A’s approve City-revised lease, await County vote

No drama this week. The A’s approved the last-minute changes the City of Oakland made to the lease agreement. When Alameda County approves next week, everyone should be square. The A’s put out a press release, in short:

The Oakland A’s have come to an agreement with the JPA on all outstanding points regarding a new 10-year lease at the Coliseum. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors, are scheduled to vote on the lease July 29.

We appreciate the cooperation and efforts of Oakland city officials in this process and are optimistic that our negotiations have led to a fair and mutually-beneficial relationship. Most of all, we are happy for our great fans who, pending the county’s vote, will know that the Oakland Athletics will continue to play its games at O.co Coliseum.

More coverage is available from SFGate and BANG.

With the lease issue very close to resolution, the NFL is once again talking about a football team in LA – at perhaps a league-owned stadium, no less. Curious timing to say the least.

Still, there will be those who keep saying to never trust Lew Wolff, don’t give in, etc. I’ll just leave this snippet from another East Bay legend here:

If I speak at one constant volume
At one constant pitch
At one constant rhythm
Right into your ear
You still won’t hear

118 thoughts on “A’s approve City-revised lease, await County vote

  1. Great album. Thought they were SF through and through?

  2. Let’s hope this ensures the A’s remaining in the Bay Area for at least 10 years, hopefully forever. Giants’ yearning for the whole Bay Area to themselves takes a hit. Now, let’s get a new ballpark either in Oakland or San Jose before some of us literally start dying off.

  3. I met Jim Martin right when he got kicked out of the band. Kinda awkward, but real nice guy.

  4. The NFL building a league-owned stadium is an extremely thought-provoking idea. I think the author might even be underselling the amount of Super Bowls that would be played there. In describing PSLs for Super Bowls, the author suggested 5 Super Bowls in a span of 20 years at a league-owned Los Angeles stadium…I would predict the Super Bowl would be there perhaps as often as every other year in that scenario (10 Super Bowls in the LA Stadium in a span of 20 years). When teams built new stadiums in the future, they would still get the traditional Super Bowl host year one time, and then it would be hosted in New Orleans or Miami every 4th or 6th year or so.

    I think the PSL idea is more viable and lucrative if it followed that pattern. And the NFL would more quickly recoup its 1.2B investment from building it.

    Long-term, we know some team will get to LA. The parlay odds of the Raiders, Rams, AND Chargers – all three – all building new venues in their current markets has to be under 5 percent.

  5. Hell Jacob, I’d go out on a limb and say the odds of more than 1 of those teams building a new stadium in their market are slim to none. If I had to guess based on what I know about the situations in all 3 markets, it’ll be SD that gets a stadium eventually in their current market, the Raiders either end up in SC or the second team in LA, and the Rams return home after a 20 year siesta in the midwest.

  6. Great news, hopefully this will lead to the A’s building a new venue at the coliseum site.

  7. lets see if the city of oakland can mess things up again by choosing the raiders over the a’s which is something they’ve done for the past 20 years.

  8. Of course, this puts Oakland literally in the position of having to choose between the A’s and Raiders now, a choice Oakland absolutely does not want to make. Expect more sales pitches for Howard Terminal and how this railroad-obstructed, industrial use-bound, toxic waste-contaminated site is the perfect dream home for the A’s.

    • Good, let them keep pitching the fantasy and let them choose the Raiders for the Coliseum. The A’s will be in San Jose by 2016 in that case and we can call it a day.

    • Doesn’t the lease require them to drop HT?

      • That’s a good question. I don’t think it does. In fact the only thing I recall is that the city wanted language in there to the opposite effect that was eventually dropped.

  9. While I am happy A’s are locked up I also realize that there is no stalking horse to make anything real happen in Oakland- not to mention that LW’s son will be running the team at some point over next 10 years- who knows if he has the same development blood that his dad does- at this point I feel like at this point we have nothing but a stay of execution- gints will continue on their path to get the A’s out of the bay area

  10. Tea leaf reading… Coliseum City will be toast by October and “Athletics Town” will swiftly replace it.

  11. The A’s just bought the time they needed.

    Wolff is considering the Coli parking lot because he wants development rights plus a stadium.

    In San Jose, he only is doing a stadium in an area that is mostly developed already.

    The economy improved and the Dubs are out so the coli is open game.

    Wolff’s original vision was a ballpark plus stadium village a la Fremont and Coli North proposals.

    Wolff I think would rather do that in Oakland than a ballpark alone in SJ.

    But the issue is the Raiders and Oakland plus the dark horse SJ lawsuit.

    Still a ways to go but the SJ lawsuit is up next in this never ending drama.

  12. This gives the A’s more time to get a new ballpark deal done somewhere within the Bay Area without the threat of having to vacate the Coliseum on a short notice.

  13. Even tho Mark Davis now has a clear mind and can easily move to L.a (even Marcus Allen endorses the move) however I’m sure he will get away with cheap rent at the Coliseum probably a 2 year deal for the Raiders while Davis decide what to do next.

  14. Funny thing, if Oakland chooses Wolff’s A’s development, bringing a ballpark used 80+ days a year along with other types of buildings, the city and county will eventually have to demolish the Coliseum not on the Raiders’ behalf but on the A’s behalf. We’ll see how this all works out.

    • Well pjk by that time I’m sure Oakland will talk to both Raiders and A’s on if they can split the land in half to do their development. I believe there is enough room for a ballpark for the A’s while the Raiders can keep the Coliseum.

      • Except that there isn’t enough land to do both. You might have enough land at the Coliseum to cover the cost of a $500 million dollar ballpark. You don’t have enough to do both or even cover a football stadium alone since the latter costs well over $1 billion when it is all said and done.

