Setting Oakland’s table

Update 12/8 17:23 – Susan Slusser has an update on the Ballpark Digest “report” and Lew Wolff’s reaction. Jane Lee filed something similar. From SuSlu’s update:

Ballpark Digest is reporting that the Major League Baseball committee investigating the A’s ballpark situation is favoring the new proposed site in Oakland; I am trying to determine the veracity of that, but there are no sources cited. The A’s have not heard that and – stop me oh oh oh stop me if you’ve heard this one before – team owner Lew Wolff told me in an e-mail, “Not to my knowledge. We have, as I have said when asked, exhausted all options in Oakland.”

If the A’s are not granted the territorial rights they want in San Jose, they are under no obligation to move to a site recommended by the committee. They can spend no money at all and stay at the Coliseum, or the owners can sell the team. I’m not sure there are many prospective buyers who believe the better market is in Oakland right now, either, but maybe Joe Lacob can take another look at the club and try to inject some of the enthusiasm he’s put into his new Warriors ownership. Lacob was part of a group that tried to buy the A’s when the Wolff group got them. I can state with certainty that the current group does not believe that the optimal market is in Oakland. It’s pretty obvious.

Note: When Lacob was interested in the A’s, he was going to partner with Billy Beane. When Peter Guber was interested, he was going to partner with Bob Piccinini. BTW, it’s wet and dreary today. I’ll go with SuSlu’s hint.

Update 12/8 11:15 – I asked Maury Brown, who is also at the winter meetings this week. His response?

RT Nothing. Owners meetings was last time @newballpark: Are you hearing anything regarding the A’s stadium situation this week?

Update 12/8 10:54 – Ballpark Digest (via The Drumbeat) has some juicy grist for the mill:

Indeed, the talk at the Winter Meetings is that an Oakland recommendation is now pretty much a done deal — with the additional spin (albeit accurate) that this proved the committee was right all along in waiting things out before making a recommendation.

Which is great, as long as MLB is setting Oakland up to succeed. Then again, they could be setting Oakland up to fail. At least The Town is getting a shot. This would also invert the situation in terms of how I perceived it: San Jose is the hedge, Oakland is the main option.

Robert Gammon does his best to equate Oakland’s stadium proposal to San Jose’s, but he misses a major, major point.

Before I get into that, there’s a bunch of good factual stuff.

  • Parking availability shouldn’t be a big issue because of the large inventory in downtown. Still, the City wants to build 2,500 spaces on site, which could prove problematic in that it triggers larger EIR impact for traffic and requires a large land acquisition, which could prove difficult.
  • Peerless Coffee doesn’t want to sell. Neither do its neighbors.
  • Among infrastructure upgrades, an extra lane from an 880 off-ramp (880 N to Oak St is my guess) would be needed.
  • A pedestrian bridge from JLS to Victory Court would also be needed. (Note – pedestrian bridges recently completed in Walnut Creek and Berkeley cost over $6 million)
  • 980 Park is being dismissed because of timeline/deadline issues, not site feasibility (this line by the City has been pretty constant).
  • “The league’s experts selected the Victory Court site as the most viable spot for a new ballpark.” That makes sense. Still doesn’t make sense why it took a year to get from four sites to one, when the number could’ve been two and whittled to one quickly.
  • Gammon projects which City Council members will be for and against the project, at least as far as the EIR funding is concerned.
  • As mentioned in the last post, the traffic study is moving forward. After that, it’s probably up to MLB.
  • Total price tag to make improvements and acquire land: $80-100 million. At A Better Oakland I speculated that $100 million would be a likely amount. The total could vary based the amount of land acquired, or the scale of certain land and infrastructure improvements.

The part I have to pick apart is this:

Under Oakland’s plan, the Central District of the city’s redevelopment agency would sell twenty- to thirty-year bonds to finance the land purchases and infrastructure upgrades. The bonds would then be paid back with property tax revenue generated by the ballpark and the surrounding planned development, which is to include housing, retail, and office space.

This is, of course, a classic TIF scenario. That’s not really a big deal procedurally since the site and surrounding area falls under one of two redevelopment districts. Gammon’s quick to equate what Oakland’s doing to what San Jose’s doing, but there’s a major difference, in that it’s $100 million of additional indebtedness to be incurred by the Oakland Redevelopment Agency. San Jose hasn’t had to raise any bonds and won’t have to raise any bonds for its project, so no additional debt there. If Wolff ponies up for the rest of the San Jose land, he may end up causing San Jose to forego a vote, the last remaining procedural hurdle. $20+ million for peace of mind and a green light from MLB? Not a bad investment.

While $100 million in RDA funds is not going to be up for voters to decide, it’s still not going to be a slam dunk politically. The big issue will be the cost of the land acquisitions and the possibility of eminent domain, which appears likely even in this early stage. If Oakland underestimates the amount needed to buy the properties, it will severely impact its ability to complete other parts of the project, whether it’s a parking garage or that pedestrian bridge. And given Peerless Coffee’s $30 million relocation estimate, acquisitions alone could break the bank. Legally, eminent domain proceedings can happen fairly quickly. Politically, they could prove difficult. And if Oakland lowballs as they did with Uptown? It could drag on for a while. Already another project in West Oakland is scaring landowners due to the potential use of eminent domain.


Not shown: Elevated Nimitz Freeway running through the area

Thankfully for Oakland, there’s a way to make it work within whatever the budget is. The easiest thing to do would be to scale things back a bit. This doesn’t mean that eminent domain can be ruled out, but it may be that Oakland won’t have to make lowball offers in an effort to stay under budget. It may even be able to pull off regular negotiations with affected landowners.

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned anywhere is that Oakland doesn’t need to acquire the Peerless Coffee parcel, or really anything else between Oak and Fallon Streets. It may want to pick up pieces of land at the northwest and southwest corners (Oak & 5th, Oak @ UPRR) to create nice public plazas for a ballpark, but it doesn’t need to grab all 20 acres. If you look at the way I’ve placed and oriented the ballpark in the above image, the footprint is well removed from Fallon St. Reduce the amount of land needed and it suddenly becomes much more feasible. Sure, there will still be the need to relocate a triplex, some warehouses, a storage facility, the fire training site (already acquired), and East Bay Restaurant Supply, but that’s a lot better than having to slog through negotiations with a dozen or more different landowners.  You may recall that San Jose’s land acquisitions started with 20-22 acres and were reduced to 14 in the end. The smaller ballpark requirement, less parking needed, and budget constraints all contributed to that eventuality. This is what awaits Oakland, though Oakland will create for itself hard limits on what it can spend. In San Jose, they can sell a piece of land here or there to shore up the fund, or  even depend on an old man’s kindness. In Oakland they’ll need to get it exactly right, or else it’ll fall apart. Quick note: Based on the numbers in the latest ORA budget report, this project would raise total TIF debt from $440 million to $540 million, an increase of 23%.

What I don’t understand is exactly why MLB is having Oakland put together 20 acres in the first place. I wonder what would happen if Oakland went to MLB and said, “Okay, we love the idea, but we’d like to scale it down to make it more feasible.” Would MLB be flexible, or would it have a hard line? If, as I’ve discussed previously, Oakland is a hedge, MLB should be pretty flexible in its requirements. If they aren’t, I might be a little suspicious…

Gammon ends with this:

In other words, for the A’s to move to San Jose, the league must conclude that Oakland’s ballpark plan is unviable. At this point, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

“At this point.” Well, yeah. No one’s had to work out the hard stuff yet. Clock’s ticking…

165 thoughts on “Setting Oakland’s table

  1. They like the waterfront site!

  2. i thought parks had to face towards the east?

    what would be the better view? as the image is shown above with a view of the estuary or looking towards the east where you’d get a view of lake merritt, oakland hills and downtown oakland skyline?

    nice thought but i still rooting for sj as i think that’s more realistic.

  3. @David–yes they do. According to Mark Purdy of the Mercury News, though, they hardly spent any time in Oakland, just SJ…lol.
    MLB spent some money too, with Populous, the designers of AT&T Park in San Francisco, to examine Oakland’s planned site for the new stadium.

  4. @David/jk-usa – Come on, the “waterfront” thing is a nice selling point, I suppose, but any kind of deep look at the site will show that as far as having waterfront features, the place pales in comparison to AT&T, PNC, and even Great American Ball Park. I can just see it now, people from out of town will be coming in and saying, “I thought this was a waterfront ballpark.” Then their companion will say, “Oh, there’s a little channel way back there. And the estuary across those tracks.”

    @letsgoas – GABP has a similar orientation to this. I don’t think hitters have suffered there as a result of the field orientation.

  5. @ML — the waterfront “look” would be part of the overall development of the area. No one was hanging out where AT&T is now, except ravers and homeless people, before the park was finished.

  6. @David – The Giants made it “waterfront” by building out into the Bay. It’s next to a marina. And a distinctive drawbridge named, coincidentally, after an old ballplayer. No one’s going to be able to do that at Victory Court. The place can be prettied up, but the Giants set the bar so high that there’s no way Oakland will reach it.

  7. that’s probably true. the bar is set high… but, i’ll take an east bay version of paradise, just the same!

  8. @ML–good, I don’t want it to be like AT&T anyway. It’s in down to earth Oakland, not snotty San Fran. Better weather, better fans, and of course a better team!

  9. @jk-usa – If it were a truly waterfront ballpark, you’d be claiming to high heavens that it was superior to AT&T Park!

    There’s a ton more substance to this – much of it sobering – than this waterfront business. Focus on the details.

