Dodgers may push A’s decision to backburner
- 10.27.11, 21:09
- 69 Comments
The Chronicle’s Susan Slusser sheds more light on the San Jose land deals, adding this tasty bit at the end:
It is unlikely baseball owners would consider the A’s stadium at their meetings in Milwaukee next month because the Dodgers’ ownership situation is expected to dominate the agenda. Meetings scheduled for January might be more likely.
This probably wouldn’t have been an issue if it weren’t for the twin news items of Frank McCourt reaching a settlement with Jamie McCourt, then MLB reaching a settlement with Frank over a likely sale of the Dodgers. The Dodgers bankruptcy trial has been postponed, pending the outcome of both of those issues. The divorce settlement could be court-approved on November 14, right before the Winter Meetings. Assuming that it is approved, the Dodgers could easily push the A’s to the backburner, with the agenda already packed with the Astros-to-Crane sale and ongoing CBA talks.
“XXXXX is a liar when it comes to anything that has to do with the City of Oakland (and the A’s). ” Insert any of the past 3 Oakland Mayors and the statement would still be true…. ;)
@bartleby- Fremont was Wolff’s last hope in Alameda County. No way he spend 30M non-recoverable just so he could tell MLB “All options are exhausted, San Jose is the only way”.
He could have done that without having to spend a fraction of 30M dollars.
Therefore Wolff has given up on Fremont and with good reasoning. That place would work from a premium seating standpoint but it would be tough to finance for similar reasons as Oakland but since it is far closer to San Jose they would be able to finance most of it but not all of it.
In reality, Wolff did try everything he could in the East Bay to get this thing done privately. In today’s post-recession world financing is a big problem and Fremont would pose problems.
In San Jose on the other hand, Wolff has SVLG backing him and that is why it is “shovel ready”. In Fremont he would only have perhaps half of that list on his side.
Wolff and SJ have done what they can do….Only the baseball gods can help them now. Too bad that is Bud Selig who is a grade A moron.
Anon-You so right!
@Sid I have no doubt Wolff’s efforts in Fremont were sincere. I’m just saying, I think he would have pressed on there had he not perceived an opportunity to use the Fremont opposition as an excuse to take a run at San Jose. If San Jose were not a possibility, I think he would have cut a deal with the big box stores, even if it meant some concessions he would rather not make.
.
I don’t buy the $30 million “non-recoverable” unless someone explains to me exactly how that figure was calculated. If it were $30 million for options which expired, OK. Otherwise, I think that’s just something you say to get the write-off for accounting purposes.
Fremont did have the same corporate backing as San Jose and that “non-recoverable” number was also inflated during Wolff’s interview with Fosse and Kuiper to 80 million.
.
Was it not Wolff who said at one time that Selig told him to “use/lay blame” on him if it helps get a deal done?
To all:
What is the opinion of the posters here whether Lew Wolff and John Fisher intended – with the help of MLB Commissioner Selig – to move the team to San Jose or out of the area and had no intention of staying in Oakland?
A’s observer.
Wolff proposed the north-of-the-Coliseum plan, which went nowhere, and then spent millions and several years trying to get a ballpark in Fremont. Selig has had 3 years since then to let the A’s go to San Jose but hasn’t. It sounds like everybody has tried to find a way to get something done in the A’s current territory but it’s just not happening. The expensive Fremont effort alone proves there’s no conspiracy all along to get the A’s to San Jose. It’s a matter of having exhausted all other options at this point. As far as Oakland, there’s no feasible place left to build there. Everything requires expensive property acquisitions, relocating businesses, likely litigation – a big mess. Oakland has no money to contribute. And the Coliseum site apparently has been ruled out.
@ A’s Observer My opinion is that it would have been blindingly obvious from the outset to anyone in Wolff’s position, or indeed anyone with a basic understanding of MLB economics, that a privately-financed ballpark was not feasible in Oakland under current circumstances (e.g. premium seating driving the train; Giant’s in China Basin).
.
However, for PR and other reasons, he did make significant effort to evaluate sites and get something going in Oakland, if for no other reason than to prove that (regardless of economic considerations): (1) there were no feasible sites in Oakland, and (2) the City would never be able to get anything done.
.
So did he actually intend to build in Oakland? No, because he knew it was impossible. Did he make a sincere effort to build in Oakland anyway? Yes, to prove it was impossible.
.
Mission accomplished. I believe it has now been pretty conclusively established that a privately-financed ballpark is not possible for, not one, but several reasons.
.
