A’s lease situation looms in the shadows

Lost in all the postgame recriminations from Friday night is an article by the Chronicle’s Will Kane. It’s about the lease extension talks between the A’s and the Coliseum Authority, which to date haven’t yielded a new deal. When we last left off, Lew Wolff indicated that the A’s presented the JPA an offer of a 5-year extension at a higher annual payment, which would cover maintenance and some improvements at the Coliseum. The actual amounts and terms weren’t publicly disclosed. Wolff aimed for an escape clause that would be triggered by the Raiders building a new stadium that would presumably adversely impact the A’s. That was followed by Raiders owner Mark Davis pushing to demolish the old Coliseum and build a new one in its place.

Having this game as one of the last in the Coliseum is surely inconceivable. Right?

Having this game as one of the last in the Coliseum is surely inconceivable. Right?

Oakland City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan, who has been touting the potential for Coliseum City since its public unveiling, believes that the two sides are close to a 6-8 year extension. What’s a little disturbing is this message from Kaplan:

And the six- to eight-year window should give Oakland plenty of time to get serious about building a replacement ballpark and luring the A’s to stay, Kaplan said.

Hold a sec. Plenty of time to get serious about building a replacement ballpark? You’ve got to be kidding me with that. I’m sure that Kaplan was merely referring to the idea of shoe-horning a ballpark into the A lot, a secondary item within the overall plan. It’s the tone that’s disturbing. It places doubt on the idea that Victory Court was serious, and it certainly raises questions on the seriousness of inclusion for the A’s in Coliseum City. Just as the A’s aren’t winning back burned fans by talking about leaving, Oakland isn’t going to win the A’s over by considering them an add-on or second/third phase. Plus the idea of 6-8 years should give anyone pause. For all the talk by Kaplan and Mayor Jean Quan about how projects could be fast tracked or don’t need extensive environmental review, 6-8 years is an awful long time to effect change. Especially if both Coliseum City and Howard Terminal are under site control, Oakland’s favorite new catch phrase. Mark Davis lightly admonished Oakland about showing urgency last month. A move like this shows more of the same lack of urgency from Oakland. How are any of the teams supposed to take Oakland pols seriously if the general feel is that they’re making moves to make it look like they’re making moves?

While Kaplan was quick to say that a deal was close, A’s President Michael Crowley doesn’t see it that way.

“We’ve had some discussions, but we still remain far apart,” Crowley said of the lease talks. “I really don’t want to negotiate in the press. We certainly hope to be playing here in 2014.”

We certainly hope to be playing here in 2014? That’s also a pretty bad tell. Wolff has been careful to talk about playing at the Coliseum for years to come, even talking to a fan about it in Anaheim during the last regular season road trip. But this is not a certainty. And if your argument for the A’s staying is simply, They have nowhere to go, think again. Of course they have somewhere else to go. It’s really a question of how much money they’re willing to pay to make it happen – short and long-term.

Consider this game of musical chairs.

  • The A’s Coliseum lease ends at midnight on New Year’s Eve.
  • Same goes for the San Jose Giants at San Jose Municipal Stadium. Obviously the A’s aren’t going to play at Muni, it’s much too small and is older and more dilapidated than the Coliseum.
  • Raley Field is not old and dilapidated. It has 11,093 seats, plus berm seating up to 14,000. I did some measurements of the berm in RF and some of the other areas, and have concluded that if bleachers were installed atop those areas, the capacity could reach 20,000. Without standing room admissions. The A’s would sell that capacity out for 2-3 years straight, the transition time needed to build in San Jose. That capacity isn’t necessarily too small for MLB since there would be a clear transition path, and the A’s have been playing to an average of 20,000 per game for the last three years anyway.
  • What about the River Cats? Well, Lew Wolff would have to call in a favor. The team is owned by Susan Savage, widow of Art Savage. Art Savage was an executive with the Sharks almost 20 years ago, and Wolff called him and his family good friends. Wolff would have to work with the family, who runs the stadium, to compensate them properly and plan Raley’s temporary expansion. The River Cats could continue to play select games there, or…
  • Move temporarily to San Jose, where city leaders would be happy to kick the intransigent High-A Giants to the curb in favor of a AAA team while waiting for the MLB A’s to arrive. As of two weeks ago, there is no movement on a lease extension for the SJ Giants. Sound familiar?
  • That leaves the SJ Giants without a lease, without a home. That will not go over well with long-time SJ Giants fans, some of whom are part of the Stand For San Jose lawsuit. Sucks for them, I guess. If the Giants started looking for a home somewhere else in the Bay Area or NorCal, trust me, there will be no shortage of smaller cities ready to roll out the red carpet for them.
  • When the temporary arrangement ends in 2016 or thereabouts, Raley Field can be restored back to its previous glory. While there would be a big grassroots effort in Sacramento to attract the A’s full time, much of the available political capital has already been spent on the downtown Sacramento Kings’ arena. We already know that, when Raley was under construction, changes had to be made that dropped the possibility of easy vertical expansion. That makes it difficult to envision Raley as anything larger that 20,000 seats, unless someone’s willing to pay to gut it and rebuild the suites and a new upper deck. Besides, after 2-3 years it’ll become readily apparent how much better Raley is suited to being a AAA park than a MLB park. It’s akin to what happened when Bud Adams moved the Oilers out of Houston, Absent a modern stadium, Adams had his team play in the Liberty Bowl in Memphis for a year, followed one season at Vanderbilt Stadium. Adequate, and definitely not permanent.

