Radio interview with 1010 AM SoCal, talking Raiders & A’s stadium issues

I’m still in Pittsburgh. While resting at The Church Brew Works (a must-see if you’re ever in Steel Town), I did an interview with Julie Buehler and Geoff Bloom of Team 1010, an AM sports talk station in Palm Springs. Normally when I do when of these, I hem and haw a little on the “percentage chance something happens” game. This time I didn’t. Take a listen.



Video streaming by Ustream

Thanks to Julie and Geoff for having me on, and the Trib’s Matthew Artz for linking us up.

54 thoughts on “Radio interview with 1010 AM SoCal, talking Raiders & A’s stadium issues

  1. I listened for about 15 minutes and you weren’t on it yet.

  2. Nevermind. All fixed…ML says better than 50% chance that the Raiders and A’s both leave. Hosts say Farners Field is a go (is it?) and that the LA Coliseum is being renovated and could serve as a temporary home for the Raiders. Should be interesting next January after the Raiders season is over – where do they go from here?…

  3. It says the file is not available?

  4. 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 necessary.

    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.

    The NFL has also stated that they would be the decision-makers whether there would be a relocation (of any existing team/s) or expansion (which is not currently on the table) of any team/s in to the Los Angeles market. They made it perfectly clear that they will decide who (which existing NFL franchise), where (which stadium proposal), and when this would happen. So, it really makes zero difference whether Mark Davis, Stan Kroenke (owner of the St. Louis Rams), or Shad Khan (owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars) tries to strike a deal with any of the prospective companies offering their L.A. stadium proposals. The NFL is a multi-billion dollar business, and they are going to place the team who has the owner with the deepest pockets and best chance for long-term success back into the L.A. market. It’s going to happen eventually, no doubt, but the Raiders just don’t fit the mold at all, and L.A. has yet to provide any kind of proposal that the NFL deems workable.

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

  5. @Darren P. Arata, Wow I know a lot of people are pushing a load of B.S., but you really seem to knw what your talking about, thanks (-:

  6. Well said Darren!!
    All facts no fiction!! LA folks can keep believing what they want but the reality as it stands paints a very different picture! Thanks again for the enlightment!!

  7. @Darren Arata – Much of what you say about the LA mess is true. Don’t get it confused, however. Just because LA is a mess doesn’t mean that Oakland is safe. The fact that Mark Davis hasn’t signed an extension speaks volumes. This is the beginning of a play to extract as much as he can, and if he can’t he will cool his heels in Santa Clara or even LA – if second team comes. That “franchise fee” that has been rumored is just that, a rumor. If a situation arose that was to the NFL’s liking – two teams splitting the cost of a stadium with minimal intrusion an AEG or Ed Roski – that “fee” would disappear fast. What the NFL objects to is a third party trying to trade part of a stadium for a piece of a team. That part is verboten. Get that out of the way and suddenly the NFL is much more willing to work in LA. Everything at this point is a bargaining dynamic – the key is not to be that gets ripped off at the end.

  8. ML, what’s up with G4 financing for a new Raiders stadium? I know that the NFL claims that they don’t have enough money left give the Raiders a full share of that type of loan, but it seems like they have the money and the resources to offer teams financing when they truly need it. Beyond that, it seems absurd that they’d give a full share to the Falcons, who play in a totally functional stadium that’s barely two decades old, to build a new over-the-top stadium while they give the Raiders about half as much.

    Now, two shots in the dark:

    1) Do you think that MLB could, totally hypothetically, step up and decide that they want to make the unprecedented (as far as I know) move of helping the A’s fund a ballpark, in G-4 fashion, if they remain reluctant to overturn the Giants’ T-Rights to Santa Clara County? If they did that, they’d probably be somewhat obligated to do the same in the Tampa Bay/St. Petersburg market for the Rays.

    2) Is EB-5 funding at all an option for either team? I know it’s something that hasn’t been done in pro sports before, but given the way that sports leagues are becoming more accessible with a Russian owning an NBA team and Americans owning Premier League teams, is there any chance of foreign investors playing a role in either new venue getting built? It also seems like a program that Mayor Quan is very interested in taking advantage of.

    PS, the radio show hosts seemed to be under the impression that an NFL team deciding to get up and move is a lot easier than it is. Objectively, there’s zero chance the Raiders that the Raiders are playing in Los Angeles in two seasons…right?

