Coliseum City Football Stadium Revenue Study (Updated with analysis)

As planned, the study is out. It’s brief. A series of component updates are due over the next couple of months, with the final presentation(s) to come in September.

First, the part that seems to be contention is data that comes directly from the Raiders:

– Little corporate support in the market
– PSL program could potentially generate approximately $100 million
– Anticipated demand could justify approximately:
•  50,000 seats
•  85 to 95 suites
•  6,000 club seats
•  400 to 600 loge seats

The study is vague, perhaps intentionally so on both capacity and cost estimates. The numbers above are only demand, which is important. It’s subject to change based on various factors including team performance, price, and the general attractiveness of the stadium. That doesn’t mean the stadium is set for 50k, 56k, or 60k seats right off the bat. If anything it’s an indicator of two things:

  • What the Raiders feel the market can support right now
  • How low that is compared to other healthier markets (SF being the direct comparison)

Map of Fortune 500 companies provided by consultants

One surprise coming out of this is that the Raiders revealed that they feel they can pull in $100 million worth of PSLs. Assuming that’s in the same form as PSLs for the 49ers & Cowboys, those are better than nothing, but also short of what the bigger revenue teams use to support their stadia.

For now the study assumes that all forms of financing are on the table: PSLs, NFL G-4, team equity, public. Chances are that by the September presentation, some of these will be pared down. The study doesn’t include some of the back room discussions that have been ongoing, such as the Raiders’ perhaps declining G-4 (if it’s even available) due to a lack of club seat demand. The study also touches on the impact of limited or zero public funds, but doesn’t assess what will happen if they are (not) available.

Keep in mind that while this report is being prepared for Oakland and Alameda County, the Raiders are doing their own study for themselves and more importantly, the NFL. These reports are not just about how to build and finance a stadium at Coliseum City. These studies are also about determining how viable the Oakland/East Bay market is. That’s the real question here. For now the NFL has not rendered a long-term judgement about the reduced capacity at the Coliseum or the possibility of a much smaller-than-normal Coliseum replacement. When these reports are completed, the NFL will most certainly tell Mark Davis exactly what it thinks about the East Bay as a NFL market long-term, and chances are if these demand numbers don’t improve at the end of this season, the owners and Roger Goodell may look outside the East Bay entirely whether that means Santa Clara or Los Angeles.

The big wildcard is the status of the Raiders’ extension at the Coliseum. We had heard that the extension was “weeks away” from being done as early as last summer. If the Raiders and the Coliseum Authority are still struggling with the extension, that’s because the JPA wants to better link the extension to Coliseum City. Moreover, ongoing tensions with the A’s can’t be helping things, since both teams are bargaining with the JPA for many of the same cuts of revenue (signage, concessions). Oakland/Alameda County have also been pushing hard to get both teams to take on more of the remaining debt at the Coliseum. This is the exact situation that everyone should’ve seen coming long ago. With both teams having no lease after 2013, they’re both free agents. At least the Raiders can crash in Santa Clara for a few years while they try to figure it out. The A’s have no such luxury.

Oakland has an even tougher task ahead of them. The September report should show what Oakland will be expected to put up for Coliseum City. Sure, they can levy new hotel and rental car taxes or create a community facilities district. All of those measures will require some kind of vote. Even more challenging is that Oakland/Alameda County has to take a gamble on what development can be brought in with the Raiders as the only anchor. This is the assessment:

  • 40-60,000 square feet retail
  • 35-70,000 square feet office
  • 150-250 hotel rooms
  • 400-700 residential units

The non-residential component is only around 250,000 square feet, about the size of Hegenberger Gateway across the Nimitz, with retail only a quarter of the total. Patriot Place in Foxborough, MA started out as a strip mall and gained momentum as the team did well and the stadium area became attractive. Now it’s 1.3 million square feet and doesn’t need the football stadium as an anchor. Santana Row (640,000 SF) or Bay Street (400,000 SF) are good comparisons in the Bay Area for what Oakland is aiming for. Oakland is severely under-retailed, but will that be enough to attract the private capital necessary to build the mall? No one can say with any certainty at this point. Plus it’s strange to juxtapose the image of Black Hole dwellers tailgating against what would be an urban/suburban mall landscape. The Patriots made it work because Robert Kraft owned the land and financed everything. He could afford to be patient. Mark Davis doesn’t have the funds to do anything like that. As far as we know, Davis is only interested in a stadium and little else. The retractable dome idea (championed by Mayor Jean Quan) appears to be properly scuttled. But if Oakland gets limited ancillary development from the Raiders’ stadium, what’s in it for Oakland besides pride? Does Oakland need another Hegenberger Gateway?

There’s a reckoning coming. It may be slow. It’ll get here soon enough. We’ll finally have some answers. Brace yourself.

121 thoughts on “Coliseum City Football Stadium Revenue Study (Updated with analysis)

  1. So we have the Raiders pointing out how there is little corporate support. Wouldn’t, um, the A’s have the same problem with building in Oakland?

  2. It would track that yes, yes they would. And add in the A’s don’t have the NFL TV revenues and you can see why Wolff has no interest in Oakland anymore.

  3. The thing that is most important is, “little corporate support”. This statement also holds true for an A’s stadium, with all due respect to Clorox of Pleasanton

  4. Slide 14/16 of the presentation basically tells you everything you need to know. I was hoping this presentation would touch on other events/functions of the proposed stadium. Other than being Dr. Death’s happy place, how is this stadium going to make its money back? Stadium-sized shows are few and far between to begin with and it’s got Levi’s and AT&T Park as rival +40k seat venues.

  5. From Slide 14 re: Threats
    Raiders’ limited capacity to contribute

    Lack of readily available public funding

    local or state

    Current lack of relatively strong corporate demand for Raiders products
    (i.e. premium seating and sponsorships)

    …Yes, this slide does tell us all we need to know. There is a severe lack of funding sources for this project.

  6. And even if they managed to scrape up corporate support, what does that leave the A’s or Warriors (not that the W’s want to be in the East Bay)?

  7. Let’s assume for the moment that the total capacity of a new Raiders stadium would be about 57,000 = 50K + 6K + 600 “loge seats” (whatever the hell those are).
    The Raiders should save everyone (including themselves) a lot of money and renovate the Coliseum once the A’s leave.
    FWIW, Mount Davis, by itself, has 90 suites.

