The Chronicle’s Raiders beat writer Vittorio Tafur has a pretty big scoop: the Raiders and 49ers have been in talks about sharing a future Bay Area stadium. Tafur goes on to mention where the Niners are regarding the Santa Clara stadium concept, but mentions nothing about the new Coliseum proposal for the Raiders. At this point it makes the most sense to consider Santa Clara Plan A simply due to the work that has already been done to date. The Coliseum is still in its initial study phase. Speaking of which, as much as I harp on Oakland rushing through the Victory Court EIR process, the new Coliseum was supposed to have its EIR completed in as little as 15 months. Yet here we are, about 9-10 months in, and not a peep.
Fortunately for both teams, the NFL has taken their situations into account and may be ready to lend them a hand. Tim Kawakami notes that as part of the new CBA, the Bay Area has been identified as a place that could receive a loan from the NFL for stadium building.
It’s complicated, though. The CBA designates “stadium credits” for three locations — Los Angeles and presumably the Bay Area are two of them — but not specific teams, the source said.
The “credits” are a precursor to the NFL setting up a formal stadium-loan program, another league source said Tuesday. So, yes, the Raiders could be involved in anything the 49ers try to do, possibly in a shared-stadium venture, as the NFL has encouraged for years.
That isn’t ideal for the Yorks, of course. But at least they know the money could be there, and that means they can keep churning toward their end goal.
Without the NFL loan option, the churning would have been mostly over right here and now.
Initially, a big sticking point in the CBA negotiations was the NFL’s protection of funds for stadia, previously known as the G-3 loan program. The players wanted a piece of the entire pie. While ratification hasn’t been completed, it looks like the players will get a piece of the entire revenue pie, albeit a smaller percentage than what was prescribed in previous CBAs (60% of a smaller pie). Now that it appears that a successor to G-3 is part of the possibly 10-year deal, the prospects should be looking up for the 49ers in terms of getting their funding.
Now let’s take this a step further. Should Santa Clara be the final site for both teams (with the Raiders signing a long-term lease), that should presumably open up the Coliseum for the A’s, right? Yes and No. True, the tenant that destroyed the Coliseum for the A’s would be gone, but they’d be leaving behind $100 million in debt service for Oakland and Alameda County to pay for. There’s no chance that the A’s or MLB will bite on paying off that debt, yet the city and county would need to figure out a way to service it somehow. That could pave the way for the reuse option I drew up last year, but that’s a risky proposition in and of itself. Any reuse of the old Coliseum would require new revenue bonds from the Authority, and I doubt it would politically popular unless it was true slam dunk proposal. Plus there’d be the stink of the Raiders coming back less than 20 years earlier, not selling the place out as advertised, destroying the Coliseum for the A’s, successfully suing Oakland/Alameda County, then negotiating an early end to their stay and finally leaving again.
Finally, there’s A’s ownership’s role in this. Surely, they’d much rather be in control of their situation instead of picking up other teams’ scraps. Revenue generation will be limited at the Coliseum, and the market for ancillary development around the Coliseum is weak. Moreover, redevelopment’s death takes with it any project money for the area, as noted in Oakland’s declaration of support for the Monday lawsuit. The A’s will be funding a greater percentage of their venue privately than either football team, so they should have more say in where they go. As we’ve seen over the last couple of years, you can’t always get what you want.
newballpark.org 
Knew it was only a matter of time before the Raiders got on board with someone else’s stadium proposal either the Niners or the LA plan. Guess they decided not to become the first team to move 3 times between 2 cities as their first option. Likely because Al won’t have to sell off any portion of the team to get into the Niners stadium (that and if the new G3 fund money will only go to the “Bay Area” the only way they get a stadium here now is to share with the Niners. NFL has forced the issue.
What conventions would want to book at a suburban convention center? Three options…
1. The 49ers / Raiders stadium is built at the Coliseum with A’s moving to San Jose or Victory Court.
2. The 49ers / Raiders stadium is built in Santa Clara with A’s staying at remodeled Coliseum (probably require new ownership group)
3. The 49ers / Raiders stadium is built in Santa Clara, the A’s move to San Jose or Victory Court and the Coliseum is convereted into an outdoor concert venue.
Sigh…I’m still baffled why pro Oakland fans don’t rag on Al Davis. He destroyed the Coliseum several years ago and is now moving south and leaving behind a huge debt service! But hey, he moved back to Oakland after abandoning them years ago right?!!! :X
“What conventions would want to book at a suburban convention center?”. Um the dozens that fill up the SC Convention Center every year right now. Just a thought.
Also you forgot option 4. The 49ers/Raiders Stadium is built in Santa Clara, the A’s move to to SJ or out of state. The Coliseum and Candlestick stand empty for years until the cities realize they can’t afford them anymore and both are sold off to developers and demolished.
“rag on” … Al Davis had sellouts before he left. Now, they are having a difficult time selling out games. Clearly, he lost a lot fans with the move to LA. I’m a big Raiders fan. Its a love/hate relationship with Al. Most of us feel this way. But we are tribal bunch. We dump on Al when we discuss our team, but we don’t like non-Raiders fans “ragging” on Al.
I still am skeptical about the Santa Clara stadium. I just don’t see Al teaming up with 9ers on their turf.
Actually Dan, SCC bookings are rather low. So are San Joses CC. Despite both being closer to the corporate base, most SV companies have their conventions in SF.
I’m not. Al can’t get a stadium done in Oakland on his own, and he can’t move to LA without giving up a significant (potentially controlling) interest in the Raiders. And he has wanted a new stadium almost since he got back (after Oakland stupidly destroyed the Coliseum for him). Santa Clara is the only way that happens for him unless he can get the Niners on board with an Oakland stadium (which seems unlikely given how much further along the Santa Clara stadium is).
Given the new Raiders interest in leaving, the A’s desperate desire to leave and the Warriors occasionally toying with the idea of moving to SF, the future doesn’t look bright for sports in Oakland.