  15. Enough room there to support private development of $1.5 billion worth of football and baseball stadiums? Unlikely.

    • You know pjk , harry may have a point, there is a possibly that the land may not have to support 1.5 billion in stadium cost (however unlikely)
      What I mean is, say Wolff gets the development rights to the coliseum land, I am sure Wolff will not build unless there is enough ancillary development, to support the cost of a new baseball park, keep in mind that unlike the NFL, MLB franchises must support themselves more as individual (local), products then an NFL franchise, partly because the NFL has a true revenue sharing system, so its imperative in Wolfs case that there is a ROI, to support they stadium cost.
      In the Raiders case development in and around a stadium is not as important (not to suggest that it’s not important at all), because the NFL operates more as a league, so individual teams are not under as much pressure, to make money off ancillary development, to support building new stadiums, as witnessed by the stadium fund, and recent comments, that the NFL may simply build its own stadium in LA.
      There has been a lot of talk about the 400-500 million shortfall, in the Raiders efforts to build at the coliseum, but if you really think about it, that shortfall is a projection of what Davis said he would put toward the project 400 million, which I guess is 200 from him and 200 from the league, that doesn’t really include name rights, priming seating, or other advertising revenue for a new stadium, and while this will be much less then what The 49er can demand down in the South Bay, it will cover part of the cost, it also doesn’t take into account the infrastructure cost, which I am assuming Oakland Alameda county will come up with creative ways to help pay for. (I know big assumption).
      I know it’s not probable, I’m less than hopeful that both the Raiders and A’s can ultimately play on land in or around the current location, but it’s really not as imposable as it might seem.

      • The problem is that a football stadium takes a up a huge footprint that’ll cut into the development side. It’s not about how much land there is. Just based on drawing lines on a map, there’s more than enough for two stadiums. The issue is whether there’s enough ROI on the development side to fund a stadium. It’s borderline for a baseball stadiums $500 million. It’s next to impossible for the $1.5 billion for a baseball AND football stadium while cutting very heavily into the development ROI that’s going to fund all of this. Even if the Raiders self funded their side of the stadium cost of $1 billion, the loss of development because you’re using that land for a huge football stadium will cut heavily into the baseball stadium’s funding.

      • Lakeshore, problem with that assumption about the Raiders is that it ignores much of what the funding of Levis Stadium was… Remember Levis was funded by $114 million of cash directly from Santa Clara (which you wouldn’t get from Oakland), plus the value of stadium assets like naming rights (of which the value in Oakland would be much lower), PSLs (of which the Raiders have a history of not being able to sell), and a hotel tax (again something not likely to pass muster in Oakland). Plus the league’s cut isn’t even guaranteed which means really the shortfall could be even bigger than the currently projected $500 million and could be more like $700 millon. That’s a lot of money to fill in with the Raiders weak position in the market and no public funds available.

      • Omg thank you lakeshore.

        look fellas. Mark Davis would like a new stadium but I truly beileve he wants the Coliseum all to himself….while he figures out how to get a new stadium.

        We oakland fans know this and is hoping lew wolff would build at coliseum or gasp Howard Terminal Field.

        Im sure if Wolff wants land to develop he can develop around the coliseum. But its my thinking that Oakland will offer Lew Wolff the Coliseum land with the exception that the Raiders maybe in a separate deal keeps the Coliseum.

  16. If we’re talking how much land is needed for both a baseball and football stadium in close proximity to each other, including the typical parking lot size, here are three basic examples to look up on your map site of choice:

    * Kansas City
    * Pittsburgh
    * Philadelphia

    I’ve been to all three locations and, of course, Philadelphia is even larger than normal because they at one time had FOUR facilities there (The Spectrum has since been demolished).

    KC’s layout is similar to the existing Coliseum/Arena setup but overall they have quite a bit more space to park because instead of an arena to go with their baseball facility, they have a football stadium.

    PIT’s layout is a bit more stretched out and I believe a lot of people walk from the downtown area as well, so I’m not sure just how many spaces they have in comparison.

    PHI’s layout, as noted, is just on a whole different level when it comes to parking lots.

    If you look at SEA, I’m not entirely sure exactly where all the parking is. I’m sure there’s a decent amount of day-of-game stuff available, especially for football, but as far as dedicated lots are concerned they have very little nearby as far as I can tell.

    The facilities in Arlington aren’t right next to each other, but there’s a ton of acreage for parking there.

    There seems to be a fair amount of parking in Cincinnati with the baseball and football stadiums separated a bit, though it looks like it could involve more of a walk for some depending on where they park.

    There’s a good deal of outdoor parking in Detroit that would be used for football or baseball, and they have some underground parking beneath Grand Circus Park as well, adjacent to Comerica Park. There are a lot of street lots within walking distance for football.

    How does this all relate to the Coliseum complex? If it ends up there’s a football and baseball stadium built, plus housing/commercial of any kind, parking is going to be at a massive premium unless lots of parking garages are built (as one example). Keep the arena on site and there’s even less space to park. Of any layout I mentioned above, the Coliseum complex seems the smallest of all and I don’t think there’s a situation where offsite lots will be that easy to make use of. Football gamedays could see a need for parking across 880 with shuttles likely.

  17. @ Dmoas/Dan
    I hear what both of you are saying, and I don’t disagree with either of you. I am only saying it’s not out of the realm of possibility, if Davis has the desire and financial will to do so (both big ifs), I’m not even saying I think it will happen, I guess my problem is, that there seems to be a general belief that, it just can’t happen, and as unlikely as it is, it’s not impossible.
    BTW @ James V. thanks for your comment. I found it helpful.

    • LS, I’d argue it is out of the realm of possibility. There’s just not enough revenue there for the Raiders to pick up the cost of the stadium without a development around it like the Niners did. The Raiders brand isn’t the Niners and there won’t be several of the revenue streams the Niners depended on open to the Raiders. Can’t rely on PSLs, can’t rely on a 220 million dollar naming rights deal, can’t rely on getting a hotel tax, and can’t rely on over $100 million in city funding for the stadium. Those things add up to one big, “not happening.”

      • I’d add that even IF the Raiders found a way to pull that off. The land lost as a result from the addition of a football stadium and the additional parking would strip away a ton of development revenue. As is it, a baseball stadium isn’t even a given with the land that’s there. Take some of that land away? A football stadium takes up a huge footprint.

  18. Yes, Mark Davis says he needs help getting his stadium built but it’s help that is not forthcoming. Hundreds of millions of dollars in public subsidies for a football stadium in Oakland? Pure fantasy. PSLs? Already failed big time there.

  19. Thanks guys, I know all the reasons, it most likely will not work.

    @dmoas Good point about the land, as Oakland and Alameda only own or control 1/3 of the land they say they want to use for coliseum city (I think its 1/3), they would obviously have to find a way to secure more land in and around the project, to pull off what would already be vary difficult project to complete.