  8. Not terribly unexpected, but that preliminary conclusion paints a very sad picture.

  9. Pudgie, you kind of hit the nail on the head as far as my thinking was going as well. What is the point of the Raiders moving out of the Coliseum if a 50-56,000 seat stadium is all they have planned? It would contain no more corporate suites than the ones the Raiders already can’t fill at the Coliseum. It would have even fewer seats. And despite the Coliseum’s age and issues as it pretains to baseball, the Raiders portions of the stadium aren’t in nearly as bad of shape as the A’s ones are. What then is the point of building a stadium their own analysis admits they can’t pay for and have no need of?

  10. Mark Davis is playing this correctly. Unlike the A’s (stuck in mud because of Selig) and the Warriors (Who have a lease until 2017), Oakland knows full well they need to broker a deal now with the Raiders.

    Davis, has the nuclear option of sharing with the 49ers 35 miles away next season in his pocket, hence why he is refusing to sign a lease extension. He wants to put as much pressure on Oakland as possible during this upcoming season.

    He sees how Oakland has treated the A’s and on the opposite end of things how they bent over backwards in 1996 (120M public subsidy) for the Warriors when San Jose presented a huge threat.

    Santa Clara presents that threat to Oakland and Davis knows it full well. LA is not an option as the NFL has stated unless a stadium was ready to go in LA no team would be allowed to play in perpetuity in the LA Coliseum or Rose Bowl…..That is fact.

    Therefore a 55,000 stadium for the Raiders in Oakland actually pencils out for Davis as he wants his own place. He is not going to get that in Los Angeles unless he gives up majority control of the team. If he is able to get a deal done in Oakland before the NFL schedule comes out for 2014 he will re-sign a new lease.

    If not…..He will take the team to Santa Clara and may continue to try with Oakland who will even be more desperate with the Raiders sharing with the 49ers 35 miles away.

    Davis is smarter than I thought…..He may even get a 300M public subsidy from Oakland in the process….Not bad at all.

  11. Unfortunately for the A’s they couldn’t really “play it right” in the same way the Raiders can by your model. The A’s have never had another stadium locally they could just bolt to on short notice.

  12. None of this is really surprising. The Coliseum is basically in San Leandro. Anything that is “Oakland” isn’t anywhere near the Coliseum. The Warriors moved in because it was the best NBA-ready venue. The Raiders’ existence as a franchise was purely to keep the AFL from disintegrating and we all know the Charlie Finley KC to Oakland hostage situation where Oakland was called “The luckiest city since Hiroshima.” The biggest mistake any of these franchises ever made was not shoehorning San Francisco into their names. Blasphemy you say? So be it. It’s true.

  13. I for one am not sure that Santa Clara is an option any longer- the ‘9ers don’t need the Raiders anymore- back when it was uncertain if they would hit their revenue targets on suites/PSL’s/naming rights -sure- then it as attractive but with things going so well why not have your own storied stadium to yourself rather than deal with sharing with a second team. I don’t think Mark Davis is that smart- from my perspective he is getting ready to sell a good chunk of the franchise and move to LA- he already learned what happened when he delayed acting on sharing the ‘9ers new stadium- he doesn’t want to be the 2nd team in LA he wants to be the first and ideally only team in LA

  14. The Raiders cannot sell their existing, discounted inventory. I get emails once a week about buying season tickets at $25 per game – FOR NFL GAMES!!! At one point they were throwing in Raiders Image gift cards as an incentive to purchase season tickets.
    This deal would ONLY work for the Raiders because they would be getting an immediate 267% return on their investment of $300 million.
    What public officials in Alameda Co. and Oakland should always be keeping in mind is that THEY have leverage. All other options for the Raiders are unsatisfactory. They could become a tenant of the Niners at red-and-gold hued Levi’s Stadium. They could move to Southern California and be on the hook for a $1 billion stadium, in addition to a hefty relocation fee (although the cost of this option would be mitigated if the Rams were to become a partner in a new So Cal stadium).
    The best option for the Raiders (and for the region) is a renovation.

  15. @Go A’s- The 49ers like any other business are not going to turn down free money from the Raiders if the situation came up. Hence why both teams especially the Raiders have always said they would “keep an open mind about sharing”.

    Not to mention the NFL made sure Levi’s Stadium could support two teams. Everything can be flipped design wise from 49ers to Raiders and vice versa as with MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.

    The 49ers could not turn down the Raiders even if they wanted to as the NFL would have a cow.

    @Dan- You are correct, because of Selig the A’s are stuck and have zero leverage negotiating with Oakland. Because of Selig, Oakland feels the A’s have no where to go so why give a shit? Let them rot and when San Jose wins the lawsuit or MLB settles it paving the way you will see Oakland drop their pants like what is occurring with the Raiders right now.

    Oakland if they felt San Jose was a real threat would step up like they did with the Warriors in 1996….Not happening, the lawsuit will pave the way for the A’s to San Jose.

  16. @Pudgie- A Coliseum renovation is impossible with the A’s still there. In order for the Raiders to stay they need a new place in Oakland.

    You are incorrect, Oakland has zero leverage, the Raiders can pick up and leave after next season. They aren’t stuck like the A’s who are being forced to stay for 5 more season while the San Jose lawsuit proceeds.

    Levi’s Stadium has put Oakland behind the 8-ball and Mark Davis is playing them to the bone.

    If Oakland balks, he will share with the 49ers and have even more leverage. Oakland knows this, hence they are talking about a “public subsidy”.

  17. Mark Davis and the Raiders are in the driver’s seat. Unlike the A’s and Warriors, the Raiders have a very viable near term stadium option up and ready for them within the Bay Area market. The Raiders will, at the very least, be able to use a short-term lease at the new Santa Clara football stadium to give themselves more time to come up with the best permanent home stadium arrangement.

  18. @sid- the gints are a business and they aren’t interested in the A’s sharing their stadium even for a short period of time. Given the bad blood between raiders and’9ers fans do you really thing the Scarlett and gold suites and general seating in the stadimis going to appeal to the silver and black?

  19. Sid, I’m pretty sure that the “flipping” at this point at Levis Stadium would be more akin to the old Giants Stadium than the current Met Life. Levis is being designed as the Niners Stadium first and foremost, and why not, they paid for the bulk of it. If the Raiders ever moved in they’d be playing in a stadium that was very obviously not theirs like the Jets did for 3 decades. Not that it didn’t work, but it won’t be the quick flip and otherwise neutral venue like Met Life.

    That said, it’s still a viable and immediate threat for the Raiders to use that even better for them coincides with the end of their Coliseum lease.

  20. Hey ml what do u mean by reckoning???

    The coliseum is a fine venue…..for the Raiders. …not a dime on a new stadium untill you guys get in the fuckin playoffs for a change…cmon Raiders, the fans deserve better especially after the Jamarcus era….