  10. jk and David,
    What makes you think East Bay Express reporters have more credibility than Mark Purdy? Purdy only has a direct line to Lew Wolff and, by extension, MLB. Oh, that’s right, they’re feeding you what you want to eat (my bad yall).

    Not knocking Oakland’s effort (even if it is late); this should make a great backup plan in the event Diridon South completely blows up. Comments however from jk and David make for easy pickings. Realist “Oakland-only” A’s fans, I apologize.

    OT: it appears that San Jose won’t have to use eminent domain on the AT&T parcel, as a classic “Quid Pro Quo” will most likely occur; SJ rezoning AT&T-owned land near Santana Row from office to residential, in exchange AT&T agreeing to sell the Diridon South parcel to the city. Gas welding business should be no problem buying and relocating. Wolff buys the rest and it should be game over.

  11. I think the way it would be in Oakland is fine, it doesn’t need to be an AT&T copy. The views would make it unique in it’s own way. If there can’t be many direct views of the estuary so be it. When I have gone to AT&T I have never gotten a great view of the water. But it all depends where your sitting ofcourse, since if your close to the field you wont see outside of it much. I’ve never found McCovey Cove that amazing anyways, not like the estuary is an incredible sight but it could be more interesting in some ways. They do ofcourse have some great views of the open bay, but that’s their shtick. Oakland’s feal will have to be like a mix between Safeco and AT&T.

  12. Can we please just stop this “better weather” thing right now. Oakland has MARGINALLY higher temperatures in the summers, particularly in the evenings and at night when most games are played. Remember the Giants don’t play at Candlestick anymore, that great wind chill factor isn’t much of a factor at all anymore. And fact is, Oakland can get DAMN cold at nights too just like SF.

  13. @TonyD–No doubt Diridon’s a decent site and would be an okay back-up if VC fails, but you still have to get around that sticky TR’s issue.
    Should be very interesting how this all plays out in a month or two, or three….

  14. From a business perspective, when choosing between multiple choices, you also have consider the flip side of things if they don’t pan. If SJ stadium goes south after 10 years? No problem, city invests minimally in the land, rest of stadium is privately financed by LW….no bad blood between the team, MLB, and SJ. As for Oakland, if things go sour, oh man you’re talking about a project that is going to cost Oakland taxpayers close to a billion dollars. I doubt BS would want his legacy with supporting a losing campaign. Just some more rationale perspectives as opposed to knee-jerk reading responses….

  15. @ML – Yes, I do see that. I was making a point that SJ doesn’t appear to be such a slam dunk as some would have us believe. Of course, that is assuming the numbers in this article are to be believed.

    All else being equal – a beautiful park with potential views of the Oakland hills, the SF skyline, the bay bridge, and with a nice bay breeze? Or – a beautiful park absent some of those things? Which setting might attract more fans in the long-term for fan experience? A beautiful stadium and a revitalized Jack London just might be a better experience. Of course, this is just my personal opinion. On the other hand, I don’t think JLS is a slam dunk either. There is a lot more to this and I certainly don’t pretend to have any answers.

  16. @OakAsFan – That’s the problem. Things are not at all equal. Just as Oakland’s aesthetics won’t match SF’s, San Jose’s won’t match a revitalized Oakland’s (if it’s revitalized). Oakland can’t match San Jose’s wealth. Oakland has only started this grueling journey, and San Jose is almost finished.

    What I find funny is that Zennie quotes SJ Dist 6 Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio, citing him as someone who might be against the ballpark project. If he did any background work, he’d realize that Oliverio’s been a proponent since he joined the council, especially because the ballpark site is in his District! In Oakland, the ballpark site is in Nancy Nadel’s district. You think she’s onboard?

    On another note – Oliverio mentions this at San Jose Inside:

    One of the proposed exceptions that the Council denied in May 2008 on a 6-5 vote is back again with a different lobbyist. The same property owner also owns land where the proposed baseball stadium would be located. I met with the property owner representatives who said if the City would rezone this piece of land then they would consider selling the other piece of land to the City for baseball. I believe each rezoning should be judged on its own merits and not tied to a quid pro quo.

    I’ll give one guess as to who the property owner in question is.

  17. @ML – Agree 100%. The deck is stacked against Oakland. If this turns out to be a sprint to the finish line, SJ has it in the bag. They have obviously been on top of everything while Oakland is way behind. If, however, this turns out to be a hurried pace and not so much about who is leading the pack, I think Oakland may have a small opening for some of the reasons I mentioned above. I cannot accurately express what the revitalization of the area around AT&T park has done for SF. I have worked in downtown since the mid 90’s and witnessed the transformation. That area was a virtual wasteland and completely uninhabitable in those days, or so I thought. If Oakland could emulate that type of revitalization, JLS might prove to be a more sustainable long-term option in regards to the overall fan experience. As you said, Oakland couldn’t equally match SF’s transformation but given the location near the bay, I still think it could make for a great ballpark and entertainment area. What Oakland lacks, as you so eloquently put it, is the wealth of SJ. This I do not dispute. I would have to believe that, if Oakland is chosen for an AT&T-style location in JLS, there would be corporate sponsorship from companies domiciled all throughout the bay area, including those in SJ. In the grand scheme of things I do concur that SJ is definitely in the lead and that it will be quite difficult for Oakland. I understand the economics of this and SJ has the current backing of some pretty impressive players in SV. I just can’t help but think of 20-30 years from now, as a fan, and where I would rather watch a game. My short-term view sees SJ as the clear winner. My long-term view sees an opportunity near the bay that would be a thorn in my side if I was the decision-maker and chose against it. Again, this is just my personal opinion and I could very well be wrong. In other words, what I see as long-term benefits may not coincide with the ultimate decision-maker’s views.

    RE: Property Owner Guess: The suspense is killing me.

  18. @Tony — i am firmly grounded in reality. Please, please, do not misrepresent my contributions to this, or any other thread.

    @all — MLB, like the Victory Court site. They chose it. This is positive momentum for the city of Oakland’s attempt to keep the Athletics in the city limits.

  19. @David–it appears Oakland has had the momentum since Quan’s upset victory. SJ had the momentum during the ballpark renderings and when Silicon Valley companies were pounding their chests, but it’s all up to Bud now.

    • @David–it appears Oakland has had the momentum since Quan’s upset victory. SJ had the momentum during the ballpark renderings and when Silicon Valley companies were pounding their chests, but it’s all up to Bud now.

      Momentum? jk, you can’t ignore reality (well, maybe YOU can of all people), and reality dictates that ALL OAKLAND DID WAS ANNOUNCE THEY WERE GOING TO BEGIN AN EIR PROCESS FOR A POTENTIAL BALLPARK AT VICTORY COURT. Again, THAT’S IT! No naming rights partner, backing from the $VLG, funds to build a ballpark, 22 properties acquired/in the bag, no ground was broken. I still find it amazing that this simple announcement has made a complete mountain out of the proverbial mole hill, especially with the East Bay/SF media. EIR’s are announced, commenced around this state all the time, and the VC EIR will most definetely have other alternatives studied other than a ballpark; housing, mixed-use, commercial, etc. Momentum? It’s your world jk.
      By the way, SJ last night approved the rezoning of AT&T’s land near Santana Row for housing/office. Expect SJ soon to purchase the AT&T parcel at Diridon and all the land for Cisco Field should be in the bag.

      • fc is the winner. Sorry, no prizes. It goes to show that an impersonal behemoth like AT&T is looking out for only one thing – itself. For San Jose to have to choose between quid pro quo and eminent domain is really unsavory.

        @Tony D. – Not there yet. There’s still the welding supply company.

      • fc is the winner. Sorry, no prizes. It goes to show that a impersonal behemoth like AT&T is looking out for only one thing – itself. For San Jose to have to choose between quid pro quo and eminent domain is really unsavory.@Tony D. – Not there yet. There’s still the welding supply company.

        Hey RM, I should be the winner! Last night at 11:44? LOL of course ;o). You can have the trophy fc.
        I did mention the welding company at 11:44 but not at 8:36. I think in the grand scheme of things, the AT&T parcel was the largest and thorniest plot to acquire. I’m thinking the welding company should be easy for SJ (or Wolff) to acquire and relocate because of the smaller footprint.

  20. @Oakfan I see SJ as the long term winner for the simple fact that Victory court would be “AT&T lite.” As Jeffrey has stated in the past, a new ballpark needs to differentiate itself from AT&T. That’s why I believe JLS North and Uptown were such better plans and DIridon, with a downtown location farther from SF would, IMHO, be the best. Once the new ballpark shine wears off I worry that the choice for many potential season ticket holders will be the glamourous waterfront park in a world class city, not the park sandwiched between the freeway and the estuary in “down to earth” Oakland. VC will be great for A’s fans, but there aren’t many of us and the goal of the new park is fanbase expansion.

  21. @OakAsFan, I believe the land owner is AT&T.

  22. re: I still find it amazing that this simple announcement has made a complete mountain out of the proverbial mole hill, especially with the East Bay/SF media.

    The East Bay and Frisco media resent San Jose becoming more important than their own fading, past-their-prime towns. San Jose getting major league baseball would be further salt in the wounds. So Oakland announcing what is likely to be an exercise in futility (beginning an EIR for a stadium with no funds to build the place, no corporate backing, no land acquired, etc) is trumpeted as some great victory over the South Bay.

