A's new stadium put on hold

by Adam J. Morris on Feb 21, 2009 1:32 PM CST

You know how Oakland was going to have a new stadium in Fremont to move into?

Well, nevermind...that's been put on hold, and it sounds like Fremont is out of the picture now.

AN has a lengthy discussion of the situation...

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

x

In reference to how good the Steelers have been in their history: "No one is even close to them."- Steal Home

by MayurP on Feb 21, 2009 1:34 PM CST reply actions

Shouldnt have blown so much on Inoa

by BEW on Feb 21, 2009 1:53 PM CST reply actions

Rat bastards

Should have to give up a draft pick.

Keith Law on Greg Golson, "He's similiar to Cameron and Hunter in that all three are black."

by boomer1 on Feb 21, 2009 2:01 PM CST up reply actions

If a franchise wanted to move and I’m not talking about moving a few miles to San Jose from Oakland, but I mean a real move, what areas are out there that could support a MLB franchise. I cant see Vegas being given a franchise. Portland? Charlotte? San Antonio? I really cant think of any place without a franchise that is a sure fire winner. The ’stros and Rangers would throw a fit but I have always thought maybe SA could support a team. They sure back the Spurs.

by BEW on Feb 21, 2009 2:07 PM CST reply actions

That is because the Spurs are the only game in town

Just like a college town. There are to many Rangers and Stros fans to convert over. IMO

Keith Law on Greg Golson, "He's similiar to Cameron and Hunter in that all three are black."

by boomer1 on Feb 21, 2009 2:11 PM CST up reply actions

Oklahoma might be a possibility

By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw

by Gdawg on Feb 21, 2009 3:36 PM CST up reply actions

There's not enough of a population base in SA or Vegas.

SA supports the Spurs, but to “support” a basketball team you need to be able to sell 10-14k seat per night, 40 or so times a year. 10k people at a baseball stadium is sad, though. I’m not sure they have the population base to sell enough tickets everynight. But, maybe.

From some quick research about metro areas I think Portland or Charlotte are probably the best equipped to handle a team, but who knows. Maybe a wild card like Indianapolis or Tennessee.

It really all comes down to who’s willing to spend the money on the ballpark, cause if a city is willing to spend on a nice sparkling new sparkling stadium a team could do just fine in just about any of the cities we’ve talked about so far.

Or you could really put your nuts on the glass and try to put a franchise in Puerto Rico or even… Mexico City. Ha! Can you imagine a team in Mexico City? Trying to get players to come play there’d be like trying to get Cahill to see Transformer 2 with me on opening night. Especially American players.

That’d be one heck of a huge market to have all to yourself, though.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

I hate Michael Young.

"I don’t have any respect for anybody on here. Everyone on here is a fucking asshole who thinks they’re god compared to everyone else." -iorange555, throwing one of his patented sandy-vagina'd hissy fits.

by thedirkatron on Feb 21, 2009 3:59 PM CST up reply actions

x

Vegas is imploding – no chance.
Portland – those treehuggers would never approve the funds for a baseball stadium.
Don’t really know much about Charlotte.
San Antonio – I think they’re the most viable option. Obviously, the Rangers and Astros wouldn’t be happy, but oh well, that’s where the demographic shift is happening.

"A good start would be not giving up 900 runs again." -Jon Daniels

by Randy Richardson on Feb 21, 2009 4:33 PM CST up reply actions

Well, assuming this means they have to either a) stay in their crumby current stadium or b) at the very least wait longer to get a new stadium, then this is very good news for us.

I hate the A’s and don’t want them to have the advantage of an actual major league quality ballpark.

Keep ‘em in the Coliseum forever as far as I’m concerned.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

I hate Michael Young.

by thedirkatron on Feb 21, 2009 4:00 PM CST reply actions

yep

It will be impossible in these times to get financial commitments from a city and lenders. This means at least 6-8 more years in the Coliseum.

"A good start would be not giving up 900 runs again." -Jon Daniels

by Randy Richardson on Feb 21, 2009 4:28 PM CST up reply actions

That project was doomed from the start

The owners really want to move the team to San Jose, but the Giants claim territorial rights. I want to say Freemont was about as close as they could get to the South Bay before hitting that line. They asked Bud to intervene “in the best interests of baseball,” but of course, the commissioner didn’t want to disrupt anything and said SF has the claim to SJ – which was news to everyone in San Jose!

The other part that didn’t make sense was the exact location. The current Coliseum is a monstrosity, but at least it’s on a BART stop – most people who go to the game take the public transportation (especially from SF – better than crossing the Bay Bridge). But the new spot was not on a line – in fact, it was a few miles form one – even though the current plans did not make much room for parking.

I know no one here cries for the A’s, but they really do need a new stadium. No matter how many WS championships they have, they will ALWAYS be second-fiddle to the Giants in that market. And seeing how long it took the Ginats to get their new park, I don’t see anyone stepping in to help out the A’s any time soon.

The Poster Formally Known As: UrbanDad
"Listen to Ted. Trust him. If he cuts you off, switch gears and go with it." -- Shroomer

by Ted Price on Feb 21, 2009 6:00 PM CST reply actions