  9. @Lev – That’s not an NFL claim. The problem is that the Raiders have reservations about asking for G-4 money because they’ve had a hard time getting the club seat revenue needed to secure the loan. If they start looking for that money, they’ll have to prove they can pay it back.

    Yes it’s absurd to fork over $200 million to the Falcons. Keep in mind that A) the NFL wants the stadium for the Falcons, and B) This would be the first time the NFL has given G-3/G-4 money to the Falcons. The NFL doesn’t care how absurd it looks. The league sees this new stadium as a next-gen showcase for Super Bowls.

    Addressing your other questions:
    1. They could. Problem with that move is that it would invite further antitrust legal action. For now the best move for MLB is to do nothing and say that everything’s on the table. MLB doesn’t have a credit structure to finance stadia like the NFL’s G-4 program. If they were to carve out $200 million for the A’s, that’s $200 million that wouldn’t go to the other 29 teams, and perhaps more contentiously, the players. Maybe it could be written into the next CBA? I wouldn’t bet on it.
    2. EB-5 has been done at Barclays Center, but only after the project was severely scaled down and Mikhail Prokhorov came in to bail out Forest City. The feds appear to be getting more strict in terms of approving specific projects related to EB-5. The issue there is that there is a hard limit on the number of annually approved applications (10,000), and all sorts of investors, developers, and private companies are trying to get a piece. Oakland was lucky to get Brooklyn Basin while the program is still relatively new. Doesn’t seem likely that the feds would allocate funding twice to Oakland mega-billion projects in a short time span while other worthy applicants go dry. Can’t hurt to try, I guess.

    The Raiders do not have an extension at the Coliseum past the 2013 season for a reason. Consider that a threat.

  10. Why on Earth would MLB fork out $200 million to keep the A’s in Oakland (an area of minimal corporate support) when Wolff could PRIVATELY FINANCE in San Jose (an area with maximum corporate support)? Not to mention that a SJ based A’s franchise is a money maker for MLB while Oakland most likely remains a revenue sharing situation.
    Taking RM’s odds re A’s to SJ to the bank! 😉

  11. re: Yes it’s absurd to fork over $200 million to the Falcons.

    …The Falcons are the only NFL team in a major US market. The Raiders are a money-losing, second-fiddle team in the Bay Area, where the NFL has already invested $200 million. What’s the incentive to fork over $200 million for the Raiders under these circumstances? If the Raiders can’t get the NFL $$, that widens the current $300 million to $400 million funding gap by another $200 million.

  12. I know it’s still hypothetical but isn’t the ability to pay off the loan the difference between the Raiders and the other teams that have received G4 funds? I think the funds are there but the Raider’s would have to show that they can sell up to 200 million dollars in PSLs.

  13. 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.ROAR!!!Drop the mic

  14. Great Job in the Interview!!!

  15. I think what Lev and others might be getting at with the idea of MLB assisting the A’s with money/loan for an Oakland A’s Park in Oakland is due to the inactivity with MLB. I have found myself many times thinking along the lines that if MLB is so damn unwilling to allow the A’s move to SJ with a privately financed stadium and not willing overturn the TR’s with the best interest of Baseball, then they should be helping to foot the bill in Oakland. Of course they won’t be doing that, perhaps MLB is not that sold on Oakland either. I would prefer they stay in Oakland, but SJ would be fine if only MLB would finally make a decision.

  16. I think Oak could look to the same investors who are in the $1.5B Brooklyn Bay waterfront development in Jack London Square to invest a good portion of the $200m needed to kick off the A’s Howard Terminal stadium development. There are good synergies between the two developments. MLB doesn’t necessarily have to subsidize.

  17. @Robo/all
    Amen, that’s actually what I have been saying, I would prefer Oakland, but I am ok with SJ, and if MLB is going to hold the A’s hostage to the East Bay, then they need to be willing to do something (we will not let you move to SJ $$$ money) about it. I know a few of you have repeated how unlikely that is, even ML, and it probable is but it’s not as pie in the sky, as one may think, there is only two teams without proper venues, the A’s, and the Ray’s, and I have heard it said that MLB would not help with financing, because it would set a precedent, but no other team will be looking for help any time soon, because every team is either in a newer venue, or satisfied with an older one, well perhaps other than the Angeles, anyway point being, this situation I believe is the last thing on the commissioners plate, before he rides off into the sunset, and no matter what you think of his record , he has done a wonderful job at getting new, or upgraded ballparks for all the franchises, I think he looks at it as part of his legacy, and I believe he would really like to resolve it before he leaves, I hope it’s the case, because if MLB is going to sit there and do nothing about the A’s situation, then it’s clear they are biding their time in till, may I present your 2020 San Antonio Athletics

