SF, Warriors set to announce arena deal

Just like that, Coliseum City is in jeopardy.

The interwebs are abuzz with reports that the Golden State Warriors and the City of San Francisco are going to announce a Pier 30/32 arena deal as soon as this week. The team has issued a non-denial denial, and the rumor appears to have multiple sources, which makes this news possibly the proverbial smoke that will lead to fire.

If true this is terrible for the Coliseum City project’s prospects. By virtue of an arena’s typical utilization, the arena part of the complex is a a major anchor that the project needs. Losing the Warriors removes at least 43 home games from the schedule, totaling 800,000 annual spectators. Oakland/Alameda County could refashion the arena to better attract more concerts and other types of events. The risk with that plan is that the old arena in Oakland and the new arena in SF will be only 11 miles apart, so they’ll be competing for exactly the same acts and events. The Warriors will have the advantage of new technology to make their venue superior and more flexible for staging. They’ll also have a great incentive to keep the arena as busy as possible since they’re footing the bill for the construction cost. This affects HP Pavilion to a degree as well since it will be overshadowed by its much newer competitor to the north. However, HP Pavilion is over 40 miles away, serving the South Bay. This sort of spacing is already evident in the Bay Area with Chronicle Pavilion in Concord and Shoreline Amphitheatre in Mountain View. The two major LA arenas (Staples Center, Honda Center) are also a good distance apart, allowing both to combine to serve the bulk of the LA market.

The W’s leaving means that the naming rights deal with Oracle, which runs through the 2015-16 season, has a very slim chance of being renewed. There’s little point for Oracle to do so, as the marquee tenant will be in the process of vacating while the arena itself will be at a competitive disadvantage compared to its competition across the bay. Even though Oracle CEO Larry Ellison lost out to the Lacob-Guber group when bidding on the Warriors two years ago, the SF Warriors brand should be more valuable than the GS Warriors, making a potential naming rights deal something that Ellison should consider.

Currently there’s about $95 million of debt outstanding at the Oakland/Oracle Arena. With each lease year completed $5 million comes off, leaving a shortfall of $70 million for the W’s to pay off if they leave at the end of the 2016-17 season. This amount would be payable by the team regardless of whether they played in SF or Oakland. This is because Oakland positioned Coliseum City as having a new arena to replace the existing arena. This effectively adds $70 million to the cost of the new Oakland arena because there’s little chance that Oakland/Alameda County will operate the new and old venues side-by-side. If you were Joe Lacob and you knew that you’d have to pay $70 million either way, why would you choose Oakland over SF?

This gets to the heart of Oakland’s problem in pitching Coliseum City to its tenants. All three teams want much greater revenues, and just as important, greater control over revenue streams and more independence from each either. They’ve been able to coexist with little friction over the last decade, but that didn’t come about without a good deal of previous strife as all three teams have had legal battles with the Coliseum Authority. Mayor Jean Quan has already put out yet another letter restating Oakland’s commitment to the Warriors, just as she did with the A’s. What she and the JPA need to do – which they haven’t done yet – is explain how Coliseum City will significantly increase each tenant’s revenues (W’s rank 13th according to Forbes) compared to other options. Instead we’re having discussions about whether or not Coliseum City can pay for itself, which is a major perception problem. Most of the City’s arguments have been about how Coliseum City will benefit Oakland, with little said about how each team will benefit. Only the Raiders part of the project has any traction, thanks to ongoing planning work designed around and with input from the team. Yet the Raiders continue to entertain options outside Oakland just in case Coliseum City doesn’t take off. All three teams and ownership groups know how difficult their respective plans are on their own. To tie feasibility and risk into other parts is unnecessary, even foolish.

SF has shown its willingness to speed up the environmental review process when needed, as it did with the America’s Cup project. A similar effort could be done for the Warriors’ arena, with the caveat that the impacts for an arena will be significantly different. The America’s Cup only occurs once every three years over a short, well-defined timeframe. An arena gets 800k visitors annually for NBA games plus another 500k or more for other events. Onsite parking at the W’s arena is expected to be only 1,000 spaces, leaving the team and city looking a few thousand more within the vicinity to meet demand. It’ll be a challenge to get the W’s arena approved and built. SF’s advantage is that it has successful precedents in AT&T Park and, coming soon, the America’s Cup. That’s experience that matters.

This new SF arena plan is in its infancy, so it’s premature to call this one “in the bag”. One thing’s for certain – the two parties are heavily motivated and appear to be making measurable progress. If only we could say that about an A’s ballpark…

89 thoughts on “SF, Warriors set to announce arena deal

  1. Maybe BS will see this move as a reason for the A’s to move to San Jose.

  2. will east bay sports fans who are w’s fans fight as hard for keeping the w’s as they have with the a’s and even stop being w’s fans if/when they move to sf as some oakland only a’s fans have stated?

