Neil, I thought you'd get a kick out of this new subsidy proposal in Kentucky:

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/hooo-weeee_look_what_the_state.php

Now if only those 250 A's fans weren't the only regulars to come to A's games maybe the team wouldn't be looking to leave their "fine" city.

here they go again...

ever been in that area at night? of course not, it's dangerous!

i've worked at ktvu tv @ embarcadero & oak and i tried walking the 3/4 miles to the bart station at night and was told by station management that i was "on my own" if i am robbed (which has happened to other employees).
if you don't have a car there your out of luck.
try walking up oak from 3rd to 10th without feeling menaced - drug dealers hang out under 880, there's garbage all over the sidewalks. a mallpark ain't gonna help this area.
880 is clogged downtown almost every night and where are they gonna park all those cars?
j. london sq. lost one of it's largest retail clients, the space is still empty.
what are they gonna do with the active rail line that runs thru embarcadaro? dig a tunnel? this whole area is landfill.

as usual, this "plan" smacks of irrational exuberance without any substance, typical to oakland...

*takes time machine to san francisco in 1996*

ever been in SOMA at night? of course not, it's dangerous!

i've worked at along mission creek i tried walking the 1 mile to the bart station at night and was told by management that i was "on my own" if i am robbed (which has happened to other employees).
if you don't have a car there your out of luck.
try walking up 3rd street to market feeling menaced - drug dealers hang out under 80, there's garbage all over the sidewalks. a mallpark ain't gonna help this area.
80 and 280 are clogged downtown almost every night and where are they gonna park all those cars?
what are they gonna do with the active rail muni line that runs past embarcadaro? dig a tunnel? this whole area is landfill. not to mention the drawbridge at 3rd street would tie up stadium traffic for MILES

as usual, this "plan" smacks of irrational exuberance without any substance, typical to san francisco...

*returns to present day*

OT but of interest: Neil, what do you think of Qatar bribing the hell out of FIFA for the privilege of building a great number of stadia for a one-time-off event, the World Cup?

Is Qatar even going to be habitable in 2022? They're going to need to put a dome over the whole city...

Qatar getting the World Cup was a joke. FIFA had already mandated recently that a country couldn't have more than 2 venues in the same city. Now they give it to Qatar where 6 venues are in Doha alone and 4 more in the neighboring municipalities of Doha. To say nothing of the insanity of building or expanding 11 stadiums to 45,000+ in a country that only has about 1 million people (and stadiums they plan to dismantle right after 2022). To say nothing of the fact they're going to need 200,000 hotel rooms by 2022 and only have plans to build under half of that (and only have 20,000 or so right now). And don't even get me started on the weather in the middle of the Arabian Desert in summer (120 degrees anyone?).

But the right palms (or other body parts) were greased by the right people. And most important for FIFA they're dealing with an autocratic government, their favorite kind. No pesky democratic government to deal with. Never mind the human rights abuses, gender, ethnic, and sexual orientation discrimination problems their new hosts suffer from right now...

This is akin to FIFA giving the World Cup to an ultraconservative, hotter, human rights abusing Houston...

Qatar: It's never going to happen. Forgetaboutit.

NPR did a great report on this on All Things Considered on Thursday night. You can go to npr.org and read/listen to the segment.

I don't know why a country with under 1M people would even bid. What's it going to cost, $20k/person?

Mike, oh it'll happen. If anyone on this planet can afford 20k a person it's Qatar. They've more money than Allah and nothing to spend it on. Problem is they never should have been given a chance to blow that much cash. There should be a requirement that a bidding country have a bigger population than San Diego before they can bid...

here they go again...

ever been in that area at night? of course not, it's dangerous!

i've worked at ktvu tv @ embarcadero & oak and i tried walking the 3/4 miles to the bart station at night and was told by station management that i was "on my own" if i am robbed (which has happened to other employees).
if you don't have a car there your out of luck.
try walking up oak from 3rd to 10th without feeling menaced - drug dealers hang out under 880, there's garbage all over the sidewalks. a mallpark ain't gonna help this area.
880 is clogged downtown almost every night and where are they gonna park all those cars?
j. london sq. lost one of it's largest retail clients, the space is still empty.
what are they gonna do with the active rail line that runs thru embarcadaro? dig a tunnel? this whole area is landfill.

as usual, this "plan" smacks of irrational exuberance without any substance, typical to oakland...

