We’ll be checking the Twitter and the interwebs for any and all news coming out of the owners meetings, which start today. If you see anything new, post it to the comments and we’ll add it to the post in short order.
- As expected, Jim Crane will be approved as the new owner of the Houston Astros. What’s not certain is the discount on the $680 million purchase price he’ll get for agreeing to move the franchise to the American League. SI’s Jon Heyman reports the discount at $50 million, USA Today’s Bob Nightengale has it at $80 million.
- MLB Trade Rumors has an item from Joel Sherman of the New York Post indicating that Type B free agent compensation will be eliminated starting this offseason. Changes to Type A free agent compensation may start next offseason.
- CBA discussions appear to be ongoing, according to Fox Sports. The MLBPA has even postponed internal meetings to focus entirely on the CBA.
- According to the Chronicle’s Susan Slusser, the A’s are not pursuing oft-injured OF Grady Sizemore, citing their continued stance of not looking at free agents while the stadium issue is up in the air.
- Added 11/16 9:15 AM – Buster Olney (ESPN Insider req’d) again writes about the A’s being held hostage by the stadium situation, and an impending fire sale. [Sorry, I’m not an Insider so I didn’t read the full article either.]
- Added 11/16 10:35 AM – SI’s Jon Heyman reports that Crane’s discount will be $65 million, MLB owners paying $35 million and Drayton McLane paying $30 million. He also noted that there is some opposition from AL West clubs, but Crane will be approved regardless. Does this set a standard for compensation to the Giants?
- Added 11/16 6:35 PM – The Dodgers and Frank McCourt are suing TV rights holder Fox for allegedly trying to “interfere with the sale of the Dodgers and their assets in bankruptcy.” McCourt claims that not allowing bidding on a future TV contract could adversely affect the sale price of the franchise. Fox states that it holds an exclusive negotiating period starting next year for the next contract, and that McCourt’s attempt to sell the rights now is a breach of that agreement. MLB is staying neutral in the matter. This issue is not expected to delay the eventual sale of the Dodgers.
- Added 11/16 6:50 PM – ESPN reports that Jim Crane was, in fact, required to move the Astros to the American League as a condition of the franchise sale. Vote scheduled for Thursday morning.
- Added 11/16 10:50 PM – The Chronicle’s Henry Schulman reports that Larry Baer was interviewed by baseball’s executive committee today, which sets up his approval as managing partner – er, “control person” – of the Giants.
- Added 11/17 9:40 AM – Two additional wild card teams have been added to the playoffs. Wild card teams in each league will probably play each other in a one-game playoff, with each winner playing the division winner with the best record.
- Added 11/17 11:00 AM – Jim Crane was unanimously approved as the new owner of the Houston Astros.
- Added 11/17 2:00 PM – Baer was approved as control person, meaning he represents the Giants at the owners meetings without having a controlling ownership stake. Baer is also CEO of the Giants.
Non-owners meeting link: SJSU Political Science professor and TV political analyst Larry Gerston has a short piece at NBC Bay Area about the debate over San Jose giving a land discount to the A’s, and the greater question of subsidies for private parties.
Another NOML: The Trib’s Angela Woodall reports that Oakland’s parcel tax Measure I, meant to replenish funding for city services, failed 62-38 via mail-in vote yesterday.
More as it comes.
newballpark.org 
Any word on if they dropped the idea of adding the DH to the NL from the Astros to AL discussions? They talked a bit about it at the outset but I haven’t seen it mentioned in at least a few months now.
Nobody within MLB has talked about adding the DH to the NL — that was all fan/sportswriter speculation based on the fact that there will now likely be more interleague games.
The DH split between the leagues is like the 162 game schedule. Frozen in place because any change would require a concession by either MLB or the players association. The Selig and the 30 MLB owners would gladly abolish the DH as a cost-cutting move. But players will not give up the possibility of extending their careers by several years at high veteran salaries — they would rather extend the DH to all 30 teams. So: stalemate.
HSR Authority says they can’t run the trains under the Diridon Station:
http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed-rail/ci_19334489
“Echoing previous studies, a report released Monday by the California High-Speed Rail Authority concluded that there is no viable tunnel option to accommodate high-speed trains below downtown’s Diridon Station.
.
The news comes as the rail project faces questions about its growing price tag and its political viability in a climate of tight government budgets.
.
‘We have looked at this very thoroughly and done very detailed engineering for this,’ said Dan Leavitt, the authority’s deputy director, about the tunnel option. ‘It is not a constructable scenario for high-speed rail.'”
It’s amazing that some are STILL trying to link the discounted land sales with San Jose’s budget woes. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would expect more from a professor at SJSU. Hopefully when the ballpark campaign starts in earnest the TRUTH comes out in full force.
Is it possible that the A’s aren’t pursuing free agents b/c they know the revenue sharing model currently providing $25MM to them each year might go away. Rather than the oft-cited reason — waiting for ballpark solution.
@Stanley Stanson – No major changes to the revenue sharing or economic system are being discussed.
Also not MLB CBA related – the NBA players’ antitrust suit against the league will be held in the Northern District of California, Federal court. Actual location was not indicated, but David Boies said that Billy Hunter “has a great fondness for Oakland.” Locations are SF, Oakland, SJ, and Eureka.
Deal close at hand.
.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7239006/sides-close-major-league-baseball-labor-deal-sources-say
However, there may not be compensation for Type B FAs next year, so that might change their strategy a little. I still think they aren’t doing anything because they already know they’re going to get SJ and they’ll go into rebuilding mode. There is no reason to ditch Bailey or Gio until teams start stressing, so that’s another reason for inactivity.
I, like Billy Hunter, also have a great fondness for Oakland. I wish LW did.
@ jk-usa: Who says he doesn’t?
Just because Mr. Wolff is being smart with his money doesn’t mean he’s not fond of Oakland.
Oops, I also forgot about his buddy Bud, who doesn’t care for the Town also.
Hook them up to a lie detector and you’ll see how they really feel about the Town.
If his knee is finally healthy, I think Sizemore would be a great “buy-low” pickup. But we did get Jason Pridie today!
slusser was on chron live tuesday night and said that the a’s will likely move to sj and in terms of compensation brought up the idea of what bal got from the nats when they supposedly move into their territory which is their tv/radio rights. bal got basically all of was’s while slusser mentioned they could get a portion of the a’s rights. also mentioned they could somehow pay the difference in what sf thinks they will lose if/when the a’s move to sj up until the debt is paid off the park.
…
said the a’s buying up the remaining parcels is something mlb wants to see happen and she even brought up “occupy oakland” as a reason that mlb could look at the city and think they’re basically in no position to help build a new baseball park for the franchise.
…
ostler also was the only other person on the panel tue and said that’s the direction he sees selig going although he mentioned that they have to get baer’s blessing essentially. complete bull shit. they don’t have to get baer’s blessing for anything, it’s not up to him or the sfg as it seems some in the media here think has to happen. sfg basically will have to accept any kind of compensation that imo they don’t deserve at all once the owners approve of the a’s move to sj.