  23. “past-their-prime towns”? This comment is ridiculous. S.F./Oak/SJ are all doing just fine (relative to the ongoing economic depression, countrywide). SF is MLB champs! You guys can say whatever you want, but Oakland’s downtown is growing … all the bars and restaurants near the Fox theater are full Mon-Sun. And the Kaiser Permanente group is building like there is no tomorrow in Oakland. There are less cops in Oakland and SJ, but violent crime and murders were down in Oakland this year. The governor lives in Oakland. Feinstein lives in SF and Barbara Boxer lives in Oakland. I hesitate to remind the SJ crowd that their national candidates got destroyed in state-wide elections recently. Money can get you access, but it doesn’t always guarantee success.

  24. Which candidates got destroyed who live in San Jose? Which ones? Frisco and Oakland are now taking a back seat to San Jose economically and in global importance. Deal with it. Frisco has a nice old prison to visit, Fisherman’s Wharf, some neat bridges, a few other things. San Jose is the economic engine of the Bay Area.

  25. “Frisco has a nice old prison to visit, Fisherman’s Wharf, some neat bridges, a few other things.”
    I’m not one to defend SF but wow… just wow. Have you ever been to SF for an event? This year Fleet Week alone was estimated to have around a million visitors in that one weekend. That’s just one example. SF is not slowing down at all. Stop pathetically trying to downplay other cities.

  26. *some* people here like to speak to the silicon valley money and corporate support as an integral part of the SJ proposal for a baseball stadium. So, the residents of Atherton (Meg Whitman) and Carli (whats her name, from ) do represent the South Bay. The stuff about SF is silly. SF, will remain the cultural center of the bay area. I admit that freely, and i am a life-long east bay resident. SF, has Chevron, Bechtel, BofA … c’mon, be serious …

  27. @gojohn10 – Re: Differentiating the park from AT&T. You make very good points and I respect your opinion. Perhaps I am reaching to think that a beautiful park in a revitalized JLS would actually have the opposite effect. I have the opinion that, in that instance, fans would be faced with choosing between two world-class parks in revitalized areas with many things to do. It just might create a friendly competition between the franchises, i.e. who can produce the best product and entertainment. It seems that it could very well be an exciting time for bay area baseball if JLS actually became a reality. The A’s have a past blueprint for success where they out drew and out played the Giants (pre-AT&T) for a period of time so the fan base question, to me at least, is not one of my top concerns. On the other hand, fans would be faced with choosing between a waterfront park and a beautiful downtown SJ park. I have no doubt that the SJ park would attract many, many fans (present company included). My personal opinion, however, is that a rival park in JLS would be a bigger attraction. I say this with the caveat that it is done properly and that is the burning question. If the ownership/front office as well as local gov’t is committed to JLS, the community, and the fan base AND if they are committed to winning, a beautifully placed ballpark near the bay would, in my mind anyway, be a better choice. At this time it doesn’t appear that all of the players in this saga are singing the same tune. JLS without a full commitment from all parties will not work. The only place there is a consensus amongst all the parties, relatively speaking, is the site in SJ. Therefore, this is where everything is leaning toward at this time. I would agree that, despite the recent announcements, SJ still has a major lead. I believe this because the ownership doesn’t have any desire to stay in Oakland. Unless Lew has a change of heart and hints at being open to JLS or sells the team, even if MLB awards the stadium to Oakland I wouldn’t feel all that positive about it. For this franchise to work all parties must be in concert with one another. Again, these are all opinions of mine and I may be incorrect. More importantly, what I believe is irrelevant to this whole thing.

  28. So what does Wolff do if the recommendation comes back for Oakland? I think he’s already penciled out and knows it doesn’t look as profitable as San Jose, but owning an MLB team is a powerful drug, so he swallows his pride and works with the city.

  29. @baycommuter – Wolff sits back and waits, runs the team as he always has. If Oakland works out, MLB has to sell him on investing there. If they can come to an agreement, he does it. If not, he sells. I can’t help but feel that because of the time crunch, something is going to trip Oakland up and make it not work, making the move to SJ that much more plausible.

  30. @baycommuter – Either that or he sells. Re: profitability. I would love to be able to actually see the numbers that show a JLS stadium would be less profitable than an SJ stadium in the long-term. I would like to see whether or not these numbers include an assumption that a JLS stadium would not attract corporate sponsorship around the bay area. Since I’ll never be able to see those numbers I am at the mercy of whatever the media tells me.

  31. @OakAsFan – It’s not about profitability, per se. It’s about having enough revenue streams lined up in advance to take care of the debt service. For Oakland, MLB looks to be stepping in to help, but the onus is even more on ownership and the city to get the remaining revenue lined up. If there’s a spot where Wolff needs to step in, that’s the spot.

  32. Wow, if the initial reports are true, I must say I’m surprised and disappointed. But, at least we have an answer from the BRC, and hopefully we can quickly move forward.

    To steal a line from Baseball San Jose, “You’re up to bat, Oakland”

  33. Did Ballpark Digest aggregate a.k.a. regurgitate the Gammon article and assumed it was from the Winter Meetings the portions of the article about MLB and the waterfront comment? I don’t see how Maury Brown’s tweet and their article jive.

  34. @ ML – I do agree with you that the ownership/city need to step in and that’s exactly where my hesitation is. I do not believe they are on the same page and likely never will be. In your example where MLB will have to in effect push Lew into investing in the JLS location when he doesn’t want to (my words), I think that would be counter to what needs to happen to achieve overall success. All parties must believe in the product and, from what I gather, I am not confident Lew will ever change his mind on Oakland. To me this is the key. If MLB selects JLS, I believe Lew would sell his interests. I’m not privy to anything beyond what I read but the pro-Oakland ownership group from a decade ago was denied by MLB so my gut feeling is that MLB wants SJ period. This saga has gone on too long and the arrow has consistently pointed south for as long as I can recall. Notwithstanding what happens with the SF territorial rights, I think SJ is still far and away in the lead with the powers that be.

  35. @ML—curious as to why the SJ good neighborhood presentation was deferred from the agenda last night? Any insight….does it tie into the early indications that Oakland will be given another chance?

  36. Yeah, Wow!! If this is all true, all I can say is “I told you so!!” Thinking i’m crazy and all…bah humbug!!
    Have to find new ownership ASAP. If Wolff wants to stay on board and not be such a wet blanket, I’ll give him another shot. Maybe he can get involved in a new hotel and housing in the VC area.

  37. @OakAsFan – I’m with you there. The timeline is so compressed and and yet so fragile for Oakland that i have no clue as to how this would move forward. My guess is that MLB would buy the A’s the way they bought the Expos, then sell to the highest bidder. Would they start construction without resolving the ownership situation? I have no idea. There are so many questions that would stem from this that it could make my head explode.

    @GoA’s – I wasn’t there in November for the prep session, so I don’t know. All of the discussions have been focused on HSR recently.

  38. Looks like the NBA is about to buy the New Orleans Hornets, without a buyer in the pipeline.

  39. @jk–my guess is that LW might stay on while Oakland battles with the owners of the property expecting that they will fail–at that point if they do than I would expect that it would be an open door to SJ—-at some point if its Oakland I would expect LW and Cisco to walk away—A’s loss could be ‘9ers gain in naming rights—but bottom line–before you celebrate you gotta look at the boat load of work that Oakland has to accomplish in the next 2 years to start construction by 2012-2013–impossible–no—but improbable yes—-with Uncle Al watching from afar waiting for his turn at the trough–

  40. On a sidenote, makes one wonder if Beane’s going to stick around as part of ownership with things seemingly messier.

    Don’t know how the city on one hand fire cops left and right and at the same time pull something like this off, but I sure hope they’re able to figure something out. At the very least, it’s positive buzz for Oakland and not San Jose.

  41. I don’t even know why we bother with the media anymore on the issue of A’s new ballpark. MarineLayer has got this thing covered 100X better than these journalists. Please somebody write a letter to EBE explaining their flawed analysis.

    It’s also obvious the SF/East Bay hipster crowd would also rather root for a team in Philly than the San Jose A’s…

  42. quoted from the sfgate:

    “This is all speculative, but Ballpark Digest reports that the buzz at the winter meetings in Florida is that MLB’s committee tasked with finding the A’s a new home is about to recommend giving Oakland a chance to build it.

    If Oakland has a site, the money and the will to put together a ballpark package, we’re guessing MLB will take the safe route and recommend the team stay there, as opposed to creating a messy territorial battle by allowing a move to San Jose. Indeed, the talk at the Winter Meetings is that an Oakland recommendation is now pretty much a done deal — with the additional spin (albeit accurate) that this proved the committee was right all along in waiting things out before making a recommendation.

    New A’s Ballpark remains skeptical that Oakland can put together a site. But if it can, it raises the question of what the A’s ownership will do. Their options would be to work with Oakland on a new park near Jack London Square — backing down from Lew Wolff’s “San Jose or bust” comments — or to sell the team, as Wolff hinted in an Athletics Nation interview. Which one would probably depend on whether they think the rehoused A’s would be profitable enough to pay off the construction costs and allow enough payroll to field a competitive team.”

    Read more:

  43. I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes … but if this all true, then, santa claus has come to Oakland!!

    To all those who said/say Oakland is “broke, has no money, no plan, etc.”, clearly, MLB, does not agree!!

  44. @ David – I am highly in favor of a JLS location as I have previously mentioned in my posts. I will not relax, however, until I hear the final word from on high. Should that happen… it’s Silver Oak time.

  45. @OakAsFan – i hear you man. all we have right now, is the beginnings of an EIR … and even better, some support from the entity that matters the most: MLB!

