2014 revisited
- 01.19.12, 12:40
- 64 Comments
Two weeks ago, we laid out the possibilities for the A’s as a team-in-limbo at the Coliseum for 2014. In today’s Trib, reporter Angela Woodall got comments from principals from Alameda County and Oakland, the A’s and Raiders. Try as I might to find a proper analogy for this increasingly awkward situation, I simply can’t. So we’ll go with the comments instead.
A’s President Mike Crowley said he sent what he considered a fair lease extension proposal in June that was met with a “convoluted” response from the Coliseum Joint Powers Authority, which oversees the municipally owned complex.
“So that ended that conversation pretty quickly,” he said. “If we can’t work something out here, we’ll have to find somewhere else to play.
“There are not many options. But we have time. We’re here in 2012, and we’re here in 2013.”
Always eager to open mouth and insert foot, Ignacio De La Fuente “contributes” to the discussion:
“The reality is they’re the ones who have a timeline, not us,” said De La Fuente, referring to the 2013 deadline and the lack of alternatives to the O.co Coliseum in the Bay Area.
That’s strange. The A’s are the only ones with a timeline? Didn’t MLB want the A’s playing in a new venue by 2015? Comments like that and Mayor Jean Quan’s suggestion that Victory Court could be acquired and entitled by November 2014 (making a 2015 opening impossible) aren’t going to convince MLB that Oakland is really serious about this. Couple that with the ongoing discussions with the Raiders, and you get the sense that the A’s aren’t exactly the highest item on the priority list among the Oakland-based sports franchises.
As I mentioned in the previous post, Oakland has little incentive to renew the lease at terms similar to what the teams are paying now. Both teams pay around $1 million each season with some additional revenue thrown in for good measure, not nearly enough to take care of the $20 million in debt service (equally split between Oakland and Alameda County), not to mention the $500k in field conversion costs. The Coliseum Authority is right to angle for more money to cover debt service and costs, but they can’t get too aggressive. If they try to hike the rent to $5 million or more, the A’s will have to consider whether that’s a good deal as opposed to the opportunity cost of improving an existing stadium somewhere else. They’ve already done it at Buck Shaw, adding 3,500 seats and improving the facilities for $4 million. My guess at this point is $3 million for either the A’s or Raiders for 2014, and an option year if new stadium complications arise. That’s a fair amount given the market conditions, which are favorable for Oakland in the short term but not favorable in the long term.
The Raiders are a factor in this as well. Movement in the direction of a new stadium somewhere as opposed to improving the existing Coliseum makes temporarily sharing the Coliseum less impactful for the Raiders. At least the Raiders have an existing NFL stadium option should talks sour with the Coliseum Authority: Candlestick Park. In 2010 the 49ers extended their lease at The ‘Stick through 2014, allowing for a smooth transition to Santa Clara if all of the funding lines up properly. Coliseum City would displace both teams for at least two years (perhaps on a staggered schedule), making it even more difficult to accommodate the A’s and Raiders sufficiently.
Several Oakland officials, including former City Attorney John Russo, have said that the A’s have misrepresented themselves and their intentions when getting the last two extensions signed in 2007 and 2010. That argument never held water to me, because there was always a termination fee that the A’s had to pay if they left Alameda County. If that isn’t an acknowledgement of the situation, I don’t know what is. The Raiders have a similar clause in their lease, yet they aren’t getting vilified nearly as much for talking to/about Santa Clara and Los Angeles. I suppose it all comes down to what the parties care about – getting a deal done as opposed to having good optics about potential deals. If both teams leave Oakland, optics won’t matter one iota and the chickens, in the form of voters, will come home to roost. Then again, maybe not? I suspect there is a large percentage of the populace in Oakland that will be thankful that the City didn’t get screwed Mt. Davis-style all over again. That day of reckoning is drawing closer.
Wow, two posters basically calling a college kid dumb, for a post that was neither aggressive nor derogatory. Lovely.
@all – Go after the points, not the commenters.
