Originally Posted by doublem23
The San Francisco Chronicle floated the idea that MLB may support the move if the A's can't come to an agreement with the O.co Coliseum for next year...
Would also likely be the beginning of the end of American League baseball in the San Francisco Bay area.
Sounds like this is just an idea floated by a newspaper and is not under serious consideration.
As far as this being the beginning of the end of the A's in the Bay Area, I'm not so sure about that. As bad as O.co Coliseum is, I just have no idea where else the A's would go. I just don't think Vegas is a viable MLB market. Is there a viable city out there that is willing to pay for a new stadium to lure the A's?
Originally Posted by TDog
I don't believe the Giants would agree to the A's occupying their park while they're on the road. The Giants actually own their park, raised the money to build it on their own and still have debt service. But I've heard this suggestion floated a few times by fans who find the park in Oakland unacceptable, fans who would prefer watching baseball at the nice park across the bay.
The A's could do what the Giants did not so long ago and finance their own park, but that apparently is not part of the discussion. I don't see the A's playing in San Francisco unless the Giants were to charge the A's substantial rent and maintenance costs. Or the A's could bring baseball back to Candlestick Park.
During the debate over places to play for the Bay Area football teams, it might have been a newspaper columnist who suggested one park on Treasure Island, which can only be accessed by the Bay Bridge. I think the bridge, connecting San Francisco and Oakland, is the most heavily traveled in the country already, at least it's on the short list, so it's not uncommon to hear ridiculous ideas thrown out in NoCal.
Cisco Field is proposed to be privately financed. It's not the A's looking for public funding that's holding up the project, it's the issue of territorial rights in San Jose.