennifer

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 3, 2006 8:37 AM PDT reply actions

"When Oakland Bows Out"????????

When have they ever been IN??? Aside from the present site, they have shown zero interest, perhaps due to the Raider Debacle....Frankly I am sick of the Oakland Only crowd who equates a move 25-30 miles away, within the same region, to the type of move from brooklyn to los angeles....go spout this b.s. on your oafc board

by plrraz on Aug 3, 2006 9:24 AM PDT reply actions

(golf clap)

Those of us who live in places where the nearest major league ballpark is a four-hour drive away view the folks who think Fremont is too far as decidedly baffling.

Try having to cross a border and deal with immigration officers having a bad day in order to get to a ballgame sometime.

A BART ride to Fremont will be like a blowjob in comparison.

"I smell like a meadow." - Yuniesky Betancourt

by Ozzz on Aug 3, 2006 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions

I live in the South Bay--

a move to Fremont would bring the team significantly closer to me, since the drive between Fremont and Oakland is always crammed with traffic.

But y'know? I want the team to remain in Oakland. I'll gladly keep the extra 45+ minutes to my drive in order to see the team in the city that they've represented for several decades. Distance ain't the only factor involved for most people, as far as I've seen on this site.

And 'a BART ride to Fremont' implies that BART will have easy access to the new site. :-/

"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."

by Kyli on Aug 3, 2006 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions

At worst

They'll put on a shuttle bus for the mile or so people will have to move.

There's worse things in life.

And let's not forget, the A's haven't always been in Oakland.

"I smell like a meadow." - Yuniesky Betancourt

by Ozzz on Aug 3, 2006 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions

That really doesn't make much sense.

It's b.s. to make it known that you want your team to stay where it has been for almost 40 years? To not want your team to move somewhere that is 25-30 miles away down a highway that clogs mercilessly and can turn a 30 mile drive into over an hour is wrong? And because other people live far away from a major league ballpark it means that I shouldn't live close to one?

I have nothing against Fremont, but I think the A's should stay put. I voted that way in the mayoral election, I have told my city council reps that I feel that way, and yes, I'd go to a rally that's trying to make some noise. As far as I'm concerned, it's Oakland only until the BS that the politicians around here keep spouting out ceases and they come clean and say it's impossible and not going to happen. Until then I will continue to say what I feel.

"Frank Thomas=misunderstood he-man" ~geogrman

by tankerraid on Aug 3, 2006 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Maybe HOz doesn't care much...

...for blowjobs. Didja ever think of that?

Me, neither. ;-)

Can you just say it, straight out, before I have a...birthday? --Al Swearengen

by The Dogfather on Aug 3, 2006 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions

Heh!

"Frank Thomas=misunderstood he-man" ~geogrman

by tankerraid on Aug 3, 2006 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions

hahaha

i've lived in fremont, and this thread makes me want to run and hide under my burrito.

Its behind you Tyrone! Whenever you reverse, things come at you from behind!

by DelMundo on Aug 3, 2006 9:48 AM PDT reply actions

Someone explain to me

I live in Kansas, so I don't regularly follow the stadium situation/possible move. But, I read something like this, http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance , and it makes sense to me that the ownership would want to move to a more profitable location. When you only lead the likes of the Marlins, Rays, Royals and Pirates, I can understand weighing your options. The question I have is, why is attendance so bad? And I don't buy the tarp reason, because it never was that great to begin with, never ranking higher than 17th in the league. So, I've always wondered how a team with so much success could be so far down in the attendance. Any thoughts?

by sprtsnwyn on Aug 3, 2006 9:55 AM PDT reply actions

Bunch of reasons

Poor marketing. Inconsistent approach to bringing in groups, companies, families, etc. Though the A's TV ads are always clever and entertaining, that's not the same as aggressively and effectively pursuing group and season ticket sales.

Lousy local media. In radio and TV terms, the A's have been the ugly stepchild to the Giants for a long time. The offseason radio station debacle is sad evidence of this.