However, “with the help of Commissoner Selig”? It’s pretty obvious Selig has been of zero help. If anything, Wolff’s personal relationship with Selig has been a major hindrance.
“Wollf’s talking points, never die on this site. SJ, have you met Irwindale?”
Irwindale was all too eager to pay millions for Al Davis, just like…..San Jose?
@Bartleby- The 30M non-recoverable is only a fraction of what he actually paid which was a much larger sum.
The 30M he cannot get back from selling the land because of the deprecation of the land itself due to the recession amongst other things he had to spend on.
He mad a significant investment that is far too much to walk away from unless he had no choice.
That plus his financing plan was contingent on residential entitlements that are now not possible.
I feel bad for Wolff, hopefully it works out for him….Selig put him in this mess.
Eh, Wolff is to blame for the failure in Fremont as well Sid. He put together a plan and spent money on land before he knew about the real cost in getting it done.
.
I’d like to think that episode was a lesson as to how to get the SJ plan finalized and while the land options are a good move, the referendum issue gives me pause.
@Sid “The 30M he cannot get back from selling the land because of the deprecation of the land itself due to the recession amongst other things he had to spend on.”
.
If had options on the land which expired, those costs are non-recoverable. If he had consultant or other fees, those fees are non-recoverable. I find it hard to believe those two items could have come anywhere close to $30 million. If it’s a matter of “depreciation of the land itself,” however, as you say, it cannot be said conclusively those costs are “non-recoverable” until he actually sells. Land prices go up, they go down, they go up again. He might take a loss; he could still realize a gain.
.
Wolff does of course have every incentive to declare those losses “non-recoverable,” whether that is definitively true or not. For one, I assume that allows him a tax-write off. For another, it is a powerful piece of evidence in his case that he has exhausted all his options in Alameda County (at least, if people believe it).
.
Those sunk costs are another powerful reason to revisit the Pac Commons site if he cannot get approval to move to San Jose. The fact that the nominal land value has gone down matters little if he actually succeeds in building a ballpark there. The lower land value might even help with property tax, depending on how that part of the deal is structured.
.
“He mad a significant investment that is far too much to walk away from unless he had no choice.”
.
Who says he’s walked away from it? Again, assuming he actually owns the land (and I can’t recall if he does), it provides a nice fallback if San Jose doesn’t pan out. And if San Jose does pan out, he’ll either sell the land or use it for something else in the future. He’s a real estate developer; I’m sure he has lots of assets which are currently underwater. That doesn’t mean they always will be. It’s just part of the business.
.
“That plus his financing plan was contingent on residential entitlements that are now not possible.”
.
Just because that was the preferred financing mechanism doesn’t mean it was the only possible mechanism. Fremont gives the A’s access to Silicon Valley; I see no reason why he couldn’t simply get a loan, same as he will in San Jose. This was implicit in his pursuit of Warm Springs after the Pac Commons negotiations fell through; to my recollection a “ballpark village” was never part of that plan.
So tired of Selig and MLB pushing this to the back burner, I’ve wanted them to stay in Oakland from the start.. but at this point just make a freaking decision.
Holding the organization and it’s fans hostage for this length of time is absolutely appalling.
@Sid “The 30M he cannot get back from selling the land because of the deprecation of the land itself due to the recession amongst other things he had to spend on.”
Land is not a depreciable asset.
As bartleby said, the fair market value may go up or down (based upon numerous factors) and either a gain or loss will occur based upon the timing of any sale.
The fans deserve an answer one way or the other as to where the A’s are going to be.
McCourt is coming around to selling the Dodgers. This will be the focus of this year’s Owners Winter Meetings in Milwaukee. The resolution of A’s territorial rights will not be resolved this year. Since Lew Wolff does not have a PLAN B, now he has time to develop one.
“The resolution of A’s territorial rights will not be resolved this year.” Proof please! Facts are much appreciated on this blog Eric 19. By the way, glad you apparently know more about the situation than both Beane and Wolff.
Plan B is Fremont. I know the arguments contra. However, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
Actually, I apologize Eric 19. The decision re Territorial Rights could happen sometime in January, which is a little over 2 months away. However, that technically puts the decision being made in 2012, which obviously is NOT THIS YEAR! You’re alright Eric 19!
Good reporting by Bill Shaikin of the LA Times as MLB and McCourt have agreed on the terms to sell the team.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dodgers/2011/11/mccourt-agrees-to-sell-dodgers.html
.
Definitely will be an issue at the owners’ meetings but I don’t think it affects the A’s vote as I doubt they haven’t tempered their opinions already.