When the season starts and you notice the A’s-themed tarps that will stay up the entire year except when replaced by Raiders-themed tarps, remember this:

Payment schedule of Coliseum bonds

Payment schedule of Coliseum bonds

Last year the Coliseum JPA sought to refinance the stadium debt in order to switch the debt from variable to fixed rate. New bonds were issued in September.

It can’t be emphasized enough that whatever is planned in the future for the Coliseum, this debt has to be factored in. The City and County will want to repackage the debt in a way that takes the burden away from their respective general funds. Naturally, the A’s and Raiders probably want no part of this, considering how expensive it already is to privately build anything. Even if nothing gets built until 2018, $100 million in debt will remain, making that a sort of tax on any new stadium(s). The JPA is asking the A’s to pay more in rent, reportedly up to $3 million a year. Even then a substantial subsidy will be required. Ultimately, no deal on Coliseum City – no matter the size or scale – will go anywhere unless the outstanding debt at the Coliseum is addressed to all parties’ satisfaction. That’s a challenge as towering as Mt. Davis itself.


Added 11:30 AM – Matier and Ross have an item covering the JPA’s ongoing lease negotiations with the A’s and Raiders. 

The tug-of-war for the five-year extension is over the $3 million in parking taxes that Oakland says the team owes, and over the A’s claim to about a third of the beer sales at the Coliseum – be they at an A’s game, a Raiders game, a U2 concert or any other event.

The tightrope is with the Raiders, who don’t like giving the A’s the beer money and don’t appreciate the A’s request for ballpark “improvements” that may come at the Raiders’ expense.

The parking tax referred to in the piece dates back to 2009, when Oakland unilaterally decided to enforce a long-dormant 18.75% tax per car at the Coliseum. The A’s hiked up parking fees from $15 to $17, and the price stayed there ever since. However, the A’s sat on the additional revenue while other details shook out, such as a revenue split between Oakland and Alameda County that was only settled last year. Assuming that a 2014-18 (or longer) lease extension can be worked out, the parking tax would be yet another detail to negotiate. The beer revenue split goes back to when the A’s sued the Coliseum Authority and received lease concessions, including a split on pouring rights for all events and some advertising revenues. As for the baseball-specific improvements that the Raiders may be resisting, I’m not clear on those. I’ll try to dig that up. All I know at the moment is that Lew Wolff has wanted an escape clause if the Coliseum undergoes changes for the Raiders. 

Finally, M&R end on a vague note – MLB might look favorably on Oakland if a short-term deal can be worked with Wolff/Fisher or “a new set of local owners”. Perhaps, but let’s be clear on a couple of things. First, even if Wolff were to declare today that the he and John Fisher were putting the team up for sale, the actual process to vet prospective bidders (such as a Don Knauss & Co. bid) and then complete the sale would take the better part of a year or more to complete, which is of no help to the A’s immediately as they try to work out a short-term extension. Second, MLB won’t approve a sale to an East Bay-focused group unless there is an ironclad ballpark deal in place. Otherwise there’s no point because the A’s would remain revenue sharing recipients indefinitely, even though it’s written into the CBA that they’re supposed to be off revenue sharing in the next several years. Third, MLB has offered to insert itself into the lease discussions, only to be told no by Wolff. Wolff’s making a leverage play here. He did well in getting a ton of flexibility in the last two lease negotiations. This time, talks are sure to be more rancorous. If MLB wants to float a feel good item to help soften up the JPA, I’m sure Wolff won’t mind. Finally, there’s the issue that appearing to help the A’s and MLB may send the wrong message to the Raiders, who are the only team directly working with the JPA and Oakland at the moment. It’s a very fragile, fluid situation. No one said it’d be easy.

55 thoughts on “Albatross

  1. Hopefully the A’s agree to paying the 3 million a year if they renew their lease as expected. If I am correct that is almost 3x the amount they currently pay. Even if the A’s do stay in Oakland there is no way they should foot most of the bill to pay off the Mount Davis debt. They are not the ones that wanted the Raiders to come back.

  2. What a waste of money it will be to have the crews, early during football season, take off the green tarps just to replace them with the black tarps. Why not just leave on the green tarps?