Uh, excuse me Ms. Slusser but Occupy Wall St. is in many major cities in the US (including SJ and SF), not just in Oakland. Yes, Oakland is at the forefront of OWS and has gotten much negative press because of the outside idiot provocateurs, but that in no way should deter MLB for not picking Oakland. Losing the team would be a huge blow to a town that can’t seem to catch a break on much lately. Civic pride, jobs and the long 44 years history are at stake here.
Wild speculation from Slusser … will she get the “Newhouse” treatment?
No one “catches breaks”. We create opportunities and seize them.
There is no Occupy Oakland camp today. But, there are HUGE camps in SF and Berkeley. Is this the type of shoddy journalism that gets someone a leadership role with the BBWAA?
disclaimer: I did not hear Ms. Slusser on chron live, so I’d be curious for more people’s thoughts that did
I realize this is a hot-button issue, so I’ll try to be very careful here so as not to start a firestorm, but I understand where Ms. Slusser is coming from in regards to speculating how Occupy could affect the stadium discussion. Very simply:
1) MLB owners are a unique subset of VERY wealthy Americans that potentially have more negative views than the average American on OWS movements
2) Occupy Oakland has had quite a bit of negative press nationally (more than the other Bay Area protests) that these owners would hear about.
As has been discussed on this blog previously, some part of Oakland’s city budget (both in time and money) is being allocated to its response of the Occupy movement, and for that reason it makes it relevant to the topic of baseball stadiums. Baseball stadiums require their own massive amounts of time, money, and political momentum, and there are finite amounts of all of these.
And in response @jk-usa and @David: totally valid point that there are other Occupy camps and Oakland is not unique in that regards. SHOULD they get extra negative attention from MLB? Probably not (you can all make your own judgments about that). But WILL they? Definitely in the realm of possibility for the two reasons I state above. I think it’s a valid statement from Susan.
It’s not about Occupy Oakland and what’s going on there. It’s about leadership. Can anyone honestly say that Jean Quan is in a position where she can shepherd a project of this magnitude? Whether it is perception or reality, Quan has botched the entire Occupy situation. I have no opinion on that. That’s what it’s really about, leadership. It’s not about liking a city vs. disliking a city. And by the way, until we hear anything concrete, isn’t everything “wild speculation?”
I didn’t hear Slusser’s comments, so I am not defending her.
.
Here’s the thing about Occupy Oakland… It sort of turned into a homeless camp. So what, right? Every city has homeless encampments sitting right outside of City Hall. I am not even kidding… That isn’t what is important here.
.
What is? The fact that the entire City Council turned on Jean Quan (okay, maybe not the entire Council, put some key members) for her pretty amateurish, willy nilly handling of the situation. This is the direct cause of Oakland getting bad press. Jean Quan screwed up and even her colleagues are pointing it out (with cameras in their faces).
.
If the A’s are given the green light to pursue San Jose, Oakland’s strategy of kicking the can down the road to wait out an ownership change will seem the equivalent of subprime mortgages, in hindsight.
There is no Occupy Camp in front of Oakland’s city hall anymore. The tents are gone. Could they come back? maybe, but they are gone now. This is bull$hit from Slusser. The police have “cracked heads” in many places. The OW street camp didn’t stop the dow jones from going up recently.
This more from “hate oakland.org” its newest member is Slusser.
David, you really think that the problem was the tents and camp, not how your city leaders dealt with it?
IMO, Occupy Oakland or Occupy San Jose will have little affect (positive or negative) on MLB’s decision regarding the A’s. The problem for Oakland from the standpoint of the ballpark is not about the mayor or the council, it’s about the lack of dollars, both public and corporate. You could put Chuck Reed and the SJ council in Oakland and you would still have the same problem, the lack of dollars. Don’t get me wrong, leadership makes a difference, but only to a certain extent. The situation is what it is, and no politician will change that, at least not for the foreseeable future.
Added 11/16 9:15 AM – Buster Olney (ESPN Insider req’d) again writes about the A’s being held hostage by the stadium situation, and an impending fire sale. [Sorry, I’m not an Insider so I didn’t read the full article either.]
Added 11/16 10:35 AM – SI’s Jon Heyman reports that Crane’s discount will be $65 million, MLB owners paying $35 million and Drayton McLane paying $30 million. He also noted that there is some opposition from AL West clubs, but Crane will be approved regardless. Does this set a standard for compensation to the Giants?
Whether or not there is a camp there now, the damage is done. Quan is not going to be re-elected if she manages to make it through the rest of her term and Oakland has proven it’s leadership has other issues that are more important and will take their time. I think daveybaby is right. It’s all about perception, and Otter is right, there are only so many resources to go around.
.
And the truth is, OccupySJ is barely a blip on anyone’s radar. Occupy Oakland, however, has seen riot-like behavior hit the national media and it has already cost the city millions. The camp may be gone, for now, but the people aren’t. They’ll find another strategy soon, and it may be escalated. You can’t really compare to OccupySF and OccupyCal in this situation, because they aren’t trying to get or keep a baseball team.
.
Regardless, I don’t think any of this matters much at all. I believe Selig has already made his decision, and it’s San Jose. I guess that means I’m an Oakland “Hater” along with Slusser. It’s too bad some of the Oakland Only people have to resort to name calling when the facts and/or rumors don’t go their way.
@Jeffrey – i’m not going to get into a political back and forth on here. I’ll send you a my political thoughts via Facebook.
As a life-long Oaklander, i’m used to the media and its associate (non-Oakland) citizens hating on the town!
David, cool.
.
Does anyone have a link to SuSlu’s appearance on chron live? I can’t find it on csnbayarea.com
@David: It’s possible that your views are clouded and that you take everything as an insult when it isn’t meant to be an insult. I think that makes it hard for you to see that Oakland is no longer fit to be a MLB town.
@LS – That’s a bit harsh. It’s more a matter of Oakland’s general incompetence. Occupy Oakland has no leaders, but it has shown more leadership skill than City Hall.
Wolff is no longer “fit” to be an MLB owner (in Oakland). The other owners know what Wolff is up to. My view is will not work. Of course we are speculating.
O-A-K-L-A-N-D Athletics!
So, you’ll change the subject rather than show that Oakland is still fit?
2.4 million dollars is not that big a deal. Why don’t you speculate about the city of SJ cutting services, while selling land to a billionaire ownership group at a discount?
The city of Oakland isn’t perfect, but while y’all are hating, all kinds of big projects are underway in the town. The Oak street park that is extending the Lake Merritt experience at Kaiser is growing like horny rabbits!!
Kaiser is building like crazy. But, keep hating.
@David: You could just as easily complain that those projects in Oakland are taking money away from their police force/city services. You say $2.4 is nothing, so then the remaining $7M in value SJ isn’t getting for the land shouldn’t be considered that much either.
.
It really has nothing to do with Kaiser building, or any other companies. They aren’t trying to attract 35k people for 81+ nights a year.
.
@ML – Which part was harsh? A dog that has been kicked as a puppy will continue to shy away as an adult.