On the Qatar thing: It's not even a matter of under-the-table bribery. Both the World Cup and the Olympics have by now become traveling shakedown scams, where countries have to throw billions of dollars at the necessary construction projects in order to be anointed as host.

As much as I'd love to go to a World Cup match someday, at this point I'm happy for it to be somebody else's problem. And Qatar has blown more money on far dumber things (manmade islands shaped like a palm tree, anyone?).

The thing that's particularly galling and confounding about Qatar is that FIFA has a requirement that the stadiums have to be spread out in the country. That's why South Africa, Japan/Korea, France, US, England, etc, work.

Qatar is ranked 113th internationally in soccer, and didn't even meet the minimum technical requirements to make a bid (stadiums, hotel rooms, security, airports#. This is now 10 open-air stadiums, with A/C, in a country that regularly reaches 130 degrees in the summer. $3B over a country with a smaller population #1.7M or 900,000; the NPR stories are confusing on that point) than the greater Fresno area is $1,764 per person. I just can't see this ending well.

I was rooting for Australia, which already has the facilities, but England, which also already has the facilities, probably should have gotten it.

If there's a mysterious doubling of oil prices in about 2020, we'll know why.

The reason Russia and Qatar got the World Cup bids was the fact that they have CASH in HAND. They wouldn't have to borrow like a Western civilation like England, Spain/Portugal, United States etc. We have to borrow the money, these guys are going to inject the cash and build these new stadiums.

I wouldn't be surprised if Qatar fails and the U.S. ends up with it. I think we as Americans screwed up the bid by not doing a joint bid with Canada, it would have had our high-profile boost as a nation along with a new host nation in Canada but I figure they'll try for 2026 but I'm sure FIFA will change the rules to give it to China and every expert has Argentina/Uruguay joint bid locked-up for 2030.

So if anything, I think the U.S. has 2034 to look forward too and it would be 40 years later. FIFA screwed up, because our media for the next 12 years would've made Soccer seem like the next BIG thing, especially if a lock-out happened in the NBA and NFL. Oh well, having money in hand can get you anything you want.

While some good points have been made here about Qatar's deficiencies, the fact is they can pay cash for pretty much all their infrastructure (unlike everyone else, including the US). They have also promised to donate their 'extra' stadia to third world nations after the WC, again, something no-one in our enlightened nations has ever considered.

As to the corruption, you are absolutely right there. But it has ever been thus. Does anyone really think there weren't payoffs involved for the 1994 World Cup? Or every other WC or other major sporting event for that matter? Salt Lake 2002, anyone?

I'm not defending the process, but you have to admit that everyone who submitted a bid knew the 'game'. It's no secret, never has been. If you find the corruption intolerable, don't bid.

FYI, an excellent piece in the NYT yesterday about the benefits of not winning this particular financial sinkhole... look it up.

Santa Clara stadium promoters kept mentioning World Cups as one of the attractive alternative events the City of Santa Clara could co-promote with the 49ers to gain some revenue.

Now it appears that if the stadium is built the city will have to wait until 2026 or even longer to have this as a possiblity.

Well, there's always the Stones and the Super Bowls I guess...

HAHA! Great point Jay, I wonder what this is going to do for AEG's supposed stadium? Maybe this will give Roski the edge in getting a team. I have a big feeling that AEG was banking on the World Cup because you know the Final would be here. Anyways, I hope FIFA doesn't change the rules and the United States seriously considers partnering with Canada to make a 2026 bid, I think we would have to be a lock after that. 2026 was suppose to be between China and Egypt, now I guess the competition would be Egypt, Mexico & a European nation.