@David Agree with all of your post except the last sentence.
@DJ The only reason for that is capacity constraints.
@ML Why do you assume a Raiders lease, rather than a 50/50 split a la Giants/Jets?
@bartleby – The term sheet between Santa Clara and the 49ers has the team as sole operator of the venue. They would be responsible for bringing in the second team, with the second team being a tenant. It’s only important from a financing standpoint with respect to having a revenue stream in place. I’ve mentioned in the past that the lease with the Raiders will help determine how good part of the financing is.
My wish: (1) A’s to SJ; (2) Raiders and Warriors stay in Oakland; (3) 49er’s build stadium in SF.
–
So the six major pro teams will be divided among the three cities. Chances of it working out this way are admittedly slim, however.
The Raiders finally are waking up and smelling the coffee of their situation.
The 49ers are way ahead of them and Al Davis is realizing that the NFL will only help fund one stadium in the Bay Area.
It is great the NFL actually put the Bay Area stadium on its list of places that need to be funded. LA and Minnesota are the others.
If I was a San Diego Chargers fan I would be a “shitting a brick” right now as it would seem the NFL is going to move the Chargers north to LA and then move the Rams back west. The Rams lease has an out clause in 2014 if their current home is not remodeled or a new place is not ready in St. Louis.
I am sure the 49ers and Raiders can work out a revenue sharing agreement on the basic seating/parking and give the Raiders the lion’s share on luxury suites and premium seating.
Since the Raiders would not be putting any $$ in directly they would make a nice profit of such a low cost base sharing with the 49ers who are the primary tenant.
The Raiders can keep their shop up and running in Alameda and just play games in Santa Clara like the 49ers do with SF/Santa Clara now.
Also keep in mind that if a 2nd NFL team moves in with the 49ers the term sheet states Santa Clara gets back the entire 114M they pledged…..A total coup for the City of Santa Clara. A gamble that worked out for the best.
Prediction:
Raiders/49ers – in Santa Clara
A’s – San Jose
Warriors – San Francisco
Wish – Raiders, A’s and Warriors in Oakland.
49ers – in San Francisco.
I think Oakland/Alameda County should start planning now for what do with the Coliseum area; this is really a shame because the three sports teams could have served as the anchors of a tremendous economic revitalization project.
This will be a huge loss for the City of Oakland and the entire East Bay.
A’s observer.
Can we say: San Jose Raiders? What sense would it make to keep calling them “Oakland” when a much-larger city is 3/4 of a mile away?
@pjk – why stir the pot? While I generally take a disliking to the Oakland-only positions taken here, I find your incessant Oakland bashing to be equally distasteful. At least jk-usa is “pro” Oakland, where you don’t come across as “pro” San Jose, just “anti” Oakland.
@pjk- The Raiders are not playing in San Jose physically so they should take the 49ers stance and still use the Oakland name.
The heart of Raider Nation is the East Bay and by keeping that affiliation with Oakland it will help with ticket sales and keeping the fan base intact. The Raiders will still have their practice facility and HQ in Alameda.
I think a shared stadium is a great idea for both teams. There are a lot of Raider fans in the South Bay and the East Bay people can still make the drive down on a Sunday for games.
One day the South Bay will be home to 2 NFL teams, NHL team, and perhaps an NBA plus MLB team as there are willing prospective owners with $$ to make this happen.
It makes sense in the respect that their team identity is based on being the “Oakland bad boys” of the NFL. That won’t change regardless of where in the Bay Area they had their physical presence.
The A’s are different since they would be playing in Downtown San Jose and the City is forcing them to take the San Jose name.
@Sid the city isn’t forcing them to take the San Jose name; they think it’s more marketable. They would have been the San Jose A’s even if the went to Fremont.
.
I agree the Raiders situation is more unpredictable; it will be interesting to see what they do.
re: I find your incessant Oakland bashing
Incessant Oakland? Bashing. Please. You don’t read many of my posts, do you? Go back to the one I made about Children’s Fairyland a few weeks ago. My position has been I’d love to see a new Oakland ballpark but don’t see how it would be paid for. And Oakland seems to be stalling the whole process by not releasing its draft EIR for Victory Court. The whole process was supposed to take a year or less and now the draft alone is going to take at least that much. That’s my position…. If the Raiders think they will have more success selling out luxury suites and attracting sponsors, they will take the San Jose name in a heartbeat. They changed city names once before, didn’t they? Something to do with LA?
FWIW, I think a shared football stadium at the Oakland Coliseum complex makes much more sense than shoehorning one in the Great America parking lot, in the flight path of SJ Airport. Just keep the Mount Davis half of the stadium, knock the baseball half (after the A’s get a new facility) and you get a “new” stadium for half the cost. Why knock down the Mt. Davis side, which is only 15 years old and has lots of hardly used luxury boxes? What’s done is done.
here’s some “incessant Oakland bashing” from a few weeks ago:
…just got back from Children’s Fairyland and a couple of drives through Oakland’s downtown. Very nice place – reminds me a bit of the Hudson and Bergen county NJ towns where my grandmother lived. No question a downtown ballpark there would be a perfect fit. But Oakland politicians – instead of embracing this opportunity, taking the ball and running with it – boastfully punted instead…
In the voice of Jim Mora: Fairyland?!? Fairyland? Fairyland!?! You wanna talk about Fairyland!?! Fairlyland!?! Out of your myriad of negative posts, you pick a snippet about Fairyland and that is supposed to be compelling? Nope.
Go ahead and find one negative thing I’ve said about Oakland other than that the politicians chose to drop the ball on the A’s, can’t help pay for a ballpark and now are stalling the process.
Yes, all of that. It’s always why NOT Oakland. I’d prefer either SJ or Oakland, and I know you claim to, but the tenor, tone, and frequency of reminders of why Oakland is the inferior choice indicate a bias. Just be upfront about it. Out.
