Oakland Press Conference at Clorox HQ (Updated)

Today at 10 AM, there will be a press conference at Clorox headquarters in Downtown Oakland about efforts to keep the A’s in town.

Clorox is handling the media advisories for the event. That’s all I know for the moment. Since I’m still in San Diego, I won’t be able to attend. I’ll keep an eye out for news as it comes in.

Update 10:30 AM – A tweet from KRON’s Haaziq Madyun:

11:10 AM – From Baseball Oakland’s Facebook page:

Today Clorox CEO Don Knauss has announced continued support by the East Bay buisness community in Keeping the A’s in Oakland. He is willing to work with current ownership, however if that cannont happen he is willing to work with another group that is willing to buy the team and pledge support for them (sic) 

11:30 AM – I just got off the phone with Lew Wolff. He confirmed that the team is not for sale and that ownership has explored all options in Oakland.

11:55 AM – Oakland Mayor Jean Quan has put out a press release.


May 3, 2012

Clorox and Other Major East Bay Businesses Join Mayor Jean Quan to Voice Their Support
to Keep the A’s in Oakland

OAKLAND, CA– Chairman and CEO of The Clorox Company Don Knauss, joined by several of the largest companies located in the East Bay, today stood with Oakland Mayor Jean Quan to announce support for keeping the Athletics baseball team in Oakland.

At the event, Knauss stated, “Clorox strongly and enthusiastically endorses the efforts of the East Bay business community and City of Oakland to keep the Oakland A’s here in a new, world-class stadium. As former president and CEO of the Minute Maid Company, I was actively involved in the design of the new Houston Astros downtown ballpark and subsequently secured naming rights to change the name to Minute Maid Park. From that experience, I can speak first-hand to the revitalization a world-class ballpark can bring to a city. Certainly, Oakland would benefit greatly from the jobs, tourism and vitality a new stadium would bring.

“The business community is committed to helping drive an effort to support the current ownership group in their quest for a new stadium so long as they are committed to staying in Oakland,” Knauss went on to say. “However, if the current ownership group is not committed to Oakland, we want to make clear that Oakland and the East Bay business community are ready to step up to the plate to help ensure the A’s stay home where they belong in Oakland. We’re confident we have identified an ownership group with the financial wherewithal to buy the team, keep them here and get a new stadium built.”

Added Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, “I want to thank Clorox and members of the business community for doing what is necessary to keep the A’s in Oakland. Developing a world-class sports, entertainment and business complex as a new home for the A’s will generate thousands of jobs and create economic development opportunities for this City.”

At the event, the East Bay business leaders said they are prepared to work with the City, County and A’s ownership to help secure corporate sponsors in the following areas:

  • Stadium Naming Rights
  • Major Corporate Sponsorship Commitments – Significant anchor sponsorships, including seat licenses and luxury boxes. (A number of the companies have already made substantial deposits into an escrow account to demonstrate their seriousness when it comes to such sponsorship commitments.)
  • Other Regional Sponsorships — Given the size and breadth of the East Bay, home to nearly 2.5 million people, representing one of the country’s strongest economic markets and huge marketing and sponsorship opportunities, the business leaders made clear they would work with the City and the County to identify additional corporate supporters throughout the entire Bay Area and beyond, including Sacramento and Stockton.
  • Reaching Out to Business Partners – Given the size of the companies, many have relationships with business partners who would have a strong interest in supporting the team and the region as sponsors.
  • Identifying Specific Industry Anchor Sponsor Opportunities – Pursuing opportunities for the kind of anchor sponsorship relationships Major League Baseball teams typically have in sectors like the airlines, health care, car manufacturers, beverage and food companies, energy companies and major consumer companies.

Among the East Bay businesses represented today are:

  • Bigge Crane & Rigging
  • Jobs and Housing Coalition
  • Kaiser Permanente
  • Matson Navigation Company
  • Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
  • Pandora Internet Radio
  • Reynolds & Brown
  • Safeway
  • Signature Development Group
  • Wendel Rosen Black & Dean
  • World Market

If the team is not for sale, and East Bay backers would prefer new ownership, where does that leave us? No different than yesterday or a week ago, I suppose. The game plan by many of the Oakland-only community has been to wait out the process and hope that Selig denies Wolff the rights to San Jose, then come forward with a new ownership group and stadium plans, which may or may not be tied to Coliseum City. The problem with this is that how do you impress Selig, who according to many of the community is out to get Oakland, without some serious level of detail and planning? They’ve had over three years to put something cohesive and coherent together. Press conferences like these, which seem to occur every couple of months, are good at generating media interest. Beyond that, where’s the substance?

Clorox deserves a lot of credit here. Don Knauss is driving this forward, and as I’ve mentioned before, every stadium campaign needs a champion. Knauss might be that guy.

There’s also one key difference between what’s happening with the A’s and what’s going on with the Sacramento Kings. The Maloofs are broke. The Wolff/Fisher group is anything but broke. The only party who can “force” a sale is Selig, and he’d need a very good case to make that happen.

143 thoughts on “Oakland Press Conference at Clorox HQ (Updated)

  1. The A’s aren’t for sale (that was easy). Wasn’t this crap already dealt with BTW?

  2. All this accomplishes is to reaffirm that Oakland is still viable as a MLB market if the ownership were actually committed to the area and not actively trying to leave it. Nothing new to those of us following the ballpark situation, but it could make getting 3/4 of the other MLB owners to vote for relocation to SJ that much more difficult.