  3. Remember Lew Wolff said that he is willing to talk to Oakland about a fair lease agreement “If Oakland Wants Us Back”??? If its not fair, then yes I truly believe that Lew has told MLB that City of Oakland will play hardball and he might have to play at Raleys Field or even at Sf giants park, that would be great for the Raiders they will have a football field unchanged for a whole football season.hey I’m down for that. Again my Oakland city leaders just need to focus on restructuring the mount davis debt and figure out how to make a new or newly renovated Colisem for the Raiders in a few years.

  4. Agree with Mike2: just sign on to the $3 million a year to end that uncertainty, make atmosphere more favorable for a decision to finally be announced.
    $100 million left to pay off for Mt. Davis?! Wow!

  5. @pjk

    What is sad is the fact that we are talking about tarps for a pro football team.


    I know you want a new stadium for the Raiders or the A’s, but it would be political suicide for Oakland politicians if they added new debt trying to build a stadium for their teams. How much more debt can the city acquire before it ends up like Detroit with the state taking over it’s finances.

  6. BTW, the clowns M&R claim that MLB will look favorably on an A’s lease extension as Oakland being committed to baseball. WTF?! And these guys continue to be allowed to write for a major newspaper?
    In other news, JQ mayoral rating is super low, reported in the low 20%.

  7. MLB has been successful in getting new stadiums built in almost all its cities with the exception of two holdouts – Oakland and Tampa. (Not including Boston, Chicago, LA, where no new facility is sought) Not seeing how extending the lease at the existing nearly 50-year-old stadium while still not offering any public funds for construction of a new ballpark shows much of a commitment. Oakland and Tampa are MLB’s problem children when it comes to needed new facilities.

  8. Just for argument’s sake, wouldn’t any willingness on the city’s part to work with an owner who has publicly stated he has zero interest in keeping his franchise located there show some level of “commitment,” however small, to keeping baseball in Oakland? Its obviously not going to solve any long-term problems, but if Oakland really didn’t care about baseball, it wouldn’t be talking to Lew at all. Moreover, as Blackwell stated last month, negotiations with the A’s could be a lot more substantive with a new local ownership group actually wanting to work with Oakland.

  9. How does Oakland define “working with the city?” It defines it as the owner paying 100% of the cost of ballpark construction and taking 100% of the risks. Wolff has stated this is not doable financially in Oakland. Unless people expect the owners to just a build a ballpark regardless of any return on their investment.

  10. JH: MLB four years ago appointed a committee to explore ballpark options in the A’s current territory. We’re still waiting to hear what options they found. None, apparently.

  11. JH510, I see it more as the city/county trying to bail itself out of the financial jam it put itself in. Nothing more. Any deal they want to make is going to be more city/county friendly than team friendly (in particular, compared to the current lease deal). Given the age of the stadium AND the desire to keep the team, it should be the other way around. I think it’s a big leap to suggest that any lease extension wouldn’t be any sort of signal of anything more than mutual need from both sides at this point.

  12. Update 11:30 – See additions to post for a response to the M&R item.

    Also as an aside, the first part of the M&R piece concerns the massive Treasure Island development program that could be funded with some number of Chinese EB-5 visas.

  13. Dmoas nailed it. Its about putting extra scratch in your pockets and nothing else re a possible lease extension.
    The A’s aren’t and won’t be for sale (repeat that a million times if your a Chronicle columnist or Oakland partisan…)

  14. @pjk: I wasn’t talking about the larger negotiations regarding a new stadium, I only meant in this instance of a lease extension at the Coliseum. Lew Wolff is never going to build a baseball stadium in Oakland, I’m at peace with that.
    @dmoas: point taken, and I agree. I was only trying to say, if Oakland officials literally had no interest in keeping baseball, they’d focus 100% of their energy on the Raiders and tell Wolff to go F himself. But in doing so, they’d send a message to MLB that they were done with baseball, and dominoes would start to fall. I do think they’re trying to squeeze Wolff in this deal, but I also think they shouldn’t be criticized for trying to keep the A’s in Oakland while they can.
    Finally, not related to stadium issues, but with the actual baseball season approaching (thats why we’re here, right? the actual team on the field?) I could use a break from all this non-news, and this is an interesting breakdown of how the A’s field the team they do:

  15. Well if you are going to build with public or private funds, the time is now to finance a stadium construction project. Today’s 10 Year US treasury rate is 2.06% and the 30 year note is at 3.26%. Lew Wolff or the city of Oakland could fund construction at 5.5%, considering the ownership’s wealth, the A’ revenue, and MLBs business model. The A’s could fund this annual debt service alone with increased money from MLBs TV contract. Here are my assumptions.