    The A’s and Warriors deserve their new venue first because they are winning….

    Losiny faith in coliseum city.. jus call me Aaron

  21. Sid – the stadium can’t just be changed on a dime. MetLife in NY was built to be changeable with lighting, signage and other features designed that way from the begining. I have not read that Levi’s is being built with the same capabilities. Where have you seen this? Everything I’ve seen shows a stadium tricked out specifically for the 49ers from top to bottom. I also don’t believe the NFL would force a team to accept another team as a tenant. They might attempt to broker a deal or even add some incentives to the host team, but to outright force it? I doubt it.

    The Niners said they were open to sharing before their amazing success in selling tickets and sponsorships. They could very well decide now that allowing the Raiders to use their stadium is not worth the incremental income it would provide. For starters, the Raiders are not a wealthy team so I don’t think you can expect a huge fee to begin with. Second, they might not want to take the risk of having the stadium defiled by hostile fans (that’s not a knock on Raiders fans; I would be just as worried about that if I was the Raiders and the 49ers were the tenant, or any two teams for that matter).

    The bottom line is I don’t see the Raiders moving to Santa Clara as a slam dunk.

  22. RE: Raiders playing at Levi’s
    I don’t see what the big deal is with having the red & gold color motif. You don’t move in with a neighbor and start complaining about the wallpaper. If Raider and/or their fans don’t like the color of the seats, build your own stadium. If Oakland threw down the money, I’d almost rather see them paint the walls purple and lime just to show the Raiders who’s boss.

    @Aaron: …. not even lunch time and already drunk.

  23. There could be some resentment if Raiders fans have to spend three hours in a stadium that will surely be decorated with 49er stuff all over the place (which is certainly the 49ers right to do). Pix of Joe Montana, Dwight Clark, etc. It’s not what Raiders fans want to see. Think there will be a Raiders Hall of Fame or Raiders Circle of Heroes at Levi’s Stadium? I kind of doubt it. Playing at Levi’s would drive home the Raiders orphan status – their home city couldn’t do anything for them, corporations that fell all over themselves to buy up suites in Santa Clara have not wanted to do business with the Raiders, apparently…

  24. A better analogy would be McAfee subleasing office space from Symantec but not being able to change the colors on the wall or furniture, all of which are decked out in Symantec colors, logos, customer testimonials of Symantec’s superiority, etc. But they would have a nice video conference screen. 😉

  25. re: their home city couldn’t do anything for them

    ..Of course, the 49ers “home city” of Frisco opted not to do anything for the 49ers, either. But the team, the news media, etc, will do just nicely pretending the stadium actually is in Frisco. Still, The point remains – the 49ers got a new stadium done in the Bay Area and the Raiders probably can’t.

  26. The study lists an operating expense of $15-20 million for the Raiders every year. It’s not like the Raiders play at the Coliseum for free. They could be pay that at Santa Clara and be in a more modern, better-revenue-generating stadium. Think about that.

  27. Win first Raiders then talk to city of Oakland about a new stadium.

    Why cant the A’s and kaiser permanente team up and get funding for howars terminal. The raiders should ask safeway for sponshership.

    Vote no on san jose pjk

  28. @pjk:
    ” Pix of Joe Montana, Dwight Clark, etc. It’s not what Raiders fans want to see.”
    Agreed. Imagine a toss Raider loss after a full day of drinking and being surrounded with images of the 49ers greatest moments. It’s a bad combination. I imagined the Raiders insurance premium for renting at Levi’s would be a pretty hefty.

  29. @ML–do you believe the ‘9ers would even want the Raiders w/o asking for an arm and leg in rent? I don’t but curious what your thoughts are–

    • @GoA’s – The NFL controlled the financing of Levi’s Stadium. Goodell will absolutely make sure the Raiders aren’t gouged. Having Santa Clara as a workable option provides instant leverage against Oakland/Alameda County.

  30. re: provides instant leverage against Oakland/Alameda County.

    …the expression, you can’t draw blood from a stone, comes to mind.

  31. @ML–also thought if Raiders shared there was more of the NFL money–any idea if Levi’s has a increase in naming rights costs associated with 2 teams–like the proposed Farmers Field in LA?

  32. @GoA’s – That was the original aim. I don’t think the agreement with Levi’s is set up in that matter, unless they wanted to keep that bit quiet.

  33. @ Sid – Where are the Raiders going to go?

    The NFL would charge them an ENORMOUS relocation fee to move to LA.

    Perhaps he is being stubborn, but Mark Davis has already said that he has no interest in signing a lease at Levi’s Stadium.

    So, I ask you again, where are the Raiders going to go if they decline a lease extension in Oakland?

  34. @Pudgie, that’s not necessarily true. No one knows what rules would be enforced for a team previously in LA returning.

  35. Not to mention the Davis family hasn’t really cared what the NFL wants previously. They could very well move and not pay a dime.

  36. crazy looking at that Fortune 500 map—and if you believe mlb’s stat that most of a teams fans come from a 30 mile radius just reenforces that SV is by and large untapped territory. Gints should not be rewarded for failing to build their ballpark in the proper location!

  37. best bet and it’s been posted as a topic by ML a couple of times and that’s keep mt davis, maybe renovate by taking two luxury boxes and making them into one bigger one while doing something about those seats at the top of mt davis ala what the the chw of mlb did with how they made their upper deck more fan friendly. but then demolish the original bowl of the coliseum and build a better version of mt davis on the west side of the venue.

    also forbes listed their value of nfl franchies, niners ranked #17 and the raiders ranked near the bottom. woner how much these rankings will change with levis stadium opening in 2014.

  38. Isn’t Levi stadium set up with the same light technology as Met Life? Except for whatever is going to be on the outside of the stadium everything else will be set up for the Raiders (if they play there). I’ve been to a couple of Jets games and I know anything Giants are either covered up or removed for Jets games.

    IMHO: The Raiders are leaving Oakland. The tarping of upper decks, a 50K stadium proposal, and the Raiders refusing to sign their lease extension should be a warning to everyone that they plan on leaving Oakland for Santa Clara or LA.

  39. Can clorox and ross team up with the Raiders

  40. Given the posturing of the Chargers in regards to a new San Diego stadium ($700 million in public money from tax-averse San Diego), one begins to wonder if a new stadium in the LA area could logistically serve as a home to THREE teams:

    Dividing the cost of a new stadium by three would perhaps preclude the need for ANY public financing.

    The Chargers and Raiders would still be on the hook for relocation fees, while the Rams (given precedent) would have a strong case against a relocation fee.

