Jazz Will Transfer Ownership To Family Trust MLB Reorganizes Diversity, Social Efforts Bucks Seeing Increased Attendance, TV Ratings T'Wolves Purchase NBA D-League Iowa Energy Colts Not Returning Training Camp To Anderson Blank Taking All Falcons Employees To Super Bowl Colts Fire GM Grigson, Keep Coach Pagano Spanos Tried To Keep Chargers In San Diego Raiders Won't Consider Rebrand For Vegas Move Cowboys Hire Agency To Evaluate E-Sports Foray
SBD/October 14, 2013/Franchises
Judge Gives Split Decision On San Jose's Suit Over Potential A's Move
Published October 14, 2013
THE BEAT GOES ON: In San Jose, Lauren Hepler noted the decision "leaves the door open for the city to pursue its claims that the holdup has inhibited San Jose's economic development." Whyte wrote that the interference claims are "separate from the alleged violation of antitrust law and instead are based on MLB's delay in making a relocation decision." He added that the city "may not need a valid stadium contract to claim injury." Hepler writes the city's remaining hope, in other words, is "whether MLB's indecision is harming the city economically by holding up the stadium project." San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed is "sticking to his refrain that the city stands to benefit hugely from the move" (BIZJOURNALS.com, 10/11). Also in San Jose, Mark Purdy wrote under the header "A's To San Jose Issue Far From Over." The dispute is "going to last a while, perhaps a few years." It is probably going to "get more bloody -- at least in terms of depositions and paperwork -- before it's over." However, the end result "might indeed bring the Athletics to San Jose in the long run." The A's are "technically bystanders in all of this," but if A's Owner Lew Wolff is "patient, he and co-owner John Fisher could indeed wind up getting the rights to build a San Jose ballpark." But San Jose "has not lost anything, really." The dismissal "basically puts the city right back where it started in terms of waiting" for MLB and Commissioner Bud Selig to decide the A's ballpark dilemma. The case "puts San Jose in position to keep forcing the issue" (SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, 10/12).