  46. @ ML – Unless I missed something, I do not see one fan posting regarding these recent articles on AN. Do you have an opinion as to why this is not being discussed on that site? I may be incorrect but, when I began researching the A’s stadium woes awhile ago, I came to the conclusion that AN is overwhelmingly pro-SJ based on all that I’ve read. Could this simply be something that has been discussed ad nauseum and the posters on AN simply won’t waste their time discussing it any further?

  47. @Al – Thanks. I’m often wrong, frequently in doubt, still standing by every word. I don’t expect any media including the weeklies to devote much time or space to this narrow issue. That’s why this blog is here. People can love it or hate it, at least the work is thorough.

  48. If Oakland is the choice, I think San Jose should pull the Diridon site off as a possible A’s stadium. There were plans even before the A’s possible move to redevelop the stadium area and the area above because of the future transit plans for that area. San Jose needs to take back control of the planning for that area without depending on something that may never happen.

    If the High Speed Rail eventually gets build, I could see a big demand for office buildings adjacent to the HSR station. The A’s stadium took half of the area that they had allocated for these buildings. Note that the original development plan for this area was with the assumption that BART would be built to the Diridon station, no A’s stadium would be built, and no High Speed Rail would be built. And yes, San Jose would still buy the land where the A’s stadium would be so the whole area could be developed.

  49. Am i reading the same article as everyone else? The statements are purely speculative contingent on RDA funds, but fails to mention total cost (that ML has gone in depth before). Anyhow, still waiting to see an official announcement.

  50. @OakAsFan – The fan base is split. While there are a lot of Oakland city supporters at AN, they tend not to post much, instead commenting on fanposts. There’s more activity at some of the other sites in the blogroll. The SJ supporters tend to post more at AN. A while back, Blez (a NRAF) and I had a discussion about this site being the proper place for the ballpark discussion, and I try to foster it. Neither of us want AN overrun by stadium talk.

    @ST – Ballpark Digest is just doing their usual blurb thing, sprinkled with a bit of “inside” info.

  51. Yes, Oakland, which can’t keep the heat on in the schools and or keep police officers employed, has hundreds of millions for a ballpark. OK. Let’s see who comes forward to buy the team if it’s Oakland or bust.

  52. @pjk — you know san jose has cut emergency services, just like oakland has … i work in one of those schools that didn’t have heat. Well its been fixed. Its lunch time and i am blogging from my nice, warm, classroom!

  53. @Al, You are absoloutely right! This SF/EB hipster would rather root for the A’s being the Portland A’s, or the Las Vegas A’s, or hell even the Oakland A’s of Fremont before I root for the San Jose A’s. SJ is a nice suburb looking for an idenity with goobs of money. Nuture the Sharks, and let poor Oakland try to rectify itself with the development that would come with the VC spot….we need it a lot more than SJ does.

  54. re: @pjk — you know san jose has cut emergency services, just like oakland has …

    San Jose doesn’t need much money because a privately funded ballpark is planned. No one has stepped forward ready to do such a project in Oakland. A San Jose ballpark starts out with $130 mill from Cisco. An Oakland ballpark starts out with $0.

  55. A hipster would never admit to being a hipster. Duh.

  56. Just to be clear, if they can break ground on an Oakland ballpark, I’ll be on the first BART train to the first game. But I fear that MLB gambling on Oakland’s unfunded, unlikely-to-succeed plan will only delay the inevitable – the A’s leaving the Bay Area. San Jose presents right now a viable alternative.

    The lack of applause for A’s players the other day at San Jose’s Christmas Parade, combined with the thunderous reception for the Giants and their trophy, made me wish the situation was not so bad for Oakland. But it is.

  57. @ pjk – I understand your frustration with this whole affair. I do have a question for you. Let me preface this by saying that I see all of us, pro-SJ and pro-Oak alike, as A’s fans at the end of the day. My question concerns your comments about Oakland that I have read. Assuming some of these recent developments have some merit, why would MLB even take so much as a peek at Oakland if their financial situation is as bleak as you are suggesting? I would have to assume that this committee has been looking over this thing meticulously for nearly two years. Understand that I’m not arguing that Oakland doesn’t have its problems. I’m just curious if you are implying that this is all just bogus and that MLB is eyeing SJ all the way? If so, then the city of SJ must be in much better financial shape than Oakland and MLB must know about this.

  58. Oaksfan: I believe Oakland is still in the game, despite its neglect of the A;s and lack of funds, because going to San Jose opens up the t-rights can of worms and subjects MLB to questions about why it is kicking Oakland when it’s already down. Not good PR.

    I’m not implying MLB is ready to go to San Jose. I think Selig is too terrified to make such a bold move and will even leave hundreds of millions of corporate sponsorship dollars on the table to avoid making it.

  59. @ pjk – Understood. One more question. In regards to leaving $$$ on the table, do you not thing that corporations, no matter where they are in the bay area, will want to sponsor the A’s in a new venue near the bay in JLS? I can certainly see a company like Cisco, which has pledged big dollars for naming rights for a SJ stadium, would be irked by these recent developments. However, if I was the CEO of Cisco, after my anger subsided, I might want to still have a Cisco Park even if it is not in San Jose. Of course, I’m not the CEO and I may be way off base.

  60. It seems less likely that Cisco would sponsor a ballpark in Oakland instead of in San Jose, the heart of Silicon Valley and where their HQ are. Who sponsors the Coliseum, which has not one but two teams in it (A’s, Raiders), giving a corporation pretty much year-round exposure instead of only spring and summer? Nobody.

  61. You know someone is speaking from the wrong end of their body when they claim Oakland is in better financial shape than San Jose. Yeah, and I’m a better quarterback than Tom Brady. To say that the Ballpark Digest article was complete bull shit would be an understatement (see my first statement). Ah yes, and the media mole hill is now at Mt. Everest proportions. If Maury Brown states that he’s hearing nothing at the Winter Meetings regarding the “BRC”, then guess what; No Decision Has Been Made! By the way, I thought I’d read that Ballpark Digest article over the weekend, so curious as to why it’s now dated 12/8. Oh well, doesn’t matter I guess.

  62. Most recently it was McAfee from ’04-’08. For what it’s worth, the only thing I would add is that we’re talking about the sponsorship of a brand new stadium in a much better location. While it’s logical that local companies would be majority sponsors, I would be willing to bet that corporations from throughout the region would be willing sponsors. Of course, this depends on the franchise marketing efforts.

  63. “Messy territorial battle” if MLB grants the A’s San Jose? Shows you how much the idiots at Ballpark Digest know (I hope someone from there comes here to try and defend their crap). See anti-trust exemption and the fact that teams can’t sue each other or MLB. Also see the fact that territories have changed, been altered in the past many times; like that time MLB expanded the Giants territory to include Santa Clara County so that they could relocate to San Jose.

  64. Oaksfans: The Giants/Jets and Dallas Cowboys built stadiums counting on Big $$$ from selling corporate naming rights. Despite both stadiums set to host Super Bowls, the names of the stadiums today are The New Stadium at the Meadowlands (or something like that) and Cowboys Stadium. No corporation ponied up the money. With the A’s, MLB could be shooing away a signed deal for $130 mill. Some other company might offer only $45 mill for Oakland naming rights.

  65. This is a very precarious situation. I guess we will just have to wait and see how it all plays out. Of course, we are discussing this based on pure speculation and nothing concrete has even been formally announced.

  66. One interesting fact is that if this is accurate than LW himself was taken by suprise as he suggested on Monday in AN that these meetings would not be appropriate for a decision—be itnerestign to get his take on the rumor–

  67. @pjk, Have you seen the agreement that Cisco is going to pay $130Million for naming rights? What corporation in this environment would pay that much money for naming rights? I dont buy it! That number might sound sexy in the papers, but my logic tells me that is a gross overestimation of what Cisco or any major corp would pay for naming rights. If no one is paying that type of money for the Cowboys..America’s most valued team…why would you guys think Cisco will be willing to pay that type of cash for the A’s…

  68. The Cisco naming rights agreement was announced for the Fremont ballpark years ago.

  69. Exactly when the economy was doing good!! Trust me that agreement will be re-written and I am willing to bet it will be no where near that type of money!

    • Exactly when the economy was doing good!! Trust me that agreement will be re-written and I am willing to bet it will be no where near that type of money!

      You’re most likely wrong with your assessment regarding Cisco Systems. But let’s assume you’re right; if Cisco somehow will offer nowhere near the type of money it was offering in 06, what makes you think Oakland would get a naming rights sponsor period?! Cisco is a proud SJ/SV company that won’t takes its name (or money) to Texas or Oakland.

  70. There’s been no indication Cisco has backed out of the agreement. That will probably happen if/when MLB selects Oakland as the site of a new ballpark.

  71. Great. So another year or two delay while we wait for Oakland to pretend they’re going to do something, watch them fail, THEN San Jose might get it’s shot. The poor A’s are stuck in limbo a few extra years thanks to MLB.

  72. I have no doubt that a new state of the art ballpark anywhere in the bay would get a good naming rights sponsor, the question is who the sponsor could be if it’s for Oakland. I think there is a chance Cisco would stay onboard.

  73. @ Tony D. – I realize you’re asking TJ but I thought I’d take a crack at it. If we fast-forward and assume the JLS location is built, we are talking about a brand new stadium near the bay with, hopefully, a revitalized JLS area. It’s likely that this new park would be all in the news leading up to opening day. I’ll go a bit further and make a wild assumption that the park itself will, in the end, rival the beauty of AT&T (debatable, obviously). Given these circumstances I would think that there would be companies from around the entire region willing to sponsor the A’s. Once again, I will say that the success of a new park will be determined by the franchise marketing efforts.