….What bias? It’s all based on facts. A new Bay Area ballpark has to be privately funded; this can work in San Jose but apparently cannot in Oakland. If Oakland can get a new ballpark, I’ll be there. But after years of searching by MLB, Oakland and the A’s owners, nobody has come up with a way to get it done there. So naturally, I am pushing San Jose as perhaps the only option left to keeping the A’s in the Bay Area. They can put the team in the hay field next to the NUMMI plant in Fremont, for all I care, if that can be made to work.
I would be interested in seeing all of the following media articles which would describe the atmosphere differences in the same stadium, stereotyping of both fan bases would be even more common. All of my 49er friends seem to be against this, but this makes just way too much sense. It would be nice if the proposed site was in a more neutral location, though.
“FWIW, I think a shared football stadium at the Oakland Coliseum complex makes much more sense than shoehorning one in the Great America parking lot, in the flight path of SJ Airport. Just keep the Mount Davis half of the stadium, knock the baseball half (after the A’s get a new facility) and you get a “new” stadium for half the cost. Why knock down the Mt. Davis side, which is only 15 years old and has lots of hardly used luxury boxes? What’s done is done.”
-That is exactly the thought I had, and if there is still debt on that part of the stadium, why not go this route? The Coliseum site may not be what MLB wants, but that doesn’t mean that it is not the best site for a football complex, in my layman’s view. It seems to be the best site for this without having to create an entire entity that doesn’t exist at present.
…if you’re talking about the football stadium, I think the Jets and Giants have worked out a way to “tune” the stadium to accommodate whichever team is playing that day. Presumably red and blue lights for the Giants, green for the Jets. Giants Stadium was, obviously, built for the Giants while the new building is supposed to be neutral.
for what its worth–a neutral site in Santa Clara–close to the corporations that are going to be buying luxury boxes and advertising is the best fit for a SF and Oakland team—
@eb–relative to sharing a stadium and the atmosphere—I think that Amy Trask of the Raiders said it well-“Trask laughed off the idea that Raiders fans wouldn’t want to share a stadium with the hated 49ers. Here’s a news flash,” she said. “They’re not going to be there on the same day. And if they are playing each other, they’re going to be there on the same day irrespective of whose stadium we’re playing in.”
The Coliseum site may not be what MLB wants, but that doesn’t mean that it is not the best site for a football complex,
…here’s how the A’s mess not only hinders the A’s but the Raiders and Niners too. Get the A’s into a new ballpark, hopefully in the Bay Area, and the whole Coliseum complex becomes available for the Niners and Raiders for football. But right now, they can’t do anything with the existing stadium because the A’s still use it. Unfortunately, the 49ers are moving full speed ahead with cramming a football stadium into the Great America parking lot.
@GoA’s Huh? No, I just meant that the media will use the shared stadium to write predictable stories about how, while it’s the same stadium, both fan bases act differently when they’re in it, i.e. Raiders=rowdy/violent, loud, stabby, costumes, 49ers= quieter, wine/cheese, no costumes, safer. You know, an excuse to play up some of the stereotypes.
@eb–you mentioned that all your ‘9er friends were against it–hence the AT quote—sure the atmosphere is different for the 2 clubs but not sure why that makes a difference—
@GoA’s Oh, I gotcha. Well they are my friends, but when it comes to football they are really elitist. They think that the very notion of sharing with the Raiders would somehow “dirty up” their franchise. I’m sure when it comes down to it, they’d take a little “grime” if it meant a new stadium. 😉
“for what its worth–a neutral site in Santa Clara–close to the corporations that are going to be buying luxury boxes and advertising is the best fit for a SF and Oakland team—”
this is nonsense. Some people are so caught up in Lew Wolff’s talking points. Shit, why don’t we move the state Capital to SJ too? Washington DC is as “scary” as Oakland, lets move Obama to SV, so he can raise more money for his re-election. How about the Warriors? They need “support” too ……………………….
…Talking points? Like it or not, there are two ways to pay for stadiums these days: tax $$ or big corporate $$. Which do you prefer?
@David- it was actually Al Davis who talked about the difficulty of selling out the stadium in Oakland and said that “Oakland is a depressed area”–so don’t equate my comment to LW—
@bartleby- You are incorrect my friend. San Jose when drafting their final guidelines for the A’s ballpark stated specifically San Jose must be used in the front of the name of the team. To avoid the LA Angels of Anaheim debacle.
Look it up and you will see that I am right on that….ML had a post on this in the past.
@David- If you came out to the SV area you would see by just driving down 237 how many corporations there are. There is gold mine that exists for premium seating in that area. It is amazing to see such a cluster of corporations setting up shop all over the place. It is not just Santa Clara, its Cupertino, San Jose, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto etc…
You will not see that kind of cluster of high profile businesses anywhere else in the Bay Area…Especially in the East Bay outside of the Tri-Valley area, from where it is easier to head to San Jose instead of Oakland cause of traffic flow in the evenings.
Why do you think the Giants protect Santa Clara County so much? it is because they know the A’s would be on equal or better footing then they are in San Francisco.
Financially the A’s would be able to compete with the Giants for free agents, sponsors, and their payroll would be in the same range roughly.
All A’s fan should be rooting for San Jose as it would usher in an area of A’s baseball not based on “moneyball” playing 10 miles from the Giants….I am sure this will be mentioned in the upcoming movie with Brad Pitt about the struggles the A’s have in Oakland competing with the Giants for fans, sponsors, and free agents.
“Moneyball” not Lew Wolff stipulates San Jose is a better choice than Oakland.
With the A’s and Raiders leaving, if I was Oakland I would throw the kitchen sink at the Warriors since they make $$ in that location despite losing year in and year out. Until the day a 2nd NBA team comes to SF or SJ, it makes total sense for Oakland to keep them at the very least.
@Sid San Jose may have put that in their negotiating guidelines, and they may put it in a final agreement. That’s just covering your bases. But it’s still not accurate to say the A’s were “forced” – they would have done it anyway.