    Construction cost/loan:$500M.
    Interest rate: 5.5%
    Amortization: 30 years
    Annual Debt service: $2,839,000

    I see the payments are much higher for the Coliseum’s debt of $122,815,000 Why? The lender’s demand to pay off $9.075M in principal each year? A low amortization period? No long term agreement with the A’s or Raiders or Warriors? A dated facility and lack of alternative use of property? This debt service seems absurd considering today’s low interest rate environment. Please help me understand.

  16. @Ethan – Where are you getting $2.8 million from? To me that comes out to $32.6 million annually. $2.8 million monthly makes more sense, though stadium debt service is not usually handled in that manner.

  17. @ML: following onto your hypothetical above, say Wolff & Co put up the team for sale tomorrow, and a local group stepped forward to take on the (long, labored, uncertain) task of buying the A’s; do you think this would change the City/County approach to negotiating with current owners on a short-term lease for the team? Or would terms stay the same? Honest question, just trying to decipher how much of these negotiations are really “gotcha”-type stuff, vs. just doing business.
    On your laundry list of things about new owners stepping in, seems to get all the key points, and any Oakland-backers who want the team to stay in Oakland would expect nothing less of a new ownership group, I would assume.

  18. Ooo boy he got u good ML…san Jose supporters does get upset when we talk new ownership…of course they would be upset because then they dont have a owner that will Give them a free stadium

  19. @JH510 – I don’t think it’d change things much. Even if there were only bidding group, MLB ultimately has to sign off on lease terms and they’re not going to budge that much compared to Wolff’s posturing. They won’t allow an incoming ownership group to budge much either – unless the group was getting something on the back end such as a huge public contribution for a ballpark. The NFL and MLB are looking at this situation very closely. If both teams make deals in Oakland, neither wants their respective teams to look like they drew the short straw compared to the other.

    Remember when the Dolich/Piccinini group was in discussions to buy the A’s? Even though that process was fairly well advanced, the group was not allowed to make any deals with the JPA in advance. Selig also waited out the 4-month window and let the bid die.

  20. Listen the NFL and MLB want the state of California no matter how rich or poor , to PAY FOR A NEW STADIUM/Ballpark…that its not getting a free one ,well completely…the only slight exception is the 49ers even though Santa Clara is publicly funding a share too…(something tells me Jerry Brown is not a big fan of sports)sigh….here is the problem…either San Jose(Wolff) or Oakland (Knauss or new group) will be getting a new somewhat free stadium… B/c San Jose has been more successful as a city and economy, MLB should trust Wolff that he can make his investment back…problem is MLB likes Oakland(4 W.S, hall of famers etc.) and does not want the team to move and Yes….is hoping that somebody gets the public and private money together…just not right now with JB in the way…so MLB and NFL need to be careful when dealing with California…of the owners lose, can u imagine the uproar from other cities…if MLB and NFL wants leverage they should use cities like San Antonio or Virginia area and gauge if they would like to adopt a California team? I just wonder if California would then jump and do something

  21. So yes San Antonio Raiders or Virginia Beach A’s…now that will scare California into showing there not above any other state when it comes to their share of funding….I mean if Cali said kick rocks…then u just be left with San Francisco and L.A teams

    I think a fair compromise would be 2 mil the A’s should pay then 3mil

    • @berry – Neither of those communities is able to put together a MLB relocation bid, and won’t be for several years.

  22. @ML
    I was just using an example that the Sports leagues can use as leverage for up and coming cities with the potential to host a sports teams… Ur right all those cities would need a couple years to get things in order, but its just something that will get California to jump….but I agree

  23. Yep ML my bad. I was calculating monthly. I will blame the error on Daylight savings time. Forget my post then. LOL!!!!

  24. I agree with dmoas,concerning the lease negotiations,both sides need to do it,but it will not send a signal either way,the A’s are looking for somewhere to play and the authority is looking for more money to help payoff debt. Of the two teams, The A’s will need a lease agreement first(2014), but how will this happen when the Raiders have no idea what they will be doing?If the Coliseum is to be remodeled they will not want the A’s in there for 4 additional years, although I guess that is where an out clause would come into play for Wolff.I just wish the Raiders would make up there mind lease or stadium wise, as they are obviously the primary concern of Oakland.After that things should be clearer hopefully.