San Jose’s investment in the ballpark property will be returned many times over. The deal with Wolff is a no-brainer. How’s Oakland going to buy up properties and move businesses for VC? With a big loan from MLB, of course, since it doesn’t have the money on hand itself. How’s Oakland going to pay the loan back while cutting services and police?
@LS – you are lying to yourself if you think Wolff/Beane are trying to attract anyone to the A’s games next year and beyond. They are playing a child’s game and will lose.
When Chuck Reed goes after the pensions you will see recall efforts in SJ.
Slusser is wrong. There is no camp in Oakland. While she was speaking last night on CSN there was no camp in Oakland. She is an S.F. (hate Oakland) elitist.
Come on SJ posse… be consistent.
Chuck Reed has had the strong support of voters in San Jose. I don’t think anybody even bothered to run against them last time around. And pension reform already passed in San Jose, 72%-28%.
@LS – Oakland’s “fitness” is too broad a term. At any point they could choose leadership that would be able to get the job done. They don’t and that speaks to a different motivation. Perhaps I’m splitting hairs.
@David – Reed has been doing this for over a year now. There are a lot more privately employed people in SJ than publicly employed. Many of them have been through layoffs, perhaps multiple times, 401k’s going down the tubes, and so on. You think those people are going to feel a ton a sympathy for the public employees? Rising pension costs is an impending crisis and needs to be addressed. I’d rather take it head on as Reed has than run away from it.
…SJ Police spent a pile of money trying to defeat pension reform. To no avail.
@David: Wherever they build, they will need to attract people. Oakland has a track record that shows they can’t really support a team at that magnitude, nor can they do it via the sponsorship which is more important now than ever to make stadium financing work. I guess I’m a hater for pointing that out.
.
I agree that they could do more to try to pull people in. Since a move to SJ isn’t anything more than a move within the market, they should be trying to keep/get as many fans as possible. It’s not like nearly everything they have now would be lost, as would be the case if they moved out of market to San Antonio or wherever. Wait, this was against ownership, am I still a hater?
.
Call me when Mayor Reed gets a letter from the SJ police about his confusing actions, and his chief legal adviser and deputy mayor resign within 24 hours of each other. Oh yes, I must be a hater for mentioning that these things did happen to Mayor Quan.
@ML- We could get technical, as David is insisting that, right now, there is “no camp in Oakland.” Right now, Oakland is not fit, and I don’t see anything moving forward on the stadium front without a major gutting of their leadership offices.
.
@David – I could also point out that Zachary Running Wolf is still camped out in a tree at Frank Ogawa Plaza. So does that mean that a camp still exists? Are Slussers words wrong? Is there a reason to call her a ‘hater’ just because she thinks Occupy Oakland makes the city look bad to the MLB?
And let me be clear, when I say that Occupy Oakland makes the city look bad, I mean the actions and reactions by both the Occupy folks, and the city leaders.
@LS – since you asked … yes, you are a hater. There are Occupies in one thousand U.S. cities. No camps or tents in Oakland yesterday when Slusser was running her mouth. But, i did notice they pepper-sprayed an old lady in Seattle today.
@LS – put down the sports page for a second … the U.S. economy has failed.
@David – The problem is that the owners are the 1%. If they were lukewarm on Oakland before, what do you think they think now? They probably view The Town as the People’s Republic of Oakland, and Mayor Quan as Nero fiddling while Oakland burns. To believe it doesn’t have some impact on their thinking is hopelessly naive. Your anger at commenters here is terribly misplaced.
Actually, David, the Occupy camps in many other cities were being cleaned out yesterday too. Doesn’t mean the people have gone away or that they won’t come back.
.
Slusser’s opinion is valid. With Oakland so far behind in this stadium game, MLB owners will have a hard time thinking that the current Oakland leadership can get the right things done in a reasonable amount of time. So should we wait for the next election, or go to SJ where the city has been moving forward with no guarantees that they’ll be allowed to even have the team?
.
The camp may not be there now, but you seem to think that means that all the events haven’t already colored MLB’s thoughts or that the situation won’t get worse before a ‘decision’ is made.
.
Yes, the economy is in the crapper. That’s another reason why SJ and it’s corporate support seems to be the only option to finance a stadium.
.
But I get it. You’re feeling are hurt that people are “trashing” your town. This is probably a bad time to discuss anything with you.
Like Berkeley, Oakland has a public image of a hotbed of radicalism, going back to the Black Panther days. This is not all there is to the city, but it IS in fact part of the character of the place. The Occupy Oakland movement reinforces public perception on this. It does not make Oakland look like the ideal spot for the 1% to entertain their clients, which is the financial foundation on which a new ballpark needs to be built.
.
Similarly, Oakland politicians have a long history of failure of leadership, particularly where the City’s sports franchises are concerned. The Raiders return, Warriors remodel, and anything having to do with the A’s have all been horribly bungled. The bungling of the “Occupy” situation is also not something to make MLB sit up and say “YES! Now there’s a City whose leaders we can rely on the shepherd a complex and costly project through to completion!”
Before you all anoint SJ as the new home for the A’s. Please answer this:
What happens when SJ voters reject a referendum on using public money on a ballpark? Try to answer the question without attacking the underlying premise that an initiative is required.
SJ City staff concluded as much in their report from 8/3/10 which reads in relevant part,
“San Jose Municipal Code section 4.95.010 provides that the City may participate in a sports facility using tax dollars only after obtaining a majority vote of the voters of the City of San Jose approving such an expenditure. The Municipal Code defines “tax dollars” to include any commitment to fund wholly or in part a facility with General Fund monies, Redevelopment fund monies, bonds, loans, special assessments or any other indebtedness guaranteed by City property, taxing authority or revenues”
Running that campaign in 2012 while the City is laying off cops and firefighters won’t be a walk in the park, no matter how popular Chuck Reed is.
@Stanley Stanson – You’re making a bad assumption. Last year’s poll had 62% in favor of the move and only 23% opposed. The 49ers’ stadium proposal passed 58-41, and it is a fundamentally more risky proposition. San Jose’s question should have little trouble passing.
I’ll humor you and answer your question anyway. If the measure fails, the A’s will have to look at Oakland and the greater East Bay again. Then we’ll see who is prepared and who has the political will to get it done, because it surely isn’t on display in Oakland right now.
Stanley,
Public funds won’t be used for a San Jose ballpark (look up private financing ). That was easy!
@Stanley Stanson It won’t happen, but if it did, one of two things will happen:
1. The A’s will pony up the necessary funds so that no public money will be involved; or
2. Fremont will come back to life.
SJ has been 60-40 in favor of the ballpark. Taxes won’t go up, the ballpark brings a $450 million private investment in downtown San Jose and will generate revenues for the city treasury. Are we supposed to believe Oakland voters, in turn, will support using public money for a ballpark? And it would have to be lots and lots of public money. Pretty funny. San Antonio will get a new ballpark built for the A’s before Oakland.
what the hell was “wrong” with the Oracle arena upgrade in 1998? how’s a decade of sellouts for a scrub team not supportive? you guys are killing me at “hate oakland.org”
I agree that the SJ initative will pass—keep in mind that there is a significant benefit to unions…and the leader of the construction union was one of the speakers in support of the city extended the buy option on the parcels to LW. I would also expect that the wording of the referendum would be such that an unfavorable outcome would not impact the A’s moving to SJ…just any contribution of city RDA funds.