    • @James V
      great analysis on sports complexes in various cities

      @lakeshore
      I believe the Raiders want the Coliseum to themselves. Would Lew Wolff object if he gets all the land but the Coliseum cant be torn down? I feel Lew Wolff should cooperate

  20. The only reason why PSLs did not work the first time is because the JPA got greedy and only put a 10 year term on it. Also, it did not give rights to other events.

    If the JPA were to do this again but give lifetime rights for a fraction of what the 49ers charged it would work with ease.

    Let’s look at the #s:

    If the lower bowl is 35K in seats x $2,000 average per seat= 70M
    If the upper bow is 25K in seats x $1,000 average per seat- 25M

    That is roughly 100M from seat licenses, the 49ers got 500M. So 20% is a reasonable estimate….I think these could sell for more, I think the Raiders could easily get 200M from this.

    Suite Sales:
    49ers got 360M in suite sales
    Raiders you can assume 20% or 75M roughly in suite sales

    Naming rights:
    49ers got 220M
    Assume half for the Raiders or 100M for naming rights

    You combine the #s you get 70M+25M+75M+110M= 280M.

    These numbers are really low estimates too.

    Granted 49ers fans have more cash but the Bay Area is the wealthiest market in the US and Raiders fans aren’t completely broke; they have to be able to live and work in the Bay Area.

    JPA puts in 100M for infrastructure and tear down of the old coliseum and there is your new stadium with no ancillary development needed.

    All Mark Davis would need to do is sell a piece of the team at this point or he can raise the last part with the development.

    A Raiders stadium is not that far off as people think…

    • Totally agree on the issues with the original PSL’s. I think the Raiders would have less of an issue if they structured them differently for a new stadium.

      The challenge is that even if you up the PSL, naming rights, etc estimates to $400M and keep the JPA investment at $100M (which I think this is overly optimistic), you’re still around $250M – $500M short. The cost of Levi’s was $1.2B. While a new Raiders stadium could likely be done for less, you’re still looking at $750M – $1B.

      That’s a decent chunk of the team that Davis would have to agree to sell off.

  21. With regard to the NFL building a stadium in L.A. – I realize this implies that this could mean a possible Raider move to SoCal, but in another sense, despite my hatred of the NFL, I kind of like the idea of a league-owned stadium WITHOUT a pro team calling it home. Depending on the location, the league could lease the stadium to the USC Trojans during college football season as a means of income during the fall. The stadium could also be the annual site of the Super Bowl where neither of the participating teams (with the possible exception of the San Diego Chargers) can claim to have home field advantage. This stadium would be to the NFL what Omaha, NE is to college baseball teams. I realize that this concept is highly unlikely. The NFL, despite its status as a non-profit organization, wants a team or two located there to generate income for itself and the teams. I understand that. But still, the concept of having a stadium that is the annual site of the biggest game of the year where neither of the competing teams can claim home field advantage is, to me, an appealing one.

    • There’s no way the NFL would pay for stadium and NOT have two teams in there.

      • You’re absolutely right! I GET that! I’m simply saying that I LIKE the concept of playing the Super Bowl in a stadium that is not the home of a current NFL team. Thus, there is no chance that the championship game will also be by coincidence a home game for one of the participants. The best two cities that, in my opinion, meet this criteria would be Los Angeles and Honolulu.

  22. A’s kicking butt 9-7…lets win this so I can sleep good tonight. I can picture Coliseum Field right next to Raider Coliseum. It will happen. WOLFF AND DAVIS MUST BURY THE HATCHETT.

    • I do agree with you harry

    • While Wolff and Davis aren’t exactly friends, I don’t think this is personal. I think it just comes down to numbers.

      Regardless of whether it’s baseball or football, building a new stadium in the footprint of the existing Coliseum is cheaper than building at another location at the same site because of the existing infrastructure.

      Besides the higher stadium costs, if the A’s are planning on financing a new stadium via additional development, keeping the Raiders at the existing site, impacts the value for the rest of the land.

      The existing site is the most accessible BART site which is critical for the additional development.

      Besides impacting the amount of available land for development, keeping the Raiders at the same site, would push the rest of the side development farther out distance wise, impacting the overall project. This could be solved with different transit and walking options, but that all adds to the cost.

      I don’t think there’s any way to have both the Raiders and the A’s come out equally in this. The city is likely going to have to hitch themselves to one of them and encourage them to work with the other. End of the day one of them isn’t going to be in as good of a shape economically and assuming they both have other options, why would they agree to that.

  23. It’s dillusional to think that both the A’s and Raiders can build on the current site when every piece of evidence presenyed points to the opposite.

  24. It’s really funny to read these comments where we (I include myself here) equate emotional motivations to business decisions. It’s why I have zero respect for the “Lew Wolff Hates Oakland” crowd… This isn’t about anything but money. There is not hate, or love, involved for Lew Wolff or Mark Davis. This isn’t about them getting along better… It’s about pragmatic solutions that work to their advantage financially.

    My favorite class when I got my master’s degree was a leadership class (I usually hate these kind of things because… Zig Ziegler and stuff). The key learning for me was that there are always three aspects to successful leadership, 1. A Leader, 2. Followers, 3. The Situation.

    The Warriors vacating and the Raiders/BayIG fumbling all over the place have changed number 3. Lew Wolff has stepped into the role of 1. Oakland City Leaders can fall into the role of 2. and look like heroes. Or they can try and insist on being 1. and look like fools. It is the “Lew Wolff Hates Oakland” mentality that will drive them to try and be 1. If they clear their minds and look at it objectively, the answer is obvious… Here’s hoping.

  25. The solution is to enter into a 50/50 partnership between the A’s and Raiders and then go forward on this huge project. This project consists of much more land than just the current Coliseum parking lot footprint. This huge area consist of the Homebase/Malibu Grand Prix parcels as well as parcels on the other side of the 880 freeway.

  26. and, yes, I realize how douchey that “master’s degree” comment made me sound. I’ll wear it.