  3. Let’s see if the owner of the Warriors, whose team got more than $100 mill in improvements, draws the ire of the East Bay like Wolff, whose team had its facility ruined.

  4. I think the reaction from the East Bay fanbase will be similar: some will get mad and some will accept the inevitable. What I think will be striking is the reaction from the local media. I never realized before how much they actively hate (and I mean absolutely despise) the South Bay. Since the A’s want to move there, Wolff must be evil. But since the Warriors are looking at SF, watch how different the reaction will be. None of them will call Lacob names. None of them will constantly suggest he sell the team, nor suggest he’s doing something bad to the fans. It will be all rainbows and uniorns because they are all SF-based and/or SF-focused. I’m a North Bay person who works in SF and their bias is brutally obvious to me. I think I’d be seriously offended by most of our local media if I lived in the South Bay.

  5. The big difference here is that the Warriors are the NBA team of the whole Bay Area. They are not the OAKLAND Warriors, and Oakland’s identity is not tied to having them there. Ask anyone in the East Coast what city the Warriors play in – only the most hard core will be able to tell you. Moveover, San Francisco is part of the team’s history and many fans followed them right over the bridge when the move to the Coliseum complex. A return to SF would just be that process in reverse. As an East Bay guy, sure I’d be disappointed if they moved to the City because Oakland would no longer have the economic beneift of having them (which is mild anyways because the Coliseum’s location doesn’t encourage much spillover). But I wouldn’t swear off my fan interests or anything.

    With the A’s, it’s totally different. They are the OAKLAND A’s and you simply cannot separate the City from the team. If they left the East Bay, I’d have to do some serious soul searching. It would rip my heart out.

  6. “With the A’s, it’s totally different. They are the OAKLAND A’s and you simply cannot separate the City from the team.” Well, what do people in the East Bay think about the “OAKLAND” Raiders possibly joining the 49ers in Santa Clara? I haven’t heard anything about that, so I’ve been assuming they accept that it makes some sense. Or is that different because the Raiders have left Oakland before?

  7. “I never realized before how much they actively hate (and I mean absolutely despise) the South Bay.” Huh. I never thought about it like that before. My feelings about the 49ers going to Santa Clara are mixed. My feelings about the Raiders possibly joining them are at this point that it makes some sense. My feelings about the A’s moving to San Jose are quite anti-move. I want them to stay in Oakland, share with the Giants (how come THAT one has apparently never occurred to them?!), or move to Sacramento. I never thought about the East Bay having any sort of actual bias against the South Bay, though. (I live in Santa Rosa. I am mainly a 49ers/A’s/Giants fan. )

  8. “Let’s see if the owner of the Warriors, whose team got more than $100 mill in improvements, draws the ire of the East Bay like Wolff, whose team had its facility ruined (BY MT. DAVIS!!!).”

  9. Santa Clara is probably the Raiders’ best chance of getting a new stadium in the Bay Area.

  10. San Francisco is already pretty regionalized (San Francisco (city), San Francisco (county), San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, San Francisco Bay), whereas Oakland is Oakland.

  11. @Joshua
    … and San Jose is currently the A’s best chance, at least financially, of the A’s getting a new stadium in the Bay Area.
    I say “financially”, because, due to Selig’s inaction, the chances of the T-rights being lifted, or some deal made, are appearing to be increasingly slim. So I’m not holding my breath about the A’s to SJ.
    The landscape is changing rapidly. The Warriors look likely to move to SF. The Raiders look likely to go to either SC as tenants to the 49ers, or get their own stadium in LA. A new facility for them in Oakland looks a real long shot.
    That leaves the A’s, who are blocked by the Giants and Selig form SJ, and nowhere else in the country that’s viable to go to, and contraction out of the question. Then maybe the city and business’s of Oakland can focus entirely on the A’s, and Quan and Knauss can step to the plate financially. Maybe if the Raiders “officially” state going to SC or LA, then the A’s can have the Coli to themselves, and do a full renovation (knockdown mt davis, reconfigure the lower bowl to be more baseball centric with normal foul territory, and lots of other niceties). I’d be quite happy with that, in lieu of SJ ever happening. It would certainly cost less than a full new stadium.

  12. Why can’t the A’s let the Raiders do whatever they’re going to do, and then do with the Coliseum the same thing that the Angels did with Anaheim Stadium after the Rams left (renovate it into a modernized version of what it used to be before the football team moved there–or moved back there in the case of Oakland)?

  13. “The Raiders look likely to go to either SC as tenants to the 49ers, or get their own stadium in LA. A new facility for them in Oakland looks a real long shot.”