  18. Lakeshore, it sets two bad precedences if MLB helps fund it. If you don’t think other teams wouldn’t look to that to handle upgrades and/or new stadiums in the future, you’re fooling yourself. Any leg in the door so to speak. The other issue is that it would be a heavy endorsement of privately funded ballparks. Ultimately MLB doesn’t want a privately funded ballpark anywhere. They may have to accept that, but they’re not going to pony up as a group to make it happen. They’d be more likely to buy the owner off to stay put in the old stadium until they can find someone willing to front the money, which is more or less what’s been happening for 4 years. And MLB has always been very patient and willing to take the long view in every decision they make, so another 10 years or so for that to happen wouldn’t make them blink.

  19. San Antonio? Talk about a lack of corporate support…

  20. I WAS distracted bt the mild during the interview. But Coliseum City will happen. I wonder whyvthe city of Oakland should use howard terminal for football

  21. These guys on this radio station are lost in space. They do not seem to understand the landscape with the A’s and Raiders.

    A lot of people in LA have been denial about not having an NFL team and do not understand why.

    LA is a bad NFL market, even when the Rams dominated they did not get fans in the Coliseum nor in Anaheim. The stadium in Anaheim had suites and club sections in rich Orange County and they still got blacked out unless the 49ers came to town. Generally in the 1980s the Rams were pretty good too.

    The Raiders had fans for about 2 seasons and then it went downhill fast after the Super Bowl win.

    Blackouts were common for both teams over the years and some players even went on record saying “people seem to have other things to do in LA rather than go to NFL games”. People in LA wonder why both teams left?

    LA is a great baseball, college football, NBA town, and for a non traditional market pretty good with the NHL.

    The NFL requires a different kind of fan and with no teams having played there in almost 20 years, there is a generation of fans who have teams already. If you visit a Buffalo Wild Wings in LA on a Sunday it is amazing how many different teams fans there are.

    Hence why the NFL needs two teams in LA, they need to finance the stadium first of all and they need to spread their influence to as many people as possible in the South land.

    It will take 10 years to build up a new fan base for both teams if they do it by expansion.

    If the Chargers move, then it will be 5 years as at least TV wise they are broadcasted in LA already as the primary team.

    The Rams or even an expansion team to share the stadium would take 10 years for sure and LA fans are fair weather, if the teams stinks blackouts could happen again easily for any team.

    The NFL will never return to LA. There are too many variables and I believe the NFL is scared to comeback for several of the reason I stated above.

  22. well somthing will have to be done, the money is not there, and as I have said befor its going to take Oakland/Alameda Co. Sacremento, congress, the players union, MLB owners, the SF Giants and the A’s to make it work or as dmoas said the A’s will go on playing at the 0 for the next 10-12 years and one day the Giants will get their wish only MLB team in a rich $8mil person region

  23. Lakeshore/Neil – Despite what the giants owner’s group (and some of their fans) believe – the SCOTUS is more powerful than the giants mgt. and MLB. And if Selig is unwilling to make a decision about the A’s and San Jose, the SCOTUS will make that decision for Selig.

  24. @duffer
    I hope so, because if that is the only way to keep the A’s in the Bay Area, I am all for it.

  25. Of course, it’s going to take years for this to get to the SCOTUS but that’s where it might very well end up. Does MLB want to hold out hope for a favorable ruling while continuing to subsidize the A’s in a deteriorating football stadium for millions of dollars per year, just to protect the Giants’ interests? Or, perhaps a settlement could be expedited. If MLB wins the case, the A’s still would be stuck in a designated territory where there is no acceptable ballpark site and no money. Problem not solved.

  26. re: “don’t leave teams in minor markets if they’re truly minor,” Steinbrenner said

    …Is it worth it to the Yankees to write Lew Wolff a seven-figure check every year based on some never-going-to-happen-anyway fear of a team relocating to New Jersey? Doesn’t sound like it. Maybe there’s some owners actually getting disgruntled over the situation the Giants have put them in with their refusal to negotiate on San Jose.