Small capacity. You may not buy the tarp-as-attendance-depressor argument, but because of it the A's now have the smallest capacity in the bigs. The A's did this at the same time they had their highest pre-season expectations (Thomas+Bradley+pitching staff+good young core getting better) in years. Better team, fewer seats available. Make of that what you will.

Ticket price hikes. Average A's prices increased 25% this year, the most in the majors by far, largely but not exclusively due to the tarpestry.

Aging ballpark. The Coliseum has few of the amenities which conventional wisdom suggests a modern park must have. The A's just aren't bringing in the fans who require wireless internet, amusement parks, and duck a l'orange concession stands. Beyond this, the dual purpose concrete bowl features seats which don't face the plate, have awful sight lines, and bleachers from which you cannot see large swaths of the outfield.

It is noteworthy, however, that despite attendance challenges, the A's have been a profit making team for most of the last 15 years...and that's not even counting the spectacular 10% per year asset appreciation rate realized by the last owners. Baseball in Oakland continues to be good business. Perhaps not as good as baseball+condos+retail with lucrative development rights concessions, though.

"I don't want to 'Wear It.' It doesn't match my shoes." --Jennifer

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 3, 2006 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions

On the wireless front:

It should be noted that the A's short-season affiliate, the Vancouver Canadians, do in fact have free wireless access from foul pole to foul pole.

You have to put up with the occasional ad, but it costs the club nothing, and it allows people like me to 'live blog' games.

That Oakland hasn't bothered to set up something similar is a real headshaker.

"I smell like a meadow." - Yuniesky Betancourt

by Ozzz on Aug 3, 2006 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions

It is sort of odd

I would ordinarily liken it to it being a Bay Area phenomena in that there are so many other things to do, going to a baseball game isn't tops on the list (kinda like how LA wasn't able to support 2 pro football teams). Unlike other parts of the country, the A's don't have

Long standing tradition (ala Boston / NY)
Location where there isn't much else (ala St. Louis)
Shiny newish stadium (ala Pittsburgh)
Favorable demographics (SF manages to get more of the white collar crowd working in SF ... Oakland has the reputation of being more of a blue collar fanbase team, and those fans usually aren't able to make it to as many games due to financial / time reasons)

by Rickeyfan on Aug 3, 2006 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions

i've asked this before too

I believe financial reasons really factor into the attendance from what other AN'ers have said in the past. We live in the MW where extreme poverty really doesn't exist but I'll have to admit that the attendance continues to baffle me too. It's just so damn unfortunate when you see the dedication of the 510 guys and BB visiting on AN Day.

Think of it this way-- the A's don't even have a dedicated radio station so that should give you an idea of how much work there might be left to do in order to keep them in Oakland. We hear more daily about the Wichita Wranglers on 1410 KGSO than they get to hear about the A's on KNBR. Ironically, we still are losing our AA team to a higher bidder and that is what is most wrong with sports these days ;-(

"If you're surprised by getting the job done, that means you didn't expect it out of yourself." -Huston Street

by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 3, 2006 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions

It's bad because...

...for Lots of fans the stadium is not easy to get to, it has all the charm and first-rate services of a parking garage, we can't compete with the gigAunties' digs for the casual fan (many sub-reasons) and the $outh Bay has no idea what it's missing.

As a San Ramon Valleyan (one ridge east of the Bay), I'm neutral for my own convenience, but I'd love a much better "fan experience" and I've gotta believe all that tech money will give our Billy some loose change with which to play.

Can you just say it, straight out, before I have a...birthday? --Al Swearengen

by The Dogfather on Aug 3, 2006 10:27 AM PDT reply actions

Not for nothing...

...but there IS an A in 'Fremont Day'...

Oh wait.

"I smell like a meadow." - Yuniesky Betancourt

by Ozzz on Aug 3, 2006 10:40 AM PDT reply actions

Question:

What is Ron Dellums' opinion on the whole matter? I don't live in Alameda Co., so I haven't heard what he's had to say about the stadium.

by Flyin As on Aug 3, 2006 10:54 AM PDT reply actions

IIRC, during the campaign

FWIW, De La Fuente publically claimed he was in favor of keeping the A's in the City (without officially saying that he'd do whatever it takes)

Dellums acknowledged that Oakland has higher priorities at the moment, without officially 'closing the door' to the possibilities.