    A question for you. What is your rationale to conclude that a JLS stadium would have difficulty attracting sponsors and advertisers? I’m not debating that Cisco is a proud SJ/SV company but I would like to see if there is any merit that they would outright refuse to advertise their name on a facility outside of SV.

  74. FWIW, the totally redone Oracle arena had no sponsor for many many years. San Jose’s arena had one in fairly short order after it was decided to sell the naming rights. And Oakland had the NBA as a tenant, offering a much higher profile than the NHL in San Jose.

  75. It’d be nice to know how the actual stadium will be paid for. Buying land and making improvements is one thing… Building it another.

  76. That is true. They signed a 10-year lease with Oracle in 2006 as the naming rights sponsor. Without knowing any specifics, I cannot accurately comment on the Warriors naming rights. I don’t know why they didn’t have anything for all of those years up until their deal with Oracle in ’06. Perhaps, as you are implying, Oakland itself was not such a hot item with corporations and they didn’t want to waste their time on naming rights to the arena. I don’t have a clue. The fact that Compaq signed on within 8 years of the arena opening shows that the arena in SJ was seen as a place to put corporate dollars so perhaps the San Jose name is more enticing for major corporations than Oakland. In any event, something must have changed in ’06 for Oakland because a major corporation (San Mateo Co.) decided to sign a 10-year agreement. Their other major corporate sponsors are Pepsi, Best Buy, Anheuser-Busch, Hewlett-Packard, McDonald’s, and UPS.

  77. San Jose did not even try to sell naming rights for several years. Once the Sharks got the OK, the naming rights were quickly sold. With Oracle, the building had no sponsor until Oracle, run by would-be Warriors owner Larry Ellison, bought the naming rights. We all know Ellison was not successful in acquiring the franchise so let’s see what happens with the naming rights when the contract is up.

  78. The Arena in Oakland was named after Oracle, long before Chris Chan decided to sell the Warriors. I believe Oracle ( owned by the richest man in the bay area) is a proud SJ/SV company. They seem to have no problem with their brand associated with Oakland.

  79. @Tony, I never said Cisco would be a sponsor for an Oakland Stadium, I just implied that the deal would not be a $130Million, since everyone was talking about the funding gaps. So my point was someone would have to make up the difference. Would that be San Jose or the A’s? The pro SJ crowd always seems to be implying Oaktown is not worthy of corporate naming rights or the A’s and some how SJ is. Corps are about making money, and as OakAsFan stated, if you place an upscale development along JLS trust me we will get some sponsorships, will it be the same dollar value as SJ…of course not…but overtime the scene and a winning product will change that. You guys the East Bay doesn’t have the wealth of SJ and it’s outlying areas…ok, but the East Bay does have it’s millionares and a billionare or two. Also looking at the trend of business relocating…go to the Business Times and see where most of the new up and comming corps are setting up shop….we got an better upside because SV is just about tap out for land use. Have you seen what we have available in Alameda County and Contra Costa?

    For you guys trying to equate the Warriors and Oracle, I belive you forget one very negative selling point of the Warriors….It’s the Golden State Warriors! So if you are trying to build brand by geographical location it’s not a great sale. A lot of people don’t know where the hell Golden State is. So I would estimate that has an issue with naming rights, additionally Chris Cohan is a notorious difficult business man who sued everyone to get his money…would you want to do business with him?Why do you think the NBA forced him to sell!! Also the whole reason the A’s; the Raiders; and soon the be the Warriors in seven years or so are looking for a new stadium? Because the Coliseum is old and there is no anciliary development around it to bring other revenue streams….so in my opinion you can’t compare the current complex with the potential of the newer ones…apples and oranges people.

  80. just read Zennie’s ridiculous take on 3 council members opposing re-zoning of ATT property–he is truly clueless—what was interesting again is he made the threat of a SF lawsuit against SJ–ironically–while the city of SF has worked to keep the A’s out of SJ they are probably making it easier for the ‘9ers to relocated down to Santa Clara assuming that Cisco might throw its $120+M the ‘9ers way—-gotta love that thought—considering that York was tricked into meeting with SF politico’s to try and promote their case–maybe there will be justice after all to all of SF’s meddling

  81. Let’s reset a few details about naming rights.

    First, MLB is supposedly offering a $130 million loan to Oakland if it gets the ballpark deal done. The fact that it’s the same number as Cisco’s naming rights deal is no coincidence. MLB and whoever the new owners will be tasked with getting the next naming rights sponsor. Why would Cisco not still be involved? Simple, Oakland’s not as accessible to them as San Jose (and previously Fremont) is.

    Next, Oracle signed a 10-year naming rights deal with the arena. It doesn’t even last the length of the lease. Now that Ellison has lost his bid for the W’s, do you expect him to renew? I don’t. The Coliseum Authority and the Warriors need Oracle, not vice-versa. Besides, Oracle’s name will probably be plastered all over Ellison’s aquatic center across the bay – the one he’s spending $150 million on. Meanwhile, Cisco will probably turn to a neighbor only a mile away in Santa Clara – the 49ers.

    The Cisco-A’s relationship is unusual because it was forged so early on. Normally, a naming rights deal is struck sometime around groundbreaking. All stadium operators have a target, whether it’s $1 million or $20 million a year, and their financing is based on that. Their strategy is always to go after the target number and reject others that are significantly lower in hopes of waiting for the big one to come in. Go lower and it’s a lower revenue stream, and you’ll never be able to recover that. Every subsequent deal is worth less. That’s why the Coliseum Authority couldn’t come to terms with Ross Stores. Though that’s probably a good thing – can you imagine the arena being named the “Ross Dress For Less Center”?. Yikes.

  82. @TJ, as a pro Bay Area fan I have to say that it is completely logical to question the Corporate support for a stadium in Oakland. It isn’t something people from (or in favor of a move to) San Jose just make up.
    This is no insignificant issue.
    Construction costs will be (projected) $461M. If you follow the Giants financing model, account for the 4% that was publicly financed not being publicly financed, then 50% of that comes from presales of tickets and naming rights… You have to come up with $230.5M in Charter Seats, naming rights and corporate sponsorships.
    San Jose has the backing of the SVLG. I wrote a post about it here. Basically, Silicon Valley has many companies that could pledge a fraction of a percent of their SG&A Budgets to the stadium in the form of sponsorships and tickets and they cover more than enough. Oakland… Not sure where that will come from.
    There is a loooong way to go. After the EIR, and during, MLB and the A’s will have a lot of money to secure. What happens in 2013 when they don’t have enough?

  83. @Jeffrey–good post…personally my biggest fear assuming that this rumor is true and that it is open ended–i.e–not contingent on Oakland making significant progress in 6 months–is that we will have lost the opportunity in the bay area with LW at the helm to get a ballpark built–and at some point the dreaded relocation will become much more likely–what bothers me the most is neukom ultimately and ends up with the market all to himself—arghhhhh

  84. OakAsFan – just want to thank you for taking in some of the many perspectives on the issues and articulating your stance. Much better than some of the nonsense from other folks….

  85. It is ludicrous to keep labeling Cisco’s old agreement for $130M as a “naming rights deal.” No company anywhere would pay anything remotely like that sum simply to name an arena anywhere in the U.S. The Cisco deal would involve much more, like the in-park techie features and adverts to showcase their wares. That’s something which would have value to them anywhere, including, potentially, Oakland. But to portray the Cisco deal as “SJ naming rights $130M, Oakland naming rights $0” is simply wrong.

    • It is ludicrous to keep labeling Cisco’s old agreement for $130M as a “naming rights deal.” No company anywhere would pay anything remotely like that sum simply to name an arena anywhere in the U.S. The Cisco deal would involve much more, like the in-park techie features and adverts to showcase their wares. That’s something which would have value to them anywhere, including, potentially, Oakland. But to portray the Cisco deal as “SJ naming rights $130M, Oakland naming rights $0″ is simply wrong.

      I guess FSU has never seen the latest Cisco Field renderings; they’re pretty awesome brah!

  86. What’s so hard to understand about the Cisco sponsorship? They want to be a naming sponsor to attract potential employees. Thus sponsorship dollars for a Fremont or San Jose park makes sense. Oakland? Not so much. If the San Jose park falls through it would make more sense for them to sponsor the 49ers stadium in Santa Clara rather than a park in Oakland.

  87. @FSU – Who’s characterizing it as only a naming rights deal? It’s been well-established that Cisco would use the ballpark as a tech showcase. Beats having to bid/pay for piecemeal telecom deals.

  88. FSU: See the old Cisco press release: “Cisco will purchase the naming rights to the ballpark. This 30-year deal is valued at $4 million annually, with the potential for annual increases based on inflation. This naming rights agreement is transferable at any time. As a part of the naming rights deal, Cisco will be granted an undisclosed amount of guaranteed print, radio and television exposure.” It is applicable to SJ now (if ever granted) as witnessed by the many SJ stadium pics. Note also the SVLG letter signed and endorsed by JOhn Chambers, CEO of Cisco (without mention of Oakland). What part do you not understand?

  89. @ML: No doubt. The point, though, is that arena naming rights exclusively aren’t worth anything near $130M, as you well know (see: Giants/Jets). And the tech display showcase part, from which Cisco would derive the real value, can work regardless of the ballpark’s zip code. So for some (not you) to suggest that Cisco would spend $130M in the South Bay and not a dime anywhere else is to ignore why Cisco wants to spend this money in the first place…to pimp their products, which are not location-specific. Which is why (among other factors) the “San Jose has $130M, Oakland has $500K” formulation that so many spout so blithely is utter nonsense.