  41. I’m not sure they ended up building Levis with all that switchable light technology. And it definitely wasn’t built with the reversible signage like Met Life.

    That’s not to say it couldn’t host the Raiders, but it wouldn’t be “home” like Metlife is for both teams. It would be the Giants Stadium situation all over again.

  42. I think about an article from a couple of days ago that stated that Oakland was making a “strong pitch” for the A’s. Then you read this crap about the Raiders which highlights the lack of corporate support and need for public handout. It’s all very laughable now re Howard Terminal and a mythical ballpark…

  43. SC stadium is not being built like met life where you can just flip a “switch”. The stadium does have an extra home locker room but the “renting” team would have to play with all the built in 49ers decor.

    Maybe the images on the scoreboards can be changed to silver and black, and tarps could cover the big “murals” of 49er greats…. things like that.

    But the raiders will still be playing in a red and gold stadium, There will be a giant brick SF with peoples names on them as you enter the main side of the stadium.

  44. We look at that map of where the Fortune 500 corporations are (almost all in the South Bay, almost none in Oakland) and know these are the folks who are needed to pay for new stadiums in the absence of public funds. But columnists like Monte Poole will still beat the Oakland-only drum. Wolff can show this map, provided by the Raiders, to members of the Lodge who are not convinced about a lack of stadium funds in Oakland. If Poole, Oakland, etc, want Howard Terminal, they ought to secure funding sources for it.

  45. At the BBWAA meeting today, Selig finally gave a straight answer about the A’s ballpark situation. He said he can’t discuss the A’s ballpark situation due to pending legal action. It’s refreshing to hear an honest answer. =)

  46. The Forbes valuations of pro sports teams are always way off what the teams actually can be bought for. The 2011 Forbes MLB valuation listed the Dodgers at $1 bil.- a few months later, the team was sold for $2.2 bil. Forbes 2012 NBA valuation estimated that the Kings were worth $160 mil. – a few months later, 60% of the team was sold for $360 mil. The A’s are valued, by Forbes, at roughly $300 mil. – if the A’s were sold, they would fetch a much higher price than that.

    Also, what is going on between LA and the NFL is a mystery. The Dodgers owner’s group opted to buy the team for $2.2 bil. – that amount could not only buy an NFL franchise, and also a $1.5 bil. new NFL stadium, the Dodgers’ owners chose MLB instead. Whatever is the situation is between the NFL and Los Angeles – the Raiders may not want to be included in it and likely would prefer to stay in Oakland. Besides the team has already failed badly in LA and one would believe the Raiders would wish to avoid repeating the mistake.

  47. Did the Raiders fail badly in LA? They apparently are the most popular NFL team in that city – a claim the Raiders certainly can’t make about the Bay Area. What happened was the Raiders never got the new stadium or luxury boxes they wanted in LA. If they’d gotten that, Al would have kept them there.

  48. @pjk The Raiders have drawn better, on average, in their second Oakland go around than they did in L.A. Even with competition from the 49ers and a historically bad losing streak. Moving to L.A. the first time was the stupidest thing Al ever did.

  49. Perhaps coming back to Oakland has not proven to be a stroke of genius either. Al could have had that massive LA market all to himself. He wanted luxury boxes in Oakland – didn’t get them, so he moved to LA. He wanted luxury boxes in LA, didn’t get them, so he moved back. Only to find a lack of demand for the 120+ luxury boxes he got in Oakland. And he returned to a place where the 49ers had won 5 Super Bowls in something like 14 years.

  50. No one should shed any tears for the Raiders. They knew the deal they were signing on to when they returned. They knew the stadium they were going to get and who was paying for it (and who would subsequently be reluctant/unable to spend more public money on a new stadium for a long time). They’ve been one of the worst organizations in the sport for the past decade plus. They have no one to blame but themselves for the situation they’re in.

  51. I cant beileve i agree with TIm…. especially after the decade + long playoff drought… if Oakland QB situatio Matt Flynn or Terrelle Pryor can as Quarterback lead the Raiders into the playoffs… trust me Mark davis… you will see more ticket sales and more businesses intrested in heping the Raiders… but you gotta win…

    @ Tim
    Still i will champion for the A’s to play next to the COliseum… Coliseum Field… ill make a computer drawing for you guys.

  52. @Turin and Dan- Levi’s stadium was built exactly like MetLife when it comes to flipping signs and designs. The NFL required this as part of the design of the stadium to make sure long run it could host 2 NFL teams.

    The only thing that cannot be changed are the color of the seats, but that is relative since the Coliseum once upon time had red seats and the Raiders played there.

    Also, the Raiders did not pay any capital expense to build Levi’s. They can come right in pay a nominal per year fee as part of a lease and revenue share tickets and suite sales without ever having to re-coup a hard cost. They can even tarp 10,000 seats to make sure they sell out.

    @Go A’s- The Giants and A’s you cannot compare to the 49ers and Raiders. NFL teams sharing are a far different beast than baseball teams where there are far more games and exposure to bad field conditions. Not to mention, the A’s and Giants hate each other from a owners/management perspective. The 49ers and Raiders that is not the case and have often said “they have a good working relationship”.

    Games are played on Sunday’s and rarely weeknights. If Davis gets his new stadium agreed upon in Oakland then he will stay and re-sign a new lease.

    Otherwise if Oakland balks, he can move to Santa Clara for 5 years and then hold Oakland by the balls and continue to leverage them. The team would still practice and have operations in East Bay. This is smart business, Oakland has shown to only budge when their backs are against the wall…..Levi’s Stadium has put them in a bad spot.

  53. @Dan and Turin- I forgot to mention I am SBL holder for the 49ers and I asked reps about this exact thing and if we got rights to a 2nd NFL team.

    They explained to me everything is flippable and changeable all over the stadium along with a 2nd home team locker room.

    They also explained to me only after the current season ticket holder base for the 2nd NFL team was given rights to buy season tickets, whatever was left over would then be given as to us. But that would be dependent on who paid more for SBLs.

  54. Well sid if what you say is true…hello 2019 new Raider Stadium!!! Ooo yeah!!!

  55. @ML What sort of ideas do you think Oakland/Alameda County will come up with to help get the 300 mil. they will need for the Raiders and the CC project. I was thinking perhaps they could have a tax on retal cars. or hotels. ect.. but I dont know what kind of new tax they could come up with without a public vote. Can they come up with a redevelopment tax for future projects, perhaps even help with the A’s along with other projects? I guss thats a little out there, but is there any reasoable way to do this??

