The City of Anaheim is poised to give away development rights for virtually all of the land surrounding Angels Stadium in exchange for two simple things: the team staying in Anaheim, and the city no longer having to pay to maintain the old stadium. Is that too much to give? We’re about to find out in Orange County, and the same could be said in Oakland, where Colony Capital is being asked to provide hundreds of millions to bridge a funding gap at Coliseum City.
How big a funding gap? It depends on the scope of the project. Planning aspects of Coliseum City will be shown in presentation Monday to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and the Oakland City Council for discussion and a vote. The session will be held at 1:30 PM, which means that there probably won’t be many members of the public on hand.
Three phases of Coliseum City have ballpark built out at the end of the project
Initially, the football stadium would be built along with needed infrastructure to support future development. Included would be transportation improvements, which indicates to me that they’re counting on the transit funding that was narrowly voted down in 2012. Stadium capacity remains within a broad range, and there’s no indication of whether it will have a retractable or fixed dome.
Phase II looks relatively modest, as it includes a lot of housing and limited retail (40,000 square feet). By comparison, Bay Street Emeryville has 382,000 square feet of retail and 400 housing units. It would commence in 2019, the year following the completion of the Raiders’ stadium. Also included would be a 220-room, 3.5 star hotel, signifying a mainstream brand such as Sheraton, Hilton, etc.
The final phase is most aggressive, as it likely anticipates a boom sufficient enough to make Phase III buildout feasible. Along with the ballpark there would be over 15,000 parking spaces (presumably in garages), an “Upscale” hotel, much more retail space, and nearly a million square feet of office towers. At any point one or more of these components could be removed or scaled back, which is often the case in such large projects. Since the A’s haven’t signed on with the project in any capacity, there’s no date for the ballpark’s opening. Also not included is the replacement arena, which is technically part of Area B from a planning standpoint (the focal Area A is the Coliseum and land east of 880).
Planned goals for Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Additional goals for the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
We’ve covered the complexity of Coliseum City as a development project in the past. The presentation works to delineate the many issues. Compared to the DDA of the 49ers stadium in Santa Clara, Coliseum City is several orders of magnitude more complex. The big X factor is the $100+ million in remaining debt on Mt. Davis, which Mayor Quan and the City Council have said has to be baked into the new deal. There will be some sort land sale agreement that will invite scrutiny, as that’s a major key for the cost assessment for Colony Capital. Colony has some limited experience in the football realm, having recently partnered with the Chargers on their stalled (or failed depending on who you ask) plans in Downtown San Diego. This is an important framework from which many important questions about Coliseum City will be answered. Better late than never.
newballpark.org 
So it sounds like wants the A’s committed by Summer 2014. My best guess is San Jose will get the team only if the terms are not agreeable to MLB/Lodge, causing things to fall through. The best hope for San Jose is for Oakland to suck. Let’s hope they suck!!
@Steven – One thing that needs to be clarified is where the A’s would play while Phases I & II are being done. The existing Coliseum would have to be demolished in Phase I, and Phase II builds on top of the existing Coliseum stadium site.
Current ownership won’t commit to Oakland, period. Not one person on the current list of A’s owners WILL spend any more of “their” money in Oakland. How come the Oak pols don’t get that?
—
It reminds me of the song, “Love Hurts When Only One’s In Love.”
—
Oak pols snappin’ at flies like my yellow lab on a lazy summer afternoon.
My thoughts exactly RS. This thing is ALL about the Raiders and Raiders only. To bad Quan and Co. can’t be honest with their Oakland-only following re the A’s (Oh well..)
This grandiose plan will never be completed to its fullest extent. If Coliseum City ever does materialize, it will be much more limited in scope. The ultimate scaled down project will likely include a multipurpose designed new football stadium for the Raiders, a limited number of luxury/condo housing units, a medium sized 3.5 to 4 star hotel, and contain a moderate sized amount of retail footage space.
The only reason why a MLB ballpark is included in phase III of the project is that Oakland officials do not want to be the ones to officially reject a plan for a new A’s ballpark in Oakland. Both MLB and Lew Wolff have already rejected the East Oakland/Coliseum area for a new A’s ballpark. The fact that Rebecca Kaplan and Phase III are indicating that a new A’s ballpark in Oakland may come to be some eight years hence is also unacceptable to both MLB and Lew Wolff. I see Selig and Wolff agreeing on the A’s playing at AT&T Park for two or three seasons while Cisco Field is being completed. However, I do not see them approving of the A’s to be playing at AT&T Park for at least five or more seasons just to be able to return to a new A’s ballpark on the Coliseum area site.
WELL Oaklamd might have to sacrifice the land and resources to the Raiders/Malik Colony to make up for the lack of public funding…if the citizens don’t like it….well all the teams including Malik Colony could all leave and leave Oakland as a “true wasteland”…so Oakland is just going to have to give up the land….also as I recommended Coliseum City should be nothing more then a new Raider stadium with the additon of office space for tech companies and maybe a little bit of retail/housing if it can fit and not intrude on parking….the best spot would be along 66th…easy to get around traffic with direct on/off ramp freeway access before & after work…I do feel that places like panda express and tje raider image store should move across the freeway to be closer to the new Raider stadium…also if the Warriors go….is Oracle still part of the plan…or will it be demolished for more development?
FAIL. Putting hotels, condos etc.. in the middle of nowhere will not work. Once the developers take a closer look, they will walk away.
btw, I think Lacob if he fails in Frisco, will take his team so SJ. Frisco politics are very strange as we all know so there is a great chance that The W’s will never get a new building there.
Civic pride is one thing, but how much debt can Oakland really afford just to save face and try and keep it’s sport’s teams? For the cost of Mount Davis debt Oakland could have had a 20 yr old multi-purpose stadium. O well I guess in 2-5 yrs we will still be checking this blog everyday. I plan on buying ML’s book once/if the A’s ever get a new stadium.