    @A’s Fan: Naming rights to attract potential employees? ROFLMAO.

  90. Baseball Digest Story shot down by LW: “However, A’s co-owner and managing partner Lew Wolff, when informed of the report, immediately shot down the notion, reiterating what he’s told media for months.。。。。 Furthermore, Wolff noted that “Major League Baseball can tell us where we can’t go, but they cannot tell us where to go.” Well the fun lasted for a day at least. 😉

    • Baseball Digest Story shot down by LW: “However, A’s co-owner and managing partner Lew Wolff, when informed of the report, immediately shot down the notion, reiterating what he’s told media for months.。。。。 Furthermore, Wolff noted that “Major League Baseball can tell us where we can’t go, but they cannot tell us where to go.” Well the fun lasted for a day at least.

      All those ridiculous comments from earlier in the day (no need to mention names ;o) now seem, well, EVEN MORE RIDICULOUS!

  91. FSU: I think you’ve missed out on the past few months of this discussion. When asked on MSNBC? why Cisco doesn’t sponsor Giants stadium, CEO JOhn Chamber responded to the effect of “because we’re based in San Jose”. The deal is already there in print, in writing, publicly available on Cisco site to see. Where are the 500k Oakland deals?

  92. @FSU – True. It’s unfair to compare the Cisco/SVLG pledge and the $500k in East Bay pledged dollars. The actual dollar value of East Bay suites, sponsorships, etc. is worth tens of millions, perhaps nine figures. That said, I think Cisco is much more invested in the South Bay than anywhere else. Anywhere else, the stadium is just another customer.

  93. @TonyD–“the latest Cisco Field renderings; they’re pretty awesome brah!”
    Really? Hmm. Well, it looks better then the Coli, but would fall in the lower 3rd of the new parks. Tiny, bland bandbox with 32k is disappointing to say the least. I hope VC park @39k is as nice or nicer than AT&T. I’m ready to put my deposit in for 2 season tix as soon as we get the green light.

  94. Whatever you say jk, whatever you say. VC/ Oakland getting the “green light?”. How about just plain getting green! As in $$$$….

  95. @ ST – Much appreciated!

  96. @TonyD- As i said earlier, i’ll let them bask in their 15 minutes of happiness. 😉
    @OakAsFan – NP! 🙂 As you noted, in the end, we’re all A’s fan regardless of our stadium / city preference. That gets lost in all this stadium talk….

  97. @OakA’sFan–watch out for ST. He may be kind to you at first, but if you get too pro-Oakland, he gets a little crazy. Just click on his ST. He’s rolling on the floor laughing his fat ass off, thinking an Oakland ballpark is all a pipe dream. He had my name on there for awhile, making fun of me. We shall see the end result soon, and I may this guy eating his words. I might even accept an apology from him, but am not counting on it.

  98. @ Tony, After waiting two years for MLB to make a decision, nothing seems ridiculous anymore.
    For several hours this afternoon I think I had a better understanding how the pro Oakland crowd feels. For though the As don’t currently play in San Jose, I felt like San Jose had lost the A’s, much like how Oakland may lose the A’s. The thought of not seeing the A’s play at Diridon was frustrating and depressing. Now I may have to relive these emotions again sometime in the near future should MLB in fact side with Oakland, but if they don’t, I think I’ll have a little more compassion for those who will have “lost” a baseball team which is near and dear to their hearts.

  99. LW has made one of the most important points that many have overlooked in their zeal to think that things are moving forward…”MLB can tell us where we can’t move, they can’t tell us where we have to move—say hypothetically Oakland gets the nod..and LW decides to retain ownership, refuses to invest in a new ballpark in Oakland deciding to stay in the Coli and collect his $30+M in annual welfare from the other MLB owners and still realize a profit….and now he has handcuffed Oakland and any deal they want to do with the Raiders because he has no plans to leave the Coli and they would have to either build him a new ballpark or kick him out….and down to SJ. My guess is that there will be many more twists and turns before this is all over…..and LW hasn’t even begun to show all of his cards.

  100. @fc–nice post.

    I’ve been an A’s fan since 1971, watching well over 1000 games in good years and bad years, in front of 58k fans and 1000 fans and I’ve enjoyed every minute of it. The mustache gang, the dinger days of the late 70’s, Krazy George and the wave, smelly banjo guy, the bash brothers, the drummers in left field, the 20 game winning streak (Tejada coming up big in a bunch of those games), the local Oakland boys Eck, Rickey and Stew..I can go on and on. . I will miss the Coliseum, even this ugly version when they tear the sucker down, but feel the team, the fans and the city deserves a better venue like every other mlb club the last 15 years. Many of the Coli workers have been there for over 20 years and live in the area. I doubt they would get hired in SJ. Too expensive to travel that far for most for part time work.
    The team and the Town they play in is so near and dear to my heart. A SJ move will just about break it. Oakland is on the comeback with a lot of exciting things happening, and is due for some positive news for a change. The Town needs a new park more than SJ does.

  101. @ jk – Duly noted and thx for the tip.

    In all honesty, it is disheartening to see how there are “factions” as a result of all of this. I have made it clear that I am pro-JLS and, although I am in this camp, I still consider myself an Athletics fan first. Having said that, I am sincerely hoping that all A’s fans will come together to support the team regardless of location. I work in SF and I am surrounded by Giants fans and I am tired of feeling like we are second fiddle to them. I grew up 15 minutes from the Coliseum and have been an A’s fan since I was a toddler. My fondest memories are attending games at the pre-Mt. Davis ballpark during the Haas era with the sun shining brightly on a perfect Saturday afternoon shouting “Let’s go A’s.” The A’s were firing on all cylinders during this period and I sure miss it. My preference is to fire on all cylinders once again in a beautiful JLS location, which I hope the pro-SJ crowd will support. If it’s SJ at the end of all of this I will be there.

  102. jk – im sorry you are a bitter, hateful person. regardless if there is a sj or oakland stadium, i will always be the better man and apologize if i offended you. hopefully guys like oakasfan can show you that we are one fan base, regardless of our locale. it is my hope that one day you will come to realize that and put this childish oak vs. the world attitude is put aside…./cheers

  103. i still don’t understand how the brc would recommend anything but sj at this point. we all know selig basically handpicked his college frat buddy wolff to buy this team. selig has had it in for the city of oak even saying the a’s moving to oak was mistake nearly a decade ago in an interview that’s been widely used as anti selig propoganda by the anti selig a’s fans. we all know about the tabeling of the dolich group back in the late 90s. now all of sudden he’s gonna rule in favor of the city he’s basically spat on for over a decade publicly?

    i’ve said it before i just want a new park so this franchise and fan base can’t stop being in limbo which they’ve been really since the haas family sold the team and then the coliseum being ruined for the raiders.

    i just feel at this time sj is the most realistic and probably makes the most best business for the a’s franchise as a whole.

  104. @letsgoas, I had those exact thoughts myself. When Selig asked Wolff to consider becoming an owner, he had to have known Wolff’ had his eye on San Jose. I’m sure no assurances were made, but still, to force Wolff to keep the team in Oakland is puzzling.

  105. lga, I listened ot that gammon interview yesterday. Dale Tafoya is the MAN!
    I wonder if anyone else felt like I did listening to it, though. Dale seemed to be saying “this is a done deal” while Robert seemed to be saying “we still don’t really know.” Especially the end “keep your rally hats on.”
    Robert Gammon has done a great job of covering this whole saga from waaaaaaay back. He has morphed into a bit of an Oakland cheerleader, not that there are enough of those in the local media, but he is definitely covering this better than anyone at any media outlet in the Bay Area.

  106. Why would MLB loan Oakland 130M and still give them revenue sharing dollars when they do not have to?

    Look guys, if the A’s build in Oakland they will still be draining $$ from MLB. Not as much but still at least 10-15 M a year. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Milwaukee and Arizona all get revenue sharing $$ despite having new or renovated stadiums.

    With MLB not making a decision at the Winter Meetings it is over for another year. BS has never been known to call “ad-hoc” meetings during after December with the owners.

    I am shocked the City of San Jose does not sue MLB for violating anti-trust law and challenge their AE in court. They would win hands down as some have even argued the AE doesn’t even extend to territorial rights. (Raiders vs. NFL and Clippers vs. NBA are the prime examples)

    The VC site has so many transportation, infrastructure, and eminent domain issues it would cost $300 M just to provide the right infrastructure for a ballpark there and then on top of that have a 400M ballpark built.

    Then comes the issues of having to relocate 16 businesses! 16? Really guys? That will take years and years to happen. It is not like Oakland has a lot of land available in general as every piece of real estate pretty much has a big built out component to it already.

    San Jose on the other hand just struck a deal with ATT and now just needs to move one welding station and the land is 100% theirs. Of course SJ has an EIR signed sealed and delivered.

    If MLB does in fact go with Oakland it will end up in a hole because when they complete the EIR on the VC site it will come up with all sorts of infrastructure costs that the City of Oakland did not expect (SURPRISE!) and they will quickly back off…forcing the A’s back to square one.

    Lew Wolff knows this full well and there are some in the City Council that know this too but want a new owner to pay for all of this (Ballpark + Infrastructure). That will never happen without not only a loan of 130M from MLB but also another 200M of redevelopment funds which Oakland does not have.

    It is so sad to see this happen as the A’s are being cornered by the Giants for no reason then for selfish reasons….This coming from a Giants fan of 20+ years writing this but from San Jose.