Is any of this based on inside information? I assure you, it is not. Rather, it’s an example of a well-conceived Plan B, just in case the A’s can’t work out a Coliseum lease extension. It gives the A’s a decent place to play while they wait out the legal drama, while not infringing on T-rights. The way T-rights are written, Santa Clara County can accept any team it wants provided it’s not a MLB franchise. That’s how Wolff, Davis, and Crowley should be thinking. If they aren’t, then they’re not doing their respective jobs.

65 Responses to A’s lease situation looms in the shadows

  1. dmoas says:

    The removal of SJ Giants from SJ would be a nice, clean way to remove their interests in that lawsuit.

  2. Lakeshore/Neil says:

    @LS That was funny man.

  3. pjk says:

    Have to wonder if ML’s “A’s to Sacto, River Cats to San Jose, SJ Giants to oblivion” scenario has Oakland pols a little nervous. Their “A’s have nowhere to go” strategy may not be looking so sound anymore.

  4. Tony D. says:

    Have to wonder if ML really does have inside info..

  5. pjk says:

    In Sacto, the A’s only need to seat 24,000 or so, the stadium is very new, there’s no plumbing problems (presumably), the place is right near the downtown and Oldtown Sacto and there’s no NFL team playing in it. The A’s played a handful of games in an undersized Vegas minor league stadium. Why not a few years in Sacto until San Jose is ready?

  6. Marine Layer says:

    @pjk – I doubt it.

    @Tony – No I don’t.

  7. pjk says:

    ML: We already saw Wolff walk away from Spartan Stadium after he couldn’t come to an agreement with the university. Now, SJ State gets nothing from the Earthquakes; Santa Clara U gets the money. Who’s to say he wouldn’t implement a similar “Think I have no options? Think again” plan with the A’s and Oakland?

  8. Marine Layer says:

    @pjk – I’m saying that either they don’t have the foresight to see that as a threat or they’re overconfident in their own position.

  9. llpec says:

    As I’ve stated in previously comments, the Coliseum Authority does not have the leverage it thinks it has in negotiating a lease renewal with the A’s. The time duration that the A’s can remain at the Coliseum on a temporary basis would likely also depend on the outcome of a new stadium deal for the Raiders. The most pressing time constraint on the A’s for needing a temporary home would be if the Raiders make an immanent deal with Oakland on a new Coliseum site stadium. I don’t see that happening soon, and even if it does, it would likely take two years for the Coliseum site to be shovel ready. All other Raider new stadium scenarios will allow the current Coliseum to be untouched for a minimum of five years. That’s why the A’s would accept a five year lease renewal at the coliseum, with an escape clause after two years in the event that the Raiders get a quick new stadium deal at the Coliseum. The A’s are hopeful that it will take about five years to get a new ballpark completed in San Jose, and there will be no need to find a temporary home before the new ballpark is completed.

  10. Anon says:

    @ LS – Thanks for that post. Had a good chuckle out of it! :) Go A’s!

  11. duffer says:

    Great suggestion by ML – booting the SJ gnats out of town!

  12. Steven says:

    Can SJ boot SJ Giants during the current lawsuit? Is there not retaliatory laws limiting such a move?

  13. Marine Layer says:

    @Steven – SJ Giants officially backed out of the lawsuit a few weeks ago. Mostly because they felt the heat from the City about their involvement in the lawsuit. AFAIK SJ doesn’t have to do anything with the team at this point.

  14. duffer says:

    San Jose leases Muni Stadium to the gnats, if SJ city officials wish to boot the gnats out of there – they can do so.

  15. Steve says:

    Your article fails to mention (as part of the “Plan B” scenarios) that there is a stadium very close by with NO TENANT and MLB CAPACITY. It’s a little long in the tooth, but it would be well suited as a temporary home for 2-3 years.

    Candlestick Park.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>