@ML – But the slides leave open the potential that part of Phase III will be completed during Phase I or II, depending on negotiations between Oakland and MLB/Lodge. In any case, it sounds like Oakland needs confirmation from MLB/Lodge by around Summer 2014 (next summer) to have plans progress. My best guess is that MLB/Lodge will listen to Oakland, comb through all the issues/details in the Summer of 2014 and decide what place is better for the A’s next summer – San Jose or Oakland? Next summer should be deciding time. The league would make a commitment around then because time is running short on numerous factors.
@Steven – They didn’t call it Phase III because it can happen concurrently. It has to be sequenced a certain way because they have to raise capital properly, stage it, and make sure there’s adequate parking for when the Raiders move into the new stadium. And if MLB is interested in Coliseum City, Oakland is still pitching Howard Terminal as the preferred ballpark site.
If THIS is the plan, with the ballpark as an afterthought in Phase 3 no sooner than 2020 (and no home in the 5 year interim between the Coliseum closing and a theoretical CC ballpark opening)… then I think the A’s fate as it relates to Oakland is sealed. They’re gone. The only question now is if they’ll be in San Jose or if MLB will use its considerable clout to get them a ballpark outside the Bay Area.
I hope this goes forward for no other reason that it will force the A’s to be somewhere other than the coliseum. The other news that will coincide with this is the Howard Terminal bids that are supposed to surface soon. If someone provides a use that gives the city revenue, don’t they have to take it? Then the only option left in the area is CC or san Jose.
@ML – I see Howard Terminal as the bigger threat. When are Oakland’s elections? So for CC, it looks like Oakland is hoping for MLB/Lodge deal by Summer 2014. A deal at Howard Terminal would need to happen soon too because A’s only have 2 years at Coliseum. So MLB/Lodge will be combing the details of HT when they come out and probably scoping out CC too. I wouldn’t expect any decision before the elections are held in Oakland. You also say MLB/Lodge have the power so will they pick regardless of Wolff?
So the elections are held Nov. 4, 2014. Selig retires at the end of 2014. The A’s would have one year left at CC. I would speculate they either stay in Oakland because MLB/Lodge like the HT plan of action, or they are given permission to move to SJ, since Oakland had a full year to get their shit together. In any case, I would speculate we have about a year until a decision must be made.
Well the good news is somthing will happen soon decison wise (1-2 years) at the latest, we could have news, as soon as Jan-2014, it may not be that soon, but it could be. 2 years at the Coli and 3-5 at AT&T. I know many dont agree with the idea, that the SF Giants will let the A’s play at AT&T, and you may be correct, but I think they will for the right price. It looks like the A’s will be in a new ballpark, in the Bay Area between 2018-2020 (hope not 21-22), Dirdon, CC, or HT, I know some dont think it will be in Oakland, and thats fine, and others dont want it to be in Oakland, because SJ simply is a better place for the A’s to be (financial helth), and I would agree with you, but as I have said befor, I fill it can work in Oakland better then it has been. RS said the owners will not spend money in Oakland, just because that was said does not mean it will not happen. Bottom line it is starting to look like it will happen, in the Bay Area, and that is good news.
2020 will roll around and nothing will get done. A’s and Raiders still sharing Coliseum. Maybe they can spiff it up a bit. New plumbing, etc.
Lakeshore, I think you’re being naive if you think this is a sign the A’s will stay in the bay. I’m not saying they won’t, but if Oakland seriously poses an ultimatum to decide to stay by X date or else, the only thing it’ll do is cripple Oakland’s chance at keeping the team. Especially if at the end of the lease they truly intend to demo the A’s current home. There’s just no way MLB keeps the A’s in ATandT for 5+ years it’d take to build a new stadium.
@steven,
Nothing, absolutely nothing, suggests MLB is in discussions with Oakland re the financially impossible, risky HT site or already discarded by MLB Coli site (aka CC). Neither are happening for the A’s. My apologies for being blunt, no disrespect intended. But again, it’s your pathetic Oakland leadership that’s feeding you these pie in the sky fantasies re the A’s future in Oakland and it’s unfortunate that they can’t be honest with you folks..
@Tony – I’m pro-SJ. It’s hard for me to see MLB/Lodge making a decision prior to Oakland releasing details on the HT plan. It’d be like a bitch slap. It is also hard for me to see MLB/Lodge making an announcement as the election enters primetime because Quan (and others) will want to (1) Seem pro-sports, but not enough to “give it all away” or be caught making $100+ million deals to the benefit of rich white baseball owners. It’s only speculation. Maybe we’ll get something at the end of 2014… If not, it’ll be forever due to a new commissioner and/or new Oakland leaders.
This plan has about as much chance of being implemented in full as me dating Milla Kunis…….. .0000000001%. “Phase III” is straight out of the “Wizard of Oz” Campaign scenario. You know “Were off to vote for the Wonderful, Mayor of Oakland oops see the Wizard of Oz, because, because, because of the wonderful things Quan (and Kaplan) oops he does.” These two clowns must believe the voters are “The Scarecrow” “(If I only had a brain”) and will buy this “Hook, line and Sinker?” When Wolff and MLB see this plan, and reject it as Quan & Kaplan know they will (I HOPE they know they will not accept the A’s remaining in limbo), then they will spend the next year running against Wolff, like he is George Bush mixed with Gordon Gekko. The sad thing, is with the help of the Bay Area media, they will probably succeed (see Obama against Romney). But like “Obama Care” and the “Wizard of Oz”, saving the World, it will NOT solve the problem of how to keep the A’s in Oakland? (then again, they already know that (at least I hope they do?).
I wonder if Lew Wolff could lose this battle to Quan….sometimes I feel Wolff should give up this San Jose project and just build a much cheaper ballpark at C.C or H.T….because u have to admit that Quan’s “Stall Technique” has been working and if mlb falls for it….I don’t know…wolff has fought the good fight but maybe he should throw white flag…
If Wolff throws in the white flag, it means he sells the franchise back to MLB, which then can figure out what to do with the A’s. It doesn’t mean a privately funded ballpark gets built in Oakland because such a project is not financially viable.