  56. @lakeshore

    Be careful…im not sure if ml is friend or foe when it comes to the Raiders….just be careful lake…

  57. @Lakeshore/Neil – It’s not a given that they’ll need $300 million. That’s a worst case scenario if they don’t sell any sponsorships or naming rights. It’s a little premature to say what the public share is since we don’t know what the real development cost is for the stadium.

  58. @Aaron do you have any ideas for funding? its going to take a lot of creativity, dont you think?

  59. @ML thanks for putting things in perspective, I usually don’t comment much here but I do stay on top of your blog and it’s good to hear your opinion and most of the people here keep it pretty damn professional.

  60. Thanks ML I was wondering why there were no estaments for nameing rights, but like you stated the study a simple start, and much more will come out in Sep.

  61. Can we even say how much the NFL would contribute?

  62. no doubt levis stadium would be a adequate home field for the raiders but everybody will know it’s the niners home. from the red colored seats, likely retired #s will circle the field, to the niners hof that will be featured prominently, and statues of niner greats outside and or even inside the stadium.

    what are the raiders going to have? basically wheel out the davis flame on a cart before every raiders home game and put it storage the rest of the year?

    what i do worry and it was mentioned earlier is whether those minority of idiot raiders fans and there are these same fans from every nfl team that would “vandalize” the niner based surroundings.

  63. FWIW, I was at a Sharks game once where a Flyers fan ripped Sharks-themed wallpaper right off the wall. Take that for what it’s worth

  64. People keep talking about how the Raiders won’t go to Levi’s because of all the 49ers stuff. Why is that a big deal? Most likely the Raiders would only be temporary tenants while they try to strong-arm Oakland/LA into a better deal for themselves. It’s leverage, and also a Plan B.

    All the talk about the signs or colors being wrong is just garbage. That can be changed. The place isn’t even finished yet, for crissake. All it takes is flat panels and other dynamic signage. If that wasn’t in the plan (and I find it hard to believe that it wasn’t) I’m sure a few million of the Raiders’ rent would be adequate to upgrade. The Coliseum’s seats were orange at one point. Many teams play with stadium colors or seats that aren’t in their own color scheme. It’s not a big deal.

    And if the Raiders decided to stay longer than a few years, I don’t see why they 49ers wouldn’t give them some room for plaques and busts and whatnot. I mean, it’s just another part of the Raiders’ rent. Anyway, what I mean is that there are workable solutions to the problem. It is not insurmountable.

  65. Have you seen the new 49ers stadium? It is being constructed at a very rapid pace. How much retrofitting could be done to accommodate a Raiders motif is questionable at this stage of the game. Would the 49ers want to use Raiders rent to put up some silver and black decorations, or would the 49ers want to use the rent money to help pay the mortgage and boost 49er profits?

  66. Under the silver and black facepaint, faux-spiked shoulder pads and modified football helmets, Raiders fans are a sensitive bunch. We wouldn’t want their feelings hurt by seeing a 15 ft statue of the Comeback Kid. #FirstWorldProblems

  67. Damn pjk u miss the point
    Raiders and 49era management have never had the bad blood bewtween them like A’s and Giants…the york snd davis family actually get along…mso the 49ers would help Raiders move in at a fair price even if it temp. Either way oakland city would still do something to pull off tax increase to grt raiders new stadium

  68. I’m sure the 49ers will be more than happy to have Levi’s Stadium filled by the, at a minimum, ten event dates that the Raiders would provide as stadium tenants. As for the Raiders, they will be thrilled to have their fans watching their team play in a modern state-of-the-art facility with all the fan amenities and comforts. This is very true, especially after playing some eighteen years in the worn out and obsolete Oakland Coliseum.
    As has been stated in previous comments, Levi’s Stadium has been designed to have its decorum flipped to reflect the Raiders’ identity as best as possible. Seat colors won’t really matter with fans sitting in their seats during the game, and with black tarps covering unused seat sections.
    Teams have shared stadium facilities in the past, especially in MLB, and have worked out reasonably well. It may work out reasonably well for the Raiders. too. At least for the Raiders, a temporary move to Santa Clara will give themselves more time to determine the best permanent home stadium option for their team and their fans.

  69. We’re still talking: covering up the 49ers Ring of Fame that will surely adorn the upper bowl of the stadium; Raiders fans walking past statues of Joe Montana, etc; 49ers wallpaper. It’s the 49ers stadium. The Raiders playing in it rubs the Raiders fans noses in the poor status of the Raiders franchise. Do they set up a portable Raiders Hall of Fame that can be wheeled away and stored in some closet within the bowels of the stadium once the Raiders game is over?

  70. On one hand it would seem simple enough, the Raiders and 49ers organizations get along, unlike the A’s and the Giants, as a matter of fact the Raider and 49ers don’t just get along, they have a long history of actually helping one another, but to suggest that the Raiders playing in Santa Clara would be as simple as the Jets and Giants shared stadium is off the mark, those two clubs went into their situation knowing they would play in the same place together, so depending on which one is at home presto-changeo, it can go from Jet Green, to Giant Blue, the 49ers built that stadium with themselves in mind. Man those of you that think it will be as simple as flipping a switch, have you seen that thing, it’s a freaking living monument to San Francisco 49ers history, not saying it can’t be done or will not, but there are going to be some uncomfortable Raider fans at that place.

  71. The Jets played at Giants Stadium, with red and blue seats, for years, doing not much more than draping a green curtain over the perimeter of the stadium. And unzipping the Giants logos out of the end zone and swapping in Jets logos. The Jets, weary of being a tenant in the Giants stadium (even though the Giants technically were tenants, too, in the state-owned stadium), then tried to get a new stadium near the Javits convention center in Manhattan. That fell through, and the two teams then agreed to jointly develop a NJ stadium for the both of them that would not favor one over the other. In short, the Jets were not thrilled playing in “Giants” stadium but it was the best option tney had for many years.

  72. Talking about the Raiders, and 9ers sharing made me think, and it’s been expressed here before, but it’s interesting that the two Bay Area football teams have got along really well over the years, yet each teams fan base absolutely hates each other, conversely the fan base of the two Bay Area baseball teams, get along farley well, while the organizations themselves seem to hate each other, with the Giants organization not only not willing to bend on SJ, but actually helping table a vote in the 90’s for an Oakland ownership group that was willing to try to make it work in Oakland, now that the A’s may get to the South Bay, I guess the Giants would be willing to let them build in Oakland, when it’s obvious anything short of them leaving the region was what they really wanted. Anyone recall the split cap I think in the early 80’s Giants on one side A’s on the other, any A’s fan with the least amount of information about this situation should hate the Giants, but of course most fans are casual.