@David I’m sorry, but if you don’t think putting ninety minutes of hideous traffic between a business and its target market isn’t going to affect sales, you’re crazy. Not as much an issue for the Raiders as for the A’s, but proximity still matters – A LOT.
To the Pro-San Jose contingent on this board (most members here):
what is your thought that Cisco will lay off some 10,000 people?
I’m just asking because I really don’t know how that will affect LW’s plans for a CISCO Field in San Jose.
How does this affect all of these respective plans?
Finally, does anyone see a way for Oakland to keep its three teams?
A’s observer.
re: Cisco layoffs …No effect on the ballpark. Companies lay off and hire people all the time. Cisco Field will be a marketing coup for the company. For the recent quarter, Cisco had net income of $1.8 billion on sales of $10.9 billion. For a whole three-month period. Cisco is a juggernaut, plain and simple. Layoffs don’t necessarily mean the company is failing.
@ A’s observer – Cisco is one my my competitors, but i still have many friends that work or worked there. They were bloated beyond belief and rapidly expanded into areas they probably shouldn’t have (re: servers). I don’t see that as any impact to the sponsoring agreement to the A’s. They are after all still making billions in profit, it’s just that investors was seeing dwindling market share in its core business (networking) and descreasing year to year growth which the primary drivers of its stock.
Re: How Oakland keeps its 3 teams: 1) Go to the voters and residents. Sell the idea of possible publicly funded facilities (stop bs’ing around with PhoneBooth Park financing that will never happen). 2) Share the rich Oakland sports history and real economic impact to the city (in a transparent manner, unlike the present VC EIR). 3) Have real dialogue with all 3 teams detailing vision of how it can be shared and development efforts that would benefit everyone. Throw $1 lease on the table for 20 years as a bargaining chip. 4) redevelop coliseum area into a santhana row – east bay surrounding epicent of sports and entertainment (yes no small feat in light of rda funding). work with teams to profit off of this venture. The goal should be long term development and not short sighted, quick reactions to the teams leaving, while thinking that Oakland is the preferred place (it is not). Yes, it’s going to take a lot of work, particularly leaning upon the incompetent Oakland government but it can be done. The blue print should not be SF, but rather what SJ is trying to do instead. JMHO.
It’s unfortunate for those people getting laid off (though I read a large contingent is actually employees electing early retirement), however that’s the reality of a major corporation. From time to time, they’ll have to “trim the fat” to increase efficiency/profits.
I believe ML has mentioned before that we shouldn’t anticipate this to really affect Cisco’s naming rights agreement as the $3MM annually is immaterial relative to their revenues (if pjk’s #’s are accurate).
A good way for Oakland to show it can keep all it’s teams is to get cracking on those EIR’s (VC &/or Oak Coli) and perhaps be a little more transparent with the public on progress/plans.
@A’s observer I think the A’s will eventually leave. Oakland may delay this with the VC plan and/or if MLB does not lift T-rights, but no way a privately financed ballpark gets built in Oakland. If not San Jose or Fremont, it’s 10 or so years in the Coli until some city outside the Bay Area puts together a deal.
.
The Raiders are an interesting case. They actually want to stay, and NFL economics are such that a new stadium could work in Oakland. The big issue there is, it doesn’t happen without the Niners, and the Niners are so much further along in Santa Clara (and closer to their base). The Raiders would have to somehow convince the Niners there’s a better deal for them in Oakland. It seems like a long shot.
.
I think Oakland’s best chance of keeping a team is the Warriors. They’ve been wildly successful in Oakland. I think Oakland should start planning a possible arena at Victory Court. They should start soon, because if another NBA team ever moves to San Jose, it’s going to make a Frisco arena more attractive.
@Anon Agree with most of your comments. I would also point out, it’s easier to make a case for public funds for an arena than either a ballpark or stadium. Also, at the point it becomes obvious both the A’s and Raiders are leaving, it may become an easier political sell.
How does Oakland keep it’s teams? Take the “not enough corporate money” argument away from the franchises. There are multiple ways to do this, it is not just throwing public money at a stadium (though that is one of them). I hoenstly don’t care if Oakalnd keeps the Raiders or Warriors, I don’t really follow either team. The A’s are all I care about, so…
.
If I was Let’s Go Oakland, I’d be soliciting businesses and getting them to contribute long term commitments to club seating, suites, and sponsorship deals (including naming rights). I’d be overtly public about it, as well. I’d talk real numbers and name real companies rather than the subterfuge that is apparent now. Saying we have “$500k in escrow” is counterproductive, when you consider that building the stadium will cost 1000 times that number.
.
And, I’d stop looking at the Giants as an ally in the fight. The enemy of my enemy is my friend only works until the original enemy is vanquished. Don’t ever count on the enemy of your enemy being your friend, just go after your enemy. And I don’t mean point out that they need to have an election, or make disingenuous statements about how San Jose has no money, or write ridiculous blog posts about how the Coliseum is great or that one night in September 2004 proves Oakland is great or any other such nonsense… Fight fire with water, not smoke.
.
In short, be transparent and show that Lew Wolff is wrong rather than being secretive and posting painted bed sheets with ad homenim attacks and silly slogans.
.
I’d be a proud and overt supporter of Let’s Go Oakland if it ran it’s campaign this way. Alas, Let’s Go Oakland is run like a typical political/public relations campaign where they are trying to distract from the substance of the argument rather than addressing the legitimate concerns.
@Jeffrey “And, I’d stop looking at the Giants as an ally in the fight. The enemy of my enemy is my friend only works until the original enemy is vanquished. Don’t ever count on the enemy of your enemy being your friend, just go after your enemy.”
Are you either a ninja or in the mob? 🙂
@ Jeffery – Great analogy with the “Don’t ever count on the enemy of your enemy being your friend”. It perturbs me to no end the defense and often times endorsement of the Giants from the pro-Oaklanders. Screw Neukum and the Gnats!