That said, I'm highly doubtful that the City of Oakland will contribute much, if anything towards the effort to build a stadium in Oakland. Even if the city were to want to provide the land, with Wolffisher picking up the development costs, it'd still be a difficult battle procuring the targetted land from the current tennants.

by Rickeyfan on Aug 3, 2006 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions

De La Fuente was unconvincing.

It just sounded like he was saying it to grab a few more votes. He's also been quoted with a "I don't really believe Fremont will work, so what's the problem?" attitude.

It's sad to say, but I'd bet my mortgage on the A's leaving Oakland--hopefully, they'll stay in the Bay area.

"The first night, we were right there," Bradley said. "All we needed was a couple of touchdowns, and we would have had them."

by jeepers on Aug 3, 2006 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions

City land, Wolffish park?

The City would do that deal without question. For example, the City/County JPA would offer the current north parking lot as a new site, and secure some available land near the current south lot to cover lost Raider parking overflow.

Wolffish would reject this offer, because it would not include the $300-$500 million dollar value development rights they want for their ballpark village. That's the key--if it was just land with transit access, City/County would be on it. But Wolffish wants more, much more, and Lew has said as much on this very website and elsewhere. That's why laying the failings at the City's door is wrong, IMO. Wolffish's pricetag is pretty damn high.

"I don't want to 'Wear It.' It doesn't match my shoes." --Jennifer

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 3, 2006 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions

That's not a "high price"...

...in fact, it's a creative way to keep the A's in the East Bay, without trying to dun the taxpayers. Obviously, the dunning tactic won't work anymore--and never should have worked for da Raiduhs. Thanks, Al!

Wolff's Oakland plan would've made for a lot of win/winners, including the landowners who became so awfully proud of their crappy old warehouses as soon as the team expressed an interest in the area north of the stadium. Fact is, it'll be difficult to put together a big enough parcel anywhere in the BA to make the plan go, and impossible in Oakland without the active advocacy of the city gummint. I just don't see it happening--not near enough vision, energy or competency.

Can you just say it, straight out, before I have a...birthday? --Al Swearengen

by The Dogfather on Aug 3, 2006 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions

$300-500 miilion isn't a high price?

The City has an asset: development rights. It could hold onto it and hope the value appreciates. It could sell those rights and use the money for various pressing civic needs. Or they could give it to Wolffish. Just because it's not cash in the bank right now doesn't mean it's valueless absent Saint Lew.

"I don't want to 'Wear It.' It doesn't match my shoes." --Jennifer

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 3, 2006 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions

The way I see it...

...it's the A's that have the asset--a veritable Golden Goose, and they'd be happy to nest it down in Oaktown and let it lay big, fat golden eggs for the next 50 years--and some of those eggs would go to the City in dramatically increased tax revenues from the entire project area. To say nothing of construction jobs, other stores/jobs drawn to the people living there, vendor jobs etc., etc. Over the life of the project I'll bet that the revenues from it would FAR outstrip the increased city services it will require.

And talk about opportunity cost--I don't see the world's Trumps beating a path to the Mayor's door, begging to develop that thoroughly DePressed area in some other direction--do you?? Not bloody likely, seems to me.

Fact is, Wolff is using the stadium like an anchor store in a mall--it's what he does--very well--more power to him. You can't build this mall without the anchor, and the anchor alone doesn't generate enough dough to justify the investment. Turn him LOOSE Oakland--would you rather be King of the current shitpile--holding only nominally valuable dev rts nobody wants, or egg collector to the Golden Goose?

East choice, methinks.

Can you just say it, straight out, before I have a...birthday? --Al Swearengen

by The Dogfather on Aug 3, 2006 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions

Actually, quite bloodly likely

Oakland parcels are being converted from industrial to residential development at breakneck speed, and yes, there are plenty of name brand developers who'd love a crack at the San Leandro Street corridor. That it's in the Coliseum Redevelopment Area only sweetens the pot. That area will be developed in the next 10 years, with or without the A's, and the City will enjoy the profits of those development rights and the associated longer-term tax benefits.