  27. @ brikz
    Actually, it’s not as delusional, as you may think and no, not all the evidence points of the opposite, a lot of people (including myself), see the evidence and guide it to the outcome they would most likely want to see.
    I’m not saying it’s going to happen, and (IMHO), the only thing that’s “delusional”, is to speak in absolute terms, about a fluid situation, that’s always changing, in the end the Warriors leaving may be the one thing that changes the dynamic, so both teams can build at and around the same site, granted a lot of other things have to fall into place (that probably won’t), but it’s not delusional, to think it’s a possibility.
    That being said, at this point I’m just hoping that Wolff can get an A’s new ballpark done at the coliseum site, in spite of the fact that he is forced to work with the city of Oakland.
    @ Elmano
    A 50/50 split sounds good, but we keep in mind that Oakland/Alameda County only owns (controls), less than 1/3 of the land in and around the coliseum site; I believe that includes the Home Base/Malibu Grand Prix parcels as well as parcels on the other side of the 880 freeway.
    Oakland/Alameda County is going to have their work cut out for them, in gaining parcels, as time passes (hopefully without using eminent domain), and I would think this would be imperative, if they hope to put together a deal to build new homes for the Radars and A’s.

  28. @jeffrey- yup you nailed it… Only to be followed by an emotional,comment that there is plenty of land for both. Yes there is lots of land but not “plenty of money” which takes us right back to what Jeffrey said. I honestly don’t believe the Raiders crowd has figured out that they are being pushed out and I’m not quite sure Mark Davis understands what is happening. Where is Amy T during his time of need :)

  29. @ GoA’s
    I was thinking the same thing about Mark Davis, he does not seem to realize, what Wolff may be doing, isn’t that a little ironic? It wasn’t too long ago when Davis said “We just need to know, what the A’s won’t to do”
    Concerning the “emotional, comment”, portion of what you were saying, it was nice of you to say there is plenty of land, but not plenty of money, because (as you know), there may not be plenty of either, since Oakland and Alameda county don’t own, or control even half of the land they are pushing in the coliseum city project.

    • We Raider Nation crowd know what the A’s are doing. But we want to sew Wolff actually buy out the County portion debt before we actually freak out.

      Also since the city of Oakland wants to give the A’s all these concessions…lol..just imagine what leverage Raiders have. They will sign a cheap 2 yr. Extension and do the “Oakland Stall Technique” on the A’s and Oakland.

      Besides if Oakland ever kicked out the Raiders. .Raiders would laugh while the mount davis debt and Oakland’s inability to work out sports projects with Lew Wolff blow up. The Raiders as a marketing way might even be better in L.A or Santa Clara and would teach other cities a lesson if u don’t upkeep ur football team

      • The Raiders aren’t going to cover that debt anyway. They want the City to take MORE debt. Wolff, as referenced in his letter, is working to take care of that debt as part of a larger development.

        It’s pretty comical for you to root against an entire City at the behest of a sports team. You are a real peach…

      • So much for partnership and community.

  30. Did Rick Tittle interview Wolff on Weds?

  31. I still don’t trust Wolff to make a “good faith effort” (whatever that means) in Oakland. He told the SF Business times just after the lease was signed that he hasn’t given up on San Jose and it’s “between the two Bay Area sites.”

    The problem with Lew Wolff is that he keeps putting his foot in his mouth and and continues to generate a great deal of mistrust. How can Oakland trust a man who talks out of both sides of his mouth with such a large and important development for the city’s future. With Wolff, there is no guarantee that this is nothing but another smokescreen until he gets his San Jose ducks in order. the City of Oakland would have to take a large leap of faith to entrust this devement to a man who proves time and again by his words and by his deeds that he can’t be trusted.

    • Your point about Oakland as a valid option is credible. The A’s are averaging 25K playing at the worst venue in MLB – even outdrawing Seattle (with a much more desirable newer, baseball only stadium)

      However, the Wolff group has easily been more credible than all the other factions in this farce. The latest lease agreement debacle supports Wolff’s view that Oakland city officials are impossible to deal with.

  32. An interesting thing about Coliseum City is that some of the parcels on the other side of the freeway actually front the Bay. The wide Martin Luther King Shoreline Park is right there. This part of the Estuary/Bay is actually wider and more natural than the estuary near Jack London Square. The A’s could still have a “waterfront park” at Coliseum City with possibly a warmer climate than at Howard Terminal.

    Also. placing the ballpark near the water would force the 30,000 plus fans to walk from Bart through all the hotel, retail and parking on the Bart side of the development. A walk from Bart would be less than a half mile with a new pedestrian walkway over 880.

    • I’m down for that idea. However because I understand Lew Wolff would be paying for most of the project. Nothing will get done unless the city pays for land prep and construction costs for the pedestrian bridge. Also if or when Lew Wolff does build in Oakland we have to have the land aquire and ready

      • I’m sure the city would pay for some of the infrastructure requirements if Wolff would rally commit to this project instead of still holding out for San Jose.

  33. Here is a view of beautiful “San Leandro Bay” where the new waterfront ballpark at Coliseum City could be located. Oakland could have a Coloseum City project WITH a waterfront ballpark. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

    • Elmano the city of Oakland has do their part and get access to the land and development rights then give it to Wolff. Ur idea works because Lew would get a water front ballpark and the Raiders get the Coliseum

  34. Coliseum City, as in new football and baseball stadiums, maybe an arena, too, acquiring 600 more acres that the city/county don’t even own, A’s as mere tenants, is DOA, Elmano. if the A’s are to stay in Oakland, it will be with the A’s in charge and almost certainly no Raiders stadium. It will be a commercial and probably residential development on the existing site with the A’s new ballpark as the shining centerpiece.

  35. Once again, if we want to gauge Coliseum City’s prospects, just look at how the Raiders have been cooperating with this project and 2+ years later, still no deal. The numbers don’t add up.

  36. Why don’t the numbers add up? We have a huge undeveloped area in the very center of the Bay Area directly connected to Bart, Oakland International Airport, Amtrak, with some parcels fronting the Bay with possible ferry connections.

    It’s the best undeveloped site in the Bay Area if you suspend the usual ignorance, stupidity, prejudices and stereotypes that many money movers in other parts of the Bay Area have regarding Oakland.

    • Ignore pjk Elmano. A’s of right now. OAKLAND should not worry about the Raiders and A’s moving because honestly both teams still have no where to go. Let them upgrade and share the Coliseum until both teams are ready to share and build on the Coliseum property.

      Again why can’t Mark Davis keep the Coliseum and the A’s build next to Oracle or Coliseum…sigh..

      • Harry,

        This project would get moving if Wolff, Davis and Coliseum City representatives sat down and worked together on this possibly great project. Right now all we have is gamesmanship by all parties. Instead of comprimising and working together, the parties all have different agendas of either pushing the other guy out, or taking their ball and playing somewhere else. This is not how you get things accomplished for the good of everybody as well as for the good of the city of Oakland.