@ bartleby – thanks and agree that the arena would make the most sense, but gruber/lacob and company have already expressed interest in moving the team to SF publicly which may negate the political support for such an endeavour in oakland unless it was some type of sweetheart package that they couldn’t resist.
@ Dirty – I wouldn’t feel so sorry about the ones who got severance/retirment packages. Supposedly, some are getting on order of 1 year + buyouts with benefits on top of that for 2 years according to my friends.
To all who posted comments re: my question about whether Oakland can keep its three teams:
Thank you. Those were some very thoughtful comments.
For me, as a pro-Oakland poster, I think Oakland objectively offers the best solution but we need some people to run with the ball(s) and sell Oakland:
Best transportation options; easiest land options, corporate support (yeah: there really are some corporations in the East Bay).
A’s observer.
@A’s Observer: Can you please elaborate on those “best solutions”? Where at? Coliseum? VC? Why? Who will pay for it? What / where is the corporate support? I’m not trying to bring about an argument with you, but I think we reasonably answered your questions, yet you seem to have a vague, hypothetical notion of “best” that seems illogical given the challenges and facts.
@ ML – also noted this quote by Purdy today in the Merc: ” In a candid moment, York also said that if the Santa Clara plan collapsed for some reason, the 49ers were more likely to look at Oakland as an option than at San Francisco.” Wow! Imagine SF getting dissed, by its own beloved 49ers for Oakland (not that Oakland is bad, but the sheer notion of that decision). Basically even SF doesn’t have the funding/site needed to lure the Niners back.
@ Anon “It perturbs me to no end the defense and often times endorsement of the Giants from the pro-Oaklanders. Screw Neukum and the Gnats!”
Are you talking about some Oakland enthusiasts getting behind the territorial rights argument in favor of the Giants? I would assume that’s just a reflex stance in order to keep the team in Oakland, not a vote of favor for the Giants. There are some simple truths in this world, death, taxes and Oakland’s contempt for San Francisco.
…unfortunately, keeping the A’s out of San Jose doesn’t mean they stay forever in Oakland. Only a new ballpark can mean that, and Oakland can’t provide one.
@ eb – “There are some simple truths in this world, death, taxes and Oakland’s contempt for San Francisco.” LOL! ” that’s just a reflex stance in order to keep the team in Oakland” – At least you said it….much props to you! 🙂
@A’s observer “Best transportation options” – debatable in the short term, simply not true in the long term
“easiest land options” – you cannot possibly think VC is an easier site than Diridon
“corporate support” – again, you cannot possibly think Oakland is remotely competitive with Silicon Valley in this regard
@pjk See, this is why some Oakland folks might take issue with you. “Only a new ballpark can mean that, and Oakland can’t provide one.”
Now, if you only changed that to “Only a new ballpark can mean that, and it’s not looking good that Oakland can provide one.” Definite statements tend to rub people the wrong way, myself included.
@pjk BTW, not to tell you what to type or think. I’m just relating it to your earlier discussion with Mark N.
…eb: Just tell me what I said that wasn’t true. MLB has been looking for 2+ years to try to find a way to get a ballpark done in Oakland and can’t seem to find one, can it?. I’m certainly not the only one in here pointing out the obvious.
@pjk Well, honestly I have no idea what MLB has been doing. Whatever it is, it sure hasn’t seemed helpful to A’s fans. As for the truth of the comment, that’s exactly it, many of us don’t see it as such. Now you’re entitled to your opinion, but surely you can understand why those who live in or support the East Bay might take umbrage with that statement. Maybe the A’s go to San Jose or maybe they stay home, nothing is certain at this point.
eb, and I am not asking this as a San Jose guy or an Oakland guy, explain to me what the path you see to a new baseball stadium in Oakland? I am not being facetious.
.
Additionally, same question on the Raiders.
.
Screw the Warriors.
@ Jeffrey That’s the thing Jeffery, call it covering my head in sand or being hopelessly optimistic, but I don’t have a clue as to what path leads to the Oakland A’s staying home. Sports economics isn’t something I have ever really paid attention to since before I found this site and truly, as interesting as it is to read about possible outcomes here, none of us know for certain what will happen. Now there are scenarios that are more likely to come through than others, but, again, still no guarantee. When it comes to corporate sponsorship, land acquisition, the blowing winds of the political landscape, this is all stuff I feel like I have no particular insight towards. I don’t think I have ever made such a claim as long as I’ve been posting here. I’m an Oakland A’s fan, I want these things to happen; the A’s to get a stadium in Oakland, they win on a regular basis and the Coliseum dogs to actually be tasty again. Now, I’m hoping that people far more involved/knowledgeable than I can make this a reality somehow. If not, and the A’s go to San Jose, ok, I’m bummed, but still an A’s fan. I’ll adjust. Basically what I’m saying is, why give up hope? Some here might call me a fool or say I’m ignoring facts/reality, I’m really not, I understand the odds don’t look good, but as of now the A’s in Oakland isn’t a closed book.
@ Jeffrey I have similar feeling towards the Raiders. No plan, but in a weird way, football is different. They would still be the Oakland Raiders in a shared stadium (I assume) and because of the few amount of games the whole culture is different. I don’t know. As optimistic as I am trying to be it is hard to convince myself that both teams are going to stay in the city limits.
As for the Warriors, am I the only one turned off by their new ownership?
@eb, I’m with you all the way on this. I’m not giving up hope either on a new park in the O. Outside of some LW bashing, I’ve tried to be a good sport on here but have taken a beating by many for my ignoring the facts, living in a fantasy world, etc…But i still think the O isn’t dead in the water yet. I keep asking the pro-SJ guys, if SJ is such a slam dunk, how come it hasn’t happen yet? They keep saying that the last 2 parcels have to be purchased first and then it will all fall in place. I’d say on the flip side that MLB may be waiting on the EIR on VC before they make any decision, but then am hammered again that it’s a flawed site, poor infrastructure, traffic, who’s gonna pay for it, etc… All of a sudden everyone’s an expert on this stuff. I wish LW would give this site a chance, but he’s adamant on not building in Oakland. Period.