  73. @pjk – Well guys, pjk says it can’t be done, so it must not be possible. 🙂

    These are not hard problems to solve. Cover things up. Make one entrance the Bill Walsh entrance, another one the Al Davis entrance, each lined with their own decorations. Create two different areas for the hardware and statues and such, or stick them on movable platforms. Can’t be any harder to forklift statues in and out than to tarp entire decks, right?

    Does this have to be permanent? No, of course not. The Raiders could sign a five year lease. After five years, rename the other entrance to something 49ers. The Raiders can take their statues and decorations with them and the 49ers can replace them with their own. Consider it an opportune time for more PR as another statue is unveiled.

    I am sure the 49ers would love to have 10 more event dates to help pay the place off, and it would even let them trumpet the horn that it is bringing more tax revenue, jobs and residual effects to the community than originally estimated.

  74. Speaking of seat color, what’s the deal with the orange seats at the Coliseum during the 80s & 90s? The seats were green when the park initially opened weren’t they?

  75. @pjk – “In short, the Jets were not thrilled playing in “Giants” stadium but it was the best option tney had for many years.”

    Sounds a lot like the potential outcome for the Raiders.

  76. Which of these is most doable for the Raiders?
    * Being a second-fiddle tenant in Santa Clara
    ” Moving to LA
    * Getting a new stadium built in Oakland.
    …Clearly, the first option is the most doable but perhaps the least-desirable for the team. To put in perspective what the Raiders and Oakland are up against, try these figures: San Jose’s arena was built in 1993 for $162.5 million, with the Sharks kicking in about $35 million, in a city that is much bigger than Oakland. Compare that to the suggested $300-$400 million public contribution (and it might even be more than that) that Oakland may have to pony up, with a much smaller tax base for a facility that’s only used a dozen times a year. And how could Oakland contribute this much to the Raiders without doing at least the same for the A’s?

  77. “Raiders fans are a sensitive bunch . . .”

    That’s my experience, too. I’ll never forget walking through the parking lot one winter afternoon in 2001 to see the playoff game vs. the Jets. The comaraderie, the pageantry — very impressive. I still remember one particularly statuesque woman wearing a long silver see-through chain-mail gown, and nothing else. The fine metal threads gleamed in the late sunlight.

  78. So, in the Sept report, we will hear more about how Oakland can contribute to this plan?
    And am I reading this right that we are starting the discussion (taking the high and low) at a $300M ask from the Raiders, and $0 committed from Oakland? That seems like an absurd gap to bridge. I have no idea how people are even discussing Raiders positioning for leverage in this negotiation. The parties aren’t even on the same planet, let alone ballpark (heh).
    Am I missing something here? Will the next assessment for the Raiders come in at $150M ask, and Oakland say they can put up $150M? I can’t imagine either of these happening. How are we to expect both? (sorry for being dense, but is this the “reckoning”?)

  79. @Lone Stranger- You nailed it on the head. The 49ers and the NFL prepared Levi’s Stadium to fit 2 NFL teams and their history if need be. The adjustments would be minimal as MetLife Stadium has proven this to be true.

    @PJK- Oakland has no intention of doing anything for the A’s. They know they are stuck in mud because of Bud Selig and are content to pray San Jose loses its lawsuit and it forces Wolff to sell the team. Or commit financial suicide and build privately at Howard Terminal.

    Your missing the point of “leverage”, the A’s have zero because Selig will not let them into San Jose. So Oakland refuses to help them in anyway. They expect a free ballpark like San Jose is getting because the A’s have no choice.

    In the Raiders case, they have a big nuclear option of Levi’s Stadium that is ready for 2014 and the Raiders have no lease. That is why Oakland is “thinking” about a public subsidy for them.

    Just like the Warriors in 1996 when San Jose was about to take them away. Oakland dropped their pants and the Warriors stayed.

    Imagine the Raiders playing in Levi’s Stadium while operating in the East Bay while Oakland/Alameda County continue to pay off Mt. Davis debt with the A’s stuck in a football stadium??

    It would be utter disaster and Davis would have even more “leverage” as it would be a slow death for Oakland.

  80. re: They expect a free ballpark like San Jose is getting because the A’s have no choice.

    …But the A’s do have a choice: Stay right where they are as the facility deteriorates further, and keep cashing those big revenue-sharing checks in perpetuity. If the A’s get to the World Series this year, Selig will have no one to blame but himself when commentators on national TV spend lots of time talking about how MLB is having its showcase, marquee event in a rotting football stadium where sewage recently overflowed into the locker rooms. Let’s hope the Giants appreciate all Selig is doing for them.

  81. @pjk- hoping this happens- series will open at the shithole all torn up by raider games- bs can tell the national audience that “it’s complicated” and he won’t answer any fucking questions about SJ- will be classic

  82. GoAs: (: Even a playoff appearance, which so far looks like a good bet for the A’s, puts the whole embarrassing situation and Selig’s inaction in the spotlight.

  83. “In the Raiders case, they have a big nuclear option of Levi’s Stadium that is ready for 2014 and the Raiders have no lease. That is why Oakland is “thinking” about a public subsidy for them.”

    I don’t believe the city is “thinking” any more about a public subsidy for the Raiders than they are for the A’s. The Raiders are certainly thinking about a public subsidy. Everyone knows HT will require public dollars of some amount.

  84. If/when the A’s make it to the WS (barring a complete melt down playoffs are a given), you’ll hear the Oakland-only and sorry sap traditional Bay Area media crying that “it proves” baseball can work in Oakland. Forget the fact that they play in a sewage spewing concrete edifice and The Town can’t afford it…
    (See need for public handout and minimal corporate support in Oakland)

  85. Didn’t Davis already state that sharing a stadium with the Niners is out of the question. He also stated that the Coliseum is beyond renovation. So the only options are a new stadium in Oakland/Dublin or relocation. In my opinion he is laying the groundwork for relocation, and he is also helping the A’s cause by showing there is a lack of corporate support and public financing in the East Bay.

  86. @mike2,
    Agree. If the Raiders aren’t even entertaining the idea of building new AROUND Mt. Davis (which IMHO is the cheapest and most sensible option to build in Oakland) then they are most likely gaming for relocation. Show the NFL that the market can only support 50k seats, that the necessary corporate support is poor and that a public subsidy will definitely be needed for construction; allow us to explore a new market and get out of dodge! Gee, this play came straight out of Wolff’s book… 😉

  87. re: In my opinion he is laying the groundwork for relocation, and he is also helping the A’s cause by showing there is a lack of corporate support and public financing in the East Bay.