For instance, Jake – MLB is a $7 Billion per year business. You can’t get around that. Sure, we’ll enjoy the A’s as long as they’re at the Coliseum. At some point, probably soon, it will be time to move on. Just as for any college kid it’ll be time to graduate and enter the real world.
ARe: a deal to play at Raley Field being easier due the Cats being affiliated with the A’s. ‘Affiliation’ does not mean they are the A’s bitch. The Rivercats are still an independent organization with separate ownership, revenue streams, etc. Affiliation in minor league ball simply means the minor league team’s roster is stocked with players under contract with the major league affiliate. Which is why affiliations change all the time. It’s just a loan of player and coaching personnel.
If they were playing in Sacramento, it’d be a lost year at the ticket gate anyway. They could always work out some rev share with the Rivercats where they split revenue on ALL games for the year.
ML: I apologize for getting out of line.
_____________________________________________
Whatever. I still call BS. Theres only one “Jake” (Jacob, actually, Jacob Wark) on the Cal baseball team. If it IS him, it looks like he can take care of himself. I just think that a two sport (football/baseball) guy from Portland, taking a full class load probably has better things to do with his time than hang around here.
_____________________________________________
Cal roster: http://www.calbears.com/sports/m-basebl/mtt/cal-m-basebl-mtt.html
_____________________________________________
Back on topic: I think the presence of the A’s would definitely hurt the RCats at the gate. There would have to be some sort of agreement to compensate lost revenues IMO.
@Al,
Very colorful vocabulary my friend. When the A’s played at Cashman Field back in 1996, I don’t think the LV AAA team considered themselves the A’s BEEEAACHES! this is professional sports, not prostitution.
I’m just replying to the post that assumed a deal to play at Raley Field would be easy due to the Cats’ affiliation with the A’s, when it would have little bearing on the matter. They are just as likely to play at a non-affiliate’s park than they are at an affiliate’s park.
If they don’t mind leaving the West Coast temporarily, the nicest option would be the new ballpark in Omaha. Modern, and seats 25,000 expandable to 35,000.
Think the A’s could move to NJ?
@Zorin – Not really. Population density and media market are there. Territorial rights for two teams would be extremely difficult to work out. There’s no real population center dense enough to build a ballpark around. The two true “New Jersey” teams have performed terribly at the gate. I suppose there is a site at the Meadowlands where Izod Center currently sits, though for a baseball team it isn’t optimal.
Santa Clara’s Schott field only holds about 2500 It’s a great facility, but not big enough even to handle NCAA tournaments.. Cal’s baseball facility as mentioned is a beautiful field, but very small area for spectators. Does it hold 500?. St Mary’s is about the same. There’s Albert Park in San Rafael where they play minor league baseball. It’s kind of small too though.
How about a football venue: Memorial Stadium at Cal? Spartan Stadium at SJ State? or Sac State? Just borrow the bleechers from the Coli. Nobody would even notice them missing.
This is kind of a distraction and I’m guessing fairly low on everybodies “To Do” list when this project moves from “Front Burner D” to Front Burner C”..
Mc, Spartan, Stanford and Memorial are too small to host baseball (just as the LA Coliseum was too small when they hosted an honorary exhibition a few years ago). And their stands are not movable to compensate. None of the college fields would work as they all have access and size issues. SJ Muni and even more so Albert Park also also wouldn’t work due to size and accommodation issues at both (they’re both older venues that are in need or replacement themselves.
No if they somehow don’t stay in the Coliseum the only option would be to leave for a year or two since the only other two stadiums in the Bay Area that would work are in SF. And Candlestick can’t convert back to baseball anymore anyway.
Well, we are now officially in the void (at least in the Bay Area) between football and baseball. Some questions RM:
1) think we’ll here something re the A’s and SJ after Fanfest on the 29th?
2) what are the odds we’ll here something re the Raiders and possibly going to SC with the Niners?
Exciting times ahead indeed! By the way, to the hard-core, non-bandwagon Niners fans, Congrats on a great season. Going from 6-10 to the NFC Championship gives me hope for my Raiders next year.
I hope Oakland absolutely hard balls Wolff and his disingenuous ownership group. $20 million sounds good to me.