Yes, I’m turned off by this new W’s ownership. I was a huge fan from the Barry/Wilkes to the Run TMC days but have lost interest in the team since Cohan bought them, and these guys are just a little better. They smell SF a mile away and will probably leave. I hope Quan can get them to change the name to Oakland. I actually agree with bartleby on building a new arena at VC if it falls apart for the A’s there. That would be pretty cool, but I’d much prefer the A’s there.
As for the Raiders? Sharing a stadium withe the 9ers is probably the way to go. The Santa Clara site isn’t ideal IMO. Will there be tail-gating for the Raider Nation there? I’ll throw this out there: how about LW’s land near Pac Commons in Fremont for a joint stadium? He keeps complaining about non-recoverable costs, well he can recover some if he sells to the R’s/9ers. It’s kind of a neutral site for fans, they can have tons of parking for tailgaters, (no village please), but maybe some sports bars and hotel nearby. 20 Sunday’s a year won’t be too bad for the merchants nearby.
That works. I don’t care if they build it out of adobe on the remains of Neptune Beach and call it Rickey Henderson Park presented by Chevron: A Green Energy East Bay Company. As long as I can still make 20 games and listen to the rest, I am all good.
re: if SJ is such a slam dunk, how come it hasn’t happen yet?
…because MLB foolishly locked itself out of Silicon Valley, giving San Jose to a team 40 miles away. Or, MLB might just be waiting for San Jose to buy up the 2 remaining properties first. Another barrier is San Jose, like Oakland, won’t pay for a new stadium. MLB is used to taxpayer-funded stadiums.
To Marine Layer:
how about posting today’s FRONT PAGE STORY THAT THE CITY OF OAKLAND UNVEILED ON WEDNESDAY A PLAN FOR A NEW STADIUM NEXT TO THE CURRNT COLISEUM FOR THE RAIDERS?!
A’s observer.
A’s observer, got a link? I imagine this is the same as the one from December?
@A’s observer – how about NOT USING CAPS AND PROVIDING A LINK TO THE STORY?! You’re yelling at the readers. Oh wait. The article linked in the post IS the Chronicle front page article. There’s no need to “suggest” articles or subject topics unless I’ve missed something by a few days. I’ve got it covered.
Here is the story from the Bay Area News Group… Nothing new to report. No details on the “plan.”
Curiously, the Davis quotes from the article Jeffrey linked are from the famed Davis-rips-Tom Cable press conference. Not included was the quote about Oakland being a “depressed area.”
Oakland really needs to step up its game – right now. This “plan” for a Raiders stadium looks like nothing more than a wish. Wouldn’t a Raider stadium look great on this site? No specifics about how it would be paid for. And nothing in the article from the city officials about how this half-baked effort to build a Raider stadium might impact the city’s half-baked effort to build an A’s stadium.
Marine Layer:
No “yelling'” done or intended.
I just thought that since you posted yesterday’s Chronicle article I would think the readers of this website would want to know the latest development(s) – in this case that the City of Oakland actually presented a plan (whether one thinks it’s half-baked or not is irrelevant).
I just believe in giving everyone all relevant news and this is definitely relevant.
But from now on, I won’t suggest anything because I will assume you’re not open to suggestions per your previous post.
Re: posting a link: why would I post a link to an article if you’re the only one whom you want to post links to articles on this site?
A’s observer.
AO,
What was the plan presented? And how is it different than what was released in December? Not being factious, asking you. I emailed Angela Woodward to see if she could expand. It seems more like a PR move than an actual plan being announced.
re: Oakland really needs to step up its game – right now.
…but it can’t. Stepping up its game means putting up big big $$$ and Oakland simply has no $$ to offer. I too view the Raiders and the VC projects as items on a wish list, things Oakland would love to have if someone else comes forward to pay for all of it.
@A’s observer – Have you not noticed how all of the other commenters here post links when they find relevant info? That way I can check them and either add them to existing posts or create new ones. Because you didn’t put a link I wasted five minutes searching for something that had already existed. Learn the protocol.
Oakland’s “unveiling” seems reactionary and completely based on the news cycle. The Coliseum Authority has been working on this since last fall. So they “unveil” something now just to say they’re in the game? Sounds a lot like another project they’re working on.
re: So they “unveil” something now just to say they’re in the game? Sounds a lot like another project they’re working on.
…exactly. Style over substance. Draw up out some sketches, circle some streets on a map, commission a study, maybe talk about the teams’ history in Oakland – but there is no political will or $$ for the city itself to actually do these projects themselves. Maybe if they stall things long enough, alternatives outside Oakland will disappear?
Andy Dolich just finished talking to Gary Radnich (Sports Phone 680) regarding the proposed stadium. Dolich believes that the 49ers and the Raiders will share a stadium in Santa Clara. The 49ers need the Raiders and the Raiders need a new stadium. No comments about the effect on the A’s. (I guess he was talking as the former COO of the 49ers and not the former VP of Marketing for the A’s.)
Has their been any updated artists renderings for this new proposed joint stadium in Oakland?
The Santa Clara project should remain Plan A for a joint stadium, because they are ahead of the game when it comes to prep and planning compared to Oakland. The only negative I see on behalf of the Great America Pkwy Stadium is lack if public transportation. However, I’m sure once the Warm Springs and San Jose BART extensions are completed, perhaps there can be a monorail shuttle link built to accomodate BART users who will need transportatio to the Zanker Rd stadium even thouse Cal Train does swoop right past there. The 237 EAST will become a nightmare on gamedays for fans of both teams.