  3. i’ll believe it when i see it. i just want a new park, sj or oak, doesn’t matter to me. i still think a park in sj would be much better for the team when it dealt with sponsors and as it’s been said before many times lets see whether not a group is willing to spend around 3/4 of a billion dollar to keep the a’s in oakland. if there is such a group, then fine but i just don’t believe there is one.

  4. If they have a plan, I’d like to hear it.

  5. Splendid. More c*ck blocking. Hooray for Oakland.

  6. MLB has long taken the position that they will not approve a move to San Jose unless there are no viable options in Oakland. This shows a viable option. If a potential buyer can identify a location and defend the potential market/fan base, there is no reason why the Wolf/Fisher ownership could not do the same.
    Ultimately, this undercuts the current ownership’s claim that Oakland offers zero opportunity and gives the other owners and the commissioner reason not to approve the move.

  7. If they have a concrete plan for financing lets see what it is.

    I heard two groups were interested with one Silicon Valley Executive included as well to keep the team in Oakland.

    I have to believe MLB if they saw a way to build in Oakland it would have been clearly pursued by now. But let’s see what this is all about..

  8. @Aaron L.- That makes zero sense what you just said.

    If Oakland was viable MLB would have forced Wolff to look at it. The fact they have not said anything in over 3 years and Selig has stated publicly he is trying to “broker a deal” to get the team to San Jose says volumes about Oakland.

  9. MLB let a committee to study the viability of a new A”s ballpark in the Bay Area. You would have to assume that this includes (a) an assessment of potential viable sites in Oakland, (b) other options within the A’s current territory, and (c) potential viable sites outside of A’s territory (SJ).
    While the findings of the Blue Ribbon Committee’s study are not made public, it’s fair to assume that if the findings deemed Oakland to be a viable market, Selig would currently be steering negotiations between the A’s and Giants.
    This issue isn’t a question of whether or not there are parties interested in purchasing the team—this is about whether or not there is a suitable location in the Bay for a new ballpark.

  10. DeAr GAWWD…. PLEEz dON’T HaVE THEir pLAn bE cOLoSiUM CiTy. This notion is turning me into a whiny teenager. If they have a viable plan for a downtown Oakland ballpark, I’m all ears. Coliseum City would be the death of the A’s.

  11. I hope this isn’t just another exercise in PR… But I am sure it is.
    Having a group that wants to keep the A’s in Oakland is fine and dandy by me. But the amount of detail that comes out is way more important. If the plan is to stay at the Coliseum indefinitely, this is a non starter.
    I’ve always felt that if the City wanted to keep the A’s they would need to show a tangible and comprehensive end to end solution. New ownership is sort of immaterial.

  12. agreed that any new viable oakland park would have to be near downtown or along the waterfront. coliseum city imo is a no go for the a’s.

  13. Nice spin there Aaron, it does none of that.
    MLB doesn’t see this an ownership problem, Oakland boosters do.
    MLB sees this as a revenue problem. A stadium deal is what they want and that is why Selig is pushing the Giants and A’s to come an agreement on San Jose.

  14. I wonder who is on this mysterious group who will remain nameless praying that SJ fails. and waiting for Fisher to want to sell? From LGO’s page it looks like they haven’t found a group but are saying they would find one in the future if Fisher/Wolff won’t stay. This isn’t new really at all, unclear that any organized group is going to change things.

  15. If they have a solid, doable plan to buy the team and pay for a ballpark, let’s get the shovels in the ground quickly, please. No “We’ve spent several years investigating and have determined we can’t make it work in Oakland, unfortunately..” We’ve heard all that from the current and previous ownership.

  16. Selig is like leaky faucet… the path of least resistance is what he gets his attention. Can’t wait to hear/read more details. This is a great start for Oakland!

  17. “A great start” after 15-20 years of doing nothing. Of course, we don’t know if there’s anything legitimate here or not. The Coliseum City thing was supposed to be a great start but turned out to be nothing more than “Here’s the Coliseum parking lot site MLB already rejected. Now go spend your own money and build a ballpark. Your problem if you go broke doing it.”

  18. I doubt that Clorox would be dirtying (pun intended) their good name for a PR stunt.
    “Here we go Oakland, here we go!!”

  19. @pjk – Coliseum City EIR, unlike the Victory Court one, has already started.
    MLB may not have wanted a stadium at that site previously, but as you know… things change!

  20. Does Clorox want to sponsor the ballpark? Can they match the $120 mill Cisco is offering? I don’t think Clorox really needs any sports sponsorship to get brand recognition. I couldn’t name any other bleach maker besides Clorox.

  21. @David: Do you think Coliseum City is a good idea for the A’s?

  22. FWIW, after spending $1,000 of my own money to maintain San Jose’s tree in front of my house because the city doesn’t have the money, I’m fine with San Jose avoiding any potential ballpark costs. With the BART extension coming in, it will be even easier for me to get to games in Oakland. But I’ll take the team in San Jose if Oakland simply can’t work for a new ballpark. Nobody has shown yet that it can. San Jose is still much closer to Oakland than San Antonio, Vegas, Portland, Charlotte, NC, New Jersey…

  23. Post updated with a reaction from Lew Wolff and commentary.

  24. Wait, so Clorox is announcing that they have plan to start trying to assemble a team of business leaders and investors to buy the A’s? Shouldn’t they have held a press conference once they had a team and financing strategy in place? How are they planning on building a new venue?
    Shouldn’t this effort have been started years ago?