I doubt this does much of anything for either stadium. Remember even if the US had gotten the cup, San Francisco wasn't in the US bid so no World Cup games were ever going to be played at the Niners stadium anyway. And even if LA had received a few games, it was just that, a few games with attendance equal to the average NFL weekend. Not really a big deal no matter how much the groups may have been using it as a selling point. AEG is going to make FAR more money on the football games themselves and more mundane uses like conventions, ancillary sporting events, etc...

Jay, I think the Rolling Stones will be dead before the 49ers get a new stadium.

If I was the U.S., I would avoid the FIFA & IOC at all costs. It's just one big elitist shakedown.

How in the hell did this become a comment thread about soccer?

Because no one cares about the A's situation anymore? Seriously though, nothing has changed in 21 months for the A's. Oakland is still spinning it's wheels, SJ is still waiting with open arms, and the blue ribbon commission is still hemming and hawing. Maybe something will change at the winter meetings but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Regarding the A's: maybe the Giants want too much $$$ to give up San Jose? Selig won't do anything without a consensus, and maybe he can't get one. Given that he and MLBPA are getting along well right now, he might not want to sound the contraction call, so the A's might just be in Oakland for a long time to come.

Doubtful. Selig has been calling for them to get a new stadium for almost a decade now. He's not going to let them fester in Oakland forever. I think this is more a function of all of us working on real time and MLB working on it's own time. Remember how long it took the Mitchell Report to come out (approx 24 months as I recall). We're only at 21 months on this Blue Ribbon thing. Frankly they'll make the decision when they're good and ready and anyone who says otherwise is just speculating. The only facts we do know are that Selig and Wolff are old friends, the Giants don't want the A's to have the rights to SC County but they don't own them, and that the A's want out of Oakland badly.

And unfortunately enough people care about the US's failed bid to host the World Cup of (the fifth or sixth most popular sport in the country) soccer in the year 2022 (repeat, the year 2022). The A's may or may not have a new stadium by then, but I'd rather not look that far ahead for anything outside of my immediate familial situation and personal finances (as much as the latter affects the former). Five years out is where I draw the line when it comes to sports.

They should just be done with it and move the team to Sacramento. The bay area is and always will be dominated by Giants fans. The bay area does not support the A's. Sacramento is their only hope.

HA HA. Sacramento can't even support a basketball team. How are they going to support a baseball team that needs a playground that costs twice as much, has twice as many seats, and has twice as many games??? Hilarious!

With the winter meetings having come and gone it is now more clear to me why this is taking so long.

Bud Selig does not have a 75% consensus to move the A's to San Jose. It is clear San Jose is a far better option than Oakland for the A's but also for MLB as a whole.

It has been 646 days since Selig commissioned his BRC to review the situation in the Bay Area. Post World War II Europe was re-organized faster and the Mitchell Report came out in less time. Those were far more complicated than this.

The old Oakland A's owner Steve Schott in 2004 got 75% vote himself and requested Selig make it official. Selig was so mad that Schott did his job for him announced San Jose belonged to the Giants publicly.

With all the ownership changes in MLB since 2004 (Giants and A's included) Selig did not realize what Schott did was very difficult.

He thought it would be easy to get 75% vote for this considering he is the Commissioner and Schott was just a single owner.

Now Selig has dug himself into a whole and he must be close to the 75% or he would have announced San Jose is off limits again. This time though he shot himself in the foot and is praying for a "miracle" in Oakland so he can wash himself of this mess.

Too bad Oakland is not happening unless the City "hangs itself" by publicly subsidizing the transportation problems, the ballpark itself, and buys out all 16 businesses on the Victory Court site.

San Jose from a corporate standpoint and general demographic standpoint is so superior there is no other explanation.

The A's are doomed to rot in the Coliseum for years to come. At least the owners are making $$ from welfare that will continue for years to come.

The Giants have won....The A's will contract or move away completely....It is a very sad thing their selfishness.