The "offer" Wolffish presents is: give us the land for the park plus the proceeds of those development rights, and we won't leave. The answer from Oakland may become: we'll give you the land, but we're not willing to give away the profit potential as well.

As it happens, I do support a City/County investment in keeping the A's, and I think there's a potential deal to be made within the constraints above. But there's no consensus that stadium deals are automatic successes in job or tax creation terms, and any city, especially Oakland, needs to make sure it gets the best possible deal from assets like these...because they ain't making more land in Oakland.

"I don't want to 'Wear It.' It doesn't match my shoes." --Jennifer

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 3, 2006 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions

PAVE LAKE MERRITT!!!

clap, clap, clap clap clap

"The first night, we were right there," Bradley said. "All we needed was a couple of touchdowns, and we would have had them."

by jeepers on Aug 3, 2006 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions

Ballpark on pontoons!

Each season ticket comes with a free gondola pass, with fans conveyed from shore to seat in genteel style. Venice by the Bay.

(credit monkeyball for floating ballpark concept)

"I don't want to 'Wear It.' It doesn't match my shoes." --Jennifer

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 3, 2006 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions

I drive through there to our games every week...

...and there's nary a crane in the sky. Lots of plywood windows, however. I just cannot accept that those rights are worth two squats. So, Oaktown is trading a real, live, likely huge revenue stream for an expectancy that you believe may be worth a lot Someday, but which does nobody any sweet-fark-all bit of good at present. Not a major league play, I think.

And as to your point about no more land--there's plenty of land in Oakland--a whole lot of it distressed. That kind of dog-in-a-manger thinking will ensure that it stays that way. And that's why the city will lose the A's.

Can you just say it, straight out, before I have a...birthday? --Al Swearengen

by The Dogfather on Aug 3, 2006 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions

This is crazy

You're saying that these rights are worth "two squats"...yet Wolff values them at $300 million. You're saying it would be a great deal for Oakland to give these (two squats/$300 mill) rights to Wolff, but a bad deal to sell them to Signature Properties and use the money for better schools, or cops, or schools for cops.

My original point: City/County would do a land-for-park trade in a heartbeat. Wolffish want a hundreds of millions in development profits on top of that. It's that gulf...and not a lack of City vision...that may mean the A's move.

"I don't want to 'Wear It.' It doesn't match my shoes." --Jennifer

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 3, 2006 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions

That's Not the trade-off

Those 'rights' generate nothing unless somebody buys 'em, right?--no cops, no schools, squadiddly. The A's bring a real, live spendable tax revenue stream--so the City would not be giving up something for nothing--they'd be converting a paper hope into paper money--lots of it--for many years, many cops and many teachers.

Can you just say it, straight out, before I have a...birthday? --Al Swearengen

by The Dogfather on Aug 3, 2006 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions

I am from the east bay originally....

spent many of my formative years just off of Davis street in San Leandro, so going to games via Bart was a breeze....Now I am up in Eureka, but still make it down to at least four-five games a year...six hour drive(more when we take the kids).

I guess what I do NOT "get" is the vitriol (sp) spewed towards a NonOakland site, a site VERYYYYYYY close to Oakland; heck its still in Alameda County. Those on the OAFC site, swearing they will NEVER attend a game in Fremont, or any NONOakland site, and equating a move out of Oakland with a move to LasVegas or Portland...I dont get that - I loved the Ballpark Village concept down from the parking lot, I love the idea of a park in Jack London Square, or along the estuary, or somewhere near downtown...but it is NOT feasible, and at least someone is making an effort to keep the team local, and put them in a financial position that will at least help them retain more of their players and obtain more free agents.

by plrraz on Aug 3, 2006 11:52 AM PDT reply actions

im on the peninsula

probably equal distance to both sf and oakland and san jose and all are traffic nightmares. ill be happy as long as they stay in the bay area.

by smasfan on Aug 3, 2006 12:03 PM PDT reply actions

sorry

should have said i would prefer oakland

by smasfan on Aug 3, 2006 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions

SF/SJ can at least be reached via public transit

(from the Peninsula, I mean... in less than two hours...)