  25. Clorox would probably care more about naming rights for the Kingsford Charcoal barbecue area.

  26. re: Today Clorox CEO Don Knauss has announced continued support by the East Bay buisness community in Keeping the A’s in Oakland. He is willing to work with current ownership, however if that cannont happen he is willing to work with another group that is willing to buy the team and pledge support for them (sic)

    …Bummer. Looks like a lot of nothing so far. How about Clorox coming forward with a giant check for $120 mill to buy naming rights for an Oakland ballpark? Looks to be nothing of the sort. More talk, no action, no $$.

  27. Yup, very apt, no substance. I’ll keep watching these for news but again with pretty much every press conference that has been related, the script, visuals and message are about four years old.

  28. @Briggs – Oakland is a good idea for the A’s. C.C. since the land is already owned, looks “easier” to get done than the VC site. If I could have my choice, it would be VC. But, I just want to keep the Oakland A’s. If they remained the “Oakland Athletics” I would be fine with them in San Leandro, Hayward, Alameda, or Berkeley.
    Wolff running around with SJ on Stomper and those terrible looking green and gold “SJ” hats are part of the problem (low attendance).

  29. Quan just made a statement on the city website about interested businesses, etc. If the only thing this means is that the A’s don’t get relocated out of CA, I’ll take it.

  30. My kid really enjoyed meeting Stomper at a recent walkathon in Willow Glen.

  31. Who was their intended audience for the press conference?

  32. re: interested businesses.
    …the same ones that keep all the suites empty at the existing stadium?

  33. Additional post update including the Mayor’s press release.

  34. Don Knauss is the former CEO of Minute Maid and was actively involved in the design of the Astros downtown ballpark, including securing naming rights, etc. BTW, his exact words regarding new ownership were “We’re confident we have identified an ownership group with the financial wherewithal to buy the team, keep them here and get a new stadium built.” In other words a group has already been identified. The heads of 12 large companies were present at this press conference, including Kaiser and Safeway. I realize I will get barraged about the details of the financing, which I’m not aware of personally. My point to this post was to point out that Knauss has done this kind of thing before, a group has already been identified, and they have support from businesses that at least show commitments to things like luxury suites, seat licenses, and most importantly, working with the city and county to identify corporate support beyond the current territory.

  35. Anything in that press release about public funding for the ballpark? I’m glancing at it and not finding anything. Oakland making yet another statement that confirms it won’t help pay for the ballpark could hasten the team’s departure, actually.

  36. Their audience is the general public. They want people to say “Look, the City of Oakland is trying! San Jose is trying to steal the team! Those dang owners! Hullabalooo!” It’s a PR stunt. No substance. No answers. Just “Look at us!”
    If they were serious, they would have already had a list of businesses that have committed to buying suites and season tickets and advertising. If holding a press conference is the way they are going about attracting attention from businesses, they’re doing it wrong. Clorox is a big business. They should have connections in the community to directly contact the other business leaders that would be able to help them, if enough of them exist in the Easy Bay or are willing to commit from the South Bay. However, Clorox hasn’t even taken the big first step themselves and declared their intent to cover naming rights for a new East Bay stadium. That would have been a big step.
    As ML linked, where’s the beef?

  37. I am disappointed to be right.

  38. —Looks like they did some of what I thought they should do. We’ll have to see the financing plan, but I doubt they make that public unless they get a commitment by Wolff or a change in ownership.

  39. Wait, Knauss helped develop the designs for Minute Maid Park? Yuck.

  40. @Columbo – Refresh my memory on who originally bought the naming rights to the Astros’ stadium?

  41. This press release from Mayor Quan (the recall is going nowhere btw …) is great news for the effort to keep the A’s in Oakland.
    CC – EIR already started
    AEG – running the complex
    EB business leaders side-by-side with the Mayor
    Commitment to work with current owners or, identified well-financed new group!

  42. wasn’t Houston “Enron” at first?

  43. Jean Quan,” Developing a world-class sports, entertainment and business complex as a new home for the A’s will generate thousands of jobs and create economic development opportunities for this City.”


    Yup. Coliseum City. If Oakland wants to build a place where people want to go, they should build it in a place people want to go.

  44. agreed hou’s park is the most poorly designed new venue in mlb. everything from the lf foul line to the right of that stupid hill was a disaster. first naming rights, wasnt it enron?

  45. re: Refresh my memory
    ..that would be…OK, I’ll let Columbo answer it.

  46. what would a potential oakland park be named? kaiser field? clorox park? those seem like the biggest east bay located corporations that have the money to spend on a venue.

  47. @david…oh never mind!

  48. @ ML – Yes, that would be Enron. A company that fooled many people and lied. They destroyed thousands of retirees life savings. Knauss helped change it to Minute Maid Park.

  49. Minute Maid had lots of public funding. An Oakland ballpark will have none. Can Knauss climb this obstacle?

  50. What a great sign for keeping the team home. I understand some of the hesitance by some on here (others just actively want SJ), Oakland has a lot to prove. This is a long overdue start, but it is a good step forward. Combine this with the Raiders actively pumping up the Coliseum City idea and that’s some definite hope, IMO.

  51. You know what’s really AWESOME?! the FACT that Selig is in the process of brokering a deal between the A’s and Giants for SJ. And of course, this is all based on the findings of MLB’s three year committee studying the Bay Area situation. Frankly, whatever Oakland does at this point (short of massive public financing for a ballpark) is completely irrelevant. BTW, Wolff says the A’s aren’t for sale …next topic!