@David Where do you see anything in this thread questioning fan support for the Warriors? I said Oakland leadership bungled the remodel deal. The financing of that deal suffered from similar problems to those of the Raiders deal, and as with the Raiders the City spent much of the next decade in litigation with the team. As far as I can tell, the City won a few and lost a few, but is still out of pocket millions of dollars on the deal.
For the all the Oakland-only people — Wolff has all the leverage here. It matters what Quan et al wants inasmuch as they have to present a viable alternative, i.e., money. It’s Wolff and his partners’ money, and they want to build in San Jose. If it gets approved by MLB, he wins and gets the stadium (and a higher team value whenever he sells in the future).
If MLB says no, then Wolff will either a) sell the team at a profit and leave the team’s future in limbo or b) go back and say “Fine, you want me to build here? Then pay up, man” The benefit of a) is obvious for him, and the benefit of b) would be a free stadium.
If Oakland could put something on the ballot like in Minnesota where $500M was raised through a tax initiative, this all might be different. But, the likelihood of that passing is very low. That’s why Wolff does indeed have all the leverage.
Fox Sports Net West interfering with the Dodgers sale?
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19349750
marlins all of sudden rumored to be offering two huge deals. a deal worth around 200 offered to pujols and something in the range of 90 million to reyes just as they’re entering their new park in 2012.
…
i doubt when cisco field opens in sj, the a’s would be entering the 2014-15 offseason offering contracts that could be worth 300 millon combined to two of the bigger name free agents.
@ Lone Stranger – I don’t know if an F.U. letter describing acts and conduct which prima facie rise to intentional interference with contractual relations is a violation of the federal automatic stay in place, however, it appears that, without disecting, up close, the language of the contract, that an attempt to sell future television rights may truly interfere with the exclusive negotiating period currently enjoyed by Fox. However, the devil is in the details. The contract could be poorly drafted, with openings that would allow for others to negotiate around the clause. Morever, the bankruptcy trustee has a fiduciary duty to marshall the assets of the debtor such as to maximize the return to the creditors. Seems to be some interesting issues being tossed around. Looks like fun.
The Marlins took the County and City to the cleaners on their ballpark deal. The team only put in $155M total out 515M total.
The team’s portion is not due even until the ballpark opens therefore all the risk was on the county and city.
That is why they can spend freely on players right now seeing the revenue coming in the near future. The team has easily 155M from all the years of taking free checks from revenue sharing.
That is why the A’s can also build privately in San Jose because they can put up a big chunk themselves and let the corporations and affluent fans pick up the rest.
In reality the A’s probably have 150M sitting around like the Marlins do and with Cisco’s 120M that is 270M of out of 400M already in the books….That is why Wolff says the project is “shovel ready”. He can easily raise 100M-150M from the corporations and affluent fans in San Jose without blinking…SVLG’s letter demonstrates that.
Problem in Oakland is there is no naming rights sold as there is in San Jose and without a public subsidy like what the Marlins got it would be financial suicide for the team…..MLB will not let that happen.
Even if Wolff did want to build privately in Oakland, MLB would shoot him down for putting the team in debt without a way to recover it. Debt/Equity rule is very important as one can see with the Mets and Dodgers.
As for the owners meetings….another one comes and another one is about to pass with no news about the A’s as I predicted.
The next on in December is the final hope for a 2015 opening…..May the baseball gods shine their light on the A’s and San Jose!
@ Stanley Stanson – since we entertained your thoughts on how SJ wouldn’t work, would you do the same and share how a Oakland stadium WOULD work in terms of financing, public support, and the local government process?
Added 11/16 6:35 PM – The Dodgers and Frank McCourt are suing TV rights holder Fox for allegedly trying to “interfere with the sale of the Dodgers and their assets in bankruptcy.” McCourt claims that not allowing bidding on a future TV contract could adversely affect the sale price of the franchise. Fox states that it holds an exclusive negotiating period starting next year for the next contract, and that McCourt’s attempt to sell the rights now is a breach of that agreement. MLB is staying neutral in the matter. This issue is not expected to delay the eventual sale of the Dodgers.
Added 11/16 6:50 PM – ESPN reports that Jim Crane was, in fact, required to move the Astros to the American League as a condition of the franchise sale.
For all that talk about Wolff maybe using the Baer/Neukom situation as leverage for SJ, the Owners are already going through the motions of approving the change in management. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/16/SPF41M0A14.DTL
@genaro,
How do we know that leverage hasn’t been used? Heck, I’m boldly proclaiming that Baer’s confirmation means exactly “Do you know the way to San Jose!”
@ Genaro – Patience is a virtue, often times rewarded.
Added 11/17 9:40 AM – Two additional wild card teams have been added to the playoffs. Wild card teams in each league will probably play each other in a one-game playoff, with each winner playing the division winner with the best record.
I think Selig’s toupee is on way too tight–it’s cutting off the oxygen to his brain. His constant tinkering with the game has done more bad than good. Interleague I’ve hated since it’s inception, and now will have it every day when the Stro’s go to the AL West. Yippee!!. The league winning the All-Star game getting home advanatge is stupid and it should be for best record overall or rotate year to year. And now a one game playoff for the wild card plain blows and isn’t fair if you have a super ace for that one game. Shorten the season to add more playoff games for this, or leave it the hell alone. Bud approving the controversial Crane and Dodger’s McCourt, his frat buddy Lew, BUT shooting down great baseball people like Piccinini/Dolich who mwet all criteria is why i despise this POS more than Lew Wolff.
…and what were the ballpark development plans for the Piccinini-Dolich group? Weren’t they either “make the Coliseum work” or another joint Raiders-A’s stadium? These were dead-on-arrival non-plans.
“Added 11/17 9:40 AM – Two additional wild card teams have been added to the playoffs. Wild card teams in each league will probably play each other in a one-game playoff, with each winner playing the division winner with the best record.”
BOOOOOO! God, I really hate that format. I really, really dislike Bud.
Added 11/17 11:00 AM – Jim Crane was unanimously approved as the new owner of the Houston Astros.
TonyD/Rayburn’s Son, it’s not that I think the decision is still up in the air, just that the idea that Wolff was going to use the Giants situation as leverage was always a fantasy. If he were to use it, we’d have the decision announced before they started on Baer.
Best interests of the Giants – keep the A’s out of Silicon Valley.
Best interests of baseball – put the A’s in Silicon Valley or anywhere they will profit.
Which is greater?