Marine Layer,
Also is there any chance that the proposed ballpark in SJ, can add some of the architectural dimensions of the Fremont proposed Cisco Field ballpark. Whenever I see the two proposed ballparks I keep thinking the Fremont one looks better. It is probably due to the upper brick concourses in left center and right field that have luxury suites and areas up top for fans to watch the game from that make it better looking than the design of the SJ ballpark IMO.
re: Public transit. A bus link from Warm Springs BART to the Great Mall in Milpitas gets fans to the VTA Light Rail system, which will go right by the Santa Clara stadium. Still, we’d be talking BART to bus to VTA Light and back. Yuck. Might as well drive.
pjk says:
July 20, 2011 at 10:29 PM pjk(Quote)
re: if SJ is such a slam dunk, how come it hasn’t happen yet?
…because MLB foolishly locked itself out of Silicon Valley, giving San Jose to a team 40 miles away. Or, MLB might just be waiting for San Jose to buy up the 2 remaining properties first. Another barrier is San Jose, like Oakland, won’t pay for a new stadium. MLB is used to taxpayer-funded stadiums.
^^^^^^^
The Giants “territorial rights” are just a matter of Selig and his owners proclaiming the famed “in the best interest of baseball” line and paying off the Giants. Moving the A’s to SJ IS in the best interest of baseball and the in the best interest when it comes to the future of the A’s organization. SJ corporations want the A’s and so does the city of SJ and it’s citizens. It’s a no brainer really, but then again this is Bud Selig we are talking about.
@dknight007 – There simply isn’t room to build out further in RF. In Fremont the A’s had the freedom of a huge expanse of land without restrictions. In San Jose they have a designated state highway, railroad tracks, and a power substation in the way. Quite inconvenient.
The bowl/concourse layout isn’t all that different in foul territory, except for the placement of the club seats.
Thanks ML,
How about adding a brick layered upper concourse in Left Center to the SJ ballpark design, to add a bit more character? Especially since Right Center is out of the question.
pjk says:
July 21, 2011 at 11:08 AM pjk(Quote)
re: Public transit. A bus link from Warm Springs BART to the Great Mall in Milpitas gets fans to the VTA Light Rail system, which will go right by the Santa Clara stadium. Still, we’d be talking BART to bus to VTA Light and back. Yuck. Might as well drive.
^^^^^^
I agree. BART>BUS>VTA would probably be the route of folks in the North Bay or Concord or Dublin.
Another good thing about the Santa Clars Great America Pkwy site is the convenient location in the South Bay between fans of Niners in Peninsula and SF and East Bay Raider fans.
If they build the stadium there, they Santa Clara County needs to fix that damn 237 and they will need another off ramp from 237 besdies GA pkwy to get to stadium.
I would also hope the SC football joint stadium would keep the Bay Area in the Super Bowl host rotation every 5 years at least.
Dan A says:
July 21, 2011 at 10:58 AM Dan A(Quote)
Andy Dolich just finished talking to Gary Radnich (Sports Phone 680) regarding the proposed stadium. Dolich believes that the 49ers and the Raiders will share a stadium in Santa Clara. The 49ers need the Raiders and the Raiders need a new stadium. No comments about the effect on the A’s. (I guess he was talking as the former COO of the 49ers and not the former VP of Marketing for the A’s.)
^^^^^^^
The Raiders and Niners sharing a joint stadium here in the Bay Area whether it be located in the South Bay or East Bay is a freakin NO BRAINER.
BTW, KNBR 680AM is lousy and unlistenable these days. They are terrible!
Hmm. If they Raiders share a joint stadium with the Niners in SC, then would that leave open the possibility the A’s stay in Oakland and build a new ballpark next to the existing Coliseum site and then the fans and A’s can have that beautiful view of the Oakland East Bay hills that was blocked by Mt Davis return?
Sorry for multiple posts ML.
However, another topic regarding a shared stadium by the Raiders and Niners would be on the legacy and history of both teams.
I would hope both teams would have seperate areas of the stadium inside or outside where it would be legacy and memorabilia areas to celebrate each franchises rich history. Perhaps on the South End they have a Niner HOF area for fans to walk through and admire and on the North End can be a Raiders HOF area for fans to admire during home games. Or maybe there an one designated area for both teams to keep memorabilia and have a Bay Area HOF area for the football franchises.
…sounds like a great idea if they can work out some sort of Santana Row-like development around it. We’d be talking a whole new project which, of course, has to be publicly built. Would Oakland even have $$ to pay for the demolition of the existing stadium, which still has quite a tidy mortgage to pay on it?
@dknight007 – Addressed in original post.
pjk says:
July 21, 2011 at 12:33 PM pjk(Quote)
…sounds like a great idea if they can work out some sort of Santana Row-like development around it. We’d be talking a whole new project which, of course, has to be publicly built. Would Oakland even have $$ to pay for the demolition of the existing stadium, which still has quite a tidy mortgage to pay on it?
^^^^^^
If the Raiders and Niners share a stadium in SC, then the A’s can potentially stay in Oakland, but they would beed to redevelop the land right around the new ballpark to make it a mini Santana Rowe style area surrounding the ballpark.
re: oaklands “new” football stadium proposal. Let me see me 3 steps to it being successful:
1) Get voter/resident support (including idea of public funding) – NOPE
2) Share economic impact in a transparent manner (including funding) – NOPE
3) Have dialogue with the teams (Niners are in this?!!!) – NOPE
Looks like Oakland government is following their usual inept patterns of all show, no go…../sigh
Yeah. The Oakland stadium proposal is just a backup plan if things fall through with Santa Clara. It certainly seems like the Raiders will be either sharing a joint stadium with the Niners in Santa Clara or a joint stadium in Oakland or moving to LA and getting a new stadium down there. There is no way the Raiders and Oakland will be able to build a new stadium for the Raiders to be in by themselves without assistance by the NFL.