  52. BTW, Quan is so full of it!!

  53. @TonyD – you better call the maintenance man because that “front burner” doesn’t seem to be working.
    May 16/17 No A’s move on the agenda …
    Selig said no movement while Giants are involved in lawsuit.
    Other MLB owners are watching what’s going on …

  54. A’s weren’t on the agenda in January either but ended up a big item of discussion.

  55. Maybe I am just confused, but I don’t understand what the harm would be for Lew to sit down with these representatives, just to hear what they have to say? Maybe there is something there, I mean he could go meet with them and if its just a load of crap then he can leave afterwards and carry on with trying to move to San Jose, I just don’t see why sitting down with the Oakland Business leaders who were at the press conference today would be a bad idea? It seems like it would only be good press for Lew and the A’s and it could help alleviate the current belief that some have that he has never tried. By just completely closing the door and saying, NO, we have explored all options and there are none, just feeds the idea that he is not even willing to listen!

    • @Bryan – I think that would be a good way to go. One problem – What happens when both parties come away with completely different takes on what occurred during the meeting? I could probably script the talking points for both sides right now.

  56. Tony: Maybe the timing of Oakland’s latest PR song-and-dance is an indicator that an SJ deal is about to happen? Who knows?

  57. Whatever you say David, whatever you say. I’ll go ahead and let you bask in your day under the Sun. Don’t really feel like going in circles today…we’ll talk later 😉

  58. reL It seems like it would only be good press for Lew and the A’s and it could help alleviate the current belief that some have that he has never tried.
    …this is a belief by folks who will not recognize the economic realities of San Jose vs. Oakland and are not ever going to believe Wolff gave it a go in Oakland. People believe what they want to believe. Had the group today come out with certified checks for sponsorships, naming rights, commitment to public funding, then we might be somewhere. But it was none of that.

  59. Wolff reaffirmed the Giants’ T-Rights to San Jose, in a vote of owners. Of course he can ask them to allow a move, but they don’t have to agree. If they don’t want to sell their “asset” then deal with Oakland, or get out of the way!!

  60. lol … can someone post an image of the Cisco “certified check”?

  61. @David – Can you point out how much any of the East Bay companies are committing to this? Last I heard, Clorox was offering a measly $50 million in naming rights.

  62. Bud knows he doesn’t have the votes from owners to ok the A’s to San Jose that’s why he hasn’t put it to a vote. No owner wants to take the chance that down the road their market is split or taken from them. Also, the Giants have all the legal edge and would sue the crap out of MLB and the A’s if it was forced upon them. That would put the all too important monopoly loop hole that baseball has in jeopardy. The Giants would have to have lost their minds to give up such a money rich market.

  63. Its not up to the @#$% Giants if they want to sell their “asset” or not! Its up to MLB and Selig! Besides, SCCO is not the Giants “asset,” it’s MLB’s! haven’t you learned anything? Better yet, why don’t you show us that “Oakland certified check” for public financing of a $500 million ballpark…LMFAO!! OK, enough of me dealing with 5150…

  64. @ml – of course i cannot. Pledges are great from either side, but into shovels hit the ground its all talk.
    Q. When is the Earthquake stadium going to get built? How credible is Wolff at developing a stadium?

    • @David – This year. Just you watch. And FYI, after AEG took the Quakes to Houston, it took them 5 years to get a stadium plan going there. And that was publicly financed. What Wolff is attempting is much harder, not that you have an appreciation for it.

  65. Giants T-Rights reaffirmed by MLB five times, Tony. Its their “asset”. You keep saying Selig can change that, but from what I have gathered … it takes 3/4 of the owners to vote that way and CLEARLY the votes are not there.
    re: “5150” stay classy Tony, stay classy. I’m an A’s and Raiders fan just like you. Don’t stoop to playground nonsense.

  66. Earthquakes stadium is a go for later this year, no? Latest NIMBY stall tactic was defeated, site is cleared. Should be under way in a few months, I hope. The property has a big “Future Earthquakes Stadium” sign that I drove past about an hour ago.

  67. Reaffirming Giants “t rights,” unfortunately, provides none of the $500 million to build a new ballpark in Oakland, unfortunately. Add another $250 mill if we want Victory Court. Sounds like more of the false “Oakland wins by default is San Jose loses” argument. We could end up with another owner like the guy who bought the Seattle Sonics who said he tried to build in Seattle and then moved the team to Oklahoma City.

  68. “We could end up with another owner like the guy who bought the Seattle Sonics who said he tried to build in Seattle and then moved the team to Oklahoma City.”
    What market would be more viable than the Bay Area?

  69. @ML – I’m not invested in the Quakes. I wish them luck, as they are the Bay Area’s only soccer team. Just like the Sharks, who i support. I’d like them both to stay in SJ, for as long as the community wants them there.

    And no, I have no “appreciation” for Wolff’s efforts to move the A’s.
    I appreciate your update from him. Since he will not talk to Oakland, all that is left is for him to rot in the Coliseum, or sell.

  70. The A’s don’t really have the freedom to build in the “Bay Area” right now. They can only build in the least economically viable sub-market of the Bay Area – the East Bay. There are other markets such as San Antonio, a bigger city than San Jose that already went after the Marlins; Portland, Charlotte, NC. There will be plenty of suitors from outside the Bay Area once it is confirmed that Oakland can’t happen and San Jose is forever banned.