"He should have been out for blood, like a two-mouthed bear at a monkey eating contest!" ~ McFood

by Poppy on Aug 3, 2006 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions

just about

the same distance from Oklahoma. Sorry to say I don't care where they end up. I root for the team not the City. Build the ball park at Mare Island for all I care!

I'm not a big wine guy... Where do you grow the BEER?

by str8tarrow on Aug 4, 2006 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions

Keep em in the Bay

I just want the A's to stay locally. Somewhere, but local. If it remains in Oakland, I'd be just as happy. Rock on, guys,

by GreenNGoldForMe on Aug 3, 2006 12:35 PM PDT reply actions

Don't have a problem w/the A's in Fremont

but I'll be there in any event to support the rally.

Go A's!!

"I don't know if you know but France made it to the World Cup final. They all tested positive for being assholes" -Lance Armstrong

by sf drift king on Aug 3, 2006 3:29 PM PDT reply actions

So what I'm getting from all this neg. shit

is that us fans that want the team to stay in Oakland should keep our mouths shut? I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. THERE IS NO A IN FREMONT!!!!! KEEP THE A'S IN OAKLAND!!!!!!!!

by RF A-hole on Aug 3, 2006 4:44 PM PDT reply actions

No....I think what you are hearing is.....

KEEP EM THE BAY AREA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by plrraz on Aug 3, 2006 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions

No, what I should be hearing is

Keep 'em in Oakland.

There is no "A" In Fremont. KEEP THE A'S IN OAKLAND!!!!

by RF A-hole on Aug 4, 2006 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions

Sigh

What I can't stand about the negativity is simple. The argument isn't just "Keep the A's in Oakland" the argument is also "Fremont sucks!" I'm from Fremont, and I love the A's, but I feel unwelcome in the stands of my own home stadium when my fellow fans say shit like that.

How would you like it if I pulled a reztips and rail about how Oakland is a cesspool? You wouldn't.

I would love the A's to stay in Oakland, but is there a need to make fans from Fremont feel unwelcome just because their town is courting the A's?

Remember, San Jose is not an option and if Oakland doesn't work out and Fremont isn't there, where will the A's go? Portland? Vegas? Sacramento?

Also, next time when you're at the Coliseum, look at the number 43 on the Mt. Davis tarp. Where is the Eck from? Fremont.

Yeah, Fremont has been plenty bad for the A's.

"it's like an alarm clock, WOOT WOOT!" -Bubb Rubb

by secret ASian man on Aug 4, 2006 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions

Did I ever say

I had a problem with the city of Fremont? No. What I do have a problem with is everyone that thinks that there is no way a new park can be built in Oakland when that is a bunch of horseshit.

I can't speak for the people that give you shit, but I understand why they feel the way they do or have we all forgot what happen back in 1981? The point is even though it would be a 25-30 mile move, fans from Oakland look at it the same way that Raider fans looked at the move to LA and as much as you may not like, I don't blame the Oakland folk for acting the way they are. But don't put words into my mouth that I never said.

There is no "A" In Fremont. KEEP THE A'S IN OAKLAND!!!!

by RF A-hole on Aug 4, 2006 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions

And I know where Eck is from

I saw him pitch.......... for the Oakland A's.

There is no "A" In Fremont. KEEP THE A'S IN OAKLAND!!!!

by RF A-hole on Aug 4, 2006 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions

Bottem line:

Those of you that support keeping the team in The Town come out to the rally. Those of you that don't then don't come while all of us that do will just laugh at you when the team ends up staying.

btw, 3/4 of the fans I have talked to since all this Fremont wet dream non senes pop up 1) Want the A's to stay in Oakland and 2)say that the A's will STAY in Oakland.

by RF A-hole on Aug 3, 2006 5:01 PM PDT reply actions

Your point #2 is pretty worrisome.

As someone who hopes the A's stay, I hope that 3/4 of A's fans don't really think the A's will stay in Oakland. They're being complacent about a very, very real possibility. I'm glad you're doing something about it, because unless there's a huge groundswell of public support for it, I'm skeptical it will happen.