  27. Hay Guy’s, you might have a point with this Steinbrenner interview, I hope Steinbrenner is on board with the idea of the A’s improving their minor market status by letting them go to San Jose, if its the only way they can stay in the Bay Area, but its one thing to say he is ok with teams moveing from a minor market to a non-minor market, but he is probable not talking about Jersey

  28. probably the closest thing we can compare the raiders to play “renting” levis stadium is the clippers playing alongside the lakers at staples. now the lakers don’t own staples but up until the last year or two when the clippers were getting better it was pretty embarassing to have the clippers play in an arena where they were clearly second class citizens. lakers didn’t allow the clippers to use the lighting feature of blacking out the crowd and spotlighting the court and then you had all those championship banners and retired jerseys for the lakers up in the rafters while the lac i don’t know if there was anything associated with their franchise hung up in the rafters.

    same could be done with the raiders, don’t think anything raiders related in regards to a ring of honor or a hof would be produced at levis stadium which is certainly something i know a lot of raider fans want to see for any long term future home for their franchise.

  29. also aren’t there bars and restaurants that are going to be built near and around levis stadium? i’m guessing a lot of the bars will be niners themed so not sure raider fans are going to be feeling comfortable both inside and outside the red/gold fandom of levis stadium if they indeed spend a handful of years playing there until their own stadium situation gets resolved.

  30. I disagree with the NFL needing two teams in the LA market theory. That was part of the problem in the first place. LA just like the Bay Area is oversaturated with professional sports teams and good college athletics. The NFL needs to concentrate on moving one team to LA and not two if that is indeed their plan instead of using LA as leverage when a team like the Raiders or Rams need a new stadium. I am leaving the Bills and Jags off this list. If those two teams do relocate it would be to either Toronto or London respectively.
    @letsgoas

    The Clippers never had anything to hang up in the rafters until last year. If you call a division title something to hang up in the rafters in a building like Staples where all the other teams have won championships. They also don’t have any retire numbers to hang up.

  31. Calm down, you litigious zealouts. mlb’s lawyers will file their motion to dismiss (for lack of standing, et al) in early August. A couple of weeks later, San Jose will file its opposition papers. Then we’ll know more about the strength of this lawsuit. Still, the hearing the decision on the motion will play out over later weeks. Anyone who fantasizes about possible Supreme Court rulings now is just wasting his and your time.

  32. It’s doubtful either party wants the Supreme Court. If SJ has standing then no doubt there’ll be strong incentive towards settlement, if not, then we’re back to where we were a few months ago

  33. @letsgoas,

    The main problem with the comparison to the Lakers/Clippers is that unlike Raiders fans, most Clippers “fans” could take or leave ’em. Raiders fans are a passionate bunch. Clippers fans have historically been comprised of Angelenos who like discounted NBA tickets. In other words, the Clippers have been the cheaper alternative for live basketball in LA. Up until recently, at least.

  34. With regards to Santa Clara bars being 49ers themed–if the Raiders were to move into Levi’s, I’m sure the bars will go out and buy some silver and black paint. You don’t discriminate against any team playing that close or you’ll lose out on sales.

    People need to stop thinking about fan or organizational “feelings” and think more about “business” when it comes to having the Raiders in Santa Clara.

  35. I will say this….how will the lease extension talks go with the A’s if the Raiders leave? ?? You will have a pissed off Oakland dealing with Wolff who does not want to be there. I would tell Oakland city leaders to give Wolff a expensive city friendly lease extension or else he could move in with the 49ers as well.

    Invest in Coliseum city or gtfo

  36. Wolff/A’s will gladly gtfo, thank you very much…

  37. @Tony D a.k.a fozzy bear
    If the Raiders, A’s and Warriors leave Oakland for wherever there going… they will lose the east bay market fannase FOREVER to San Francisco. Does t. Teame really want to do that???? Not sure I there are enouhh rich ppl to go around.

    To Mark Davis, Lacob and Lew Wolffy
    INVEST IN COLISEUM CITY OR GTFO…OAKLAND DESERVES A FREE STADIUM LIKE ANYBODY ELSE….PJK SAN JOSE WILL NOT HAPPEN! !!