    …agree on both counts. The Oakland-only columnists and cheerleaders can be as nostalgic as they want but the money for new stadiums in the East Bay is just not there.

  88. I echo others who say — assuming the 30 mile radius rule is correct — look at that map. I’m left thinking, MLB is fighting to keep one of their teams from being smack dab in the middle of that? To keep the team playing in a bottom of the barrel baseball venue? To keep the team collecting welfare?
    Look, MLB is full of very wealthy people. They don’t get there being business stupid. There has got to be a bigger reason than a TR rule that is little more than living at the whim of the Lodge. There has to be underlying issues that frighten the Lodge enough to make them look away from such an obvious place for one of their teams to be. If it isn’t that then this really is a text book example of what happens when a group operates in a vacuum.

  89. It seems interesting to note the opposite tactics that both the NFL and MLB are taking, in regards to the ongoing problematic stadium issues with their respective Oakland franchises. In the case of the NFL and Raiders, the NFL is encouraging the Raiders to share the new Santa Clara stadium with the 49ers on at least a short-term trial basis. In addition, this arrangement could also be used as leverage for a possible new stadium deal in Oakland. By keeping open and testing these options, the NFL is allowing the Raiders to determine for themselves the best permanent new home stadium arrangement for their team within the Bay Area. If neither of these two options turn out suitable for the Raiders, I’m sure the NFL would allow the Raiders to move to LA, if all else fails.
    On the other hand, by restricting the A’s to only Oakland and the East Bay, MLB is denying the A’s from building their own ballpark in San Jose which is the A’s preferred site of their choosing for their privately funded stadium. MLB is trying to force the A’s to build their ballpark at less desirable and potentially far less profitable Oakland sites. As one can see, both the NFL and MLB are playing distinctly opposite roles in dealing with the ongoing stadium problems with their respective Oakland franchises.

  90. re: I’m left thinking, MLB is fighting to keep one of their teams from being smack dab in the middle of that? To keep the team playing in a bottom of the barrel baseball venue? To keep the team collecting welfare?

    …Amazing, isn’t it? I emailed that map to one of my Oakland-only “friends.” No response so far.

  91. @llpec, Ml, Tony d and pjk

    There are rumblings outta the next owners meeting in august. It looks like larry baer behind the scenes is trying to gather sympathy (giants losing) and secure votes to get the san jose move blocked….for good…..if this happens “cisco field becomes crisco field”…cooked….
    I advice lew wolff to really look at howard terminal or at least take a look at coliseum city design and actually have some input on where he would like “Coliseum Citi Field” to be placed. It looks like the potential new raider stadium will be pushed further back almost by the overpass, so the A’s can place there ballpark closer to where the coliseum is and maybe get back that Oakland hills view.

    Ooo by the way…that silly map u have…we got Clorox, safeway, chevron and ross in our corner. When Raiders have a winning season that will atract their intrests in sponsor ships and deals.

    Drop the mic

  92. Even my boy Yohan likes Oakland as a place to play then anywhere else…ask Stephen Curry ask Darren McFadden. These guys are advocates for oakland and im going to reach out to them to support mayor quan and coliseum city because Oakland teams are winning again and with a second chance we can make the right business deal for EVERYBODY to make coliseum city work. I love san jose….to visit and san jose state parties back in the the day. U guys have the sharks…whatsup with wanting Oakland or Frisco things…anyway yall have a good night. And dont text and drive.

  93. @aaron- yup- MLB is going to deny SJ in August just before the case is heard- not sure who lives in your world but they are clueless-

  94. PJK writes “”Amazing, isn’t it? I emailed that map to one of my Oakland-only “friends.” No response so far.””

    It really is amazing….and it doesn’t add up! The Lodge knows that map far better than us and have for a long time. They also know the 30 mile rule down to the inch. They probably know the map gets even more stark by adding in the next 500.
    Something more intimidating is at work here than ‘rules is rules’ or the Giants will be upset or the Giants want a 9 figure tribute. The Lodge, a group largely motivated by wealth, is disregarding the plainly obvious potential for $$$$. People like that don’t act like that unless something is making them seriously fearful of that $$$$ potential OR their realty is skewed from operating in such an isolated bubble.

  95. 26 companies on that map, 14 in Santa Clara county, makes sense to me

  96. @Go A’s
    Go away , I cant play with you right now…

    @baynative guy
    I think mlb does not want to start a trend and let mlb teams fully finance there own stadium unless its a boston or san francisco where u know u can make ur money back and more i n those cities…if wolff wants san jose he has to prove that the area he is investing in is rich enouh where he would make his invest a success. In Oakland he is reluctant even tho he wanted san jose anyway….that is why I think the owners like a baltimore or a la angels would side with the giants and say if Oakland can provide a dollar to keep the A’s …san jose cant get em. If oakland dropping 300mil that shiuld be 100 mil for each team and that should be our contribution to colisum city

  97. @stand

    Athletes are going to say they like/love playing in their teams city unless they play for the Marlins. Where would the additional 500 million come from your plans for Coliseum City. PSLs? 49ers tapped that market awhile ago. Private investors (i.e. Clorox, AEG, Safeway) are not going to just give the money to Oakland unless they get personal stakes in the team. Now if any of the teams want to get creative with the PSLs and give fans the option say to own 1 percent of the teams and allow them to have a say in team matters maybe an idea like could work for a teams like the Raiders or A’s.

  98. It’s not relevant what the athletes think. I mean, with free agency and the Athletics salary limitations, a lot of the players on the A’s today won’t be with them any longer by the time a stadium is built either in SJ or Oakland.

  99. @stand- sorry- cant go away when you constantly make “interesting” statements- assume you are aware the ‘9ers are building their privately financed stadium next to SJC – if MLB had any questions in SJ/SV can support privately developed stadiums I would think that this answered it for them-

  100. @Go A’s
    I accuse u of being a troll spy for the SF Giants…

  101. In reading some comments attached to local stories, there’s not a lot of support for more public money for the Raiders. Not sure where Oakland would even come up with $300 million anyway, even if there was massive public support (which there won’t be).

  102. Pjk.
    Are u upset that the ownets couod favor the giants in the next meeting… looks like “cisco field going to be crisco field” cooked.

    Lew wolff should consider Coliseum field. He should invest 90% because him and john fisher is rich. The giants nees sv because it makes up their business. Im confident my man bud selig will k.o san jose once and for all.

  103. aaron, I think you should comment at sfgate and leave all of these fine people alone.