  25. MLB and Selig are still openly quiet about what they would like to see in terms of a lease extension between the A’s and the Coliseum Authority. Privately, I would likely think that MLB would not be too pleased if Oakland pressures the A’s to sign a lease extension that would have the team be both paying a significantly higher rent, and to be receiving much less from Coliseum revenue generating resources than before. It just doesn’t serve MLB’s interests to continue bailing out a more financially weakened A’s franchise. This is especially more apparent, given the financial potential that an A’s move to San Jose would likely be expected to bring. In addition, MLB could give the OK for the A’s to temporarily share AT&T Park with the Giants, as part of a compensation package in return for the Giants giving up their territorial claims to Santa Clara County.

    It appears more and more that Oakland is losing their leverage with both the A’s and the Raiders. A vacant Coliseum will not bring down the stadium’s debt. In reality, Oakland cannot afford to play hardball with the A’s, not even for a short-term lease extension.

  26. @berry,
    Me being upset about others bringing up “new” A’s ownership is the same as me being upset about others bringing up flying unicorns.

  27. Whoever has to change the tarps from A’s to Raiders and back has the saddest job in sports.

  28. Like I said early I feel the A’s should in theory pay whatever Oakland is asking for atm. They have for years paid almost nothing in rent while crying that they are a small/med sized market team. We all know the Raider’s on the other hand will prob not pay anything more than they have to. This city has a $150 million hard on for the Raiders and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

    I know I as a sports fan associates the Raiders and A’s as Oakland’s teams. When I think of Golden State Warriors I associate them as belonging to the Bay Area. Oakland can afford to lose the Warriors or the A’s but not the Raiders. Both of those teams embodies what the character of Oakland. Blue Collar city, misfits, and the us against the world mentality. If Oakland was to lost the Raiders than I feel it would be something that this city will never be able to recover from. It would lost it’s heart and soul.

    As stated by others we all know that no private developer wants to build a new sports complex in Oakland. We all know the pros and cons of Oakland. Location, debt, and lack of major sponsors are killing whatever chances that the city has in trying to build anything for it’s sports team.

    As for my thoughts on franchise re-locations: If SJ relocation is a no go and if the current ownership group sells this team for a billion + dollars than the only location I see a team relocating to is the Charlotte, NC area. You have over 300 of the Fortune 500 companies represented in the area. Other possible areas would be Montreal, Philadelphia, and San Antonio. Philly I know would not happen. MLB would not allow 7 teams to be playing that close to each other.

  29. This whole A’s stadium mess almost makes me wish we still had league presidents in MLB.

  30. I didn’t know mike2 that Charlotte N.C was big enough for baseball…that would make it a 3 team sport market. But I agree I just want closure…I do wonder that if Oakland loses all 3 teams, what kind of message would the sports leagues be sending to cities around the u.s regarding upgraded stadiums?

  31. @berry

    The reason why I said Charlotte, NC is because its the 2nd largest financial center in the US. It would never happen, but it’s a location that has not been explored by MLB. If you are an owner who is following the dollars than that would be the area I would relocate to or pay to bring an expansion team. The area is home to 11 fortune 500 companies. Plus one would be able to get sponsors from The Research Triangle in the Raleigh/Durham area. So long as the team produces on the field and it’s not run by MJ it would do well.

  32. “As for my thoughts on franchise re-locations: If SJ relocation is a no go and if the current ownership group sells this team for a billion + dollars than the only location I see a team relocating to is the Charlotte, NC area.”

    @Mike2, This scenario is exactly what the Giants ownership group is ultimately hoping for. The Giants are hoping that Lew Wolff in due time will finally be frustrated enough with Selig’s unwillingness to make a decision on the Bay Area territorial issue, and thus forcing the A’s to Sell to out of Bay Area market interests. Without the A’s in the Bay Area market, the Giants would have the entire market all for themselves. I’m not privy to the Giants’ current local cable contract, but a local cable deal for a one MLB team Bay Area market could earn astronomical amounts for the franchise. This would just about guarantee the Giants success both on and off the field for many years to come.
    In truth, I don’t believe the Giants really feel threatened by the A’s, regardless of where the A’s play within the Bay Area. What the Giants would prefer most is for the A’s to leave the region altogether. If that were to happen, this would likely leave the Giants to be among the very top tier of successful MLB franchises for many years to come. If this ideal scenario for the Giants doesn’t ever happen, the Giants would still accept sharing the Bay area market with the A’s, provided that the A’s remain as the poor stepchild playing in a less desirable locale.