    So people in the East Bay accept that Santa Clara is the the Raiders’ best–perhaps only–shot at getting a new stadium in the Bay Area, then?

  14. A lot of people remember the pre-1995 Coliseum as a nice place to watch a game, with a nice grassy area and a nice view of the Oakland hills beyond the outfield.

  15. Josh, you got a lot to catch up on. All of your questions would be answered by reading through the older posts on the right hand column.

  16. Josh,

    Dude, long-time reader and infrequent poster on this GREAT blog.

    How about you consolidate your comments in one post. Your lack of knowledge and multiple/scatter-shot posting style is annoying and/or distracting. Please collect your thoughts before you set them forth on ‘paper.’

  17. For those interested, we can explain tomorrow why ESPN has this story before the Chronicle, even though Matier & Ross wrote about the possibility last week.

  18. @anonymous, who is we?

  19. I’m getting twisted on my piers- is this with or without the gints?

  20. Interesting that “anonymous” seems to indicate he/or she works for the chronicle yet the chronicle runs such garbage / misinformation / Giants PR out there day in and day out.

  21. “How about you consolidate your comments in one post. Your lack of knowledge and multiple/scatter-shot posting style is annoying and/or distracting. Please collect your thoughts before you set them forth on ‘paper.’” If I did that you’d probably turn around and complain that I was trying to fit too much into one posting, and should instead write several smaller postings.

    And for the record, I HAVE read a lot about this stuff.

  22. @Joshua: Lets Go Oakland doesn’t count.

  23. This news about the Warriors going to SF got me to thinking about something …
    Doesn’t this increase the value and potential revenue of whatever team stays. Yes, Oakland/East Bay is a comparatively small market. But it is currently divided 3 ways amongst is 3 major league sports franchises. In essence, the 3 franchises have to compete from the same pool of fan attention/dollars, and more importantly corporate support. There is only so much of it to go around, and with one less player, that leaves more of the pie for the remaining two.
    And lets take the scenario where:
    a) Warriors go to SF – looks likely at this point
    b) Raiders move to the new 49er stadium, or to LA, either a possibility, and more likely than them building a new stadium in Oakland.
    c) Selig upholds gnats T-rights, and gnats refuse to deal. A’s stuck in Oakland.
    But all of the sudden, the A’s have the East Bay to themselves. They’re the only game in town, and they can draw more in attendance, and they can get more of the local corporate support (advertising, luxury boxes, etc), and they get more local media attention, and their media rights value goes up. And then a new stadium financing becomes more viable, or a complete renovation of the Coli (including destroying Mt Davis) is even more viable. True, the Warriors are 12 miles across the bay, and the Raiders are possibly 30 miles down the freeway. But the A’s have Oakland / East Bay to themselves.
    I would not mind that one single bit.
    Mind you, the SJ stadium looks like it is the most financially viable, and the greatest revenue potential. But I’m not holding my breath on Selig actually doing the right thing, or the gnats dealing. So I’m looking at what could be if the A’s remain in Oakland (which was always my first choice – I don’t like teams moving, even if it’s 35 miles to a neighboring city), and I do see some positive potential there.

  24. @ Makhan – “@anonymous, who is we?”…. “We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.” (Sorry, couldn’t resist! :X)

    @ GoAs – 30/32 was the former proposed site for Orcacle’s America’s Cup event, before it was nuked by Ellison. Previously before the W’s were working with the Gnats on the Mission Rock area.

    @ Boone – LOL! 🙂

    @ JeffAthletic – But, what is stopping company’s like Clorox from sponsoring them now? What would motivate them with a more prestigious city/area just miles across the Bay? I wouldn’t mind it either, but I think that it is a bit optimistic and has too many variables for it to go as you speculated.

  25. This is just another nail in the coffin. Unless by some miracle the A’s get SJ, they’ll be left to rot in Coliseum until some medium sized city builds a ballpark for them out of town, God knows when. No future A’s owner in their right mind builds Coliseum City, especially without the W’s help. Oakland- come up with a real plan- please! I’m begging! So enjoy the team while they are here, the tickets are cheap, easy access by car or public transit. And I’d like to especially thank the owners of the Giants, for being insecure greedy dicks about the whole situation. None of you will ever be half the man Walter Haas was.

  26. JA, not sure it works that way. If the east bay were a truly separate entity, you’d have a good point. But it’s not. There “might” be a small uptick, but I doubt it would be enough to make any real difference. If anything the Warriors privately funding a nearby arena hurts the A’s because it’s siphoning off potential nearby revenue streams that the A’s could have potentially used.

  27. @Anon
    I agree 100%. Nothing is stopping Clorax and other Oakland companies from ponying up right now. However, I’m guessing that Wolff hasn’t put much into courting them either, since he’s put all his eggs in the SJ basket.
    The A’s aren’t going out of the Bay Area – nobody is raising their hands as possible out of town purchasers, and nobody has shown ability to privately finance a ballpark, and no city has money to build one with public funds, and the A’s sure as hell can’t move into a market with an existing MLB team. Of the decent sized cities that could be big enough and have enough corporate support, that are not already occupied by an existing MLB franchise – Portland, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Charlotte – none have an existing ballpark, none have a private or public financing plan for building a ballpark, and none have an ownership group ready to buy the A’s. Plus, and this is very important, all of those locales would be either the same size or smaller markets than Oakland East Bay and would most likely assure more revenue sharing. In short, the A’s moving out of the Bay Area can’t really happen. So don’t worry.
    As for the A’s rotting away at the Coli – One, the Knauss group is pushing for JLS/waterfront/downtown locales. Two, if they stay at the Coli, and the Raiders potentially leave for better digs (a very real possibility), they can renovate, and it could potentially be a damn nice baseball venue. It was pretty good pre-Mt Davis (for the times), and could be made better, if need be.

  28. @dmoas
    The Oakland only crowd sure as heck considers it all separate markets. Apparently Lew Wolff does too, since he wants to move to SJ so bad.
    Yes, I speculate, and yes, I’m probably over optimistic. But I just see the potential for the local area galvanizing around the (potentially) only remaining major league sports franchise. I really do believe that there would be an increase in attendance and increase in corporate support and increase in media value, if the A’s were the only remaining team in Oakland. The same goes for the Raiders if they stay and the A’s go to SJ.
    Another thought – Bart is being extended further south past Fremont. The increases the potential for any Oakland team to tap Silicon Valley more.

  29. I hope you’re right, Jeff. The existing Coliseum footprint would probably be aesthetically successful, you get the hills view and the BART and freeway access and parking. Using something like the Cisco Field design, the intimacy of the fans to the field would quickly make people realize that AT&T has a lot of awful nosebleed seats, the way AT&T instantly made the Coliseum look ancient. The extra space (compared to the Cisco Field design) would allow better crowd circulation than AT&T. The location isn’t nearly as good as downtown San Jose and the team would still play second fiddle to the Giants, but it could be successful.
    The financing is another story.

  30. Again. this is such a pointless and stupid move. ill say no more because the idiocy of this is blatant and obvious

  31. When all is said and done, when the Raiders go wherever they go, and the Warriors are in San Francisco, and when the A’s will probably be in the South Bay, the true history will say that no one did more to stay in Oakland than the A’s and Lew Wolff, and no one did less to keep them there than the city of Oakland. Warriors – new arena. Raiders – Mt. Davis. A’s – Mt. Davis. The bad guy? Lew Wolff.

  32. @JA- regardless of where a ballpark is I. Oakland we will always be a small market team- Pittsburgh comes to mind- second- if I am a corporate sponsor do I want to put my dollars into a renovated ballpark along 880 that has no ambiance or one 11 miles away in a cool city with a ballpark on the water- last being the only team left in Oakland has no advantages- dollars will go to the ore glamourous city that will now have a shiny new arena to go with it’s very cool ballpark

  33. “Nothing is stopping Clorax and other Oakland companies from ponying up right now. However, I’m guessing that Wolff hasn’t put much into courting them either, since he’s put all his eggs in the SJ basket.”
    I thought Wolff said he’d be more than happy to meet with them? The problem is, in my estimation, that there’s no concrete and specific plans for making Oakland work to discuss.

  34. @davebaby
    It is amazing how badly Lew Wolff has been demonized by Oakland fans and many in the media. It’s really ridiculous. Anybody who knows the history, going back to Mt Davis (after the A’s were promised, by Oakland, baseball renovation) to the Schott/Hoffman era when Wolff worked on the new stadium initiative and looked exclusively at Oakland sites, to then Mayor Brown killing the last downtown stadium initiative in favor of more low income housing (like Oakland needed more of that), to MLB shooting down the Coli parking lot, to the major Fremont effort. And these people won’t even demonize their own politicians for doing nothing, or even less than nothing. It’s crazy.
    As for me, I just want to look at all possibilities, all scenarios, that keeps the A’s local and gets them either a new facility or the current one renovated, and gets them in a healthier state. I was exclusively looking at SJ only, because of the revenue potential and financial viability, and the nice design and it being a downtown ballpark. But Selig’s complete inaction has put a damper on that. And I’m going to follow this (which I have the habit of), I need something positive to consider. 😉

  35. Selig’s delay was inexplicable to me for a long time, but I think this news is an example of why his stalling really works.

    ML has mentioned many times on here about Selig’s policy of waiting as long as possible, let things sort themselves out, build a coalition of the willing, etc.

    By stretching the A’s decision out, Selig avoids having to commit them long-term to Oakland…and yet he can see what continues to happen in Oakland.

    I have long been of the mind that, hey, what else is there to know, why can’t a decision be made. But I am now seeing that tertiary developments – like the further concentration of Bay Area wealth in SF and the South Bay, and as some Bay Area counties are recovering better from the recession than others – that tertiary info has a huge impact on the future success of the next A’s stadium, and Selig can justify continuing to wait while those things continue to sort themselves.

    Over time, with the decisions of the Warriors and Raiders, the A’s either become more palatable long term in Oakland or even less so than they currently are (which is my prediction). And the Giants continue to pay down stadium debt.

    I still think they’ll end up in SJ. Maybe it’ll get delayed so far that the Giants can pay off the rest of their stadium (2017).

  36. JA, Oakland only folks can continue to think they’re separate markets all they want, but it still won’t be true. SJ is the same market, but it’s on the opposite end of the market from SF instead of right next to it, which is a key difference. I have no doubts you’re correct that if the A’s were the only team in Oakland, a small portion of fans will rally around the A’s, but I don’t see the value going up nor do I see it having a significant impact on anything. NJS is likely right about the waiting et al. Odds are we don’t see the A’s in a new park until closer to 2020 even if it were decided today that they could move.

  37. @J-A I hope you are right, I really do. It’s true, there isn’t anything on the drawing board in any other city for a MLB ballpark. And of course, there is no buyer. But if the A’s are allowed to just sit there in an ancient ballpark year after year, that possibility would increase I would think. And I don’t know the finances of all of those cities, but not all of them are going to be as broke as Oakland. I think I heard that Texas in general is doing pretty well. Even Sacramento was able to put up some money for the Kings. As far as the population goes, the fact that the Gnats are here dominating the market with a gorgeous ballpark changes the game significantly. And to be honest, the City of Oakland hasn’t done a whole lot to instill a lot of confidence in their ability to do anything but kick the can down the road. As for the present Coliseum- I would love a renovation if the Raiders leave- it’s far better than nothing, and would be comparatively cheap. But in that case, you are tearing down the new part of the Coliseum (Mt Davis), and left working with the ancient part of it. It just seems like it would be more difficult than changing it into a football stadium, but I’m not an engineer.

  38. Kudos to the Warriors and SF on moving forward. The EIR could shoot this down as who knows the tranportation costs associated.

    That alone could derail this. Also the Giants have all the local parking lots.

    The embaracedero would need major renovations too.

    The EIR is the key…

  39. @JA – ” I really do believe that there would be an increase in attendance and increase in corporate support and increase in media value, if the A’s were the only remaining team in Oakland. “ Respectfully, the question isn’t necessarily if it would increase attendance and corporate support, but rather by how much. I think the JF/LWs of the world are smart enough to go over these types of business cases and see that although there would be some increase in revenue, it wouldn’t be sufficient to offset the large investment of a stadium as well as losing the annual revenue check to make the team both competitive and sustainable for the foreseeable future.

  40. NSJ- thoughtful comment. I think what you’re saying makes sense.

    While I agree that this sort of information helps Selig make his eventual decision / coallition push, when will enough information be enough? when the raiders make a decision? when the financial footing of Oakland becomes clear (if ever)? At some point a decision will have to be made without a perfect crystall ball. So, perhaps it is fair to give Selig some leniency and say there are 1 or 2 more things he should wait on. However, I still (sadly) can’t shake my skepticism that he doesn’t have the chutzpah to have MLB take a stand and decide that no more additional info will help make an answer the Clear Right One (as much as he’d love that).

  41. Hypothetically, if the A’s move to SJ is denied and are forced to stay in Alameda or Contra Costa counties, I think Fremont could be an option again. Why build or renovate a ballpark next to the freeway in Oakland when you could just build a ballpark next to the freeway in Fremont? At least in Fremont you’re so close to Santa Clara county you can capture that market much easier and still draw from the east bay. Fremont alone would arguably have more potential corporate support then Oakland. Best of both worlds in my opinion.

    Obviously, it wouldn’t be as nice a location as either downtown SJ or downtown Oakland. The alternative would be to just sit in the dumpy Coliseum for years to come and collect revenue-sharing checks.

  42. Sometimes in the Bay Area it seems like the power structure — business, government, media — makes its decision independently of business sense — the De Young being rebuilt in GG Park instead of downtown where it would get more attendance, for example. I wonder if the A’s stadium isn’t one of these cases.

  43. letsgoas says:
    May 21, 2012 at 5:14 AM letsgoas(Quote)
    will east bay sports fans who are w’s fans fight as hard for keeping the w’s as they have with the a’s and even stop being w’s fans if/when they move to sf as some oakland only a’s fans have stated?

    Most of the hardcore W’s fans are from the East Bay. If the Warrior take on the name of San Francisco Warriors, they will be alienating their hard core fan base. Bad move by them. Plus the congestion over in the Pier 30-32 area for an Arena will be absolutley horrible!

    If the W’s do move to SF, and they keep losing, season ticket prices will be sky high and Lacob is just catering to the rich corporate 1% elite. That 1% will jump off the bandwagon if they keep losing like they have a history of doing and the hardcore fans will be priced out from the new SF arena.

  44. Sid says:
    May 21, 2012 at 3:05 PM Sid(Quote)
    Kudos to the Warriors and SF on moving forward. The EIR could shoot this down as who knows the tranportation costs associated.

    That alone could derail this. Also the Giants have all the local parking lots.

    The embaracedero would need major renovations too.

    The EIR is the key…

    Alot of work needs to be done and alot of money spent to renovate and develop that whole Pier 30-32 area. Congestion will be absolutely terrible and public transportation from the Embarcadero will be horrendous as well.

  45. It’s quite amazing reading the reaction to the move news on Warriors message boards. Like the Niners move to SC before it, the reaction is largely positive or indifferent. Stark contrast to the reaction to the A’s desire move. What is it about the A’s, the far and away worst supported of the 3 teams, that makes their move a bad thing, but similar moves by two other teams are welcomed with open arms?

  46. @Dan. 1) There are no territorial issues with the other two moves, no Giants fans to oppose something they think will weaken their team.
    2) The social class divide between Silicon Valley and Oakland is too wide…it’s as if the White Sox moved to the North Shore, they’d lose most of their fan base.
    3) The Warriors came from San Francisco, it’s not unfair for the city to lure them back any more than it was when Oakland got the Raiders back.
    4) As for the 49ers, S.F. was as weak on this and Oakland is on the A’s, and for the same reason–there was nothing that made economic sense.

  47. Don’t know about 2 and 4, SF and Oakland aren’t very similar socially either. And 4 would support and A’s move just as it did a Niners move. As for 1, most Giants fans I’ve talked to support or don’t care if the A’s move to San Jose. I’ve yet to run into many Giants fans who feel it would hurt their team if the A’s move. Seems to me that only 3 makes any sense, and even then it’s a weak argument since the Warriors only played a handful of years in SF before they moved to Oakland where they’ve been for nearly half a century.

  48. 1) I did a poll on this and about 30 percent of the respondents said the Bay Area should have one team and it should be the Giants. Their fans can see what the Phillies and Red Sox, the two most comparable situations, have for resources. Hell, even struggling St. Louis can give great support for the one team that it truly loves. I’m an A’s fan and don’t agree with the sentiment, but it’s out there.

    2) San Francisco is the traditional urban center since 1849…if you’re only going to have one of anything, a team, a museum, etc., it’s pretty hard to argue with that as the location.

  49. Curious…has there been any mention of a name change to….*gasp* SF Warriors?

  50. dknight007 wrote:
    Most of the hardcore W’s fans are from the East Bay. If the Warrior take on the name of San Francisco Warriors, they will be alienating their hard core fan base. Bad move by them. Plus the congestion over in the Pier 30-32 area for an Arena will be absolutley horrible!
    If the W’s do move to SF, and they keep losing, season ticket prices will be sky high and Lacob is just catering to the rich corporate 1% elite. That 1% will jump off the bandwagon if they keep losing like they have a history of doing and the hardcore fans will be priced out from the new SF arena.

    I think dknight hit the nail on the head. The East Bay Warrior fans are the most loyal in the NBA and I am not sure that all or most of them will follow the Warriors to San Francisco and I also skeptical that the new fans will stick around for year after year of losing.

  51. Someone tell me how the Warriors are going to build a 160′ high arena on Piers 30-32 has a height limit of 40′ regulated by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Moreover BCDC does not allow parking on the piers except as an interim use.

  52. I agree that if the W’s move to The City, then the Coliseum City concept seems even more far flung. As for an alternate site for the A’s, 980 Park looks even better to me after this weekend. I had the opportunity to stay in Downtown Oakland the night before the Bay to Breakers race. While I didn’t expect much I was quite surprised at how the downtown Oakland area has changed over the past few years. The Old Oakland area has charm similar to the Gaslamp District in San Diego. There are several hotels, Chinatown, and the convention center all within walking distance. There is a free downtown shuttle to Jack London Square. You have walking access to 2 BART stations and 3 major freeways. Lou Wolff…WAKE UP! You have a gem of a site right there.

  53. @Bill–since you and Knauss feel that Oakland is a perfect site how about you guys cover the cost to build the ballpark–take the risk away from LW and place it on the city of Oakland and Knauss and group who feel it pencils out in Oakland—I doubt LW would have any problem with that—why not do it? Ahh– a little different when your playing with your money rather than someone’s else–WAKE UP Bill–Oakland cannot support a privately financed ballpark!

  54. Honestly, I’m never quite sure what trotting out the amenities of Oakland do to further their case. I mean, Oakland is a wonderful city, there is so much to like. And yes, I’ve seen the pro-Oakland hyperlink of the New York Times article about the restaurants about 157, 424 times as of now. The beauty of Oakland, the Bart access, the vibrancy, all that stuff is not in question or even a part of the debate. Oakland’s topography and climate are amazing. What IS part of the debate is where to build. Many sites have been analyzed (on this blog), or just straight up dismissed (city/county) for lack of feasability.
    Lew Wolff said that if there is a site that his group has missed, he’d like to know about it. And wouldn’t you believe not one of these folks have answered his challenge? Not one.
    If Oakland could get it done, you better believe that most folks would be thrilled. I believe pragmatism will rule the day. But after 17 years and nothing even close to a site except for the same place that tenants are trying to flee like Kim Kardashian on her wedding day, we are left with a whole lot of accusations of traitory to Uncle Lew, and not nearly as many for Oakland pols.

  55. Eb, despite the way that most Oakland Only folks try to paint Mark Purdy… He has been very logical and his opinions are fact driven. If I had to walk into a debate on any subject and I got to pick one Bay Area columnist by my side, I’d pick him. Unlike to drivel we read from much of the Bay Area press, he doesn’t start with a premise and find facts to fit it (yep, I am talking about Lowell Cohn, Dave Newhouse, Monte Poole, Ray Ratto), he generally follows the facts and lets them form his opinion. This is a perfect example.

  56. PS- this is going to be fun to watch unfold…

  57. Bill, have you talked to anyone within Oakland about 980? They don’t think it is a gem of a site (yep, I have talked to them).

  58. Jeffro, I agree and dissagree. He can be a good writer with the exception of the A’s to SJ stuff. I find that slop to be just as emotionally driven and non-fact based as any of the writers you mention above.

  59. One hour until Coliseum City dies a quiet death as everyone expected it would. Never figured it would be the Warriors to put a bullet in that broken legged horse of an idea though. Thought the Raiders or A’s were going to get there first.

  60. Quan was on KGO just before the Lamar press conference and said that she is in Las Vegas to explore the Coliseum City project. She was touting that there is 1000 acres of property, and that the project is not dependent on one team to make it happen. That there is also enough room for one to four teams. Delusion at its finest.

  61. Despite Purdy’s cautious pessimism, I’d just point out that the only two sport venues built in San Francisco in the last half century were both built on the water.
    As for Quan, I give you exhibit A of what the #1 problem in Oakland really is… the leadership.

  62. daveybaby, it could happen. She’s probably access to the city’s money and she’s in Vegas. She’s “exploring” how good a gambler she is and if she wins… :/

  63. F SF , seriously. SF thinks they are superior but F them. SJ/SC now has 2 pro teams and soon a baseball team. I am no math genius but 3 teams > 2 . The Raiders might go to SC too if they can’t find a new home in Oakland and I doubt Fuentes or anybody in Oakland can put together a workable plan.

  64. So yesterday the Chronicle was stewing because they were granted an exclusive on the Warriors plans, including drawings, but were not allowed to publish one word about it till this morning. When ESPN broke the news late Sunday, the deal meant the Chron couldn’t confirm. I don’t know where ESPN got its info, but it kind of makes sense that the Warriors would split the scoop into two components. That gets done a lot, for example, a national writer like Rosenthal will get the story that Player X is going to sign with the A’s and Slusser will get the terms of the contract an hour later.
    I know people don’t like the Chronicle here, but wanted to provide an example of how the media/source game works.
    Now does anybody know if SVLG is going to sue MLB?

  65. Did anyone see this over at Athletics Nation?
    In summation, he’s saying that the AT exemption is toothless/meaningless, and the A’s should just go to San Jose, and there is nothing MLB or the Giants can do about it. They (MLB or the Giants) won’t take it to court, and at worst there would be some compensation package arranged after the fact. The only reason the A’s haven’t done so is because they want to get along with Selig/MLB/other owners. If the A’s were owned by Al Davis, they would have been in SJ a decade ago.
    C’mon Lew, you’ve been jacked around forever. Time to grow a pair and Just Do It!

  66. @anonymous(aka sfchron) – saw the the scoop late last night. appreciate you guys being on top of this, albeit with a very sf-centric perspective. btw>tell suslu she rocks!

  67. @anon: will do, she works so damn hard I’m surprised she isn’t on the DL herself.

  68. @J-A Wow! This seems to good to be true! Thanks, you’ve given me new hope for the A’s staying in town. If all that Oakland offers is Coliseum City, I am big time for a move to SJ. I can only assume that ownership’s high priced lawyers are telling them the same thing. Why is everything so hush hush then, and why is Bud Selig saying random things about the A’s moving anywhere they want in the world? I agree that LW could use a little Al Davis in his personality. Now, please, someone tell Oakland’s leadership so they can concentrate on keeping the Raiders!

  69. I tuned into the press conference late, and I just wanted to verify something. The first thing I heard sounded like Guber telling a personal story, claiming to have heard the, “million parts built by the low bidder…” story directly from John Glenn… Did he do that? That’s a pretty famous quote, except I think it was Alan Shepherd who said it.

  70. Anyway, this sounds terrific for the Warriors and their fans (I don’t care for basketball). State of the art facility on the water in the heart of the Bay Area privately financed and everything. Um, I dunno, maybe too good to be true???

  71. @RC
    Do follow the link, and then do a search on the guy in Google. Apparently, he wrote an entire book on how he thinks the AT exemption is toothless, BS and would stand a chance in a court of law. And this from an actual lawyer who specializes in sports law and is a law professor at Villanova.
    Yes, it’s one guy’s opinion. But what he says makes a lot of sense.

  72. that’s “wouldn’t stand a chance in a court of law” … not “would”.

  73. Interesting, but nobody is going to loan the A’s a dime to build a stadium if there’s a chance the Giants and/or MLB can get an injunction to stop it.

  74. baycommuter – good point. But this is the type of stuff that developers deal with every day. They always have to procure financing to do their work, and they always have to deal with lawsuits from different parties trying to stop their work, for various reasons.

  75. @tps

    The “million parts built by the low bidder” quote is from John Glenn’s retirement speech.

  76. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen Gene Kranz telling the story of prepping Alan Shepherd for the first US. manned spaceflight and Shepherd saying that to him. In any case it seems unlikely that the source of the quote is a private conversation between the co-owner of the Warriors and one of the original Mercury astronauts.

  77. @J-A I think Nathanson’s statement that the AE is “toothless” is a bit hyperbolic. However, I’ve made the same suggestion on the board here before that from a litigation perspective, there would be a significant tactical advantage to just moving and then facing the issue as a defendant rather than as a plaintiff. It’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
    The problem is, you can’t really analyze this as though you were facing an unaffiliated adversary at arm’s length. The A’s have a lot of other dependencies on MLB, and there are a lot of moving parts to getting a project like this done.
    It would be one thing if there was a ready made venue for the A’s to move into, as there was for the Raiders when they moved to LA or the Sonics when they moved to OKC. In that case, the move is done and your opponent has to try to unravel the thing. But in this case, the A’s would have to telegraph their intention years in advance, giving MLB and the Giants lots of opportunity to sabotage the project or otherwise make their lives difficult.

  78. Thanks to the SF Chron again (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/22/MNKT1OLBEP.DTL), some very insightful grounded opinions on how CC “came much too late and lacked any specifics about how such a mega-deal would be paid for.” and Lacob never has “…gotten any definitive proposals from her. [JQ]”. Ironically, the W’s are the most successful of the three pro sports franchise in Oakland, yet they still are bolting a couple of miles across the bay. How would others (including BS) view this knowing the predicament the A’s are in?!

  79. I’m not an expert on the geology of the Bay Area, nor am I a civil engineer, so I’m wondering if any of you know if the proposed site for the new arena at Piers 30-32 is strong enough to support the weight of an arena (plus whatever additional weight from the fans and all necessary equipment? Is it strong enough to withstand a Loma Prieta strength earthquake or worse? What are the chances of liquefaction at the arena site in the event of a sufficiently strong quake?

  80. @Matt – They’ll have no choice but to drive hundred of piles deep into the Bay mud, just as was done for AT&T Park. Pretty much all of the shoreline from North Beach to South Beach is one giant liquefaction zone.

  81. new NBA team needs to be brought to oakland. if the kings are willing to move to a hockey arena in anaheim (yuck) then im sure theyd move to a top 15 NBA arena in oakland, a city with a very established and loyal fan base. OAKLAND KINGS. but honestly, i dont think the warriors are going to leave anyway. the SF arena is extremely improbable. the warriors and a’s need to both just go and build on the howard terminal site. then the warriors get the downtown arena they want next to an MLB team.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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