I know pjk I know….but it “could” lead to that…again the source the problem is how come mlb cannot swindle some bay area poks to get sum public funding outta Oakland or San Jose….both cities feel that since their close to S.F…that they should get a S.F privileges….maybe Bud Selig should take them out the bayarea just to show them that California rich broke or not will have to pay for new things just like anybody else. Either way A’s will be homeless when Raider stadium begins
Lew Wolff loose this battle to Quan? Kinda like Godzilla loosing a battle to Bambi (?)…
Yes, it’s been speculated the Giants’ territorial rights to San Jose would be deep-sized quickly if San Jose offered taxpayer money for a ballpark. But that is not going to happen in either San Jose or Oakland. Moving the A’s to some taxpayer-friendly place (if there are any left) out of state would enable MLB to send a loud message about cities that refuse to pay for ballparks. Just like the NFL has done in so many cities (Houston, Cleveland, etc) that wouldn’t build stadiums. Or like what the NBA did in Seattle.
FWIW, there are still some folks in San Jose (not the Stand for San Jose sham) that are even opposed to a privately funded ballpark in downtown San Jose – they want more empty office buildings built there instead. If these people had their way, I wouldn’t be wearing a Sharks shirt right now because there would be no Sharks. And no arena. It’s the “If it makes San Jose a more fun place to live, we’re against it” stance.
I think for those of us that love sports and want new stadiums built need to be man or woman enough to stand up against the anti sports ppl in the bay area pols or citizens. …, I get in debates all the time with them and some respect my position. ..and yes owners can do more in the community as well especially if we are public funding a stadium…so its give and take. I just hope this all gets resolved soon and we have a new Raider, A’s and Warriors stadiums all within the bay area with private and/or public funding to go around
@dmoas Naive? The only thing I think this news is a sign of is other news being forced to happen, and for that we should all be glad. Oakland giving an ultimatum, on a date? CC is such a big project (idea), I am sure that date can be pushed back, if MLBA’s even think about it, and we all know its a good chance they will not. I wish Oakland would give MLBA’s an ultimatum, I wish San Jose would give MLBA’s an ultimatum, and tell them we are moving forwad with other plans for the Dirdon site since you have not given us an answer concerning the A’s, it would be nice if SJ and Oakland pushed back on MLBA’s, all they seem to be doing is pushing each other, hell for that matter I wish MLB would give the SF Giants an ultimatum. You have a good point about the time frame at AT&T, that may be a little long, and sone fill the SF Giants will never let the A’s play in their park at all. What bothers me, is most people look at any news (no matter how little), we get and shape that news to the outcome they would like to see. I think its going to be San Jose (I hope), because I think, its the best choice in the Bay Area for the A’s, if not perhaps Fremont or along 680 in the tri-city area (I hope), many say both places are not going to happen. I think Lew may look at Fremont again if he cant get San Jose, although I must say I dont have a good idea about any sites, that may work in Fremont. I think the CC could work (I hope), I know MLB does not like the site, I know Oakland is not going to spend a lot of money, all I am saying is it could work. the only site that seems like it is a none starter is HT do to its high cost, although it has been said that MLB likes that site (who knows, if thats true), and yes I know Lew looked at it befor, and I know it did not rank well in a study 10-12 years ago, out side of that, and perhaps a back up site in San Jose, its out of here, the SF Giants will have gotten their wish. The only thing that is naive is talking about the A’s situatin in absolute turms, because this could go a number of ways for some of the Pro-SJ folks, any mention of Oakland makes them act almost as bad as some Oakland only folks.
The Raiders definitely appear to be included in the Coliseum city plans. One would believe that Wolff will wait and see if the SCOTUS agrees to hear the SJ vs MLB case before looking at Oakland, Frement, etc. Xoot recently provided an interesting story where the legal expert’s opinion was that MLB will seek to avoid the SJ vs MLB case reaching the SCOTUS. Perhaps a settlement between the A’s and SJ and MLB will occur before then.
MLB is finally putting the pressure on Oakland, with this short-term Coliseum lease renewal, to come up with a definitive realistic new ballpark plan for the A’s. MLB has now had enough of a wait, and is tired of Oakland’s delaying tactics on this issue. As I’ve stated in a previous comment, Coliseum City is out of the question. Howard Terminal remains now as the only possible new ballpark site within Oakland for which has not yet been officially rejected by MLB. Oakland is being forced to come up with a definitive land usage plan for HT. If it is ruled that the land at HT is to be for non-ballpark related usage, then this site is automatically off the list. Also, if the costs associated with getting the HT land to become ballpark ready and accessible are determined to be prohibitively too costly and time consuming to complete, then MLB would officially reject this proposed site as well. Once MLB is comfortable with the fact that all proposed Oakland ballpark sites were fully and exhaustively studied with the conclusion that there are no suitable new ballpark sites within Oakland, then MLB will give the A’s the approval to move to San Jose. As for the Giants, MLB will tell them that MLB would be better off with the A’s remaining within the Bay Area, as opposed to moving to a less desirable new market. San Jose would then be understood to be the only viable option for a new Bay Area A’s ballpark. At that point, the Giants will show themselves to be a team player within the MLB Lodge and allow the A’s to share AT&T Park until Cisco Field becomes ready for baseball.
@IIpec Nothing is out of the question, I agree with you for the most part, I think MLB will (hope) give the A’s SJ, but the CC site is suitable, MLB said it was not there preferd site, that does not mean its not suitable, MLBA’s may never chose that site, and its likley they wont, but at this point nothings out of the question, simply because you say it is.
@IIpec BTW Not so sure its MLB putting the pressure on Oakland with a 2 year lease, as much as it is Mark DavisNFL wanting to build a new football stadium, on the (old) , coli foot print, Wolf did ask for a five year lease, just last year, but you could be right, we are just reading the tealeaves.
@Lakeshore/Neil, If MLB ever did force the A’s to build their new A’s ballpark on the proposed Coliseum City site, the current Wolff/Fisher A’s ownership would sell the team rather than to spend their private funds on a less than desirable site, from their own standpoint. I don’t see that scenario happening. Even so, with little or no public funds being offered for a new A’s ballpark from either Oakland or Alameda County, I haven’t yet seen any East Bay business leaders, with willing big pockets, stepping forward to spend their own funds to build a new A’s ballpark in Oakland. In the State of California, without public funds for a new ballpark, one has to go to the private corporate sector to get it done. To get it done, one must go to where the corporate money is located. Within the Bay Area, its near downtown San Francisco or in and around Silicon Valley. Lakeshore/Neil, I strongly believe that the Bay Area market is just too lucrative to give up as a two team MLB market, and thus the A’s will get their new ballpark somewhere within the Bay Area.