  37. 2+ years of fruitless negotiations between the Raiders and the Coliseum City advocates tells us the numbers don’t add up.

  38. The idea of the Raiders and A’s, both building new venues at the coliseum site, while not impossible is rather remote.
    The fact Oakland’s best chance to get, at least one venue complete comes from (Wolff), a man that would rather not build in Oakland and is being forced by his own league to consider it, should speak volumes.
    I believe all things being equal Davis would like to build in Oakland, but unfortunately, all things are not equal. One thing I can give Wolff credit for is, he seems to understand that if he ever does get anything built in Oakland, it will only come about by him taking control of the process, unlike Davis who simply seems to be waiting around for a municipality to put money in his hand’s.

  39. That nails it, Lakeshore. The Raiders are looking for big-time handouts. The A’s recognize public funding is not going to happen in either San Jose or Oakland and are taking charge of what needs to be done.

  40. re: OAKLAND should not worry about the Raiders and A’s moving because honestly both teams still have no where to go.etc.

    …Undoubtedly, these were the same sentiments in Cleveland before the Browns left, in Seattle before the Sonics left, in Brooklyn before the Dodgers left, and on and on.

    • Or a better solution

      Mark Davis knows he can’t build a football stadium on his own and wants a handout. So the next best thing is the Coliseum to himself. Let him have it.

      There is more then enough land for Wolff to build a ballpark and have development to help pay for it without pushing the Raiders out. That’s my belief

  41. Why can’t the City of Oakland get a deal that makes sense for both the A’s and the Raiders, We all know that the Warriors will be GONE in 2018 or 2019. So, why can’t we get it done?

    Q: How much land does it take to build two new stadiums in Oakland?

    A: None because the Oakland Politicians don’t work that way.

    Oh, bad joke.

  42. The idea that the A’s and Raiders have nowhere to go, is just not true IMHO. It may appear that the A’s have nowhere to go, especially when you factor in the challenges we have discussed, concerning Portland and San Antonio, but make no mistake the A’s first step out of the Bay Area, is as close as AT&T park, if Oakland dose not get it’s act together and the A’s aren’t awarded San Jose. MLB has delt with this situation to long, not to have a contingency plan, and that could start, with a short trip across the Bay, before MLB extracts big tax money out of a community outside of Northern California, I’m sure the San Francisco Giants would happily accept the A’s as tenets, under those circumstances.
    If anyone doesn’t think the Raiders have options, they need look no further then sharing with the 49ers. LA. may be a little more difficult, in that the NFL would probably prefer the Raiders stay up north, and have the Rams return to LA, along with the Chargers, that way they could have a AFC and NFC team, in each market, but don’t think the NFL is going to keep dealing with a situation, where it’s last and only team is playing on baseball diamond, to the extent that they will not allow the Raiders to more people to LA. It’s odd to me that so many people, think that the Raiders and A’s have no options, it’s even more odd, that so may use that reasoning as an actual solution, how many times have we heard ” well don’t worry, they don’t have anywhere to go”, yeah they don’t have anywhere to go, that is until they actually do.

    • Yet lakeshore it’s 2014 and the A’s and Raiders still undecided. Now again they know Oakland situation. Potential city kind of on the rise with a lot of debt problems and inept city leaders only here trying to please their crowds intrests.
      But still after 7 yrs of debating and going back and forth…look if Lew wolff and mark Davis know they can make money in the east bay. The Coliseum should be for the Raiders while Lew Wolff has plenty of room to build a ballpark. Again he still wants to move to San Jose but if he wants Oakland it’s by Oakland rules.

      • @ harry
        Yeah, both team’s are still there, but we know this can’t go on forever, for a variety of reasons it’s gone on longer then anyone would have imagined. I don’t doubt that one of those reasons, may be that the Oakland/East Bay market really isn’t all that bad, and that Davis, and Wolff (secondary to San Jose), would not mind staying in it, but I think we would both agree that, something has got to give here.

  43. The Oakland market is a good market. It’s a better market than 80% of current MLB markets and a better market than any other market currently without a MLB franchise. The Oakland A’s are averaging 24,600 fans in an older ballpark in an area where the media is heavenly tilted towards the Giants and where the ownership has been telling the fans that “you’re not good enough for us, your city is not good enough for us and we intend to leave as soon as possible.”

    Can you imagine what the Oakland market would do with a friendly community oriented ownership, a more balanced media and a new ballpark?

    If all three of these things were in place Oakland would be as successful as the SF Giants off the field.

    The Oakland market is far from being a “small market.” The Oakland market is a contrived “small market” because of external forces who deem it so by their actions and their attitudes.

  44. Please, Elmano. The A’s long history of success on the field and failure at the Box Office indicates Oakland is NOT a great baseball market. Now I hope the A’s get a new stadium in Oakland but let’s not kid ourselves: A market where another team dominates the headlines and ticket sales does not make for a great baseball market. The A’s aren’t even number 1 in their own zip code, if Facebook’s popularity contests are to be believed.

  45. @ Elmano
    While I agree with you, to the extent that the Oakland / East Bay market is better then any market that doesn’t presently have a MLB team, and can be better then it has been, for a variety of reasons, but to say better then 80% of the rest of the league is a bit of a stretch. I would say a new ballpark in Oakland can put the A’s at between 12-15, I would say a new ballpark in San Jose could put the A’s between 10-13

  46. The Walter Haas era gave us a good indication of what the Oakland market can be with a great owner, a good ballpark and the media attention close to 50/50.

    People don’t give Oakland enough credit as a market. Oakland is positioned better than any other city in the Bay Area to exploit the entire Bay Area simply becuase of its central location and its great public transportation with bart and as the nexus of the freeway system.

    There’s no bubble over Oakland that says that corporations or people from all over the Bay Area can’t support the A’s in Oakland. The corporations over that 4 mile bridge whose employees live in the East Bay aren’t prohibited from supporting the A’s. Do the SF Giants automatically get support from SF companies while Oakland companies can only support Oakland teams?

    Other than NY, LA, Boston, Saint Louis, Chicago and SF I don’t see a better market than Oakland.

    Of course, this is assuming an ownership like the Haas family and not Charlie Finley, Shot/Hoffman, or Wolf/Fisher. It also assumes a new ballpark and media attention based on performance on the field instead of media attention based on which city in the Bay Area the team plays in.