  71. @ David/jose, you sound like Giants fans. I don’t think they ever specifically affirmed territorial rights, instead it was the MLB Constitution and/or CBA. Nothing is set in stone and the A’s want to re-visit one of the principles of the Constitution more specifically. I know you don’t like it, but they have a reasonable/justifiable case. Amendments can happen.
    There will only be a vote when Selig is done negotiating with the A’s/Giants. He’s already tipped his hand there. When each side gets what they want, which is (and going) to take forever, there will be a 30/30 vote (or 29/30 w/ an obvious dissenter). Why people continue to think this sets some terrifying precedent for the other 28 clubs continues to amuse me.
    These announcements/press releases are no different than what we heard a couple months ago, last year and a few years ago. I would love to hear some progress on a “plan” instead of constantly hearing “we’re going to work on figuring out a plan”. That doesn’t constitute a viable plan, just that Oakland wants the A’s to stay. That’s nothing new.
    I find it curious that Quan never specifically refers to “Coliseum City” in her press release. That shows how shaky that plan is IMO. If that’s the case, that brings us back to having no plan to begin with bc there’s been no progress on VC (which could take a conceivably long time).
    @ ML, I know that the funds have been approved for the EIR, but unless I missed it, there hasn’t been anything in the news about the EIR actually beginning? Wasn’t that the same case with VC? They approved the funds, but it never got started? I can see this possibly being a little different since CC isn’t based solely on the A’s, but since the Warriors & Raiders have been pretty non-commital about the project too would Oakland possibly waver on committing these funds already?
    Enron turned the Big 5 into the Big 4. All 4 of those client-service co’s have offices in SJ. I would take those 4 co’s plus the numerous other consulting and service-based firms over that list of co’s provided in Quan’s press release. I love the Easy Bay, but the corporate base is just never going to match SF or SJ.

  72. @David – As usual, you miss my point entirely.

    @Dirty – The EIR is underway. I don’t expect to hear anything about it until fall at the earliest.

  73. @pjk I think we both know the East Bay isn’t an island unto itself.

  74. @Dirty “I can see this possibly being a little different since CC isn’t based solely on the A’s, but since the Warriors & Raiders have been pretty non-commital about the project too would Oakland possibly waver on committing these funds already?”
    Amy Trask commented twice on local radio about working towards and supporting Coliseum City. You’re right about the Warriors, as of now.

  75. Have the A’s and the City of Oakland ever been completely cool with each other? I’m not picking sides because there have been changes in city leaders and ownership groups over the dacades, with each situation having it’s own set of circumstances. Regardless, there isn’t much evidence the two sides have ever had a good relationship with one another. At best, they’re not in conflict. At worst, the A’s are seeking league approve to leave.

  76. It’s been gone over in here 1,000 times how tough it will be for the A’s to sell corporate suites and sponsorships in the East Bay when the $$ for that is in Frisco and the South Bay. No need to go over it again. Did any of the companies today commit any $$ to a new A’s ballpark or was it all just talk? I’m not seeing one dollar sign in that press release.

  77. @ML – ok. I agree with one point you make. What Wolff is trying is “much harder” and I believe he will fail.
    fyi – i’m not interested in getting in an argument are pissing match with anyone on here. Life’s too $hort for that.

  78. @David – It’s going to be much harder in Oakland. Not sure why you don’t get that.

    You comment here when even the slightest bit of positive news for Oakland comes up, then disappear (though I know you read) when there isn’t good news. You’re spoiling for a pissing match, don’t deny it.

  79. I would actually like to see this (a potential buyer identified and negotiations for a sale) happen. Why? Because if it accelerates whatever obstacle is in the way to a new stadium, then why not. If a willing buyer is going to guarantee paying at least a $600-700 million dollar franchise fee and then invest another $500+ million into a stadium, then kudos to them! I say let’s do it now!. Otherwise, stop with all the political shananagans that JQ and her office continually play (VC anyone?!). Identify the buyer(s) already and have them make the statement in public that they will commit to buying at the current MLB franchise rate and commit to a privately funded stadium AND not have MLB subsidies anymore (per the new CBA). If these are all a go….why the hell not and what are we waiting for?!

  80. Thanks ML, I’m glad I was wrong there and embarrassed it was so recent.
    Thanks eb, I hope the Raiders stay there bc CC makes a lot more sense for a football stadium IMO. I’m still a skeptic despite Trask’s comments since that doesn’t stop them from talking with SC, Dublin or wherever else. It’s just PR until we see something substantial (which I hope will happen then).
    @ Briggs, maybe the golden days of the Haas era? Of course, everybody loves you when you’re winning.

  81. @Bryan “Maybe I am just confused, but I don’t understand what the harm would be for Lew to sit down with these representatives, just to hear what they have to say?”

    Because he doesn’t want to give anyone the impression that Oakland is viable. Well before he bought the team he said if he owned them he would move them to SJ. That has been his plan all along and he is not about to give any credence to any (lower revenue) alternative.

  82. @ Bummer – “That has been his plan all along and he is not about to give any credence to any (lower revenue) alternative.” Read more, talk less. kthx

  83. re: he said if he owned them he would move them to SJ. That has been his plan all along
    He never said that. Was buying up property and losing millions in Fremont all about moving the team to San Jose?

  84. ““We could end up with another owner like the guy who bought the Seattle Sonics who said he tried to build in Seattle and then moved the team to Oklahoma City.”
    What market would be more viable than the Bay Area?”

    Seattle is a “more viable” market than OKC

  85. The corporations in attendance are a joke compared to who would come if an event like this were held in San Jose. Google, Cisco, Apple, HP, Facebook, eBay…Now that’s a list of who’s who. World Market, are you kidding me?!

  86. —–Splendid. More c*ck blocking. Hooray for Oakland


    Where the F*** were these people 3 years ago?