@IIpec I agree with you, but however remote the chances are that the A’s will build at CC (I dont think they will), are I am only saying you cant rule anything out, or as you said “out of the question”, nothing is out of the question, till the A’s stadium is resolved.
Soory: “the A’s stadium situation is resolved”
@Duffer
What is up with you and Supreme Court? What’s left of SJ’s case will never reach it, and even if it does it will take 2-4 years to get there. I said this before Congress should have been the ones to remove MLB’s anti-trust exemption.
The one thing that the SC will agree with you on is that all sport’s leagues have the right to control franchise movement. We just need to wait and see Oakland’s stadium presentation and how they plan on funding it. I don’t see it happening and I can see both teams leaving Oakland. Raiders to LA and the A’s to SJ. A city that has over 2 billion dollars in debt can’t afford to pay for luxury items like sports stadiums.
@Mike2 – Are you a legal expert? (I doubt it) I trust the opinions of legal experts (who are qualified to make opinions about the A’s/SJ issue)over those who arent’ qualified to offer opinions and make opinions because their opinions are what they are hoping for and lack the facts, background, or knowledge to back up their claims – we’ll see who is correct.
The parties involved in the SJ vs MLB case (SJ mayor Reed, Attorney Joe Cotchett, etc) know what they are talking about. When the attorney Joe Cotchett, for example, says that the San Jose will acquire an MLB team or get a contract to obtain one in two years – Cotchett’s opinion carries much more weight than yours does. Didn’t you also claim that the Jacksonville Jaguars will not relocate to LA or London because of an “unbreakable lease” with the city of Jacksonville? LOL (five minutes of amateur internet research will discover that your opinion is completely false, that the maximum penalty the Jag’s owner would pay for breaking their lease would be $100 mil. – likely much less) After the NFL would get involved, the Jag’s owner’s penalty would be much less than that. Also, because of attendance and profit clauses, the Jag’s owner could break the lease with no penalty if the team is unprofitable for two consecutive years.
Furthermore you prove your ignorance about the “San Jose paying for a stadium” – why do some of you anti-San Jose A’s fans continue to bury your head in the sand and ignore the facts? For the millionth time – the A’s will fund 100% of the cost of the A’s SJ ballpark – San Jose taxpayers won’t be responsible for a dime – why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?
@Lakeshore/Neil, I fully understand and respect your preference for the A’s in the hope to be getting their new ballpark somewhere within the City of Oakland. However, I do give you a lot of credit for your willingness to accept and understand the strong possibility of the A’s moving to San Jose. I have not heard many in the pro-Oakland camp who are as pragmatic as you are on the issue. I know you will be as passionate an A’s as can be, as long as the team remains somewhere within the Bay Area. I do believe that even if the A’s do change to a San Jose geographical moniker, they will retain their geographical generic A’s cap logo. Finally, I’m sure you will gladly accept the longer travel time it will take to attend A’s ballgames in San Jose. It still would be a lot shorter and easier trip than if you had to travel to Portland or Las Vegas to see the A’s play in their new home ballpark. LSN, I give you credit for fully understanding the possibility of that scenario happening.
@IIpec Thank you, and yes I will be more then happy to drive to San Jose, and I am sure they will be re-named the “San Jose A’s”, and they should be, Oakland will not, and should not get the SF treatment (SF 49ers in SC), I think you said you were from back East?, and Oakland is the Jersey of the Bay Area ( New York Giants and Jets playing there), Oakland cant even get the Warriors to take their name, so it should be expected if the A’s move there, they would take the city of San Jose name. I think it would really hurt me if they changed the logo or colors, it would be like saying to hell with the other 50 years of our history in the Bay Area, I also think it would only surve to push a brused (Oakland East Bay), fan base, whom otherwise would understand (most Oak East Bay fans ), why a move to SJ was needed further away. I cant wait to cheer on the SJ A’s (if it goes that way), good folks like Tony D., and many others have been driving north for many years, its about time we (Oakland East Bay) found the way (south), to San Jose (other then the sharks).
If Howard Terminal or C.C work out. I would like to see the “Oaklans Sharks in Oracle or new arena
The San Jose A/T challenge will never reach the Supreme Court. On Dec. 13, when the litigants return to court in San Jose, San Jose will ask J. Whyte to enter a Rule 54 judgment on the A/T decision, so they can appeal now, and they’ll ask J. Whyte to retain jurisdiction over the small remaining state-law claims. If San Jose gets what it wants, expect mlb to ask for a stay of litigation over the state-law claims, pending resolution of the big appeal. If J. Whyte were to grant everything–and it all makes sense–the entire case would be in suspense for a couple of years, thus giving mlb time to resolve the San Jose move–and to make the dispute moot.
If J. Whyte does not stay the state-law claims, however, mlb will not be happy going forward with intrusive discovery. (The BR Committee members won’t want to be deposed. The Giants and the A’s won’t want to have their confidential proposals made public.) So imo: don’t hold your breath waiting for a showdown on the A/T exemption; but pay attention to the small, remaining state-law claims. Those pissant gripes could force a resolution sooner rather than later–if they don’t get shut down pending appeal.
@Duffer
Sadly you are mistaken on my views. I do want the A’s to move to San Jose or stay in the Bay area. I just want to know what your infatuation with the Supreme Court is? The original court case was weak to begin with and most of the lawsuit got shot down as it should have. The AT case was weak and legislation should have been started in Congress to try and overturn it. I remember that backlash I received when I mentioned this from you and others. Congress really? was one of the few comments I received.