    • @ Elmano
      Well New York, and LA would be four teams, you didn’t mention Chicago and for the sake of argument, I will only count the Cubs (not the White Sox), after that you have Boston, the Dallas metro (Rangers), Philadelphia, Toronto, and the Giants, that’s 10 teams in better markets then Oakland/East Bay, and I did not even include St. Louis, which you mentioned. The A’s would have a hard time cracking the top 10 teams in revenue, even if they were in San Jose.
      In Oakland if everything went right, you would be vary successful if you got between 12-15, and honestly 12, may be a little too optimistic.

  47. Haas lost 30m a year trying to keep the team winning. He had to sell because of it. Haas was a silver spoon kid like Mark Davis, not a businessman.

    You do realize the coliseum is in the worst location for traffic during evening rush hour in the entire Bay Area?

    The A’s get good attendance on the weekends only because of it. You theories hold no water.

    You can only build one stadium at the coli period. Two new stadiums cause too many logistical issues on top of costing a boat load of money to ever happen,

    Wolff unlike Davis is a developer and he does see potential at the coli site like you do but it’s not with the raiders involved. His recent letter to the city manager clearly states it.

    He is keepin San Jose as an option and that is his right and competition breeds improvement.

    But if Wolff can build at the coli and own the ancillary development he will stay put because in SJ it’s only a ballpark.

    But the raiders have to go….

  48. re: this is assuming an ownership like the Haas family

    …You mean an ownership willing to lose piles of money? Good luck with that.

  49. Other, than NY, LA, Boston, and maybe the Cubs, what team wouldn’t end up losing money trying to keep the type of talent Haas had in the late 80′s early 90s teams. That was basically an all star team with a few hall of famers thrown in. Haas paid for the best players and unless you’re one of the top 5 teams in baseball you’re not going to be able to maintain that type of payroll.

    Also, when was the last time the A’s and Raiders played on the same date at home? Why is this an issue as far as logistics.

  50. Sid, I thought the traffic in San Francisco trying to get on the Bay Bridge from 101 was the worst traffic in the Bay Area during rush hour. The traffic through Livermore on 580 east bound is also a doozy.

    Also, this last home stand against the Astros, the A’s drew crowds of 28,000 24,000 and 22,000 during weekday games.

    The A’s draw better on weekends because of work and school during the week.

    • Elmano,

      Your right, getting on the Bay Bridge to the East Bay from 101 in SF is bad. You proved my point on how tough it is to get an A’s game, even from SF in the evening during rush hour. All traffic flows to the East Bay at night, and the Coliseum is smack dab in the middle of it all.

      880 is backed up both ways at the Coliseum because everyone is heading home at that time. You come from 92, its packed, if you come from the Bay Bridge or 580 its backed up.

      BART is packed with commuters heading home as well.

      Forget people in the South Bay, 880N is straight jammed through Fremont/Union City.

      Even though ATT Park is further away, it is far easier to get to it then the Coli at night. It is opposite commute heading into SF at night.

      Your attendance figures with the Astros are skewed as it is summer time and there is no school.

      If you look at the A’s weeknight #s over the whole season and even over the past 3 season (when the team has been good), the #s are horrible.

      I went to the Detroit-A’s game (Donaldson walk off) on a Wednesday night in late May when school was still in and there were 15k in fans…..horrible.

      The Coliseum is in the worst spot for traffic in the entire Bay Area as whole as there is traffic both ways.

      • Sid,

        I was at the game also. I had out of State family in town and they loved it. They were very impressively at the passion and energy in the ballpark. What an incredible ending. The 15,000 in attendance sounded like 30,000. That was also the last sub par crowd the A’s have drawn this year. In the last 24 dates the A’s are averaging nearly 29,000.

      • One more thing, there was no traffic for that 7:05 PM game. The traffic isn’t nearly as bad after 6:30. I made it from downtown Oakland to the Coliseum Parking lot in about 7 minutes. I was on the freeway heading back home five minutes after I turned on the ignition at the parking lot.

  51. Also, the Chiefs and Royals play in the same complex with no problems. The Seahawks and Mariners play right next to each other. I don’t see why the Raiders and A’s couldn’t co-exist in close proximity.

    The only problem here is lack of cooperation between the two teams. They’re both trying to push each other out rather than working together on a mutually beneficial solution.

    • Cooperation won’t hurt, but it won’t solve the problem. The problem is funding.

      The examples that you gave were all publicly funded stadiums. Public money isn’t going to be used for the Raiders or the A’s (nor do I think it should).

      The teams need to finance the stadiums on their own. This requires additional corporate support, similar to what the Giants did with AT&T, or funding from additional development.

      So far no significant corporate support has stepped up.

      This leaves funding from additional development which means that two stadiums cut in to the additional development and therefore the funding.

  52. @ Elmano
    To be fair, because I certainly let you know, if I don’t agree with you, I must say you have a point, when talking about the financial loss the A’s suffered under the Haas family, that says more about the financial structure of MLB, then Oakland and I would agree with you that under that antiquated system most teams would have lost money. It’s a bit of sensationalism, to simply say the A’s lost money, and not look at the hole picture.

  53. I want to see Oakland get serious and get a stadium deal done for both the A’s and the Raiders. Both have great winning traditions dating back from the 1970′s and 80′s. Oakland needs to get serious, and offer a deal that’s fair, direct, and honest for all of the people, whether you are an A’s, Raiders, Warriors fan or not.

    I like Elmano and Harry’s ideas. We just need Oakland to get SERIOUS!!!

    • Omg. The LA Dodgers just swept the Giants. Can’t wait for Monday morning baseball talk. While the A’s win yet another game ..it will be funny to see how SF Giants fans cry over the radio.

      Thank u John and elmano. Raiders and A’s can coexist. Both would be the east bay pride now with more social media. Ppl are going to more events…this is why I feel if Lew would let Davis have the Coliseum in exchange for Lew having development rights to the Coliseum land except for the Coliseum itself. Cm on fells

    • @ John Marx

      Oakland needs to get serious, I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. You like Elmano and harry ‘ s ideas, What would those ideas be exactly? (not trying to be funny), but honestly what idea’s, that Wolff should play nice, with Davis? I have stated many times that I am a Pro-Oakland fan, but let’s be a little realistic here, it’s going to take a little more then love for Oakland to make this work.