  104. Standfor should get a job at Mel Cotton’s Sporting Goods in San Jose. They have a great bait section there.

  105. Bud Selig=Ali
    San Jose lawsuit=Sonny Liston

  106. Well this high stakes politically charged soap- opera can’t go on forever, although its seems as if it has already. Can’t wait for the day ML with the help of Jeffrey, from time to time are doing post that detail the craftsmanship, and nuances of an A’s new ball park, please even if it’s in San Jose can we just get the darn thing built.

  107. Unless the Raiders can somehow come up with the same Oakland Miracle that has evaded the A’s for so long (as in a rich benefactor willing to spend hundreds of millions on new sports facilities without regard to return on investment), we could be looking at a Raiders announcement in January 2014 that the team will either be playing in LA or Santa Clara the following September. I suppose the Raiders could look at Dublin again but I imagine the folks there will do whatever it takes to prevent any stadium from happening in that city – protests, lawyers, whatever is necessary.

  108. Neil, I look forward to the same thing 🙂 I ride BART to San Francisco everyday and I stare longingly at the cranes and dream of a day where they might be included in a stadium design of some kind.
    Just build it already. Somewhere. Please.

  109. @pjk
    That is why our champion….don knauss will help with funding for the mew raider and A’s stadium….cannot wait for lew wolff to grab that shovel and build

  110. I don’t understand why everyone keeps on mention L.A. when there are no viable options for a new stadium there. If the Raiders part of Coliseum City eventually does not come into fruition, then sure, Santa Clara is a distinct possibility. But L.A., c’mon.

    Until there is any shred of evidence that L.A. is even close to having an acceptable proposal for the NFL, then it’s either Oakland or Santa Clara (sharing with the Whiners) for the Raiders beginning in 2014.

    The NFL has gone on record saying that they will not accept the current business models proposed by AEG’s Farmers Field (downtown L.A.) or Majestic Realty’s Los Angeles Football Stadium (City of Industry). Even the NFL’s preferred site at Chavez Ravine (where Dodger Stadium is located) is nowhere near obtainable for the league at this point. I don’t see L.A. being anywhere near ready to host any team in time for next season. I honestly see the NFL leveraging Los Angeles against every single city to squeeze out a new stadium for teams needing them. If the league had really wanted to return to L.A. so badly, they would have years ago. The NFL is a multi-billion dollar business, and they can push some people around. I honestly believe that L.A. is a pawn that the league uses when necessaey.

    Even the temporary solutions in L.A. are unobtainable at the moment. The Rose Bowl in Pasadena is currently embroiled in a lawsuit brought on by the citizens in the neighborhoods around it. A coalition of neighborhood associations and residents on the west end of Pasadena filed a lawsuit to halt any plans to temporarily place an NFL in the city-owned Rose Bowl. The suit is still pending. And as far as the L.A. Coliseum, the NFL has already stated that it is not fit to even house a NFL team temporarily. Also, USC would have something to say about that, as they now oversee the management at the L.A. Coliseum.

    So until I see anything resembling an acceptable deal in L.A., I will consider L.A. off the table.

  111. The Giants are screwed, if the other owners supported them then we would not be heading to the court system to decide it.

    Bud Selig and the Giants have royally screwed up. When San Jose wins the lawsuit there would be zero money to the Giants and San Jose will collect (after lawyers take their cut) around 50M+.

    Vincent Piazza got 16M in 1993 from MLB and the Rays. In this case, San Jose with inflation will get substantially more than Piazza.

    As a citizen of San Jose it is that the city will not only get a free 50M+ from MLB, we will also get a free ballpark.

    That is what Selig gets for all his greed, selfishness, and most importantly cowardice.

  112. @Sid
    The sf giants do habe a chance to halt san jose from lew wolff. That is why lew wolff shouos invest in a unique least expensive ballpark in coliseum city.

    As far as L.A goes…I do think the nfl should really make a push because eventually cities will realize that LA is just a trap and would fold their arms again… City of Oakland does not want to lose two teams to the south bay…so as I said the votes will be tight but enough to pass and approve of public finance new stadium

  113. Sorry Aaron but comparing Selig to Ali is a vast insult to Ali. And why accuse GoA’s as a Giants spy? Remember the only reason Oakland still has the A’s is because of the Giants. The Oakland only crowd should be cheering for the Giants as much as the A’s.

  114. And please, who do the only Oakland crowd get all excited about Knauss, is it because nothing else out there is positive? Lets be clear here: Knauss does not own the team, Knauss doesn’t apparently want to own the team even if he could buy them, Knauss doesn’t own any land that a ballpark could go on; therefore Knauss does not have any control of the situation. He can talk, but unless Wolff changes his mind or unless MLB makes him change his mind then it’s just talk. It seems clear this long drawn out battle is to find a way to get to yes on the move to SJ, staying in Oakland is the easy answer and could’ve been made a long time ago if that’s what MLB wanted to happen; it would be an easy, non-controversial decision to make but they haven’t made it.

  115. Not correct, standforcoliseumcity aaron. The San Jose vs MLB suit changes the equation. Besides, Wolff is likely truthful when he says the majority of MLB owners favor the A’s move. Also, San Jose has hired the Cotchett lawfirm on a contingency basis, the SJ lawsuit vs MLB is not costing San Jose taxpayers a dime.

    The A’s, San Jose city officials, and the Cotchett lawfirm appear to be determined and won’t go away. Also Cotchett says his goal is to overturn the MLB ATE, and the SCOTUS does not have a favorable view of it either. Doing the math, an SJ vs MLB trial outcome favorable for MLB or the giants doesn’t look very promising.

  116. @duffer, You are right on! The filing of the San Jose lawsuit against MLB will be the impetus to get the approval of the A’s to move to San Jose. Without the threat of a lawsuit, the pro Giants clout within the MLB owners lodge would still have the upper hand, and the status quo on the A’s ballpark issue would most certainly continue indefinitely. Now, with a possible lawsuit on the horizon,there will be no way that the MLB owners lodge would even risk losing their most sacred ATE in order to protect the individual selfish interests of any one of their most favored members.

  117. True, llpec, this whole situation may be simple. MLB has been basically paying off Wolff with hush money (with the MLB profit sharing) so the A’s wouldn’t challenge the MLB ATE. Why would Wolff complain about an arrangment where the A’s receive guaranteed profits? Now that San Jose is involved with the lawsuit, hopefully the A’s situation will be expedited. Also, once MLB approves the A’s move, any lawsuits by the giants mgt. to block the A’s move – one would think – would be feeble and not successful.

  118. Hey RM, been thinking about the last paragraph regarding “reckoning” since this thread came out; Is that for the Raiders, A’s or both? 😉

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.