Great baseball people like Piccinini, Dolich? First of all, SAYS WHO?! and second, where do you get this nonsense?!
baer officially voted into the lodge—looks like things are progressing as expecxted…astro’s sale, astro’s move to AL, expanded wild card, CBA supposedly in hand, dodgers up for sale….wonder how LW is doing buying those last 2 parcels in SJ…
@GoA’s,
Was it unanimous for Baer?
Tony–sounds that way—here is a brief statement in the Merc–
“– Finally, the owners found time today to rubber-stamp Larry Baer as the Giants’ new CEO. I was told this might wait until the next round of meetings because of other business. As expected, there was no hangup over the A’s potential move to San Jose.”
Anon — I think you misread my post. I asked what would happen if the public vote failed in SJ. Most of you answered that question, some decided to challenge the assumption that a public vote wouldn’t pass. Not sure how my opinion of how Oakland will work is a relevant part of that discussion (but I answer that below).
As to the answers some provided as to how easily the SJ ballpark vote pass. I would say to those of you that used the Santa Clara 49er vote as an example of why SJ will vote to approve the A’s ballpark proposal, that the two votes are 180 degrees different. Santa Clara has ~45,000 registered voters, while SJ has 370,000 registered voters. A campaign by the 49ers in Santa Clara, as a result of the smaller voter universe, was relatively inexpensive and easier to run as a result. In the end, Measure J received 14,628 votes with voter turnout around 50%.
Running a campaign is a much larger City, with a myriad of public finance problems right now is not an easy task. I realize that all of us on this board are die-hard A’s fans and thus think this issue is a no brainer for voters. I would not to jump to that conclusion in SJ or Oakland (fortunately for Oakland, there is no public vote required). The election in San Jose on this issue won’t be as easy as you might think.
And if it loses, then, as some of you point out, the A’s have a decision to make. Back to Oakland, sell the team, try to move them out of area.
Now, answering your question: “how a Oakland stadium WOULD work in terms of financing, public support, and the local government process”
Just my thoughts, based on what I’ve read from City of Oakland leaders.
1. Financing:
Land, infrastructure, some parking paid for by Oakland Redevelopment (subject to outcome of lawsuit, other public sources (not Oakland General Fund);
Ballpark construction financed by the team and/or MLB or some combination; possible use some form of govt back loan fund to lower interest rates; possible use of a variety of sources well laid out by ML (pouring rights, naming rights, signage along the part of the stadium that fronts I-880, some other entitements issued by the city)
2. Public Support: Define that please. If you mean citizen support via an ballot initiative, Oakland does not have an ordinance that would require a ballot initiative. Oakland does have a provision that would allow for a citizen ballot initiative. To qualify for the ballot, such a referendum would need to get 10% of registered voters to sign, which unless heavily funded would be hard to accomplish.
3. Local Govt Process: same as every other large project in Oakland. Conduct and publish Final EIR. Planning Commission approval. City Council, acting in their capacity as head of Redevelopment, approve any transaction by Redevelopment Agency.
re: Ballpark construction financed by the team and/or MLB
…MLB has never paid for a ballpark and there is no ownership that is going to privately finance a ballpark in Oakland. Government loan? Which branch of government is not broke these days?…Same old. Same old. Oakland feels entitled to a free ballpark and no one is going to provide one.
@SS–you missed a key point—if SJ should fail, and I for one don’t believe it will, than the question is whether LW wants to cover any redevelopment investment–right now that is about $6-7M—pretty small in the over scope of things–yet it may be greater as the project details emerge–bottom line—if and when he gets the green light to SJ he will figure out how to make it happen–
re: 1. Financing:
Land, infrastructure, some parking paid for by Oakland Redevelopment (subject to outcome of lawsuit, other public sources (not Oakland General Fund);
…Oakland’s going to spend money on land and infrastructure for a ballpark for millionaire players when they’re laying off police officers? Huh?
I thought Baer was going to be the new OWNER of the Giants, not just a Macaw of the ownership group. He doesn’t even have a share in the team? Anyhow, interesting but in the end completely irrelevant in re to our new yard in SJ.
Stanley, you’re really, really reaching, grasping for straws at this point. Stop HOPING SJ fails in that somehow Oakland will “win” as a result.
If Susan Slusser reads this blog, she should hear that she is disappointing those A’s fans that want balanced coverage. She does a great job reporting facts regarding the SJ ballpark and on baseball matters but won’t dig behind the scenes to give us information that would provide the whole story. Why no reports on the Victory Ct. EIR, despite rumors that no work on it is being done? Why no challenge to or explanation of the veil of secrecy that Oakland has thrown over what is supposed to be a public process? Seems newsworthy to me. Why no probing questions about the latest BS from Beane that he can’t make FA decisions until the stadium issue is resolved? Just why is that so?? They still need to field a team, or are they just going to replace the lost FA’s with minor leaguers? No one questions the line of crap we are being fed.
In addition to refusing to make the team competitive, the ownership has so insulted much of its fan base that the fans and the team will wither away until they get to the new ballpark. Then there will be great excitement and attendance for a few years, maybe a bit more if they actually become a contender. But eventually, locating a regionally-drawing team at the southern end of the regional trade area that also has very poor transportation access will cause the attendance to tank, no matter how many dot.com firms own luxury box seats.
The Occupy Oakland protests have shown that Oakland has many problems, including its leadership. But most people simply bash Oakland because they can. I agree with ML that baseball owners are the 1%. To me, the fact that Selig, Wolff and the other powers are treating the A’s and many A’s fans with such contempt means that they are no better than the big Wall St. banks. Maybe there should be an Occupy the O.CO to show that the A’s and MLB have put their greedy financial interests ahead of the game.
PJK – Do you know how Redevelopment works? Let me try to explain it as simply as possible for you.
PJK — I’m not sure you know how redevelopment works….
Any property tax located within a redevelopment area (Victory Court is within two RDA areas) stays within the area. You can issue debt against the future tax increment (the increase in property tax derived from increased property values) from those areas. You can use that debt to purchase land amongst other things. Redevelopment is NOT part of the general fund of a city and does not expose the General Fund.
Oakland, SJ and a ton of other cities commit new redevelopment dollars all the time (although not now b/c of the lawsuit).
With regard to this comment by you, …MLB has never paid for a ballpark and there is no ownership that is going to privately finance a ballpark in Oakland. Government loan? Which branch of government is not broke these days?…Same old. Same old. Oakland feels entitled to a free ballpark and no one is going to provide one.
1. “No ownership will privately finance a ballpark in Oakland”: this has been repeated 4 thousand times on this site; how do you know? What we do know is that so far the CURRENT ownership won’t. It doesn’t make any sense for any other group to tell you they will right now cuz the team ain’t for sale. Just please for the sake of this blog. stop the rhetoric.
2. Government Loan. Read my post again. I said “government backed” loan. Very different concept. Let me explain it to you. A Government back loan means the government, usually a federal government vehicle, stands behind the loan, sometimes referred to as a backstop, so that if the loan fails, the full faith and credit of the government secures the loan. This can allow for a reduction in loan rate. When talking about a $500MM ballpark, one point off an interest rate could be huge $$.