      • @ Lakeshore/Neil

        The idea that Coliseum City can be built with all parties involved (the A’s, Raiders and City of Oakland). Perhaps the idea of Howard Terminal is dead, but who knows?

        I can remember in 1986, a model of a new football only stadium was going to be build for the 49ers in Oakland. It was projected to be built at the Malibu Grand Prix parking area. Does anyone remember that?!?!

        I’m still Pro-Oakland for the all three teams to stay in Oakland, even though the Warriors are almost gone in 2019.

        If the Warriors are gone, tear the arena down and build the ball park there and tear the Coliseum down for a new Oakland Raiders stadium there. I think the Coliseum site has more than enough to have both football and baseball there.

    • Oakland has no money for pro sports stadiums. The great histories of the two teams means nothing – the money simply isn’t there.

      • @ pjk

        I enjoyed it a little more around here, when you and I would disagree, at least I was dealing with someone who came up with sound and reasonable arguments for there position, even if I didn’t agree with everything you said. P.S. where is the old crew?

  54. John Marx
    The idea of the Raiders and A’s sharing the land in and around the coliseum site, is not an imposable idea, and Iam sure most here would support it, if it’s something that can (realistically), be done.
    I may have been the first person, in this thread that pointed that out, but to simply say “It’s been done in other places”, or “It’s possible “, misses the point.
    Let’s say that Oakland/Alameda County gave the land over to Wolff, which makes since he is a developer and baseball is the best investment, for Oakland, while at the same time, we really don’t know what or if Davis is willing to build?
    Wolff is going to need to uses the land for ancillary development, to support (finance), a new ballpark on site, well he is going to need as much of that land to develop, as possible, to finance his ballpark, because remember Oakland and Alameda County have very little to offer to the project, so the burden will be on Wolff.
    He could work out something with Davis (as harry suggest), and as I pointed out earlier in this thread, that football for a verity of reasons, may not require as much ancillary devilment, but the question is, with Oakland/Alameda County putting little (or nothing), in how much land can Wolff allow Davis to have?, and will it be more beneficial for Wolff to use that land differently, then working with Davis?
    To point out that it worked in Kansa City, or Philadelphia, is great but how much did those municipality’s pay to have two new(or improved), sports venues on the same site, because we already know Oakland/Alameda County will be putting in little, to nothing, again, which would necessitate Wolff needing to utility even more of the undeveloped land.
    This scenario assumes that Wolff even wants to deal with Davis, or that its beneficial for the A’s to have the Raiders located at the same site as them.
    Wolff has already been required by his league to look at this site a second time, should he also be required to work with Davis?, by a city and county that may put little, to nothing toward the project?
    If you have read the comments here, then you know I have been critical of Lew Wolff, but from what I am reading from recent comments, Wolff should jest “Come on and be a nice guy”, that’s not going to get it.

    • @LSN- Your 100% correct, unless Oakland/Alameda County puts up a big chunk of the $$ needed to keep both teams they have to pick one. If the JPA was willing to put up 750M total for 2 stadiums only then could this work.

      Mark Davis wants a handout period, he is not willing to get creative and bridge the gap. While Wolff is not only willing to get creative but also help out with the debt burdening the JPA.

      Reality is and you nailed it is Wolff needs as much of the Coli land as possible for his ballpark to succeed. It is a pipe dream to think two stadiums can work at that site.

      Therefore it is the A’s or the Raiders at the Coli site long run.

  55. We can’t compare publicly funded same-site stadium projects in Kansas City, etc, with what is needed in Oakland: $1.5 million worth of private funds for stadiums, with enough land left over for ancillary development to make the stadiums at least a break-even proposition. But the numbers don’t work out. The best hope is a $500 million A’s stadium, used 80+ days a year, surrounded by ancillary commercial/office/residential development, and no gigantic football stadium that rarely gets used and costs $1 billion.

  56. And the $1.5 billion presumes the Warriors are already gone. Kick in another $500 million if we want to keep them in Oakland, too. Two years of fiddling with this Coliseum City project and fruitless negotiations with the Raiders tells us it’s not going to work.

  57. If Lew Wolff is serious about taking control of this entire development he needs to establish some trust with Oakland and Alameda County officials. Telling the San Francisco Business Times right after the lease was signed, that SJ is still in the running and “both sites in the Bay Area” are in the running, is not the way to build trust in this project.

    The Coliseum City project is massive. It’s a much bigger land mass than the under construction 3200 unit Brooklyn Basin project. Oakland needs to make sure that Wolff is sincere about this and not just playing games like he did with the former 66th to High Street “proposal.”

    Once Wolff’s sincerity is determined through some real concrete commitment, we can then evaluate Wolff’s ability to get this huge project completed. Has Wolff ever developed such a huge project? Does Wolff have financing? Is Wolff a better capitalized company than the current developers? How much is the land worth on the open market? What type of return is the city and county guaranteed?

    It’s not just a matter of jeopardizing a project just because someone whose been untrustworthy in the past is now saying “let me buy the land and I’ll take care of everything.” This is the most complicated site with so many factions at work. Did Wolff pick this site on purpose in order for someone to throw a monkey wrench into the entire thing thereby giving Wolff a reason to relocate to San Jose, or is he finally sincere about building in Oakland?

    Wolff so far is not making a very good case for himself in the media.

    • @ Elmano
      I understand your concerns, and I am no Wolff apologist, but he has to keep San Jose as a threat to Oakland, (BTW Oakland is also being held as a threat to San Jose), in the hopes that Oakland will actually do something.
      It could be argued that Wolff is being more trustworthy then Davis, at least in Wolff has let you know up front, that he would rather build in San Jose, and Fremont, if it wasn’t such a headache.
      What has Davis done for all his talk about building at the coliseum, he has not come up with one proposal, or even a design of his stadium, what does that say?
      We have heard reports of him meeting with LA interests, as well as with the 49ers about sharing in the South Bay, all the while talking about what a wonderful, location the coliseum site is?, but he gets a free pass? I usually don’t find myself defending Lew Wolff, but he really can’t plant his flag in Oakland, or this site, because that’s an open invitation for Oakland politicians, to do nothing, which is pretty much what they have been doing, even with a hot flame to their collective ass.