I’m resigned to the fact that the R’s and 9ers will probably both settle in SC. Ugh. It does make the most financial sense, but it’s too bad both teams couldn’t get new parks in their respected cities. Tear down the Stick, develop more more condos over there. Tear down the Coliseum and build much needed retail/eateries over there, if the A’s go to SJ or VC/980 works out. If any of those don’t happen, tear down the Coil and build the A’s a new yard there. Try to spiffy up the area with stuff to do. Since they tore down Sam’s and the Malibu Grand Prix, the place hasn’t been the same. In the early 90’s our union hall use to be right over there, right near the fence where they played miniature golf. That’s gone too 😦
re: We’d be talking a whole new project which, of course, has to be publicly built.
meant to say privately build here. Oakland has no money for anything like this.
@pjk – There’s public money available through the Coliseum Authority. But I bet that any attempt to raise it will be met with an aggressive protest and petition effort, which would lead to a referendum. Still, I think the Oakland/Alameda County officials would take Santa Clara’s deal all day long if they had the chance.
It’s still astounding to me that a complex which has not one, not two, but three major sports franchises cannot support even a single sports bar nearby.
@bartleby– i agree with you on this one. There should be one right near the complex. Sam’s was kind of cool at the time, but the food was so-so, and there was only a few small TV’s there, but I liked all the Oakland sports memorabilia all over the walls.. There was a huge sportsbar at the swingers motel near the Airport but it was rather dead, not that good of food, dated big screens and folded a few years ago. The Hilton and new Holiday Inn (where Towny does his shows sometimes) have sports bars on the premises. Mac’s at JLS was great, but folded like 13-14 years ago. The A’s celebrated their 1989 WS win there, and celebrated a pennant win at Sam’s I recall.
Tonight, A’s fans will meet at an Old Oakland sports bar called Grand Oaks Grill to watch the Yankee game. I’ve never been there and may swing by and meet some online friends.
oops..sorry, not tonight’s game, they’re off, but tomorrow’s game against the Yanks. I’d show up and no one would be there..lol
Marine Layer says:
July 21, 2011 at 2:11 PM Marine Layer(Quote)
@pjk – There’s public money available through the Coliseum Authority. But I bet that any attempt to raise it will be met with an aggressive protest and petition effort, which would lead to a referendum. Still, I think the Oakland/Alameda County officials would take Santa Clara’s deal all day long if they had the chance.
^^^^^^^
I agree. Oakland/AC would take SC’s deal all the day long. The thing is, SC is ahead of the game. Another thing I worry about will the Raiders and Niners be able to consistently sell out that 65K stadium if they don’t turn things around pronto?
Both franchises need to sell a crap load of corporate season tickets from Silicon Valley and that will be considered their season ticket fanbase unfortunately. Then cater to those big time companies/corporations employees and offer them solid incentive laden season ticket plans and packages.
The 9ers will have no problem selling 65k seats out, even at high tix prices. A lot of 9er fans there. They sell out a crap stadium with a crap team right now. The Raiders would draw good in a new venue, but not sure about the luxury suites in a new place, especially if the rates are much higher than they are now. I would be curious if the regular tix prices would be a tad lower for the R’s than the 9ers at a new SC stadium. Is the Jets and Giants priced the same? Got to look that up.
The owners vote on the CBA was 31-0 with the raiders abstaining, Why??
Was it Al’s way of saying he wasn’t happy the league is forcing them to share a stadium with the niners. By saying the teams can only get a league loan in the new CBA for a stadium by sharing one.
Anyone here Ratto on 95.7 today saying he doesn’t see the teams ever sharing a stadium because whoever was forced to move from their fanbase (raiders) would require a payoff from the other team. I swear he just makes up ish to be heard since it was the raiders who came out and said there talking to the niners about sharing a stadium.
Ray Ratto is a born moron and anyone who believes that guy is very gullible. Payoffs? There isn’t T-rights in the NFL dumbass. Got I hate that guy with a passion and he actually responds to my emails ripping on him….At least he is cool in that respect! haha!
The 49ers will give first rights of purchasing Raiders games in the luxury suites to the people who already bought them and revenue share that with the Raiders…probably 80% will go to the Raiders.
SBLs will have an option as well for a 2nd team if those fans choose to pay for them, once again the Raiders get the lions share of those along with parking/concessions.
The Raiders will not have to put in a dime outside of a lease into this stadium and reap a good profit margin of a low cost base.
The 49ers are the primary tenants while the Raiders get to play in a new stadium that will allow them to make $$. There are plenty of Raider fans in the South Bay although there are far more 49ers fans of course.
I say join the 49ers on a 10 year lease and work on something in Oakland in the meanwhile. It will take Oakland minimum of 10 years to get something up and running plus the 100M debt should be paid off on the Coliseum by then.
For the short run the Raiders should join the 49ers in SC with the ultimate goal of one day returning to Oakland.
From ESPN : “On abstaining from the owners’ vote, Raiders CEO Amy Trask told NFL.com: “We had profound philosophical differences of a football and an economic nature,” adding, “we voted the way we thought was appropriate.” Looks like the Al can’t milk money from helpless cities anymore and is forced to go to SC!
@Sid – If the NFL gives $300M to build a stadium in Santa Clara, they’re not going to give out another $150M for another stadium in Oakland in ten years.
Regarding the discussion of public transit options for the Great America site, don’t forget there’s also an Amtrak/Ace station underneath Tasman Dr, right next to the 49ers training facility. I have no idea how much the Amtrak station at the Oakland Coliseum is utilized for Raider games, but it’s there.
Also, as of right now VTA runs a couple of different express buses from Fremont BART to various points in Santa Clara County, including the Great America area. I assume they will continue with these bus lines once the Warm Springs station opens. There would be no need to transfer to VTA light rail if you’re coming from the East Bay on BART, you would just make one transfer to a VTA bus. I linked the current Express 140 bust route as an example if you’re curious.
http://www.vta.org/schedules/SC_140_STOPS.html
Essentially, this would be much closer to the situation of the Jets moving into Giants Stadium back in 1984 than the Giants/Jets being partners in the new stadium. I guess if Al Davis was willing to move back into the Coliseum he would live with being a tenant in a new 9ers stadium.