3. Free ballpark. What entitlement. First off, according to Mayor Dellums in the newspaper and on TV, the entire construct of the deal in Oakland (City does land, infrastructure and some parking while team does stadium) was laid out by MLB. Not Oakland. So there’s no sense of entitlement on the vertical construction of the ballpark, that expectation came from MLB. And second, if you think land, infrastructure and parking is free, then you are just not that smart. Those items will cost money.
TonyD–SMH (again), dude, please do some research before you post. If you don’t know about Piccinini and Dolich, you don’t know much about the history of the A’s and this whole situation. It’s SJ A’s and Cisco Field only for you, nothing else..
@daveybaby, “Best interests of the Giants – keep the A’s out of Silicon Valley.” Ultimately, I think it will actually be to extract the most $ value out of the A’s FOR Silicon Valley.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2011/11/17/could-we-see-yet-another-as-sell-off-of-course-since-thats-who-they-are/
SS: San Jose has used redevelopment money for its ballpark project, money that can’t be used to pay police salaries. But it doesn’t matter- the perception would be- Oakland would be using public funds for a ballpark project when it is laying off police officers. Doesn’t matter if its redevelopment funds. Perception becomes reality. So who is going to build this Oakland ballpark for the A’s? Owners won’t. The city won’t. MLB won’t How’s it get paid for, SS?
SS: if the team goes up for sale, it’s far more likely that the team gets relocated out of the Bay Area than some magic Knight in Shining Armor is going to build a $450 mill ballpark on his own dime in an area where it wouldn’t make financial sense.
Adding wildcards is horrible. On the Selig Scale of Idiocy, I give this a perfect 10.
Maybe MLB will eventually go the NHL route: 16 teams make the playoffs. We know why MLB is doing this – more soldout playoff game tickets sold at premium prices. Plain and simple
@pjk – I read an article today outlining how “ownership must have” $150 mil tucked away somewhere from all the revenue sharing. It goes on to say that this amount plus the Cisco naming rights of $120 mil equals $270 mil that can go toward a $400+ mil ballpark in SJ. It further states that ownership should have no problem coming up with the $100 mil or so required to complete the project from corporations in the area. I’m replying to your comment that the “Owners won’t” build in Oakland. If, and I do say If they have that much cash on hand why would they not build in their own territory? Why would they not tap what is available in the current territory? I’m not being argumentative, rather, I’m seriously trying to understand why LW/JF wouldn’t just do the same thing in Oakland or somewhere in their current territory. I’ve heard the argument that there are no corporations in the Oakland area that would be able to sustain this but I’m unconvinced of this. There are big corporations in the immediate area as well as many small businesses that would likely purchase luxury boxes. I personally have a client who owns a business specializing in importing nurses from Asia and he told me that he would purchase 3 or 4 luxury boxes by himself if they built in Oakland (He’s based there). I have another client who owns a pretty sizeable machine shop in Walnut Creek who supplies auto parts stores throughout the country and he also said he would purchase luxury boxes. There’s another client who owns a very successful chain of Pizza restaurants in the east bay who would also purchase luxury boxes. I have a client who is a partner in a very large law firm in the east bay also desiring to get luxury suites. Finally, I have a paternal great-uncle who owns the largest company supplying nuts and bolts. Yes, nuts and bolts. Doesn’t sound like much, huh? You’d be mistaken as he is a HUGE A’s fan, extremely wealthy, and would purchase luxury suites as well. We’re not just talking about Oakland, but Berkeley, Alameda, Walnut Creek, Pleasanton, Emeryville, even San Leandro (Otis Spunkmeyer). I understand the whole tech company thing in SJ and they have tons of money, I’m not disputing that. It’s the difference between fortune 500 companies and all the others. There is no disputing that and I get that. But why would the owners just simply not tap into what’s there already? We’re talking about a potentially large amount of small to medium sized businesses interested in luxury boxes entertaining clients. What happens if the tech industry implodes? Or worse, what if the smaller tech firms get swallowed up by the larger firms, thus providing less competition? I would think brick-and-mortar companies would thrive. Just my opinion.
Build where in Oakland? At VC, where they have to move 16 businesses who may not want to move, deal with infrastructure and railroad crossing? Who pays for all thatt?…And of course the Cisco $120 mill goes away in Oakland, as far as we know. Who makes that up?.. How have luxury boxes sold historically at A’s games? Not very well.
@SS- Your thoughts however creative are not reality.
1. Redevelopment Money is gone. Jerry Brown took it and is stuffing it under a mattress for the state to use. There is a lawsuit pending and you “know this”. Therefore your points are invalid from start to finish on this that Oakland can use RDA money for the A’s.
2. The government is us….the taxpayers. There is no way on god’s green earth we as the taxpayers will pay for a new ballpark in Oakland or San Jose. The government backing the loan? That is pretty interesting stuff considering that is what public subsidies are. You are asking the taxpayers float bonds for this and have the government back it?? Two words…”Financial suicide” come to mind.
Plus it was “government backed loans or freddie and fannie” that killed the economy. Getting loans is impossible after the recession and your logic is not correct.
3.Your third point of the MLB laying out the parameters. Oakland needs 150M just to buy and move the 16 businesses at VC and fix the transportation/parking issues in the area.
Your right that stuff is not free…..San Jose needs only 10M-15M to get their site ready with only 1 business left to move (ATT)….Tell me who is far better position to get a ballpark up in the air?
MLB will never let the A’s build privately in Oakland…why? It would put the team into debt without a way to pay for it. That is why MLB has only let 2 ballparks come up privately in history…SF and LA. They want public handouts so their teams stay out of debt.
San Jose is different because there is so much private sector money that it will be easy to pay debt service….In Oakland, not the case.
See my post above….Wolff has the stadium “shovel ready” because he has corporations ready to dole out money in Silicon Valley. The Giants exhausted the corporations in the East Bay a long time for baseball. Time to market was key in that area….San Jose sits alone with no direct competition for 50 miles while Oakland has a competitor 12 miles away.
4. The San Jose vote will easily pass and here is why:
-Back in 1992 the Giants almost got a free ballpark from San Jose and it was narrowly defeated. In this case all San Jose is providing is the land and infrastructure around it. Simple as that…..The A’s will pay for the stadium themselves 100%. San Jose pays 10M-15M and the A’s 450M….Greatest ballpark deal in the history of MLB for a city.
-Baseball San Jose and SVLG are in full support and will throw money at getting the votes needed for this to pass. Carl Guardino the CEO of SVLG led 2 separate campaigns for sales tax increase for the BART that needed super majority vote or 2/3rds and he got them both times. Mr. Guardino is in full support of the ballpark and if anyone can lead the charge it is him.
-Mario is way off that people won’t come to the games in the South Bay. There are 2M people out here and Downtown San Jose is the center of the county with several freeways and light rail connecting the area. The A’s will get far more fans in San Jose than Oakland hands down. I would bet a pretty penny on that one with a new stadium in Downtown San Jose.
-The vote passes 65-35 or 70-30. It will be so easy the vote that SVLG and Baseball San Jose may not have to try that hard.