FYI I actually spent about .1 seconds on the Jags stadium issue and came to the conclusion they are staying in FL. Millionaires don’t become millionaires by wasting money. You don’t spend 20 million of your own money for stadium upgrades if you have plans on moving the team to another country and by breaking the lease early and having to pay (60-100 million) You show you true ignorance when you think the NFL is going to step in and help pay the Jags moving costsif they decide to leave early. Even with the out clause the team will still stay in FL to avoid paying the 100 million. Who is going to waste 120 million just to move the team to London before 2030. (20 million in upgrades/100 million in lease termination). My theory London and LA (expansion) will be the 33/34 teams if the Raiders don’t move to LA before 2030.
Get a life and stop trying to group me in with the anti-SJ group. I think it’s funny you think I listen to KGO and have a hard-on for the Giants. Get a life and quit bashing someone who has a different opinion from you.
@mike2 – you get a life. Your comments are so stupid you appear to be a giants fan. My so-called “infatuation with the SCOTUS” is that is the buck stops there – and that is the reason why MLB will wish to avoid that scenario and settle with the A’s/San Jose before that occurs. The the threat of the SCOTUS eventualy being involved is very much a factor in the SJ vs MLB situation. Some individuals, Xoot, and some other individuals, who know way more law that I do, are somewhat agreeing with that. Congress needing to get involved with the MLB ATE issue? – give me a break (that idea makes no sense)
Judge Whyte basically ruled that it was up to the SCOTUS to make rulings about the MLB ATE, not him. The case is not “weak” – It appears that you don’t now what the eff you are talking about and are only repeating the nonsense of other anti-San Jose, pro giants boobs such as Tim Kawakami, Matier and Ross, fatto Ratto etc., who imply that the A’s move to San Jose “isn’t going to happen” and cannot give sound reasoning for their logic, and also aren’t qualified to give opinions about the situation.
Your comments about the Jacksonville Jags are equally nonsense. The city of Jacksonville is financing 70% ($43 mil.) of the that scoreboard. The Jags owner likely doesn’t mind chipping in $20 mil. because that franchise’s worth will soar by several hundred million once the Jags franchise moves to LA or London – which will more than compensate for the penalty by breaking the lease with the city of Jacksonville or the $20 mil. scoreboard cost.
Also, the NFL commissioner has expressed concern about Jacksonville’s poor attendance and also has commented that that NFL expansion to Los Angeles will not come through expansion. Also the NFL definitely is planning to expand to Europe (and Jacksonville is the top candidate) It’s interesting that you believe that you are more knowledgable than many NFL experts are, or legal experts about the A’s/San Jose situation – LOL
@Duffer
Really? Do your effing homework, even the Supreme Court refuses to touch Baseball’s AT exemption when it comes to franchise movement and commerce. (i.e. Curtis Flood Act 1998). The Supreme Court deferred to Congress to change overturn MLBs ATE. DO you really think they are going to overturn their previous screw up?
As for the Jags I stand by my statement. If they move it won’t be until 2030 so the NFL can build a fanbase in England.
Xoot: Last I heard both MLB and San Jose agreed to suspend mediation as if a settlement was approaching?
@Mike2: You stand by your statement? even though the NFL Commissioner has already said that the NFL prefers that the Raiders stay in Oakland, that the Chargers stay in San Diego, and has also mentioned that the Jacksonville attendance situation is troubling, and cannot continue, also that NFL teams moving to LA will not come through expansion (also, the fact that the NFL is planning on expanding to Europe) And you believe that a $30 mil. (likely cost to the Jags owner, once the Jag’s break the lease with the city of Jacksonville) or a $20 mil. contribution to a new scoreboard is going to prevent the Jaguars from moving to Los Angeles or London? (Many NFL experts also say that Jacksonville is a top candidate for moving to LA or Europe) So you are saying that the NFL commissioner is talking out of his ass, and that you are more knowledgable than many NFL experts are? LLLLOOOOOLLLLL!
Also, the NFL recently attmempted to receive the same territorial rights exemption as MLB owns and was rejected by the SCOTUS 9-0. And a recent member of the SCOTUS said that the MLB territorial rights exemption has little chance of remaining legal. (you know more about the SCOTUS stance concerning the MLB ATE than an ex-justice of the SCOTUS? – LOL)
Furthermore the attorney representing San Jose, Joe Cotchett, with his initial statements regarding the SJ vs MLB lawsuit said that he will take the case all the way to the SCOTUS if necessary (so you basically saying that a very powerful and respected attorney, making millions and an expert on sports anti trust law – is full of b.s. and you know more than he does?) Furthermore the author of that story which I referred to earlier (who has a law degree and is experienced in sports and anti trust law) and also said in the story that MLB will seek avoid the SJ vs MLB case going to the SCOTUS – that you are more qualified and knowledgable about the MLB ATE and anti trust law than than him? LOL – you evidently must be a very all-knowing sooth-sayer? (LOL)
@Duffer
If the SJ case does go to the SCOTUS and win, and the Jags wind up in London before the next decade than I will personally buy you season tickets to the A’s or Raiders.
How is the Jags 88% paid tickets troubling to the NFL, even if the owner is buying them? Is the Raider’s situation less troubling to the NFL since they only average 9K fewer fans per game?. If the Raiders or Jags signed Tebow would an extra 15K fans show up. Hell maybe the Raiders could un-tarp the stadium if they sign him for the rest of they year?
Where did you get the +15K attendance if the Jag’s signed Tebow? The Jets or Broncos still sold out once he left? Is there a website you can post so I can see the Tebow effect?
@Mike2 I’ll prefer the A’s season ticket deal – the NFL is predicted to expand to Europe in five years (the Jags are the leading candidate)So the Jags are DFA’ed to Los Angeles or London. I don’t recall who claimed that Tebow could add another 10-15K fans per game at Jacksonville, however that estimate was made by a knowledgable NFL guy. Also the NFL must not be impressed with either the AEG Farmers Field plan or the Ed Roski plan, because they are looking at building an NFL stadium at Chavez Ravine – and that plan also includes the Rams and Jags.
PJK writes: “”If Wolff throws in the white flag, it means he sells the franchise back to MLB, which then can figure out what to do with the A’s.””
The irony of that happening (LW selling to MLB) is the ‘ok’ for SJ would almost certainly happen on an expedited basis (unless MLB’s legal team believes the Giants hold on TR is procedurally ironclad).