  87. @ RC – LOL…. Someone needs to call the Oakland politicians’ bluff. Would the citizens of the EB please stand up?! :X

  88. Coliseum City really does sound like a outdated idea in the current landscape of things, and a bit sad when you think about it.

    For one, it’s based on the assumption that there would be enough money to build/refurbish more than one stadium, a mall and hotel and I’m assuming roadways and parking structures – when NOBODY has proved anyone has money on the table or the desire to build one stadium.

    Secondly, the A’s and the Warriors (all but) publicly do not want to be there! In the A’s case it’s like they’re killing two birds by being able to move because they need a new facility anyway. The W’s just want a bigger stage but they are certainly heading to SF. Like it or not, but don’t deny it when the signs are there and pretend they all just want an updated facility in east Oakland.

    The CC plan sounds really naive.

  89. Hey, I’m all for a new stadium in Oakland…but does it have to be Coliseum City? Really? That’s the best the EB can do? (sigh) Fine. If it gets us a stadium before my 12 year old graduates college then I’m for it. Whatever. Just do it already.

  90. @ ML – I think you omitted the biggest part of the press release:

    Building a new stadium for the A’s could cost somewhere between $400 million and $500 million. Oakland could use a model similar to one that the San Francisco Giants used to build AT&T park that included bank loans and equity raised from local businesses, Knauss said.

    So…they’re saying the A’s owners have to build it and not use public financing as well! WOW!!!!!1

  91. If the Giants needed the territorial rights to SCC to make sure they could get the loans for AT&T, how would a stadium in Oakland get backing without SCC?

  92. It’s hard for longtime mortgage holders with great credit to refinance, even. Which banks are going to provide $500 million in loans for something as risky as a privately funded ballpark in Oakland?

  93. So to sum up the day, Quan got Clorox to say they’re interested in putting 50 million into a new ballpark’s naming right (which conincidently is only 40% of what Cisco is offering for the same rights in San Jose. And they’ve again said they have “a buyer” but declined to identify who said buyer is, which means they’re probably full of shit. And they’ve identified the stadium funding plan as “the same one used by the Giants” which means they want Wolff or an A’s owner to foot the entire bill. So to sum up, today’s press conference just reiterated that Oakland is doing nothing to keep the A’s beyond half hearted cock blocking attempts against San Jose.

  94. @ML – Is there a rule that people have to comment when they come to this site? I have always stayed above the fray around here, even when Tony and Bartelby make it personal.
    “It’s going to be much harder in Oakland. Not sure why you don’t get that.”
    I respect that opinion, but don’t share it. I believe Oakland will be much “easier” than San Jose…and only time will tell, right?

    • @David – “I have always stayed above the fray here…”

      That’s a good one. Thanks for that.

      @tritonjosh – The Major League Constitution prohibits teams from suing each other or baseball. If the Giants want to do it anyway, let’s have it. San Jose’s going to the dance with one of the best antitrust lawyers in the country.

  95. @Jorge- exactly- compr the market power of the 75 Companies that signed a letter to bs in support of the A’s moving to SJ and you see what a joke today’s press conference was- more smoke and mirrors– bs is alot of things but at some point he’s gotta call bullshit on both the gints and Oakland- and maybe to that point… Think maybe the gints are strategizing with Oakland and telling them their ship is ready to sail unless they put a credible solution on the table- strike 3- oakland has failed to impress again-

  96. @Dan – did anyone from Clorox mention $50,000,000 today?
    Also, if they have an owner who wants to stay in Oakland and use the model the Giants used, then that potential owner is ok with the idea. Of course the City of Oakland would jump at the chance to get a group like that in town.
    Why do you think Clorox would be part of a “cock-blocking” effort?

  97. @eb- can you show me data that OKC is more viable than seattle? If not you’ve answered your question- it isn’t always the most viable market that wins-

  98. SJ is not going to be an option – anyone who understands the financial consequences to the giants will know the corresponding lawsuit would be a turd in both punchbowls.

    Coliseum City is an ideal with virtually no merit – unattractive area (except for BART access) and the commercial development is a fantasy.

    Get the feds to pony up some money for superfund cleanup in the Oakland Army base and you have a location with West Oakland BART access, easy freeway access and plenty of room for commercial development adjacent with great views of the bay.

    Nice job by Mayor Quan to remind the owners that Mr. Wolff has options – now if only Bud Selig could do his job and bring closure to the SJ conversation.

  99. David, that’s the point. They don’t have an owner. If they did, they’d say who that group was… And Clorox would be part of a cock blocking effort because it suits them to stay in good with the leaders of the city they work in. And it costs them nothing so far to do so.

  100. ” can you show me data that OKC is more viable than seattle? If not you’ve answered your question- it isn’t always the most viable market that wins-”
    You are right, it’s not always the case. However, you can’t have it both ways, by saying that no local buyers exist because there’s no proof, yet the team will be moved out of state. There’s absolutely no proof of that either. And frankly, I would wager the odds lean towards a local buyer more so than a dastardly out of state interloper.

  101. Mr. Wolff was quoted as saying he plans to own the A’s for at least a “generation.” This most likely involves son Keith as well. Ahh…can always count on reality to save the day. 😉

  102. “David, that’s the point. They don’t have an owner. If they did, they’d say who that group was… And Clorox would be part of a cock blocking effort because it suits them to stay in good with the leaders of the city they work in. And it costs them nothing so far to do so.’
    Any group that pushes to buy the team publicly would immediately be frowned upon by Bud, so it’s the smart move to keep maneuverings behind the scenes. If there really is a group.