  107. @Sid – you talk as if this is “lord of the flies” or something … the adults in SJ, OAK and with MLB, are going to here everything out and make measured decisions. You and I don’t have a say, or have to agree with that decision. Going on and on and on, about Oakland’s leadership and fiscal realities, isn’t getting us anywhere (new). Maybe, MLB likes Oakland. Selig is just one powerful member of MLB, but he is not a dictator. The other owners, must like something about giving Oakland a chance to get it done. Maybe your junior senator (Barbara Boxer) is a little more powerful than Alan Selig.

  108. Tweeted Maury Brown about the recent reports

    RT No way around the Giants @gojohn10 : What do you make of the recent reports that MLB will recommend Oakland and not San Jose?

  109. Does San Jose even want the A’s? Anybody else see the A’s players and mascot ignored at the Christmas parade while the Giants and their trophy were celebrated? Why give the people of San Jose something fabulous if they don’t even want it? Maybe San Joseans would rather drive 45 miles to Frisco than having MLB in their backyard.

  110. Well, if this is truly it for SJ, then congrats to Tha O! The important thing is that a decision has been made. (if reports are true) Now let’s get te process goin and get this thing built. BTW, if your out there Dennis H, I read your post from last night before ML removed it. Stay classy! (sarcasm)

  111. can we get a shovel in the ground. Anywhere?

  112. Now, all Oakland needs is $1 billion to $1.5 billion for the team, land, condemnation proceedings, business relocations, highway improvements, ballpark construction and they’re all set. Even if Oakland had the $$, which it doesn’t, all this would still take 5-10 years, I’ll bet. MLB will probably find itself in the same dead end in a few years. Hopefully, San Jose will sue.

    Thanks to the courageous Bud Selig, who is apparently willing to leave hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate sponsorships on the table rather than put Neukom in his proper place.

  113. David,
    When did the other MLB owners say they would give Oakland another chance? Answer: THEY DIDN’T!
    And you forget that Boxer is also the Senator for SJ/SV, not just Oakland. I tell yah, despite the facts presented (no “BRC” news and Giants not controlling this situation), people like David are still clinging to nonsense and bull shit.
    Again, to the realist Oakland-only A’s fans, I’m not knocking you; just those wearing the tin foil hats and rose colored glasses.

  114. Pjk,
    You can’t make a generalization like that based solely on who was at the parade, who showed up. Heck, many of the 100k attendees could have come from outside SJ, the Peninsula for all we know.
    As for Anderson and Cahill they were swarmed by autograph seekers at the parades Baseball San Jose booth. See the BBSJ website for some cool pix.

  115. Guys–do not assume that an Oakland decision will push LW to 1) sell or 2) do anything but the status quo which is to remain in the Coli–by keeping the status quo he will exercise signficant influence over 1) any effort to build a new venue for the Raiders and 2) where he will consider building in his existing territory. More than likely if Oakland wants to do something at VC, LW will want a significant public subsidy and he will have the leverage to request this as staying in the Coli creates a whole host of problems for Oakland. LW said it best–they can tell me where I can’t build but they cant tell me where to build–

  116. tony d – Well, we’re in a situation where the A’s want to move to San Jose and the Giants are deliberately trying to keep San Jose from getting MLB. You’d think the Giants would have been booed under these circumstances and the A’s cheered.. But they weren’t – they were cheered and the A’s were ignored by the crowd.

  117. @pjk–come on man—I now lots of gints fans locally that are thrilled they won the ws and just as thrilled at the prospect of the A’s moving to SJ–your connecting dots that aren’t meant to connect

  118. I hope you’re right. But it was very disappointing to see people gushing all over the Giants, who want to deny San Jose a fabulous opportunity, and ignoring the A’s, who want to give us a fabulous opportunity.

  119. @GoA’s –the A’s lease @ the coliseum is over in 2013. If they don’t want to play @ CAL or Stanford they (wolff and fisher) better play ball with someone…. Or does wolff want to ask neukom to play @ AT&T for a few years?

  120. @David–no one can hold an owner hostage that he must invest $500M of his own money in Oakland or lose his lease at his current ballpark. Of course if Oakland chooses to do that than what more does LW need to show that he needs to move from Oakland—come on–simple logic here

  121. @GoA’s: uh, no one is holding wolff hostage. But he has to play ball with someone, is all i was saying. You tried to say that somehow, wolff had some “power” over the coli and Raiders’ situation. Well, i beg t differ.

    MLB baseball teams are not like your average business. If so, we wouldn’t be on this blog.

  122. MLB owners cannot tell LW to do what no other owner has done–which is to invest their own money in a ballpark—you are underestimating the leverage that he has in this situation assuming Oakland is chosen–

  123. Serious question: how and with what would Oakland repay a $130M loan from MLB?

  124. i’m not saying anyone will or can, make Wolff build a stadium in Oakland. You asserted that Wolff has power over the coli in some kind of quasi-squater deal, where he can screw things for the Raiders. Wolff has few options: SJ, or Oakland, or sell.
    the last point i’d like to make is this: Wolff says he has “exhausted every option in Oakland” clearly, other folks who have a say in the matter, disagree with ol’ Lew on that issue. Makes some people wonder what else Wolff is being disingenuous with …

  125. @cuppingmaster — that money would come to Oakland, i guess, if Wolff were going to sell the team.

  126. @pjk–interesting observations on the parade in SJ with all the G fans. Like you said, does SJ really want the A’s? The consensus around the bay is to try keep them in Oakland, and it looks like MLB is leaning that way. The hurdles for the VC site, I admit, are rather high and I hope all doesn’t blow up. Like ML said, you can cut that parcel down to 14-17 acres and leave Peerless there, and just deal with the other big one, Eastbay Restaurant Supply. I’m hoping LW/JF sells ASAP and our white night shows up to put some positive energy and $$$ into this plan.

  127. @cuppingmaster–I believe the $130M loan to Oakland would be paid off by naming rights/sponsors—which means if Oakland cant deliver here than they have some additional exposure

    @David-once again Wolff has an existing home—if Oakland says they want him out and are not willing to build him a new one than they have just strengthened his case that he needs to be allowed to go to SJ–simple as that

  128. @David – Wolff could actually make things difficult for the Coliseum Authority and the Raiders by asserting that parking was threatened by the new stadium if they were to start construction of it in, say 2012, while the A’s still had to play there for two more seasons. That start date is unlikely due to EIR timelines, but it’s still possible. The Warriors could make a similar claim.

  129. @GoA’s But they are not likely to secure $130M in stadium naming again. Plus, you can’t count other “general sponsorship” because that would be part of the team’s general revenue stream. So, if they can only get a $60M naming sponsor, then the city ponies up? And if they do, how do they plan to pay? By issuing bonds?

  130. @cm—exactly—how they pay I have no idea—

  131. Jk and David,
    Yet more of the same nonsense: consensus crap, which way MLB is “leaning,” disputing Wolff’s assertion that all options in Oakland have been ruled out, ignoring reality, etc etc.
    As I did with Navigator last year (the only one to ever get banned from this blog), I now declare that I will cease responding to any of your ludicrous posts.
    Its just turned into one big waste of energy. FACTS BE DAMNED! Peace you two!

  132. @ Tony D – no skin off my nutz! Paz!!

  133. @TonyD–what the hec’s up with you? I sense your frustration over all of this, but chill out a bit. Our posts may seem ludicrous to a lot of you, but not to me. I miss Navigator’s posts. Must of gone too far to get banned. I’ve toned it down quite a bit and am still on here believe it or not.

  134. @David- Lord of the Flies you say? Try being using some “business logic” and you will see what I am saying is pretty much in line with why Lew Wolff didn’t build at VC years ago.

    I am sure if the City of Oakland and MLB got Lew Wolff to sit down and they said:

    MLB and Oakland: “Look Lew we know you want to move to San Jose but if we use 200M-300M in Redevelopment funds to re-do the existing transportation infrastructure at VC and MLB loans you $130 M to build the park why not build in Oakland?”

    Lew Wolff: “I still need $330 M (460M-130M) and there is such a small private sector in the East Bay and half those companies probably support the Giants 10 miles away anyways. Where am I going to get the rest of the money? I can put in maybe 150M from the team now and I still need 180M to finish this. Where is that money going to come from? It won’t come from Cisco if we build in Oakland”.

    MLB and Oakland: “That is your problem not ours.”

    Lew Wolff: “Exactly what I thought, so we are pretty much screwed at the Coliseum forever because Giants won’t do what is best for baseball, Wally Haas was a great man but a brain dead moron for giving Santa Clara County to Giants, nice guys always finish last and he is rolling over in his grave right now”.

    Oakland: “Pretty much, we deserve a privately financed ballpark and who cares if you lose money?”

    Lew Wolff: “You all can kiss my old white behind and I am going to sell the team to ANYONE who has the highest bid, I don’t care if they move the team away from the Bay Area. This is a business, why can’t you see it makes business sense to move the team to San Jose where we are further away from the Giants?, or I will just sit at the Coliseum and make $$$ and just not care anymore, screw the Raiders!”

    MLB: “Bud Selig is a coward and there is nothing we can do about it, that AE that was given to us in 1922 is killing everything right now but we must preserve it.”

    Lew Wolff: “I know Bud is a coward from my Wisconsin frat days with him, he was always the Den Mother, now he an old den mother! Even worse! Why did I buy this team?”

    Oakland: ” Sell to a Pro-Oakland owner”.

    Lew Wolff: “Any half brain dead idiot can see San Jose is a much better location than Oakland for a pro franchise. Plus you guys have screwed the team so many times over the years why should I trust you? or why would the next guy?”