Come on, most everyone knows this whole thing has been a dog and pony show up to now. Certainly the Lodge knows it has been, knows that a half billion dollar+ privately financed stadium in Oakland is not financially viable. But the politics of the situation (on multiple fronts) is first and foremost a LW problem. Of course MLB is a very interested party but it isn’t first person to them as of right now. Yet once they own the A’s it does become first person to them. At that point they will take out their proverbial calculators, go over the demos and corporate stats, look at the local politics, know that public money will no be coming from Oakland, voile! The issue of TR will quietly be disposed of by a Commissioner who foists the resolution on the Giants (with the rest of the lodge behind him with pitchforks and torches in hand).
IF that is not the case? Then either MLB was able to get Oakland to put up 9 figures in public money OR the A’s are headed out of the Bay Area. Either way, bottom line, MLB as owners of the A’s will not be patient with this silly dog and pony as they have made LW/us fans have to be.
The nfl, mlb and nba need to find ways to get public funding for kings, A’s, Raiders, Chargers and Warriors outta California. ..its not fair for other states to pony up but ooo no not anti business California. ..might have to sacrifice the A’s to really put pressure on the state to do something
This document is not to be taken seriously. It is essentially a cute PowerPoint Presentation, that is designed for political purposes ONLY. There is a Statement that says “Create A Master Plan for Coliseum City vision.” Notice the word CREATE. What a “Master Plan” really refers to is Comprehensive Planning. Comprehensive Planning is something complex, and requires a Thesis or at least Multiple Classes at Stanford’s School of Business to explain it correctly (well above my pay grade), so I will use the “Wikipedia” short form and call it a day.
“Comprehensive planning is a term used in the United States by land use planners to describe a process that determines community goals and aspirations in terms of community development. The outcome of comprehensive planning is the Comprehensive Plan which dictates public policy in terms of transportation, utilities, land use, recreation, and housing. Comprehensive plans typically encompass large geographical areas, a broad range of topics, and cover a long-term time horizon.”
Basically people refer to “Master Plans” as a “Wish List” but it is a necessary step in the process of getting something built. They are presented to such entities as the Investment Community, Regulators, Legal Authorities, Insurance Companies, Local Community Boards, Government Officials, and various other parties depending on the Project. Simply put, you might as well use the paper that this is being drafted on, to line the cat box with, because except for the goal of Reelecting Jean Quan, that is the only thing it is useful for.
re: might have to sacrifice the A’s to really put pressure on the state to do something
…while some of Oak’s comments (move the Sharks to Oakland) are obvious baiting nonsense, I agree MLB may decide to move the A’s out of California to send a message about cities (and states) that refuse to provide public funding for ballparks.
@pjk /Oakmetro86
Re: might have to sacrifice the A’s to really put pressure on the state to do something
while some of Oak’s comments (move the Sharks to Oakland) are obvious baiting nonsense, I agree MLB may decide to move the A’s out of California to send a message about cities (and states) that refuse to provide public funding for ballparks.
Yeah I agree with you pjk, as Oak86 said, you have got the Kings, A’s, Raiders, Chargers, and Warriors all in California, and all looking for new homes. People may say these leagues/owners can afford to pay for the stadiums themselves, and they would be correct, but it really does not matter if they can or not, the fact is these leagues are going to get as much money out of these communities as they can, and California’s “We will not use public moneys”, stand will not fly especially when you have places like Cobb county in Georgia (Braves), willing to pay the kind of money they are. You can get away with it in places like San Francisco (Giants), or perhaps Los Angeles (population/wealth), or even San Jose (Silicon Valley) because the return on the investment is high enough, that it may be worth it to the owners to go ahead a pay for it. For communities like Sacramento Oakland, and perhaps, although to a lesser degree even San Diego, it’s not going to stand, these communities will have to find way to back door some tax dollars, not to say that’s cool, or anything, but they will have to figure it out, and as we all know FREE, is not even free, even in San Jose with the A’s (if they get SJ), as was with the Giants, in San Francisco, there is so much back room deals that have to be made (tax blacks etc.)
@David Brown
You are probably correct “document is not to be taken seriously”, but as someone that has criticized Oakland’s past and present politicians, all this is a “discussion/vote on the framework of a potential deal”, that more than likely will never come to full fruition, (Raiders, Warriors, A’s), hopefully they can at minimum keep the Raiders, but weather this document should be taken seriously or not, this part of the process would have to take place weather all three teams were on board or not. Most believed Oakland would not get potential investors for CC, but they did, many (including myself), did not think they would get to this point, not that where they are is anything to brag about. I just get the feeling that at times Oakland is an easy punching bag, and I can’t help but to wonder, if it were San Francisco, or San Jose, going through this part of the process, would either city be criticized, at what seems like every turn.
re: People may say these leagues/owners can afford to pay for the stadiums themselves, and they would be correct, but it really does not matter if they can or not, the fact is these leagues are going to get as much money out of these communities as they can,
…The leagues will go where they’re going to get the most goodies from the municipalities and states, like you said. “Build your own damn stadium!” is usually an invitation for the teams to leave, which they often do. (see: Seattle SuperSonics move to smaller market in Oklahoma City). Houston, willing to provide taxpayer dollars for a stadium, got an NFL team while LA, notsowilling, did not. Miami, recognized as perhaps the best place to hold a Super Bowl, will get no more Super Bowls as long as taxpayers are unwilling to fund even a small portion of improvements needed at Sun Life Stadium. Cities that stand on the principle of “no taxpayer $$ for stadiums” will get no teams, lose teams and get no Super Bowls.
Lol I was just messing with u pjk about Oakland Sharks. …but well said david and lakeshore…Quan better not run off Malil/Colony with any b.s re: Coliseum City, just give Colony and Raiders what they want….I’m also worried about Lacob move to S.F….do u know there are still S.F comments that the Warriors shouls move to Candlestick??? If the 49era said no.. why the hell would the Warriors move there. The only way I would move there is if S.F provides a muni train directly at the new building. …
Again anti sports ppl are organized. So should pro sports ppl. The same ones that cry about schools are the ones that send their kids to hebrew school or head Royce. …so I lol at them. Again I hope the nfl, mlb and nba really need to be firm with California and get theae projects going.