  103. Oakland politicians and civic leaders should have laid out on the table where they are coming up with the $1 billion (or more) necessary to buy the team and privately fund a ballpark. Unfortunately, we’re not hearing anything about money. Just a lot of rah rah the A’s belong in Oakland cheerleading. Money talks. You know the rest of the saying.

  104. Some of you people are delusional, and annoying as hell. That is all.

  105. @eb,
    Can’t reveal potential owners because they would be “frowned” upon by Selig, yet it’s good behind the scenes maneuvering? Really? I’m completely speechless!

  106. Ugh- Someone else from the East Bay help me- I’m really having a really hard time with this. Coliseum City? Really? To go through all of that bull sh*t for two decades- all of the politics and bickering, all of the posturing and hair pulling, EIRs, threats, and frustrations- and we end up with something that is only the updated version of what we had in 1994, in the exact same spot, with the exact same views? Granted, I loved the old Coliseum too- but this is just so mediocre in a very competitive market. The Giants are gonna make us their b*tch for decades to come. No JLS? Something downtown maybe? And granted downtown SJ is nothing special, but at least the sponsorship would be strong, it’s 45 miles away from probably one of the top 3 nicest ballparks in the league (AT&T), and it pisses off the Giants. Coliseum City is gonna be great? Yay? Congrats Oakland?

  107. @David, the Giants have stated that SJ is essential in their “model” for financing the cost & construction of AT&T Park. Earlier, you were defending the Giant’s rights to SJ.
    It’s not as easy as drawing a circle around some blocks on a map and it’s definitely not as easy as just doing what they did.

  108. @Tony D. Hasn’t Bud asked potential buyers of MLB teams in the past to act in a discretionary manner? Why would that be any different now? I’m not saying there are concrete, put together groups. But if there were, wouldn’t this be the manner in which they’d act? Throwing out quiet suggestions to MLB.
    Man, for being an “all show, no go” event, as some are classifying it, there’s a lot of frantic posters. Hopefully, this is part of an effort to make it work in Oakland, if it results in a stadium, that’s what matters to most people, right? Right now, as long as the SJ effort is stalled, why not start a backup plan?

  109. @eb, ownership groups were publicly lined up before there was even an inkling that the Dodgers would be up for sale. None were afraid of being frowned upon by Selig.
    The real issue/concern is if such a group exists (and i’m not necessarily convinced it does, but if) and they have a plan to self-finance and keep the team in Oakland, that plan would have to hold up under a *LOT* of scrutiny. And the absolute worst thing that could happen for the city of Oakland is for what everyone thinks is a solid plan that requires a few things to go right in order to work (not terribly different from Wolff’s SJ plan, most likely). Because if it fails under the kind of scrutiny it’s going to get, then Oakland’s done. So they’re gambling it’s better to remain silent than remove all doubt, which is sadly the exact opposite thing they need to do in order to prove Wolff is lying and/or wrong about Oakland’s viability.

  110. @booster,
    Nicely put; could not have said it better myself
    Re the “supposed” corporate support for Oakland today. Aside from the SVLG completely thumping that list, I would say that list would be good for NBA/small market support (ala Memphis, OKC), but for a fully privately financed ballpark AND purchasing a MLB team?
    As a Raiders fan, I’m a little upset that Oakland and their corporate community aren’t reaching out to them. The Raiders actually want to stay at the coliseum/in Oakland, while the A’s (who’ve been given the middle finger from The O for nearly 16 years) don’t and won’t. Dammit Quan, focus on the Raiders or else there will be NO teams in The O!

  111. @dmoas The difference is the Dodgers were for sale. Wolff is saying that’s not the case. Would Bud like open bidders on a team not for sale? I don’t know, probably not. Who knows, maybe this is just the start of a local group forming. We’ll see.

  112. @eb,
    Reality: what happened today in Oakland is completely irrelevant as far as Wolff, Selig, Busch, Raij, Reinsdorf and MLB are concerned. That’s why you get “frantic” posts because (simple put) it’s annoying for folks to act like this is big news or a game changer; it isn’t!
    Reality: the A’s aren’t for sale and won’t be for at least a generation AND Selig is being fair to the A’s/Giants in brokering a deal. If some choose to reside in an alternate reality that’s their problem (won’t mention any names).
    Can’t wait for the official decision from MLB for a number of reasons: add ending the bull shit out of Oakland to that list.

  113. If Coliseum City doesn’t pan out, the Raiders should talk to the new mayor of Dublin and negotiate for the land at the Camp Parks site. That would be an ideal location for a new stadium. It has major freeway access between 680 and 580 and two different BART stations. One is within walking distance to the Camp Parks site.

    Plus it would be right smack in the middle where all Raider fans live between 3 major counties. Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin counties. Major corporations are moving to Dublin and Pleasanton and you have a bunch of Wine makers in Livermore.

    They would sell out that stadium in a heart beat and season ticket sales would shoot through the roof. Dublin would earn big revenue and a new stadium would create plenty of jobs. With the new stadium in that area, the thug element would be priced out as well and even so, Santa Rita County Jail would be a neighbor of the stadium. haha

  114. Sleeping with the enemy?!

    Quan said she had breakfast with “one of the main owners” of the San Francisco Giants recently, who was “adamant” that the Giants would not give up their territorial rights to Santa Clara County.

    WTF is JQ doing talking with the Gnats instead of frigging talking with the A’s owner? It seems like Oakland now is another pawn in the Gnats propoganda campaign…sigh!