    MLB and Oakland: “We know we suck and we are dumb but give us a chance, we will only blow twice as big this time as we have no financing plan and Oakland is broke”.

    Lew Wolff: “Bahahah!, we are going to rot here in Oakland and collect welfare from the league forever, hey at least I am making money had over fist but will never be able to keep talent or attract free agents and play second fiddle to those orange and black jerk-offs across the Bay. Not to mention I will screw Al Davis and the City in the meanwhile, that is some consolation!”.

    MLB and Oakland: “Its like that?”

    Lew Wolff: “Its like that!”

    As you can see this is what will happen if they cannot come to San Jose. Why would Lew Wolff sell the team if it is making $$ of welfare? He won’t and to spite MLB and Oakland he will sit around and do nothing. If the city does not let him renew his lease he will then ask MLB to contract the team and pay him off or he will move the team himself if he cannot sell it.

    Do we really want to do down this path?

  135. @Sid – no one believes the scenario you just wrote is possible … and i don’t think lew wolff is type to throw the type of temper tantrum you described.

  136. Sid: That all sounds about right. Instead of putting Neukom in his place, Selig cowers in fear. It’s as if he took the commissioner’s job thinking it would be a lot of fun, like going fishing or something. All of a sudden he’s called on to make serious. controversial decisions so he just dodges it all and does nothing. It’s pretty obvious the so-called “blue ribbon committee” report recommends San Jose. That’s why it’s never seen the light of day.

  137. @Sid You’re forgetting the final part where Lew waits until the economy gets better and moves the team outside the Bay Area. Oakland then becomes Giants territory and Neukom cackles all the way to the bank.

  138. Re: Oakland: “Pretty much, we deserve a privately financed ballpark and who cares if you lose money?”

    that’s right – Oakland feels entitled to the same deal Frisco got but Oakland aint Frisco in terms of business and fan support and the economy is terrible, as opposed booming in the 90s when PacBell Park was financed.

  139. @David- while Sid’s portroyal is a bit dramatic I have no doubt that LW will feel any need to stroke those who he feels a bit screwed by–whether that be neukom, selig, oakland …..and btw—he has alot of control over this situation and he asked for a very simple thing that most find business logic in but MLB couldn’t figure out….at the end of the day pittsburg, which has a great new ballpark, is one of the lowest valued franchises in MLB–

  140. Sid – you made my week! 😉

  141. pjk – have faith. there’s quite a number of south bayers that are season ticket holders (i was a couple of years ago until my recent position made me travel 50% of the time, but still attend at least 5-10 games a year when i can). if i was at the parade, even as a die hard a’s fan, i would give the giants props for winning the WS (wouldn’t you want giants fans to do the same for the a’s). The key here is again that the Bay Area should be a 2 team market, period and not divided among TRs. JMHO…

  142. There’s already a poll. It’s conducted every season over the course of 81 games.

  143. “Most fans, in all candor (notwithstanding the pro San Jose folks here) are much more excited about having a new stadium close to the water than to the concrete and highrises of San Jose.”

    Another aquaphilic Oakland poster? Honestly, what is the obsession with playing somehwat near the estuary? Water has nothing to do with baseball, and I’m pretty sure concrete is not exclusive to San Jose’s buildings.

  144. A question about redevelopment funds. Oakland ‘s Central discrict has the most redevelopment funds. Does this mean this district has the best ability to pay for the costs of land required for a stadium? Is this why Victory Court was chosen?

  145. @Ethan – I’m sure that had something to do with it. ORA’s budget numbers clearly favor Central over any other district.

  146. @David- I am putting a nice “satirical” spin to it but in reality I am dead on what Lew Wolff’s thought process is.

    I have agree with JK-usa at this point on that BS does not have 75% vote from the owners to move the team….Yes JK…..this may only happen once in a lifetime us agreeing on something.

    Steve Schott had the 75% vote in 2004 but there have been several ownership changes since then and that includes both the Giants and A’s. I think BS thought the vote would be as easy as what Schott did back then but in reality that is not the case and the new owners around the league do not think the same on some level.

    Hence the long delay and Oakland finally took the cue and started to do something when in reality they should have saw this about a year ago.

    Even with Oakland moving forward their proposal is going to cost far more money and take far more time in a less affluent area when it comes to the private sector and fan base than San Jose.

    MLB really screwed up locking themselves out of Silicon Valley now Oakland has to try to pull something out its ass at the 11th hour when we all know it is futile for the simple reason no logical businessman would spend 500M to build in Oakland without a huge public subsidy or a large private sector to support it.

    A’s are screwed at the Coliseum for years to come….Lew Wolff and John Fisher will make $$ and take the other owners money to spite them rather then sell. In turn the Raiders will move to Santa Clara with the 49ers costing the City of Oakland more than they ever thought.

    As we all know the Coliseum cannot be remodeled for baseball anymore and once the Raiders leave then MLB will be forced to contract the A’s in order to save $$.

    Very sad league you run Bud Selig….What a coward.

  147. Sid,
    Respectfully, you forget that MLB can do whatever the hell it wants. Again, the anti-trust exemption, the FACT that the Giants don’t own the T-Rights to SCCo. and the FACT that when MLB/”BRC” makes its decision the Giants won’t be able to do anything legal about it. I also disagree that Selig doesn’t have the votes to overturn the T-Rights. Just last month in the AN interview Wolff himself stated he talks to almost all the owners of MLB due to his work on various committees. I’m sure they all know by now what’s at stake in the Bay Area. By now they are also pretty likely to be aware that an A’s franchise in San Jose won’t hurt the Giants one bit; no loss of corporate sponsors (since very little existed to begin with, thanks to the SVLG survey of last year) and fans, since most Giants fans (even those supporting the A’s in San Jose) won’t jump ship on their team.
    Like I’ve stated before, I believe the real reason we haven’t heard anything from MLB/”BRC” is because, well, San Jose hasn’t provided anything to vote for or consider…yet. The AT&T parcel will fall soon, leaving the welding supply parcel left to acquire. Once San Jose TRULY has All it’s ducks in a row (not just most), then I believe we will get a decision from the “BRC.”

  148. @ST–I have my built-in hide/ignore button I will use on your posts for now on. I’m tired of your same old same old and am done with you. You are the crudest, meanest of the pro-SJ bunch. Sid, pjk and Briggs are pretty cool. TonyD needs some help, but is not as bad you. Please, do me a favor and don’t reply or mention me EVER again and I’ll do the same. Thank you.

    @Sid–Oakland’s gonna pull out a nice shiny ballpark out of their ass. It will be quite a feat, I know, but believe it can be pulled off.
    I don’t think the Raiders will go to SC. I know people in that area do not want the Raider Nation and all it will bring to the area. And that wasn’t part of the vote, having both teams there, which would also take even more parking on Sundays away from Great America. Not the ideal spot for a stadium. A new Coli for both teams would be pretty cool. I hope the York’s jump on board, but it doesn’t look like it at this point.

  149. @Tony- I respectfully disagree. San Jose is so much further along than Oakland is why not move forward now?

    I agree with your assessments overall but because of the AE the owners have provide a 75% vote to overturn the Giants T-rights to San Jose. Therefore if the vote was there they would have moved forward already.

    If baseball was going to make $$ and it was the right thing to do then why has it not gone to a vote and moved forward? They just had owners meetings in November and Winter meetings that concluded yesterday and it has been almost 2 years since the BRC was appointed.

    BS knows he can’t move forward until he has this vote in hand. If it is even a question then he will sit and do nothing hence what he is doing now.

    San Jose wanted to move forward with a vote and BS said straight to Chuck Reed and said he would pay for a spring election but where is the decision?

    This on top of the fact Oakland sat and did nothing made things even worse. It caused a stalemate across the board.

    I want to see the A’s in SJ for the simple reason they will survive for years in the Bay Area in that sub-market. The South Bay is far more lucrative than the East Bay from a corporate and affluent fan base standpoint.

    At the end of the day I believe the vote is the lingering issue as there has not been one in 2 years and that is the KEY to the whole thing.

  150. One other note Sid. If Selig didn’t have the votes for this, or if they were truly going to give Oakland another shot, then
    1) this committee would have never come into existence or 2) he would have called off/terminated the committees work months ago by declaring “our committee has come to the conclusion that the A’s should remain in their current, designated territory and SCCo should remain under the control of the SF Giants.”

  151. Respectfully Sid,
    I guess we can agree to disagree, no problem with that. But ask yourself this: why wouldn’t the other owners vote to allow the A’s to simply move 35 miles south to San Jose?
    Facts are 1) the Giants have SCCo for one reason and one reason only, 2) territories have changed/been altered many times in MLB ‘s past, 3) other two team markets are shared territories and 3) I’m confident the other owners (with Wolff’s help of course) can read a map of the Bay Area.
    Last comment from me on this thread: MLB is in control here, not the Giants and Bill Neukom.

  152. @jk-usa- Oakland will never get it done. Not without a huge public subsidy to build it. Not just redevelopment but general funds to makeup for a lack of private sector in the general area. This is how similar cities such as Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Arizona, and a few others got it done.

    San Jose may not get the team but Oakland will never get anything done as they picked their poison by dealing with the Raiders years ago.

    Sorry dude, but you need to realize the economy screwed over Oakland. I truly believe 8 years ago the taxpayers would have paid for it in the East Bay but the politicians (Jerry Brown) did not let it happen.

  153. @Tony D- I agree with your statements except you do not take into account that BS thought this would be “easy”.

    He hit road blocks he did not foresee and that is the real problem.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.