Lakeshore/Neil I agree that Oakland is an easy punching bag, and I agree about the anti-business climate in California ( check out thru a Google search what the head of Paramount Pictures said about making movies in California ( even “The Hunger Games” was made in Georgia)). But the point still remains that the “Proposal” that Quan and company came up with is not a good one ( at least as far as getting at least something for the Raiders are concerned). There were two points that were made, concerning Community Benefits Agreements( CBA) and Mount Davis debt that were so obvious to anyone who is familiar with the Coliseum and ( or) Real Estate that as a non-expert, I pointed them out before. I will avoid the CBA issue and focus in on Mount Davis debt. I really hope that Quan does not expect the A’s to be staying and be partially responsible for that debt?
@David Brown All good points
Back to the topic at hand: RM, so tomorrow will we really find out if the Raiders are going to get a new stadium at the Coli? Would be nice. Tired of hearing 49ers family and coworkers tell me how gorgeous Levi’s Stadium is going to be 😉
@Steven–imo, that agreement to defer mediation means nothing. The Northern District of Calif. has a mandatory early settlement negotiation program designed, mainly, to get rid of small cases. The court pays for a few hours of a mediator’s time (there are a couple of other options too, including “early neutral evaluation,”), in the hope that such early intervention will convince the parties that litigation won’t be worth the trouble. This is not a small case–it’s a direct challenge to mlb’s A/T exemption, a holy war. Agreeing to defer that process in case as such as this one is just not signficant. If these litigants want to mediate, they’ll hire someone at $3000 per day and go all out. Meanhwhile, they’ll just kick the mandatory early process down the road.
Gee, Xoot doesn’t think the mediation deferral means anything. I’m utterly shocked! (sarcasm). BTW, welcome back from solitary…(yes, RM sentenced me there once to)
Tony, I’ve had a lot of experience with the Northern District’s early ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) program. And getting banned from an A’s blog isn’t really much of an insult to a good Giants fan.
@xoot Nice to see you, and yes you are the best (Giants fan), friend I have, welcome back (-:
Thank you for clarifying that Xoot. I thought that was going on. MLB would really want arbitration to settle the SJ vs MLB state torts portion of the case, SJ and the Cotchett law firm likely would want no part of that though.
Does anyone know who will be covering the 1:30p meeting? ML, can you make it? What is the projected length of the meeting? Does anyone know when we will know what went on and what, if anything, was decided?
@Matt – I won’t be there. I’m in San Diego through X-mas. If the meeting is being streamed, you’ll be able to see it here.
I’m following the meeting stream right now.
OakMetro 86, I wish that the concept of moving a Franchise out of State would “send a message” to California, but it will not. I mentioned the other day, about what is happening in Hollywood (citing the head of Paramount Pictures and noting “The Hunger Games” was made in Georgia). Think about it, years ago, Universal City was considered “The Entertainment Capital Of The World” (as was noted by Universal in the 60s & 70s at the end of their movies), those days are fast coming to an end (it makes you think of Motown Records leaving Detroit (we all know what eventually happened in Detroit)). If California does not care about Hollywood (really Burbank) losing TV & Movie Production jobs, they cannot care about anything related to the cost and difficulty of conducting business, and making a profit (A’s included). Need I go on? Check out the cost of the Bay Bridge Construction, and the fact people are leaving in droves, which is why, that since California was first admitted into the Union, the last Census was the first one where California gained no new seats in Congress. What is most frightening is the fact that not only is it impossible to Elect a Ronald Reagan Governor, but even an Old School Liberal like Jerry Brown or Dianne Feinstein might be too “Conservative” in the future. That last point, is why getting shovels in the ground for the Stadiums for the A’s & Raiders becomes so important, because going forward it may be politically impossible. Why? Because the idea of Governor Gavin Newsome (or worse), and Mayor Rebecca Kaplan will make it far more difficult than even now (Hell, if I lived in Oakland I would actually love Jean Quan compared to the thought of Mayor Kaplan).
@David Brown
OT, not to get in to this, but you seem like one hard core conservative, which I am down with some conservative principals, but the Republican party its self is party jacked at the moment.
Chris Rock Quote: “Some things I am liberal on, some things I am conservative on. Crime I am conservative, prostitution I am liberal.” Funny stuff.
Lakeshore/Neil, I am Conservative but there are issues where I feel Liberals are correct. Spending too much on Defense when we have massive Debts comes to mind, as do people not being able make and keep the money they earn, and having to have Union Labor having to compete with Slave Labor in China (that is where taxes should be raised to equalize the cost of production). That last part also relates to a problem I have with Liberals which are taxes and regulations, put upon business. When taxes are put on business, all that really happens is they pass the taxes onto the ones least able to afford it (such as gas taxes that the elderly have to pay to heat and (or) cool their homes depending on where they live), and it also makes hiring more difficult as well, because not only do they have to raise prices but deal with regulations that hurt productivity as well. Basically it is bad Economics all around.
Partisan politics is not an issue here. Just as conservative Cobb County can give away $300 million to the Braves, DC can underwrite nearly all the cost of the Nats ballpark. Stadium subsidies are not a party line issue. They’re an “are sports worth spending public money on” issue. Keep the party politics out of this.
Everything ML said above, on point. This isn’t a party line issue at all as recent examples in Florida, Georgia have shown.
@David Brown. ..I see what u mean…but of the A’s and San Diego Chargers were really about to leave outta of state for good…politics or no politics I feel enough ppl would say something to our city leaders to demand a resolution…. I do feel that “us” have been preety lazy when it comes to matters in our city….and when the teams are about to leave its like “hey!! What’s going on???” But anyway today we will find out if Mark Davis/Colony and Oakland will have a deal ready for a new Raider stadium…which will also might have the A’s homeless….I got butterflies but I’m hoping for the best …for the Raiders….