  115. Jean Quan, Safeway, and the architect of Houston’s Enron Field hold a press conference on a new scheme to keep the A’s from moving to San Jose.

    SF Giants, Inc. applauds.


  116. @Tony D. No offense, but if “annoying” topics leads to getting people in a tizzy, your usual contributions would lead to the absolute meltdown of the internet as we know it. Sometimes you act like the Soup Nazi of newballpark.org, “Next Topic!”

  117. That is unusual about Quan, but shared causes can equal strange bedfellows. Quan doesn’t want the A’s to leave Oakland, Wolff doesn’t want to be there and the Giants don’t want to give up San Jose.

  118. Unusual about Quan? She stated she was talking to the Giants when they announced the Coliseum Complex.

  119. @anon- and what’s more amazing is the gints are coaching Quan and her group on next moves including this press conference- and she is falling for it hook, line and sinker- the positive in this- the gints are getting worried which is why they are feeing the propaganda machine- will bud please stand up and put an end to this charade

  120. chron live was talking about this topic.

    purdy-#1 goal is the keep the a’s in the bay area. just because you hold a press conference doesn’t mean they have a plan. 8 ceos who signed up with this plan from what he’s heard compared to 50 ceos in sj that want the a’s in sj. mlb wants corporate money which means they want sj. no “meat” behind the conference. former a’s gm alderson told him years ago that when he was with the a’s they were like 6 ceos that was part of the “east bay” group which meant there are strong guys at the top but not enough of them.

    kawakami-not too late to keep the a’s in oakland. it’s chaos. oakland is showing they’re willing to work with a new ownership if sj can’t work out but that’s way down the road that oakland is sending to mlb.

  121. Does Quan really believe the Giants want the A’s to get a brand new ballpark 12 miles from theirs?

  122. @eb,
    At least what I put out is based on reality, not unicorns or pies in the sky. Oh I see; reality is annoying to you. WELL THEN! It all makes sense now…
    reality: glad neither the @#$%& Giants or @#$%& Quan can keep the A’s out of San Jose! Another dose of reality for you to swallow eb 😉

  123. @eb, people were pursuing the Dodgers well before they were up for sale. Most of the early bids happened when McCourt was explicitly saying “the team’s not for sale.”

  124. @dmoas, I think the Dodgers situation is different. Selig wanted McCourt out of there. He doesn’t appear to want Wolff/Fisher out.

  125. Thank you LS. Yes, Dodgers and A’s situation vastly different. Selig wanted McCourt out of there, with messy divorce and bankruptcy, while he personally brought his Frat Bro into lodge AND is working on a deal for San Jose.

  126. Quan doesn’t actually care if the A’s stay in Oakland or if they go as long as she gets re-elected.

  127. McCourt sacrificed the financial stability of his organization for personal gain. Wolff and Fisher have not done the same for personal gain. Wolff and Fisher are here to stay.

  128. dknight, Dublin has already said no to having the Raiders. They don’t want them in their city.

  129. @ eb – “No offense, but if “annoying” topics leads to getting people in a tizzy, your usual contributions would lead to the absolute meltdown of the internet as we know it” – Ahem….Pot calling kettle black?! :X

  130. On another tip: it’s to bad this “news” came out today. I was really looking forward to discussing a hypothetical North San Pedro/Brandenburgh ballpark from yesterday’s thread. Oh well, there’ll be more opportunities later to discuss a San Jose ballpark for sure (Diridon or NSP).

  131. I am excited that Oaktown is starting to begin talks with the A’s, finally. They are the Oakland A’s and always will be in my mind with 4, yes 4 world championships and were the first major franchise to have a world championship in the Bay Area.

    This is a very special team that continues to be a winner in every decade, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, 00’s. Can you say that about the Cubs who are in a major market?

  132. There’s no talks with the A’s. Wolff/Fischer are not involved in any of this, they are not selling the team and they are not looking to build in Oakland.

  133. Excited? Poor Guy (or gal).

  134. A’s Man, actually Oakland hasn’t begun any talks with the A’s. There’s not much to talk about until Oakland actually comes up with a viable plan to keep the A’s. Having pointless press conferences and talking about having the A’s fund their own ballpark at the Coliseum site are red herrings, nothing more.

  135. “If Selig says no to San Jose, “We have no plan B,” Wolff said. “But it can’t be in Oakland.””
    Pretty much says it all. A’s aren’t for sale. Oakland will never be an option again as long as Wolff owns the team. And with nothing but vaporware owners and vaporware stadiums Oakland isn’t much of an option even if Wolff were selling. Seems pretty simple to me, no San Jose, no future for the A’s in the Bay Area. Clorox press conferences that say nothing not withstanding.

  136. Right, the A’s are not for sale, Oakland is not an option, and all of this talk is generated by the Pumpkins to delay the A’s move to San Jose. It’s garbage.

  137. @ Anon – “WTF is JQ doing talking with the Gnats instead of frigging talking with the A’s owner?” I will now quote Wolff, “We have exhausted all options in Oakland.” Why keep hitting on a girl in a club who keeps telling you to back off? Move on to another opportunity. By the way, you forgot to mention that Quan also said she’s been in “constant contact” with MLB. Is she lying? Perhaps. Who knows? And @ RC – Re: CC vs JLS – Knauss was quoted, when asked, as saying that the “potential buyers of the team” prefer a downtown site over CC and are anxious to get something done down there.

  138. So if Wolff wants to keep the team for another generation, San Jose doesn’t workout, and he won’t look at Oakland at all, what does he do? Fremont? Stay in the Coliseum? Move the team out of state?

Comments are closed.