  38. There are a lot of A’s fans from Union City, Fremont and Tri-Valley who will beg to differ from you regarding a San Jose-based franchise, but whatever you say…

  39. Aaron hitting that tanqueray early again..

  40. @Larry E
    No Im NOT……HICCUP!!!

  41. For Oakland, it’s as if they got into this exclusive country club (Big League sports) when membership dues were cheap. Now, it’s time to renew but the membership dues (stadium construction costs) have gone up tenfold. And Oakland simply can’t write a check like that

  42. B_A_Native Guy writes “It’s doubtful either party wants the Supreme Court. If SJ has standing then no doubt there’ll be strong incentive towards settlement, if not, then we’re back to where we were a few months ago”

    Something tells me SJ’s law firm would like it to go to the supreme court(just a hunch)…but overall I think you are correct.

    I had hoped, after SJ filed its suit, the media reporting would highlight the (IMHO) puzzling AT exemption that MLB is afforded. I had hoped enough mentions in the media would make the Lodge nervous enough for it to be the impetus to get serious about settling the issue. Unfortunately that did not happen — the storyline is SJ wants the A’s, MLB won’t give that OK, Oakland is still as much as the A’s home as anywhere. Now media reporting has gone largely silent on the matter (mostly).
    This comes to your correct point (and I think it is one Xoot has made previously). It now comes down to whether the suit goes forward and, eventually, into whatever the term is for evidence gathering/swapping/documents/testimony. Until MLB wins or loses the point of ‘standing'(I believe that was the term), the suit appears to mean little to the resolution of the possible SJ-A’s move.
    If anyone has any date estimate as to when the issue of ‘standing’ could be decided, I think this is the big enchilada for all of us here. If standing is upheld I think we are finally be at the beginning of the end and, arguably, the ‘ok’ to move leans much more toward when not if.

  43. @TW, What could also be a very powerful impetus for the Giants to ease up on their so called “territorial rights” claim is for some of the Giants’ South Bay corporate sponsors and season ticket holders to noticeably begin to withdraw their support. You Bet Money Talks!

  44. @lipec,

    In that case wouldn’t the Giants lose either way? If the South Bay’s corporate support withdrew from the Giants, wouldn’t that just mean they would support the A’s in a move to SJ? I would think South Bay sponsors withdrawing their support would be further ammo for the Giants to use in why they want to keep the territorial rights as they are. They could whine about how the A’s trying to get into their territory is hurting them financially.

  45. @llpec,

    In that case wouldn’t the Giants lose either way? If the South Bay’s corporate support withdrew from the Giants, wouldn’t that just mean they would support the A’s in a move to SJ? I would think South Bay sponsors withdrawing their support would be further ammo for the Giants to use in why they want to keep the territorial rights as they are. They could whine about how the A’s trying to get into their territory is hurting them financially.

  46. *My apologies for the double post.

  47. @bay metro,
    Interesting thought. Even though I’ve been a major SJ proponent since 2005 (RM and I go way back), I’ve never been of the thought of SV corporations boycotting the Giants, or fans for that matter. Simply put 1) the SV corporate support for AT&T Park is way overblown 2) the corporate pie is big enough for both teams and 3) many SV/SJ-based Giants fans aren’t season ticket holders to AT&T Park.
    There’s a huge untapped corporate market in SV/SJ that don’t support the Giants that will support the SJ A’S. The big fortune 500’s will most likely support both teams. And Giants fans in the South Bay, whether season ticket holders or not, will continue to be fans EVEN WITH the A’s in San Jose.
    Simply put: the A’s WILL move to SJ and won’t have to “loot” the Giants.

  48. My thoughts on the withholding of South Bay corporate sponsorship of the Giants are being misinterpreted. I’m only using this as a message and a way to voice displeasure at the Giants for blocking the A’s from moving to San Jose. Call it civic pride, if you may. It is in no way reflective of a change in team allegiances. If the A’s move to San Jose, it will not have any negative impact on the Giants fan base. If anything, both teams will stand to benefit by increasing the overall strength, competition, and interest in Bay Area MLB.

  49. @llpec,
    Good post. Curious; are you a Giants fan?

  50. Tony D., I know my writing style can sometimes cause one to misinterpret what I’m trying to say. But, A Giants fan?

  51. @llpec,
    My bad brah. Your writing style did throw me off 😉

  52. Can you please turn off the auto-play on this video? It’s making checking up on the blog an annoying endeavor.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s