  58. Why shouldn’t Wolff scout out as many options as he can and have some leverage? Of course, he is only scouting out Bay Area options as far as we know. If things can’t get done in Oakland, then hopefully San Jose will work out. Elmano, would you prefer the A’s leave the Bay Area altogether if a new ballpark can’t get done in Oakland? Is San Jose such as an unspeakable option that you’d rather see the team move far away than go 30 miles south down Route 880? And how do you know Wolff was “playing games” on the High Street proposal (was the that north of the Coliseum project?)? I realize you hold the City of Oakland completely blameless in the A’s predicament but history shows otherwise.

  59. pjk,

    Using San Jose as leverage is not beneficial to anyone who loves the Oakland A’s. Wolff is either committed to this project in Oakland, or he’s not. If he’s not committed fully to this project in Oakland, then he should step aside and allow another qualified developer to do the project.

    I don’t think the current developers are telling Oakland, “we’ll either build here or in San Jose, but let’s start negotiating on this project and please sell me your land.”

    What kind of serious developer does this kind of thing? Either Wolff wants in, or, he wants to screw around like he’s been doing for the last ten years.

  60. if Wolff won’t build in Oakland, it will be because it doesn’t make financial sense. Remember, Oakland is offering $0.00 for construction of the ballpark and Wolff has to raise the money somewhere. (While just about every other MLB city from coast to coast has gotten a new ballpark done in the past 20 years, Oakland has failed in this regard.) Are you saying some other developer might have a magic formula for making the ballpark make financial sense that Wolff doesn’t have? Or are you saying someone should come build the ballpark in Oakland regardless of whether it makes financial sense or not? (I’m still waiting for the Clorox group to show us the $2 billion it will cost to buy the A’s and build at Howard Terminal.) And are you saying the A’s in San Jose is such an unspeakable horror that you’d rather have the team leave the Bay Area altogether?

  61. Wolff has initiated everything in Fremont and in San Jose. Wolff even spent millions by land in Fremont and buying right to land in San Jose. What has Wolff done in Oakland? WhT king of effort has Wolff put into building anything in Oakland? Wolff has put zilch into any kind of serous proposal in Oakland. Wolff has put no money and no effort. Wolff has even discouraged Oakland politicians from pursuing keeping the A’s. Remember the “don’t break your pick on this one” statement to Ron Dellumns? Do we remember the large contribution to Don Peralta after he expressed little interests in keeping the A’s? Do we remember seeing Oakland council member Dick Spees siting with Wolff behind the A’s dugout when the High Street to 66th Avenue project was suppose to be in play when in fact Wolff was already talking to Fremont? Spees never uttered a word after the conversation soon shifted to Fremont.

    Pjk, Wolff has spent millions trying to build everywhere but in Oakland. In Oakland he’s made no effort and instead spent money trying to facilitate his way out of Oakland. And you blame Oakland for not getting a ballpark done with this man?

    I’d hate to think Wolff was playing nice with Oakland just to secure a convenient and inexpensive lease. Wolff’s history does not bode well for Coliseum City. Wolff’s history bodes well for Oakland to lose the A’s, Raiders and Coliseum City.

  62. You just hate Wolff, Elmano. Wolff has looked at Oakland and found a ballpark was not finance-able there (I know, I know, Wolff and Fischer are rich and can afford to lose hundreds of millions of dollars donating a ballpark to Oakland, right?) Now, he is trying again but needs the Coliseum property for ancillary development to try to make the project financiallly viable. He may determine again that Oakland is still not viable. One thing is certain is he is not going to get all that Silicon Valley money in Oakland; it’s too far away for tech companies in the valley to be interested in leasing suites, etc.

  63. For the third time, Elmano: Is the A’s moving to San Jose such an unspeakable horror that you’d rather see the team leave the Bay Area than relocate 30 miles south?

  64. @Elmano

    Again my man, I hear your concerns (the one’s I find reasonable), but there’s nothing in the lease that Wolff signed, with Oakland Alameda County that prevents Davis and the Raiders from perusing coliseum city, I repeat there is nothing in the lease that prevents Davis and the Raiders from perusing coliseum city.
    If the Raiders don’t build in Oakland, it won’t be because Lew Wolff was taking advantage of Oakland for an extra 2-4 years, while he was waiting for San Jose to open up. If Davis really wants to build in Oakland, he can play the next 1-2 years at the coliseum, after that he can go to the South Bay and share with the 49ers, and wait Lew out that’s what he would do if he really wanted the land at the coliseum. I thank the bigger question for Davis is if he really wanted to build in Oakland, why would Wolff and the A’s being at the coliseum, for say 2-4 years keep him from doing that? It would take Davis at less 2 more years to work out the details, so there’s nothing holding Davis back, but I’m sure that’s the excuse he will use, if he heads to LA after the 2014 season.

  65. @ Elmano

    I hope Wolff is serious, because he may be the only one who is, sure it’s not his preference,but does it have to be? Does Wolff have to love Oakland to make it work?, fact is the best thing that happened to Oakland in this whole mess, is MLB forcing Lew to take a second look at Oakland.

  66. All the Raiders have to do is pony up a $10 million nonrefundable deposit on a new stadium at the Coliseum and the A’s have to leave in two years. But the A’s know this scenario is highly unlikely, given the $500 million or more funding gap the Raiders face.

    • @ Elmano

      Exactly, as pjk said all the Raiders have to do is come up with a 10 million dollar non refundable deposit, and the A’s only have two year’s at the coliseum and they are gone. A new coliseum would cost 800-900 million (low ball), so for a fraction of the cost of a new stadium Wolff is going to force Davis to LA? (out of Oakland), Under these circumstances, I think it would be clear that Davis may be the dishonest one.

      • I like Qualcomm too…I feel that both the Raiders and Chargers have a good facility allready. What they could do is “lipstick on a pig”…get together with the Community hire localartists, volunteers, engineers and planners (for half the x) costs) and help update the Coliseum and Qualcomm.

        If Davis were to control the land and Coliseum. I’m sure Oakland could win with the extra housing tax dollars and the Raiders could still get a upgrade stadium with more attention round it. If A’s want to join in I’m down too..if they want San Jose..good luck in the fight. I just feel that football rules in Oakland.

        @ml
        Lucas oil stadium is a good stadium…but u forgot to mention Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck influence on Lucas Oil/city of indy…if Oakland had that..it would help push the stadium issue

  67. @ harry

    Didn’t you mean to post your last comment, on the most recent tread?

  68. Sorry, “most recent thread”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s