  33. @ Mike2 – “They have for years paid almost nothing in rent while crying that they are a small/med sized market team.” Maybe because they were forced upon the monstrosity (Mt. Davis) that killed the Coliseum and saddled with typically low average attendance vs. the league?!

  34. @ML

    Llpec had a tough statement, does ml have a tough answer… That is some scary buy possible shit that the sf giants could be the west coast yanks

  35. “Plus one would be able to get sponsors from The Research Triangle in the Raleigh/Durham area.”

    It’s 162 miles from CLT airport to RDU airport. Difficult to imagine a lot of corporate support from RDU for a Charlotte-based baseball team.

    Charlotte, like a lot of markets outside the top 20 MSA, would need either a massive government contribution or an eccentric billionaire willing to foot the bill (or both) to make it work. (Maybe Hasso Plattner likes baseball?)

  36. @berry – Charlotte is building a “low-budget” AAA ballpark for the Knights. That project has effectively ended any near-term thoughts on attracting MLB. Maybe in a decade or so.

    As for the Giants wanting the A’s gone, this is no secret. Baer admitted to it last year.

  37. @RM,
    Baer must have admitted that prior to the gag order going into full effect (June 2012 time frame?). While they may secretly harbor the A’s leaving the Bay fantasy, that idea appears to be way off MLB’s radar now; hence the “no comments” and “we’ll abide by the decision of the commissioner” talk as of late.

  38. While I’m sure the Giants would rather the A’s were out of the Bay Area, are their ratings really going to go up without the A’s? A’s fans aren’t going to watch them on TV (you figure we’ll either follow the A’s in the new city, pick a random team, or not watch altogether). And the A’s’ ratings are so miniscule that it wouldn’t make much of a difference anyway. Same with attendance.

  39. Went to the Warriors game last night, first time in a while. Talking about brain-dead management, what a waste of an opportunity. A steady stream of potential customers walking by, fat wallets, opening day is less than three weeks, folks are getting stoked… but… you walk by the A’s south side store and it’s a complete mess! Looks like a tornado hit it. Decrepit. I guess it’s up to the fans to build the brand themselves. Word to the wise: there’s some decent merch right now in Ross-Dress-For-Less.

  40. @Brian, Getting a great Cable deal is about the potentiality of targeted viewership in the future. Having a complete pie all for themselves is worth much more than having to share that pie. The San Francisco Bay Area SMSA is ranked #1 in having the highest median household income, and it is ranked #6 in total population. I can see why the Giants would love to have the entire pie all for themselves.

    As far as Larry Baer and the Giants ownership are concerned, I judge them by their actions and not by their public pronouncements. It is no secret that the Giants have been at the forefront in the ongoing effort to block a move of the A’s to San Jose.

  41. Ml answered the question to my satisfaction….

    @ Freddy, I think its more amazing that Oakland fans continue to go to warriors games when the owner is building a shinny New ballpark right across the bridge…of the sf idea fails, I hope Oakland can counter by offering Howard terminal (arena)…

  42. Warriors games are fully subscribed, it was their 29th sellout of the year or something, and their capacity is 19K+. That’s about as big as you get can for hoops. The arena just got a posh new scoreboard, the place looks great. They could easily stay there and continue to turn a steady profit, watch the value of their franchise steadily rise.

    But there is far, far more money in property development.

  43. @llpec,
    I think we can all agree that at this point, its irrelevant what the Giants want or what fantasies they may harbor re the Bay Area. Its all about what the commissioner and MLB wants. Patience…its gonna happen.

  44. @Tony D, I agree with you. For the longest time, the Giants had the power and influence within MLB to block the move of the A’s to Santa Clara County. After exhausting all possibilities for ballpark funding and site location within Oakland to no avail, Selig/MLB will soon be ready to make a decision in the best interests of both the A’s and MLB.

  45. As a Warriors STH, I know that once the SF building opens, I am priced out. So instead of worrying about it, I enjoy the games in the only place I have ever known Warriors basketball to be.
    If and when the end happens in Warrior land, I will be no different than millions of other fans who were with a team for generations, only to see new parks and arenas completely wipe out that history. In the case of the A’s, a new park desperately needs to happen. Only the most delusional of pro-Oakland supporters don’t beleve that’s the case. Warriors? They can last for many more years at Oracle, since the arena was remodeled specifically for them. A’s can’t make that claim, sadly.