@Columbo – A small business owner would buy 3 or 4 luxury boxes all by himself? Do you know how much luxury boxes cost to lease? At least $100k per year at most new ballparks, plus a 5 or 10-year lock-in. There’s a reason the initial numbers for the Victory Court ballpark had 39 luxury suites as opposed to 40-50 at other ballparks. The market is not that great in Oakland.
@Stanley – good stuff. Thanks for posting!
@Columbo- It is because the Giants have eaten up all those sponsors you talk about. You talk about car shops and pizza joints.
San Jose is talking about huge Hi-tech companies that Wolff can charge more for. Cisco will not put a naming rights deal for Oakland but for San Jose they are all in. This plus the fans in the South Bay have far more money than the fans in the East Bay by far.
The tech industry did implode….in 2000-2001. What is left are the strongest of the bunch that survived. Tech will never leave Silicon Valley because it was its birthplace. Plus the area has great weather, low crime, and is a great place to work.
Even if some got bought up they larger companies would assume those contracts. If Cisco got bought in 2020 the new company would own the naming rights. Like HP and Compaq back in the day with the San Jose Arena.
Oakland has a bigger problem than just corporations….it is a viable downtown site that San Jose has. Oakland has built out their city to the max. VC is not workable because of all the transportation issues and businesses that sit there now.
It is not an issue of trying, the A’s did try believe it or not. It is about feasibility of surviving as a business long run.
San Jose is the best place for the team from this point of view
@ML – I’m aware of the prices. This particular client is extremely wealthy and his business is highly profitable. He’s been in business over 30 years and not only recruits nurses, but tech employees for major corporations. He’s always scheming and marketing. He could and would afford that. Let’s leave it at that.
@Sid – can you provide a link, where a Cisco representative states that they wouldn’t be interested in naming rights @ an Oakland Ballpark? Thanks!
@Columbo – Wealthy people and companies don’t stay that way by wasting money on 4 luxury suites. That’s ridiculous.
@Sid – I appreciate the feedback. I think we can just agree to disagree. You mention “pizza joints” as if it’s some minimum wage thing but, in fact, one of my clients happens to earn some serious dough from his venture. I’m simply saying that there are hundreds of small to medium sized businesses in the east bay (in addition to some big companies) who would likely purchase luxury suites. Not to bore you with details but my sister’s best friend owns a chain of lady’s “haircut” salons throughout the eastbay and she is swimming in money. O.k., let’s cut to the chase. A tech programmer (and I know this by law from clients, i.e. “know your clients”) earns about $120k and much higher, depending on their experience and responsibilities. I have clients in all bay area counties and at least 35 states. Without question my biggest clients are small to medium sized business owners in terms of annual income. I have more clients in Alameda and Contra Costa counties than any other county in the bay area although my office is in downtown SF. I believe there is a misconception here regarding income and, although this is my personal experience, I can say that there are more entrepreneurs and small business owners in the east bay by far. A guy who graduates from SJSU with a computer science degree who is hired by Intel making $80k his first year is not comparable in my opinion. I must admit, however, that there is a large amount of underemployed and unemployed people in the east bay, which I believe brings down the mean and median. There is no question about that.
We don’t know for sure that Cisco wouldn’t be interested in Oakland but Oakland does not offer the advantage of Cisco being able to show off its name and its technology in its own backyard. Oakland is 35 miles away. It seems highly like that Cisco’s $$ goes away if the ballpark is in Oakland but of course they can’t come out and announce that… FWIW, naming rights for San Jose’s arena, which hosts nothing but the NHL, which is a TV ratings wasteland, still sold for plenty more than what the Coliseum got, even though the Coliseum has the juggernauts of the NFL and the MLB.
@ML- While I appreciate your feedback I politely disagree. This particular client’s business is literally based on client appreciation. That’s how he has built his business. It’s the difference between spending money to make a winner and not. This client was the first person to invite me to an A’s game back in the early 2000’s where I sat right behind home plate where he had 10 seats as well as a luxury box. This is a guy who would have no problem forking over $5k for dinner for a prospective client knowing that his return would be 1,000-fold. That’s how he operates. He’s not a miser. He understands that he will make more and more money the more he invests in his business. While you may think it’s “ridiculous” that he would buy 3 or 4 luxury suites, I have no doubt in my mind that, not only does he have the cash to do so, he would part with that money joyfully knowing that his return will magnify exponentially. It’s hard to understand if you’re not used to dealing with small business owners. Massive corporations are different as they have money to burn literally. I’m talking about people who are entrepreneurs who have made millions from nothing. That is who largely comprises my clients base. Let me point out that I also have small business owner clients in SCL county who would love an SJ A’s park so I’m not discriminating here. One guy lives in Los Gatos and has made a fortune in the small retail trade and told me he’s anxious for the A’s to move. I don’t talk to him much anymore. Just kidding!
@David- look at the letter signed by 75 CEO’s and sent to bs asking that the A’s be allowed to move to SJ—Cisco is right there–
@pjk – Good points. I agree that a downtown SJ park is much more convenient for Cisco. If this is a key part of the equation in terms of financing, meaning proximity, then I have no doubt that Diridon is the proper choice.
@GoA’s – nice try, but that’s not an answer. I’m waiting for Sid’s take.
@Columbo – Regardless of location, I’ll believe it when I see it. People making money through specialized staffing are not unique to the Bay Area. Demographically, the lion’s share of suite sales are made to corporations, not those kinds of individuals.
@ML – I never said this particular client was not incorporated. However, I do agree with you that the majority of suites are bought by major corporations. I guess I’m from the Austrian economics world where I believe that competition is key to a healthy future and this results from small to medium sized business owners, not mega-corporations. Not to get political here but that is exactly what I believe is wrong with our country and why our dollar is doomed to fail at some point. Well, that was OT wasn’t it? Let’s not get into politics. Sorry I made the comment.
@David- not an answer…and you continue to maintain that Oakland has a secret plan that is just waiting to be unveiled—ok..
@GoA’s – I asked if there was a statement or something, saying that the offer to provide naming rights money was a SJ only offer. I’ve never seen anything stating that. If someone has, please share. thanks!
and my point to you is that Cisco has publically stated support for naming rights to Fremont and San Jose–never to Oakland–so while it might be implied it is pretty damn clear. Your asking for a specific statement from Cisco is laughable considering you don’t require any proof from your leaders in Oakland that they are doing anything at all but your confident that “the secret plan” is coming
@Columbo – To clarify, I mean Fortune 1000 corporations and their subsidiaries. Large regional businesses also take up a share. It’s one thing to toss off a “I’ll buy X suites” quote, another to act on it.
@GoA’s – Boxer was quoted on this site stating that they are not sharing info with the hostile ownership group. Also, that they have a gag order from MLB. I never said anything about a “secret plan”. What I do know is a new ballpark in Oakland will draw lots of south bay money. Just like Oracle put their name on the arena, some company will put there name on Oakland’s stadium.