Good luck to San Jose trying to get the A’s…I wish Lew would just do a Al Davis/Jim Irsay and start moving and building now but maybe he sees the finish line to S.J
Can anyone with deep knowledge of the SJ/Lawsuit with out bias one way or another to clarify this for me. I have heard both sides screaming they won (lawyers etc), MLB and SJ. But the Antitrust exemption was thrown out and the remaining part that was kept was only the purchase agreement, 75k or so. SJ side is excited due to the fact that they can “Go to Discovery” but wouldn’t the discovery part be very limited to the purchase agreement as it would seem since the AT was tossed. It doesn’t necessary mean that they get to dig deep into all other information that is irrelevant to the purchase agreement right? SO all they can search for is if MLB interfered with the agreement which we all know they did. Also can we all agree that MLB is stalling one way or another (I believe to give Oakland this last shot at the A’s) as it was noted that MLB response to the purchase agreement was because they didn’t put it to the ballot and have voters vote on it. With that said if MLB finally decides one way or another for Oakland and start building a stadium or SJ would the lawsuit become a moot point and be tossed.
When I bring Politics into it, it is not so much as from a partician perspective, rather a Pro Free Market Economic one, as opposed to an increasing dislike of business and that applies to Real Estate, sports entertainment, and the average small businessman in Fresno for that matter. in New York we just Elected a Mayor ( Bill De Blasio) who admitted he does not believe in Free Market Economics. That is a far cry from “Crony Capitalism”, “Soak The Rich” ( or unpopular industries), or Social Policy Disagreements. This means a profound disagreement with our Economic System. That is what I see with Liberal Democrats and even Tea Party Republicans ( although not admitting it like De Blasio). Which is why I want to see the A’s and Raiders get something quick before the next De Blasio or Elizabeth Warren ( who I am predicting to be our next President) have a chance to make things worse.
You don’t technically have to capitalize Politics, Pro Free Market Economic, Social Policy Disagreements or Economic System. However, seeing as you’re a capitalist, it makes sense that you like capitalizing words too. Carry on.
Karim, the reason both sides are saying they won is because, depending on how you look at it, they both did win. MLB won the fight over the AT (federal case) which the losing side, SJ, is going to appeal. SJ won the fight over the state case, just a ruling that it can move forward to the next phase and nothing more. My understanding is that it doesn’t necessarily mean there will be a discovery taking place, but if there is, the scope will be small and heavily argued over. As will what SJ stands to gain from it all. Either way, nothing has really been decided at this point and anything you hear from one side or the other is just a lot chest thumping and a sideshow. It’s not much different between A’s, Giants ownerships and SJ & Oakland city officials. Anything they say means little unless it comes directly from Selig/MLB. In the same vein, anything you hear from MLB or SJ means little unless it comes directly from the judge.
Karim–I posted this link to another blog earlier. Note the two comments to the linked blog post, also.
http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2013/11/update-on-san-jose-v-mlb-lawsuit.html
So what’s the deal? Are the Raiders going to get a new stadium or what? (to those who have access to stream or are there live)
@Tony D. – Nothing important is being decided today.
Marine Layer why I am I not surprised?! As soon as I saw that ” Proposal” including the words CREATE a ” Master Plan” I knew this was something bogus, with one purpose: To help Jean Quan get Reelected. For all of the Wolff haters out there ( and there are far too many), who wonder why he will not build in Oakland? This is the latest ” Smoke & Mirrors” fake out by the City politicians. For the A’s I still think the Dionne Warwick song ” Do a you Know The Way To San Jose?” Is still in play, but also in the song she mentioned” “LA is a great big freeway.” I wonder if the Raiders are not closer to being on it?
xoot – a couple of corrections: (1) the court does not pay for mediation, the parties do; (2) mediators that would be invovled in a case like this are more like $10-15k per day (one that I used recently was $12k – he’s based in Oakland, BTW).
And it’s not quite accurate to state that deferring mediation means nothing. It MIGHT mean nothing, but it might mean that some new information is coming that would materially affect negotiations.
Is nothing being decided today because the writing on the wall says hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers funds are still needed to pay for the Raiders stadium and Oakland can’t provide it? Or is it simply procedural delays?
Steve–I don’t know how you gauge the sort of mediator the litigators and parties in this case would agree upon, but the price could vary. (Was your Oakland mediator named Randy? Know such a guy pretty well.)
Perhaps you’re not familiar with the early ADR program in the Northern District. ADR Local Rule 6-3, mediators, provides: “Mediators shall volunteer their preparation time and the first four hours in a mediation. After four hours of mediation, the mediator may (1) continue to volunteer his or her time or (2) give the parties the option of either concluding the procedure or paying the mediator for addition time at an hourly rate of $300.”
I thought the mediators got a stipend from the court for the first 4 hours. Guess not. Maybe the rule changed. In any event, the point is this: the early ADR program is not designed for large complex cases, but technically it’s mandatory. By agreeing to kick the mandatory procedure down the road mlb and San Jose are simply acknowledging that it’ll be ineffectual in this case. If they want to mediate, they’ll hire someone exceptional, and they’ll pay exceptionally well for the privilege.
I just checked my earlier comment. I meant $30,000.
xoot: yep, it was Randy. He was great. Well worth the money.
Steve: I’m guessing at what the fee would be for a huge mlb/San Jose mediation. I don’t see how they’d be able to mediate it, in any event. I’ve always liked the guy in Maui, especially if the mediation’s held there.
Welcome back xoot!
@RM,
Thanks. Great…
@Karim:
The attorney representing San Jose, during his initial comments when filing the SJ vs MLB lawsuit, mentioned that he’ll will take the case all the way to the SCOTUS if necessary. Joe Cotchett was anticipating that the judge would not give the case standing during the first round, and was planning an appeal.
The Judge (judge Whyte) also mentioned that it was up to the SCOTUS to make rulings on the MLB ATE, (not judge Whyte)that’s why he did not give a portion of the case standing – the judge’s ruling was not an affirmation of the MLB ATE – the case is far from over. Also, because of the state torts portion of the case receiving standing, Selig and MLB must be miffed that they will now be required to explain their bizzare actions involving the A’s/SJ situation in a courtroom, and getting grilled by Cotchett in the process. It wouldn’t be surprising if Selig cut a deal with San Jose and approved the A’s move before the state torts portion of the case even goes to trial.