  46. The problem the A’s are facing is the fact that the Giants have a huge advantage. First, they are the defending World Series Champion. Second, they are the most popular baseball team in the Bay Area, Third, they basically have to do nothing except say no. The Giants strategy is simple: Get the A’s out of the Bay Area for good. They know the hard core A’s fan is not going to root for SF. But the casual baseball fan in Oakland may become a Giants fan in order to satisfy their baseball fix. They also know that no matter how delusional certain A’s fans are (The ones who think they are getting a wonderful New Stadium in Oakland), the gap between the Giants and A’s is growing (Sort of like the 49ers and Raiders and in New York between the Yankees and Mets). Common sense says if you are not pressured to do so, why give in to the A’s demands? 4: This may be the biggest advantage that the Giants have: Selig and his bunch have been like Hamlet in making a decision “Do you let the A’s find the way to San Jose, or can the Giants keep them out of San Jose, that is the question?.” So the longer it takes, the stronger the Giants hand becomes, and the further behind the A’s become. The year to watch will be 2014, when four things occur, each of which will determine the ultimate fate of the A’s. 1: The end of the Coliseum Leases for the A’s and I believe the Raiders as well. 2: The end of Selig’s term. 3: The possibility of Jean Quan being ousted as Mayor (That would be a good thing). 4: Statewide Elections. If Jerry Brown and the anti-business Democrats have their hand strengthened by the voters, it may give them a free ride to not only raise taxes, and strengthen environmental regulations (A given), but make redevelopment even more difficult than it is already (We know how anti-development Governor “Moonbeams”is already). With all of this going on, the Giants are in the catbird seat. Unless of course, by some miracle Selig finally gets some backbone, and says the A’s can move ASAP.

  47. @david brown,
    First off, welcome to the blog. Second, read the last two posts by myself and llpec. A lot has changed over the past year re the Giants position in this whole saga. Simply put: they aren’t running the show (actually, they’ve never run the show, but stating their so-called advantage in this mess has always sounded good in the media). All you need to know going forward: the best interest of ALL of baseball and what the commissioner/MLB wants (even Larry Baer agrees with this now). The A’s will find the way to San Jose. Again, welcome…

  48. Will MLB continue to allow the A’s to remain a crippled franchise (desperately needing a new ballpark, stuck in a territory where they cannot get one) just to pacify the powerhouse Big $$ Giants? Looks like we don’t have an answer yet.

  49. “If Jerry Brown and the anti-business Democrats have their hand strengthened by the voters, it may give them a free ride to not only raise taxes, and strengthen environmental regulations (A given), but make redevelopment even more difficult than it is already (We know how anti-development Governor “Moonbeams”is already).”

    Seriously? Have you paid any attention at all to anything that Jerry Brown has done as both Oakland mayor and now governor? All he was about as mayor and now as governor was and is reducing red tape and encouraging development (e.g. reforming CEQA is “the Lord’s work”)

  50. I never said the Giants are running the show. Actually the Raiders are (Which works to the Giants advantage anyway). Why? Because they are in the position to run out the clock, which may strike when and if the City makes a deal with Mark Davis (The odds of the Raiders staying in Oakland certainly increased when the NFL said no to Farmers Field). I also think it is fair to say that one condition of the Raiders saying at the Coliseum site, will be the departure of the A’s. Keep this in mind, does anyone think Jean Quan wants as her legacy the departure of THREE sports teams? If that would occur, she would make the City Council in Detroit and Ron Dellumns look like statesmen and geniuses, because she will have succeeded at something so infamous and pathetic it will be historical, and I would bet the 3 Stooges could run against her in 2014 and win. I bet she will do anything to prevent that from happening (Including giving Davis the kitchen sink).

  51. More likely, llpec, is Selig fears a lawsuit by the A’s or Giants challenging the MLB ATE. The giants so-called power is not a factor. Selig is fortunate that Lew Wolff hasn’t pulled a Tampa Bay owners group move and challenged the anti-trust exemption yet (Selig quickly caved in and awarded Tampa Bay the Rays franchise after that group successfully pierced the MLB ATE twice.)

  52. I hope A’s get Roger Clemens…we could use the veteran pitching in playoff games…also reading these comments I think Mayor Quan will save face and try to at least figure out a way to keep Oakland…if the city plays there cards right, the best Oakland can afford as well as the added mount Davis debt would be a renovated A’s less Coliseum…its really the only think Sacramento or San Francisco A’s

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.