David,
can you please post the link to the story that claims an Oakland ballpark will draw lots of south bay money. Also post the links to the super-secret ballpark plans of Oakland and workings with MLB (I can just hear Selig now “sorry Lewie, but its only between me, Quan and the occupy folks). Thanks in advance David!
@ML – Agreed. We shall see.
(Reads the SVLG letter)…note to David, nowhere is Oakland ever mentioned. I would ask you why SVLG has never backed Oakland ever, but then you would retort how i would know whether some backroom deal with SVLG was ever conceived…/rolleyes
@ Columbo Due credit for at least trying to make an argument there is a market for premium seating in the East Bay. This being the case, please explain: Why do the Raiders struggle so mightily to sell suites and club seats, and why are they forced to sell them so cheaply, especially considering: (a) they have one tenth of the number of games to sell as MLB; (b) they have no meaningful competition, as Candlestick has no club seats and minimal suites; and (c) the NFL is the most popular sports league in the U.S., by far.
.
If you theory were valid, it would seem the Raiders would be one of the top revenue teams in the league. They have more premium seat product to sell than the vast majority of teams in the league (they just can’t sell it).
@David Your theory is that South Bay corporations will just line up to commit to dragging their clients through 90 minutes to two hours of traffic, night in and night out, for five to ten years, when there is a more glamorous and convenient alternative 40-60 minutes away?
.
As always, your logic is compelling.
maybe another question to be asked is would east bay companies support the a’s once they move down to sj? a’s have one of the lowest corp bases currently at the coliseum over the years, would those who’ve stood by the a’s while in oakland over the past 10-15 years continue to support them in the south bay even if the a’s do get a lot of south bay corp support.
…
i’ve said it before but imo one major reason why sf doesn’t want the a’s to move down to sj is they’d get a lot of money that hasn’t been funneled into the sf org by south bay corps into the a’s org and if sf can’t get that money, then they certainly don’t want the a’s to get that money. how many of those corps just want to support a sj only team and not so much with teams based in either sf or the oak over the past decade. how many of those companies in the slvg back either the niners or raiders?
Sid: My response to your response:
1. Redevelopment is not gone. ML you seem to the only one that has credibilty on this site so can you please correct Sid’s understanding of the current state of Redevelopment. But just in case ML doesn’t. Redevelopment money is not gone. The City of Oakland has already agreed to pay the state the “ransom” payment to continue to operate under the “son of redevelopment” if the RDA’s lawsuit is unsuccessful. So there will be ability to issue new debt even if the lawsuit wins. Maybe not as much but some.
2. I agree that taxpayers won’t foot the bill in SJ or Oakland. There are mechanisms available to a project of this size to issue debt for lower than current market rates. This will lower the borrowing costs significantly. Your comment about “getting loans” being impossible is mixing apples with oranges. This is not a home mortgage, this is a massive construction loan that will lead to a huge economic boost to a region with job creation, etc. This type of debt is available. Not easy but it’s available.
3. Why do you guys always go back to Oakland v. San Jose. Be fair to me here. I’m not making a judgement that Oakland will be easier than SJ or vica versa. Quite frankly it’s going to be hard anyway. I was asked by pjk to comment on what Oakland’s plan might be.
4. I agree that Mr. Guardino is an exceptionally smart and hard-working guy. That said, I’ll pay for dinner for you, me, Jeffrey and ML if a public vote on a ballpark in SJ passes with 70% yes.
@bartleby – I do see the points in your questioning. Without hard data in front of me I can’t answer that right now. I can only speak from personal experience that, when I’ve personally attended games this year, the West Side Club was full. When I walked to the East Side area to take my sons to the kids area, it appeared that that side was full as well. When I moved from the east bay to the peninsula in 2004 I must admit that I didn’t attend many raider games during that time. When they came back in the mid 90’s I attended every home game for several years thereafter. Again, in my personal experience the club sections seemed to be filled while Mt. Davis seemed sparsely occupied. While I’m not avoiding answering your questions, I do need to see if I can get some hard data to look at first. I’m lucky as I know some people that might be able to provide some info to me. Do you have hard data on the things you are saying, i.e. club seat and suite sales? Re: ticket prices, again I don’t know what the Packers or the Steelers charge for their version of club seats. The face value of Raider tickets in the east side club is, I believe $155 or $165. Again, I would need to look to see how these prices compare to other teams. Give me a bit to look into the data and I will attempt to answer your questions. Good dialogue!
@Stanley Stanson – My writeup of last week’s Supreme Court hearing covers the current state of redevelopment. To be blunt, redevelopment as we know it is in severe danger. Even if the court upholds both bills, the net effect is that no redevelopment agency will be able to borrow for at least three years and probably five because their tax increment will be redirected. If AB26X is upheld while 27X dies, redevelopment is very much dead. I wouldn’t be so sanguine about its chances. If both are struck down, there’s no telling what the state will do to bridge the growing budget gap. The justices appeared to be looking for a compromise which would involve referenda for any/all redevelopment work because it would be attached to some sort of tax (probably a parcel tax). The CRA’s lawsuit seeks to strike down at least 26X if not both.
I must have missed the news that Oakland is paying the ransom amount. Do you have a link or citation to that?
Last I read Oakland excluded the ransom from the budget?
.
70%?!?!?! No effing way that happens anywhere.
http://oaklandnorth.net/2011/06/28/city-budget-wont-include-40-million-to-save-redevelopment-agency/
.
I haven’t seen anything about Oakland saving RDA since I read the above link. This was back in June, so maybe something changed that wasn’t well publicized (or that I missed)?
@Stanley,
You ARE trying hard to portray Oakland as being easier than SJ re making a ballpark happen. You’re also closing your eyes to what’s been going on in The O for the past month or so. The minute Quan (or whomever replaces her) announces they’re going to issue massive debt ($1 billion +?) or raise taxes to pay for a MLB ballpark all hell will break loose in The Town. Didn’t they just shoot down a parcel tax for basic city services? (I know, I know David..hate Oakland.org)
Tony D.
Huh? My original post which discussed how Oakland can get this done never mentions the word SJ. My eyes are wide-open when it comes to Oakland. My office is a stone’s throw from Frank H. Ogawa Plaza. I live in Oakland and, as such, am intimately aware of the situation. Don’t lecture me please.
Where is your evidence of raising taxes to pay for this. No one has ever said that and no one is issuing $1B in debt. Don’t both writing back your usual line “Tell me who will put up a $1B to do this deal,” I’m tired of reading it. And no I don’t have that answer which isn’t relevant until MLB tells the A’s their decision. At that time, the A’s owners will make a decision and then we can all answer your question.
Yes, Oakland voters rejected a parcel tax. You could see that one coming from a mile away. The popular police chief quit the day the ballots for a public safety parcel tax hit the mail box. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to know that would fail. But tell me again how this is related to the A’s ballpark? Parcel taxes will not be offered up to pay for this. You, of course, are trying to confuse the issue.
Anyway, I’m done trying to offer up a explanation. Tony D., you are one angry dude. Wake me up when this nightmare is over and we can all go out for a beer.