I agree always have that they are better.
I appreciate your opinion, but I am just going to have to respectfully disagree and move on to just bitching about our lousy owners.I know they vote. What I’m saying is his mandate is to do what is best for the owners. What he did was bad for the owners is what I’m saying. And I don’t think there was a chance for the owners to vote no because of how toxic that whole situation went down at the time. His job is to make it a smooth process which didn’t happen in anyway. Generally when there is a relocation one city is pissed off that their team got taken and the other city is excited. Neither happened and it doesn’t appear Vegas is in any hurry to build the stadium.
I’ll put a hypothetical. Now that the Oakland fiasco went down, when the Mariners come back to the city and county and demand more money. The city viably has reply of what are you going to go play in Tacoma or relocate to Oakland.
That does sound familiar. Good point. Thanks.I think you are wrong about a new owner for the A's . If I remember right part if the deal for letting him move is he can't sell the team. They didn't want to let him move then make big profit by dumping the team .
That was a part of the deal. I think it is for 5 years but I can’t remember if it was 5 years or 5 years after they finally get into Vegas. I’m pretty sure that was the compromise since he took Vegas off the board for expansion. Cause it screws the owners in terms of money and now there is only SLC for expansion west of Texas.I think you are wrong about a new owner for the A's . If I remember right part if the deal for letting him move is he can't sell the team. They didn't want to let him move then make big profit by dumping the team .