"The first night, we were right there," Bradley said. "All we needed was a couple of touchdowns, and we would have had them."

by jeepers on Aug 3, 2006 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions

Well stated

The road to Fremont is paved with complacency (well, that and asphalt).

"I don't want to 'Wear It.' It doesn't match my shoes." --Jennifer

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 3, 2006 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions

and concrete

The overpasses on 880 are made of concrete.

"it's like an alarm clock, WOOT WOOT!" -Bubb Rubb

by secret ASian man on Aug 4, 2006 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions

I'll be there!!

by OaklandSi on Aug 3, 2006 5:47 PM PDT reply actions

hey RF A-hole

I just bought 3 T shirts and a tote for the Mrs. Can we get F U Brown T shirts too?

Two-thirds of the earth is covered by water, the other third is covered by Kotsay.

by carp on Aug 3, 2006 9:38 PM PDT reply actions

RF A-Hole.....you are painting a broad section of

this community with a negative brush..I think what has been CLEARLY STATED here, in this discussion, is that darn near EVERYONE would like to see the A's remain in Oakland, but that Fremont, or anywhere else in the bay area for that matter is not the catastrophe you are making it to be.

I think many in the OAFC crowd would prefer the A's to leave the bay area entirely rather than have a state of the art ballpark anywhere in the bay area but Oaktown...AGAIN...everyone I know prefers the A's in Oakland, BUT...as opposed to LasVegas,Contraction,SanAntonio, Charlotte, Portland, et.al....Fremont is a happy alternative

Peace

by plrraz on Aug 3, 2006 9:54 PM PDT reply actions

This is the way I look at it

A move to Fremont will kill the team. The A's will lose half their fan base, hardley anyone from SJ will come because regardless if people want to admit to it or not, SJ is 3/4 Giants fans. And like I have pointed out already, the people of Fremont have said that they DON'T want the A's there. That site in Fremont would be more suited for a new stadium for the Earthquakes than for the A's.

There is no "A" In Fremont. KEEP THE A'S IN OAKLAND!!!!

by RF A-hole on Aug 4, 2006 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Not to be naive...

...but where does the "SJ is 3/4 Giants fans" figure come from? I'm not arguing, I've just never heard an actual, soundly-derived estimate of how many of the South Bay's baseball FANS (not just "people who go to games") are actually Giants fans.

"He should have been out for blood, like a two-mouthed bear at a monkey eating contest!" ~ McFood

by Poppy on Aug 4, 2006 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions

People I know that live in SJ

have told me this.

There is no "A" In Fremont. KEEP THE A'S IN OAKLAND!!!!

by RF A-hole on Aug 4, 2006 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions

Heresay is getting TIRED,

as am I of reporting that, as an actual resident of the South Bay, the A's fanbase is thriving and huge here. My data is based on observations from: 1) # of A's vs. Giants caps and bumperstickers, etc. being worn and displayed around town 2)# of Little League players and their parents wearing A's caps,t-shirts, etc.
3) People I run into every day who are huge A's fans, etc. 4) # of people who say they are fed up with the Gnats, and like the A's winning ways with great young players.
I'm tired of arguing with Oakland supporters who usually prefer just to make ignorant, negative remarks about the San Jose/Fremont area when they have never even been here. I wonder what they would say about the huge void of sold seats at the Coliseum if all of the "South Bay Giants fans" decided to stop coming to A's games?

by asfans on Aug 5, 2006 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions

How is info people in SJ tell me

heresay? Read the damn post before trying to start shit. Like it says, I know people down there that have told me San Jose in mainly Giants fans. I hate to say it, but the few A's fans that are there are out numbered by Giants, Sharks and Earthquakes fans, which why again the Cisco site serves better as a site for a soccer stadium tham a baseball stadium.

And that ain't heresay buddy, in your case its sad but true.

There is no "A" In Fremont. KEEP THE A'S IN OAKLAND!!!!

by RF A-hole on Aug 9, 2006 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions