Stuff to read while you’re getting the BBQ going.
- Late Tuesday, the 49ers successfully fought to keep $30 million in redevelopment funds out of the County’s hands until at least July 27, when another hearing will be held to determine the fate of the money. While the team was lawyered up, the County’s oversight board had no legal representation for the hearing in Sacramento. The issue is whether or not the $30 million (originally $42 million) at stake is considered an “enforceable obligation” between the 49ers and the City of Santa Clara. If it is ruled an enforceable obligation, the money should be safe to use for the stadium. [San Jose Mercury News/Mike Rosenberg & Steve Harmon]
- AEG pulled out of a plan to help build and run a new Sacramento arena without the Kings as a tenant, effectively killing the plan outright. The next move is the Maloofs’, as they could apply to move from Sacramento before the end of the 2012-13 season (which is entirely expected). Will Mayor Kevin Johnson concede defeat and push for a different initiative, such as a stadium? Perhaps, but the teams that KJ would be interested in (A’s, Raiders) would have to show their own interest. So far they haven’t. [Sacramento Bee/Ryan Lillis]
- Oakland’s Uptown was profiled in an All Things Considered segment as a positive example of how redevelopment can revitalize a neighborhood, while the death of redevelopment could halt further progress. [NPR/Richard Gonzales]
- Another article from the Chronicle takes a stab at figuring out what will happen to Oakland’s three pro sports franchises. As usual, Mayor Jean Quan lacks specifics, instead using grandiose phrases such as “Staples on Steroids” to describe the Coliseum City project. She also seems to be gravitating further towards a retractable dome concept-cum-convention center, which new partner AEG would certainly champion. Careful hitching your horses to the AEG wagon, Madam Mayor. As we saw in Sacramento, AEG will ditch a city posthaste if they see no future there. Plus, all of the secrecy behind Quan’s supposed “secret committee” working on Coliseum City doesn’t help when it comes to taking her seriously, as she recently took a huge hit to her credibility with new data released about her “100 blocks” policing plan. [SFGate/Vittorio Tafur, Matthai Kuruvila]
- Cities are looking for ways to resurrect redevelopment, and one popular one emerging is the establishment of revitalization zones via state legislation. The zones would have similar tax increment and bonding powers as redevelopment agencies did, plus they would be enshrined by state law. SF Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is pushing for the creation of an infrastructure financing district to serve the America’s Cup development along the waterfront. The problem with this method is that eventually any law passed by the Legislature still has to go to Governor Jerry Brown for approval. Brown has been steadfast in opposing any kind of old-school-style redevelopment for the past year, making it hard to see him signing any legislation that could undermine his redevelopment clawback efforts. [Sacramento Bee/Dan Walters]
- Added 4:30 PM – Today’s the halfway point of the home schedule. Because the first two home games were played in Japan, the Attendance Watch box on the right has shown multiple representations of attendance, one with the Japan games included and one without. Projected over the rest of the season, the total 81-game attendance (with Japan) would be 1,733,521. The total 79-game attendance (without Japan) would be 1,599,938. ESPN and other statistics aggregators usually include the Japan games in their attendance tables. Based on games sold, the A’s consider today’s game #39. Attendance tends to pick up throughout July and into August, just before the school year begins, then drops off, the variance depending largely on the team’s record. At this juncture, three teams already have surpassed the A’s projected season attendance (both figures): Philadelphia, Texas, and the NY Yankees.
More as it comes.
I love how Quan has added the possibility of a roof to the football stadium (which we know adds 200 million or more to the cost), while simultaneously now saying the whole project at Coliseum City for her “Staples on Steroids” will only cost 1 billion dollars. Never mind that the football stadium alone will cost more than a billion, and the other two venues are at minimum 500 million dollar ventures. To say nothing of the ancillary development she’s claiming would happen. And that would now in her delusion all be privately financed. Where did the voters of Oakland dig up this lunatic?
I really loved the Warriors statements on the Coliseum City fantasy when they tried to get specifics all they got was the same hot air BS Blackwell and Quan have been giving all of us through the press. Which makes it painfully obvious that all of this is just theater by Quan to not be saddled with the legacy of being the mayor who lost all 3 teams. You can see it in her statements too where she lays the blame on Dellums and Brown.
Mayor Quan really comes off as a stoned hippie during her interviews
The SFGate comment section is like visiting a klan rally, some really horrible stuff.
Another item that needs some recognition is the Raiders donating 54,000 to the Oakland school district. It won’t change the debt, but it was a good act on the team’s behalf.
re: “We will be in San Jose in five years,” Wolff said.
…sounds like Wolff has been told he won’t get San Jose until the Giants pay off their mortgage.
Yeah not that Wolff has lacked confidence to this point, but that is a remote date compared to his previous statements and awfully sure of himself.
it seams like mayor quan has said a lot of dumb things. but that dome stadium things has to be the most stupid of all. i mean come on. its just straight up idiotic. has she never been to the city where she is mayor of? you dont put a dome stadium in a city that has some of the best weather in the world.
and if the raiders gave 50,000 dollars to the oakland school district, that means theyve made about 500,000 in season ticket sales so far this summer. any ideas on how many season ticket holders that might be?
in addition, that was one of those pointless chronicle articles that tells us nothing we dont already know and its whole purpose is just to stir up trouble. A’s attendance has been up this year but you wouldnt know by that article. all it cares about is making the A’s look bad to the rest of the bay area so the giants will have even more dominance. giants fans believe everything they hear from the media and this will help give them a sense of what is happening at EVERY oakland home game even though most of this seasons games have had a lot bigger crowds
I would guess the average new STH for the Raiders is $500/seat (the new ones are more likely to go for the cheap tickets IMO). So $500k would be 1,000 new season tickets. Not that great, but it only covered two months from what I recall (May 1-June 30).
Sad about the Sacramento arena. Not unexpected, but still sad. A new arena if built would have been somewhat of an inducement for the Kings to stay, or if they left would have been an immediately available target for a new team. Now when the Kings leave next spring Sac will have nothing to lure any new teams in and will likely stay a minor league town for a long time (barring a surprise move by the A’s).
kings should move to oakland or san jose.
Warriors won’t let them into either city. But even if they did, Oakland is a non-starter unless they’re going to give the Maloofs a brand new arena free of charge. No they’ll end up in Seattle with Hansen taking over majority ownership and the Maloofs just happy they’ll still be able to say they own a basketball team. Though the Maloofs may try for Anaheim again, and fail, since Stern has already said it not happening (not to mention Buss and Sterling will never let that happen either).
The Maloofs will have no problem convincing Mssrs. Buss, Sterling, Stern, and the rest of the NBA owners from moving the Kings to Anaheim. All they (the Maloofs) have to do is have the Kings switch leagues to the D-League.
CHI/PJK, LW has also had recent moments where he has sounded uncertain about SJ, more of a ‘I hope it happens but it’s out of my control’. But he has been 100% on the desire to move to SJ (ever since Fremont collapsed).
On the issue of the delay: why wouldn’t MLB — with one of their own, LW, nearly demanding a vote — just take a vote, decide this thing one way or another, and move on to the next order of business? What is the reason for the vote delay? Only BS knows for sure but if you look at what motivates the Lodge, it gets clearer. The Lodge is largely motivated by just two things: 1) Money and 2) keeping things unchanged (their business/their power/their rules unchanged).
Ultimately the problem is the move to SJ is a positive for money but not for change (this is generic issue of why there hasn’t been a yes or a no vote). So how does Lodge reconcile the issue? First, the Lodge tries to make the two sides come to an amicable agreement. It certainly appears the sides can’t come to an agreement (both are entrenched). Second, the team wanting the change (the A’s) gives up and looks for another avenue to increase money for the Lodge (no doubt they want the A’s off welfare/increasing revenue). Again, LW/The A’s are adamant about SJ (but I would bet money this is one reasons for the delay). Third, the Lodge must vote to decide the issue (force it one way or another). On this third issue, the lack of vote/the delay must be coming down to how much ‘change’ can the Lodge accept. To accept the change, it will have to have compelling merit. The Lodge knows the A’s have two solid points of merit (1, no other two market team is split. 2, Giants were given the split not only free but ironically to help them get a new stadium). But the Lodge also knows the Giants have a solid point of merit (the Giants built/pay for their stadium under TR rules, how can you change that?). Ultimately the Lodge must believe the Giants point of merit is more compelling — this is why there has been no Yes vote for SJ. But, again, why not just take a vote, say no, move on when the Giants have a more compelling argument? I believe the answer is found in the Giants one compelling argument. Once the stadium is paid for, the case for a yes vote is largely in favor of the A’s compelling arguments. So unless the A’s throw in the towel on SJ or there is a compensation number that is palatable for all sides, a reading of the clues certainly points to the vote being delayed because they want the Giants argument of ‘stadium payments’ to first be moot.
I believe the “retractable roof” has two potential benefits. First, the convention center center angle Quan mentions. Second, the Super Bowl becomes more likely when weather is not an issue. But as Frank Blackwell points out “press conferences don’t build stadiums” and neither do a couple drawings and an empty PR campaign.
It’s funny how the vilification of Lew Wolff has been derailed by the Warriors plan to move. This article puts the issue squarely on the Oakland Government.
How does it get paid for? Mayor Quan is sure she can convince Roger Goodell to do the opposite of what he has already said he is going to do. One loan per market. Is that because Goodell has seemed so wiling to reverse himself or something?
Well, when the state supreme court killed redevelopment in December, the Merc interviewed a bunch of Bay Area mayors. Most of ’em said something like “this is unfortunate but we planned for the worst case”. Mayor Quan said she expected the legislature would act to save redevelopment, even though they’d voted to kill it months before. Some politicians get so caught up in their own bubble they think if they speak something it will come into existence.
@Dan – i’m a Warriors fan, so i’m not interested in the Sac-Kings, but if they were to look at Oakland, it wouldn’t require “a brand new arena for the Maloofs”. I believe its been stated frequently on this blog, that most folks find the Oakland Arena a fine place to watch a game. It was gutted and rebuilt less than 15 years ago. It also sells out. Imagine what could happen with an annual playoff team? I’m one of skeptics of the 30/32 Pier plan. They may end up in the SF (50/50% chance), but i really doubt its at those piers.
/ / / Unfortunately with the broke Magoofs as owners the Kings will not be an annual playoff team. They couldn’t even cough up $3 million for preliminary matters when Sac is basically giving them a new arena.
If the W’s do move in ’17 and the Magoofs are still broke, I could see them move to Oakland, as they’d probably make more money there than in Sac. The problem would be whether the W’s would need to be paid off.
ML: What’s your take on the “five years” comment from Wolff? That could be the most significant revelation we’ve heard on this whole issue in years. Wolff sounds pretty sure of himself…Of course, in 5 years, some of us may not be in the Bay Area anymore or might begin to qualify for senior citizen discounts at the new ballpark. Is five years worth even talking about now?…
Brian, without question the W’s would need to be paid off. Which is why it’s not happening under the Maloof’s watch. They’re “broke” as as far as rich guys go. As you say they couldn’t afford the $3 mil prelim payment on their gift of an arena in Sac. Nor could they afford the, by modern sports standards, relatively paltry $70 million contribution to the Sac arena out of the total $391 million dollar cost. A move to Oakland would cost the Maloofs at least a $100 million relocation fee. That’s why the Maloofs so far have only expressed interest in Anaheim, Samueli (owner of the Ducks), has offered to front the Maloofs the money to make the move including the relocation fee they’d have to pay down in Anaheim to the Clippers and Lakers. To say nothing of the timing not being right. The Kings will likely be moving in next spring, the Warriors won’t be moving until 2017, which means Oracle won’t be available in time.
Also it’s debatable that they’d be able to make more money in Oakland anyway. When the W’s leave they’re going to have one of the nicest arenas in existence across the Bay in SF either at Pier 30/32 or at AT&T Park right near downtown and all the extra amenities those areas have to offer. The “Kings” at Oracle would be walking into a then 20+ year old arena built inside a then 50+ year old arena that sits in the middle of an industrial wasteland. If it sounds familiar it should because it’s similar to the situation the A’s are in today, and we all know how well that’s working out for the A’s. No the Kings would be better off staying in Arco Arena than coming down and playing second fiddle to the Warriors in Oakland.
San Jose might make sense if the Maloofs weren’t broke, but again they don’t have the money to make a move without a champion like Samueli or Hansen waiting to either fund the move, or buy control of the team. To say nothing of not having the funds to pay for any upgrades to HP Pavilion to NBA standards (which Samueli has already done in Anaheim even without a commitment from the Kings or anyone else to move there).
Wolff said a month ago, when Tierney and Davis asked him point blank – “What do you tell people who say San Jose will never happen?”
That coupled with Baer saying the issue is a commisioner’s decision, versus, “No way in hell,” which is what he was saying earlier. I can’t imagine why this more than 1200 day delay is good for Oakland. If anything, it shows that Oakland, with the exception of a few press conferences and some lying on the VC EIR, cannot get anything done. What San Jose has got done in that same time is an exponential difference.
Is there a situation in which the Kings and Warriors could end up sharing Oracle Arena? Not quite Quan’s vision of “Staples on Steroids,” maybe more like “Staples on Cough Syrup” or so. Call me crazy, but I find it more believable that you would have the Warriors, Kings and Raiders as tenants of whatever becomes of the Coliseum complex than the Warriors, Raiders and A’s.
Stuck, problem with the two teams sharing Oracle are many. First, the Warriors don’t want to be in Oracle, hence they’re trying to leave. So if there were a sharing arrangement in Oakland it would have to be both teams. Second, to build a new arena they’d need between $400 and $500 million in private investment (Quan has indicated they expect the teams to pay for any developments at the Coliseum), which won’t be very easy and is part of why the Warriors want out. Third, new arena or not, for the Kings to move in they’d need to come up with $175 million dollars minimum. $100 million to pay off the Warriors for invading their territory, and then $75 million to pay off their remaining obligations to the City of Sacramento on the Arco Arena loan. As above, the Maloofs are functionally out of cash for rich guys. They can’t afford a bill that high which is why they were trying to move to Anaheim where Samnueli was going to front them the money to make the move. They can’t make a move to any area that doesn’t have a Samueli or a Hansen ready to help make it happen. So the Kings moving to the Bay Area isn’t happening as long as the Maloofs own them, and it’ll become irrelevant after the Kings cease to exist next year and either become the Anaheim Royals or the Seattle Supersonics 2.0.
Since San Jose isn’t paying for the A’s stadium, already has the arena the Kings would use (and it only needs minor modification), and the Raiders wouldn’t be moving to San Jose but to the already funded Santa Clara Stadium in theory yes, the south bay could afford all 3 teams. What would keep them out are other issues. The Giants needing a territorial pay off or beatdown, the Kings owners being broke, and the Raiders not wanting to move to Santa Clara rather than moving to LA or staying in the east bay.
@ Chi – You REALLY need to do some research before making these uninformed comments:
a) SJ is not buying any of those teams, nor funding the stadiums / arenas. They provide the land and lease back to the teams.
b) The Raiders would play with the Niners in Santa Clara. The Niners have already moved forward on this. It is up to the Raiders whether they want to be cotenants.
c) If (and that’s a big if) the Kings do decide to explore SJ, they would need 1) permission from NBA 2) payoff the W’s for going into their TR and 3) would likely reside in HP Pavillion along with the Sharks, albeit some future renovations would have to be made to make it to NBA standards.
d) The A’s deal is already for the land is already in place and once the TR dust finally settles, LW will build a privately funded stadium on city land. Their will be ancillary infrastructure improvements that will have to be made in the surrounding area, but it was also already planned as part of Diridon project.
@Chi, you need to slow your roll there. You are often very misinformed in your comments, and Anon is correct, you do need to do more research before you post. I had a teacher in elementary school that would say you had diarrhea of the mouth.
As far as “5 years more years of all this???” that’s not exactly true. For the A’s to be playing in SJ in five years, we’d have to have a resolution within about two years. Still kinda depressing.
Assuming the following: A) that the start of the 2017 season is when the Giants play their first game sans a mortgage payment, B) Cisco field will need approx. 3 years from MLB’s green light to an actual stadium (2 years of construction, 6 months for ironing out of the plan between LW-SJ-Banks-everyone else, 6 months to prepare-execute the public vote then deal with lawsuits).
Given that half of the 2012 season is over, if MLB gave the green light tomorrow, the A’s still likely don’t play their first game at Cisco field until 2016. So IF MLB’s delay is about letting the A’s play in SJ after the Giants’ mortgage payment doesn’t exist, it means the green light will be given around opening day of next year. This will give the A’s/SJ sufficient time to get a 2017 opening day worked out while nothing realistically sooner (at least not likely sooner – this is California). Conversely, if this thing is still undecided by the fall of 2013, logic dictates the delay is not about the Giants’ mortgage payment.
@Chi – LS has been commenting here for a long time and doesn’t try to troll others. He’s giving you advice. You’re new here. Slow your roll. He’s right.
Ban Chi. He’s a clown commenter, bro.
@Dan- There is no TR fee to the Warriors if a 2nd team moves to the Bay Area. In fact there is no such thing as TR in general in the other sports besides MLB, so you need to understand that. TR is an issue with the A’s only because of the AE MLB has.
Al Davis and Donald Sterling in the 1980s set precedence with this when they sued the NFL and NBA to move to LA against their wishes and won therefore moving to LA and actually made $$ on the lawsuits….Goes to show how ridiculous this A’s and Giants situation really is.
Forbes based on rumor stated $100M to the Warriors if a 2nd team moves to the Bay Area because of the team sale. The NBA has outright denied any right given to the Warriors for $100M for a 2nd NBA team in the Bay Area market….The Kings example proves that.
When the Kings tried moving to Anaheim last year Henry Samueli was loaning 75M for a relocation fee that was to be evenly dispersed to the other teams not just the Lakers and Clippers.
That defeats any rumor of the NBA promising $100M to the Warriors as the Lakers/Clippers would have cried out loud for the NBA to be fair….makes sense.
The reason why the NBA did not want the Kings in Anaheim was because of the TV deal the Lakers just signed that had penalties if a 3rd team moved to the LA area simply put.
In the end, the Kings will end up in Anaheim, they were told by the relocation committee if they failed again in Sacramento they would not stand in their way of a move to any city.
Anaheim makes more sense than San Jose because of the Maloofs needing loans to make the move happen and Samueli will loan them $$ without taking majority ownership. Larry Ellison wants controlling interest in San Jose and Robert Pera did as well.
Pera will one day bring the Grizzlies to San Jose, probably in 5 years once the amount of breaking the lease in Memphis is less than 30M, stands at 100M right now but dwindles each year. This plus the Grizzlies lose 25M a year even with a good team, its a wonder why Heisley had such a hard time selling the team to someone who would keep it in Memphis.
Seattle will not happen for this reason as well, the Maloofs have one choice and that is only there if Samueli is offering the same deal as before which is unknown right now…..The Kings maybe stuck in Sac by default.
Those are my 2 cents on the NBA stuff, take it for what it is.
Sid, true it’s not called a territorial rights fee, it’s a relocation fee in the NBA. And yes they’d have to pay it, or risk a lawsuit they also can’t afford to move to San Jose or Anaheim. Why do you think they didn’t move to Anaheim last year. They applied, and were denied by the league. While MLB does have the only anti-trust exemption, it also doesn’t mean the leagues haven’t taken other steps to ensure their teams have to abide by certain rules via contracts and other means. An Al Davis would be hard to pull off today.
Also the league won’t consider them to have “failed” in Sacramento next spring. The city did everything the NBA asked. It was the Maloofs that failed, and the NBA’s and Stern’s responses to the situation since then bear that out. The NBA is as tired of the Maloofs as the city of Sacramento is. If they apply for Anaheim again they’ll be rejected, again. Now yes they could try to challenge that in court, but good luck. Their bankroll isn’t what it used to be.
Also one other thing, when the Kings tried moving to LA last year the word was they’d have to pay up to $200 million for the pleasure (ironically half of that going to Sterling).
I’m loving Chi! Pure entertainment, please don’t ban him ML!
pjk: “until the Giants pay off their mortgage”
Back around spring training this year Larry Baer said publicly that the Giants intend to refinance the mortgage and then continue to pay at a lower level, lower % rate, etc.
/ / / If the end of the mortgage affects the timeline for the A’s, that’s exactly what I would do. It is an arbitrary timeline (why penalize the Giants for paying the mortgage off quicker than they probably could have?).
@Chi – If you’re spreading incorrect info you should be corrected. If you’re calling people idiots I can delete your comments.
re: (why penalize the Giants for paying the mortgage off quicker than they probably could have?).
…and why penalize the city of San Jose by banning it from ever having Major League Baseball simply because of the Giants’ pure greed? It seems like the A’s to San Jose is going to happen – just not as soon as we would like…
I just don’t believe that the Giants’ mortgage is the main issue. The Giants are making mlb a lot of money right now, while the A’s are profiting from revenue sharing–a dole the other owners are apparently eager to terminate. If I were an otherwise disinterested owner, before I would agree to revoke the Giants’ TRs and approve an A’s move, I would want to see a Bay Area plan that ensured continued profits for the Giants, as well as better days for the A’s. The Giants probably want exactly that same sort of deal. So it still seems to me that Wolff/Fisher need to come up with more money to buy the Giants out. It could be paid over time, I suppose. . . .
If Larry Baer wants to refinance that is obviously his prerogative. He needs to do what is in his own business interest. However, if the SJ decision delay is based on waiting for the Giants’ mortgage to end, the Lodge won’t give a rat’s a$$ if a refinance is done by Baer. The Lodge has already decided that the Giants should be given this brief remaining period before they give the A’s the OK to go to SJ. Conversely, if a move to SJ is a no go because Baer refinances, the deal was never seriously about the Giants’ mortgage.
Bottom line: the Lodge want the A’s off welfare/making money for them. The Lodge also knows how hard it is to get a stadium built (especially in Cali) yet they know SJ is on board with a stadium. Given all this, the reason to not give the ok to SJ must be compelling. ‘I got a much better interest rate by extending the mortgage another 15 years’, that would be right up there with ‘the dog ate my homework’.
The mortgage is irrelevant. It’s profit that’s important — the Giants’ profit (with or without a refinanced mtg), and, probably most important, mlb’s profit. The Giants are very popular nationally and internationally. That’s a fact. The Giants are selling out every game. That’s a fact (subject to manipulation, I know). The Giants are making everyone a lot of money. That’s a fact. mlb (or “the lodge”) does not want to get the A’s off the dole at the expense of the profits pouring in through SF. Wolff/Fisher. mlb wants a plan that promises even more success in the Bay Area than they have now, with the Giants. Wolff/Fisher have to make a deal that gratifies everyone. Apparently, their offers, as yet, haven’t even come close.
Your comments are certainly entertaining, but FYI – we’re laughing AT you, not WITH you.
@Chi – Chill. This is your only warning.
In response to Xoot: That’s an interesting point. MLB believes a second showcase stadium in the bay area equals the Giants being a negative/run of the mill to MLB. If that is the case, won’t MLB be urging the A’s to move to another territory altogether tp keep their crowned jewel Giants pristine? With a negative hovering over their heads like this, wouldn’t MLB already said no to the A’s? Even further into the paradox, it is public knowledge BS is having the A’s and Giants negotiate for a resolution. Odd given MLB knows they will lose their crowned jewel Giants (and according to you MLB will also take a hit eventually). And even further, these guys must not know business (at least BS and the owners of the White Sox and Marlins) given several of them have made positive statements about the A’s in SJ.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc — the logical fallacy that if A happens then B happens. A new stadium in SJ (or in Oakland) is not going to send the Giants into attendance medoicrity. BS, knows this, MLB knows this, the A’s know this, even Baer knows this (this fight is about increasing value for the Giants not lessening value)
Bottom line: the Giants have by far the best two team territory deal. They got it for free from an A’s owner who put MLB first. That deal likely kicked in some extra to help pay for the Giant stadium. The Giants, provided they don’t occupy the doghouse in the standings, will continue to do fine in their showcase stadium. MLB wants the A’s in SJ. They will continue to have a crowned jewel in a world renowned city (SF) and they will have a crowned jewel in a very widely worldwide recognized area (Silicon Valley), with a worldwide recognized company (Cisco), sitting in the heart of some of the biggest $$$$ in the world, and MOST importantly to MLB they will have more fans attending MLB games in the bay area than ever before. They know this and that is why they are trying to get SJ worked out (and not likely listening much to Baer’s demagoguery that he will be wounded if a new stadium for the A’s opens up 40 miles from them).
I don’t think any of the leagues care about Oakland. Bud said they were free to go and the Warriors have announced their departure. The NFL has said they want to fund one stadium per market so unless Quan really talks Goddell into something he claims he won’t do, Oakland doesn’t have much. It’s sad to say, but I think the only reason Oakland still has the A’s is due to the Giants. It has nothing to do with Oakland.
Quan, talk Goodell, into anything? Pigs will sooner develop spaceflight and beat the Chinese to Mars. Quan couldn’t convince a dog to eat a Milkbone. And Goodell is one of the shrewdest commissioners ever to run a sports league. He’s no where near dumb enough to believe anything that woman says.
Baynativeguy, I think you are absolutely right. All three leagues (and you can throw the NHL in there and probably even the up and coming MLS in there too) do not per se care about a given city. There is a line from a movie called ‘Bound’ that says it well: “It’s all about the business”. I think there may have been a time when a team felt a kinship with the community. And provided that community showed sufficient support to the team, the owner saw that community as home. That time fully passed when franchises became half billion to billion dollar big business entities. Big business does not forgo hundreds of million in revenue simply because they want a sense of community. To your larger point, unfortunately for Oakland they are next to SF. They were always going to be #2 in line. However, in the past that was ok given that #2 was an enviable spot in an area of this size and this kind of wealth. But (and I know this will be an unpopular sentiment) SJ is #2. This is why I have said, repeatedly, Oakland would do VERY well to choose its target wisely. Target the W’s, for instance, and put their resources into a good winning strategy to keep them. But trying to buld three stadiums, one with a retractable roof, along with the rest of the ancillary developments is just pie in the sky non reality.
Chi, even with less than stellar leadership in Oakland (and that is probably putting it kindly), I’m stumped they would not at least suggest a bond measure to a few media outlets. Plant the seed in the minds of the teams/leagues that they are serious about keeping the teams even if it requires kicking in some public cash. Why not try that?? I have to assume that either the Oakland pols believe the public will castigate them for even suggesting it or the Oakland pols are ideologically against it.
Dan, you are obviously right that JQ is way out of her league when talking business with Goodell. However, come to a guy with the business acumen of Goodell with “we have X cash, we have great location Y and we have Z on board to plow the plan through” and Goodell will listen (so will Stern and BS). But when you come at these guys and your plan is a location that is at best nondescript, that she needs everyone else to pay for everything, and that the plan has 1000 hagglers that will need to buy off on it……..the discussion is a waste of time. Goodell will have a pleasant talk with her, talk of all kinds of “cool stuff”, comment that “this is the best cup of earl grey I have ever had”….then walk away thinking “you gotta be kidding me!”. Oakland has GOT to have a real plan when they go to talk with these guys!!
TW: San Jose is number 2 in some ways, at least in the cultural/historical way. San Jose beats SF in population and has Silicon Valley. Oakland is now clearly number 3.
Chi: I think Coliseum City is a pipe dream. Publicly funded? With what? Oakland is a poor city with a serious crime problem (you mean it’s not 100 blocks?) and poor revenue. Your Green Bay example is a nice exception but Oakland doesn’t have that with any of it’s teams. And the broader leagues certainly don’t care.
Chi, I suspect you’re not alone in that sentiment. Provided Oakland is kicking in only a modest percentage and they can craft a deal with a quantifiable ROI, I think they may get enough voters on board. Of course there will be a significant anti stadium presence (every city has voters who object to public financing — rightly or wrongly). But as long as the plan is solid enough that it is sell-able (for instance: it will double as a convention center, it will fund public benefit entity X, it will have Clorox and other large companies taxed a bit more), I think the pro stadium folks could win it.
With that said — as I mentioned before — I think a public plan that pays for anything attached to LW is a plan that is not winnable. He’s been vilified to a degree that would make it too easy for the anti stadium folks to win the vote. With the A’s, I think the only shot Oakland has is MLB baseball telling LW “you must stay in Oakland”. Other than that I can’t see any realistic scenario that keeps the A’s within Oakland city limits.
“TW: San Jose is number 2 in some ways, at least in the cultural/historical way. San Jose beats SF in population and has Silicon Valley. Oakland is now clearly number 3.”
I would argue that San Jose is third in culture/history to SF, then Oakland. Oakland’s music, pop culture, art, architectural impact is pretty significant. Granted that means little in terms of wooing sports teams, but just thought I’d chime in.
Oakland still offers no viable site and no $$.
Apparenty, Oakland’s best site was the Uptown site (which I’m not familiar with). But Jerry Brown, elected twice by Oakland voters, was determined that a ballpark would never be built there.
Music and cultural history are certainly important but they’re pretty much irrelevant factors to the MLB, NFL, or NBA when deciding to place a team (otherwise New Orleans would probably have at least one of each). The decision on the A’s isn’t going to turn on the fact that Too $hort came from Oakland for instance.
Oddly enough one of the places the A’s almost moved once was New Orleans.
I was too vague when I said San Jose is #2. I specifically meant SJ is #2 for overall business. In ways they are better than SF (business wise), however, SF has a worldwide presence that gives them a distinct edge. In terms of Oakland, Oakland has some rich history….I did not mean to denigrate that. But right now if I was a sports team owner and had to choose SJ or Oakland, SJ will get the nod the vast majority of the time. For Oakland, I think it sucks but it just is what it is at this time in history.
In business I think you have ot wrong. Silicon Valley is above SF in terns of business importance these days.
Dan, I totally see your point and tried to give latitude to that by saying “in some ways [SJ] is better” in my previous post. However, for a business that relies heavily on the name of their team, simply having “san francisco” in your team name is a benefit that SJ can’t hope to match. Further, having the SF skyline as the backdrop of your stadium, having the city of SF itself as the “things to do right next to the stadium” and, conversely, having the game/stadium as a ‘things to do in downtown SF’ is a value that SJ can’t match to a any significant degree. ((on a side note: despite statements by Baer and the Giants’ water carriers, this is among the reasons why there is no actual worry that the Giants’ stadium business will suffer to any real degree when Cisco field comes to fruition)).
With that said, there are (obviously) specifics that go into making a stadium happen that give the south bay a distinct advantage over SF (and, imho, even more so than Oakland). If the Giants absolutely had to have a stadium today and it had to be within SF city limits, they would go through the proverbial meat grinder to make it happen (yet still easier than Oakland — as unbelievable as that is). SF politics, the regulatory climate, the idiosyncrasies of doing business would make it a cumbersome process to say the least. And while SJ isn’t a cake walk, they clearly have positioned themselves as an easier place to do business (not easy per se, easier).
As a side note/last item, those SF hurdles will likely allow Oakland another chance at the W’s. JQ/Oakland pols, regardless of their Coliseum City smoke screen (that is what it is imho), start working NOW on a real plan. Get behind a prime, ATTRACTIVE spot for the W’s(hint: they like the idea of a waterfront stadium), work on the 1000 details NOW, work on what the city can provide for sweeteners, talk with entities that would probably be opposed to get them on board……and have an attractive offer ready for the W’s. When the W’s owners start banging their heads against the wall because of the difficulties they will encounter with SF, for god’s sake have a plan that will get them to forget their headache! Not one that will make them forget their headache because they can’t sop laughing…..
TW: “Post hoc ergo propter hoc — the logical fallacy that if A happens then B happens.” That’s not right. You can’t apply that fallacy until after A and B both occur. I think a closer conversational translation is: Because B happened A must have caused it. If you use the reverse of such logic explicitly to predict a causal effect, you’re just predicting — i.e., A will cause B.
TW: “MLB wants the A’s in SJ.” I think that’s called blind, irrational faith, based on wishful tea-leaf reading, and I’ve been following the public pronouncements very closely. But that’s just my speculative opinion. I am more certain that this opinion will hold water: MLB wants to continue to rake in millions and millions of dollars in the Bay Area. Ergo, Wolff/Fisher need to make a deal with the Giants that tends to ensure continued Giants success, while Wolff/Fisher get the shot they want in San Jose. I don’t pretend to comprehend all of the business-issue trade-offs available to toss on the table to reach such an agreement. But paying the Giants a bunch, over time, in a way that allows them to maintain their payroll, while they shift their business model to accomodate some loss of Silicon Valley support to the San Jose A’s, is one approach that makes sense to me. The worst thing that could happen to everyone — mlb, the Giants, the A’s, and all fans — would be an A’s move to San Jose that doesn’t succeed in doing anything other than siphon success from the Giants.
Finally, the A’s didn’t give the Giants anything. The A’s just didn’t object when the Giants sought the then unclaimed part of the Bay Area territory. Instead, Wally Haas said, sure, why not. In an interview some years later, Haas was pretty vague about his motivation. Projecting magninimity on him now is more wishful thinking, and it’s not very relevant, imo. Wolff/Fisher are in charge now, and the other owners they’re dealing with, in the main, weren’t at the meetings with Mr. Haas. They don’t really care about anything more than precedent (mlb teams don’t move into new territories very often) and profit.