Raiders want to build at current Coliseum site, whither the A’s?

Absent a short or long-term lease at the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, the Raiders made an unusual request of the Coliseum Authority (JPA): they want to build a new stadium on the site of the current Coliseum.

That’s a departure from the commonly held belief that the Raiders wanted a stadium next to the current one, in the Coliseum’s B Lot. Should the JPA take up the Raiders’ request, both the Raiders and A’s would be unable to play in the Coliseum as the old one was torn down and a new one built. Of course, this isn’t necessarily a problem for the Raiders, since they could become roommates with the 49ers in Santa Clara for a few years while all of the upheaval occurred. As for the A’s, they’d be out of a place to play.

Of all the different ways we all considered how this dance could play out, the Raiders wanting the Coliseum to themselves in this way did not climb to the top of the list. If you think about it for a minute, it makes sense. What the Raiders want is what many teams want at their stadium sites – full control of the complex. All parking revenues, all signage, all ancillary event money, all of it. And I don’t blame them. If they say they’re going to put up $300+ million for the stadium, they want to ensure that they’ll get that back. Pushing the A’s out of the complex is the best way to do it because there’s much less chance of the legal (and revenue-sharing) love triangle between the Raiders, A’s, and JPA that Mt. Davis wrought.

Lame duck JPA board Vice Chair Larry Reid knows what this means for the A’s and MLB.

Lew Wolff would be happy if that was the scenario that played out. He could tell Major League Baseball, ‘See, they didn’t want us. Look what they’re doing for the Raiders.’

Exactly. The JPA knows this and they don’t want to be caught throwing more good money after bad, in this case, a second Mt. Davis. We don’t know yet what commitments Oakland and Alameda County are willing to make, yet the Raiders are making demands. At least the Raiders have put some cards on the table. The City/County haven’t. And the A’s have no interest in playing.

Funny thing is that there’s still doubt about what revenue the Raiders could generate to back a new stadium that could cost upwards of $800 million to build. Yet they don’t have to prove anything at the moment. This is about getting the JPA to commit to one team over the other. This won’t make the A’s respond with a different stance in the least. They sent a lease offer to the JPA that accounted for this. And that puts the JPA in a very, very tough position.

The Raiders have options and they’re playing this like they’re ready to exercise any of them. They could go to Santa Clara. Mark Davis is in talks with LA, despite how unlikely that move sounds. They’re giving the appearance of a team that wants, but does not need, Oakland. I told all of you about a reckoning earlier in the summer. It’s starting.

—–

Update 9:15 PM – In an ESPN interview today, Mark Davis laid out more specifically what he wants. Most interesting is the news that he confirmed the 58,000-seat capacity stadium concept.

I’ve come to the conclusion that a 53,000-seat stadium, that we played in from the 60’s and all that, is basically what our market is. We’re not an 80,000-seat stadium, we’re not a 65,000-seat stadium, really, unless you’re winning every game and all that stuff. But those aren’t the hardcore fans that are there … for us the 53,000–seat stadium is good and maybe 5,000 club seats bring it up to 58,000 seats.

Like I said, Davis is laying down his cards.

114 thoughts on “Raiders want to build at current Coliseum site, whither the A’s?

  1. I particularly like the Wolff quote in that article where he says he won’t stand in their way if that’s what they want to do. He’s got to be loving this, the Raiders will force MLB’s hand saving him from having to do a damn thing if this works out for the Silver and Black.

    But it was also interesting to hear yet another article talk about how Davis has continued to keep the lines of communication open with LA. It’s classic stadium play, push your current city by implying you have an option or options elsewhere.

    In the case of the Raiders taking out the Coliseum to build a new stadium though we’re back to the idea that’s been floated on here from time to time, where would the A’s play. Presumably with the A’s working an out clause into their new lease at the Coliseum they’d be able to leave at a moment’s notice, and as such the Raiders presumably could begin construction as soon as they and Oakland came to an agreement (a big “if” I’ll grant you). But IF they do, the A’s could very quickly find themselves homeless and with Cisco Field years away at best, never happening at worst. Meaning a temp home becomes even more than before something the A’s may seriously have to look into. Be it a temporarily expanded Raley Field, sharing AT&T, a year(s) long road trip, Cashman Field again as in ’95, or perhaps alternating “home” venues like the Expos did in Puerto Rico in their final two seasons.

  2. This is a win-win for the Raiders and A’s. The A’s now have the perfect leverage with MLB moving to San Jose. Therefore the A’s may force MLB to make a deal with San Jose far quicker than expected.

    The Raiders as ML pointed out want total control of the site. The A’s want out big time and are getting desperate. The Raiders are the one with options.

    I am confused on something as where would the A’s play if this goes down? The Raiders could easily room up with the 49ers in Santa Clara for 2-4 years but the A’s would have to leave for a new NFL stadium to occur on the same site.

    Meaning the A’s would have to share with the Giants in ATT Park while Cisco Field is being constructed in San Jose with the Raiders in Santa Clara.

    The irony….If the A’s have to Share ATT Park for a few years and play literally in the City of SF it would be such a fitting end for MLB. Having a team play in another team’s “territory”! Selig would have a heart and a stroke at the same time.

  3. gimme 20 billion, I’ll solve all of these issues at once.

    – build new stadia for the Raiders and A’s next to each other at Alameda point (old navy base, basically the only open space left in the inner bay) (1 billion each, 2 billion)
    – build a new arena for the Warriors right there. Waterfront views of the city, the bay bridge, etc. (another bill)

    obviously, it would take a LOT of infrastructure for this so…. a new exit from the 80/880 connector and most importantly a NEW entrance to Alameda directly to the base. this will eat up a few billion, as it will have to navigate OVER (or under) the port of oakland.

    add housing, shops, etc. etc. at this new complex- another few billion

    the rest of the billions will go to paying off various groups, etc.
    Due to Alamedans traditional fears of the outside, add a billion dollars to add security, police, etc. to that end of town.

    and add another billion for the EIR and paying off environmental groups, state lobbyists, state government, federal government, etc. etc.

    the question is… who has these billions? China, I’m talkin to you!

  4. I’m not surprised by what seems to be now transpiring. The Raiders were always in the driver’s seat with their objectives in getting a new stadium for their team, given the fact that they had on their side very realistic near-term new stadium options, other than what Oakland had been offering. With the A’s potentially having no home stadium to play in, this will ultimately force MLB to finally give approval of the A’s to move to San Jose.
    I can see the Raiders moving to Santa Clara on a temporary basis; until either a new stadium is built on the Coliseum site, or the NFL ultimately approves the team to move to LA. As for the A’s, I see the team becoming tenants of the Giants until Cisco Field is completed in San Jose.

  5. re: Wolff, who would have to finance the construction

    ….There you have it – from the Oakland Tribune.

  6. watching the stanford-sjsu game tonight, stanford stadium looks great on tv. brought it up before but having a design of the renovated stanford stadium on steroids would imo be an ideal venue for a new raiders stadium. do we really need to spend another 3/4 of a billion or even another billion dollar on a second nfl stadium that will likely never host a super bowl or go build a modern basic venue ala stanford. stanford stadium cost 100 million to renovate, i had this conversation before with ML but it was built on the cheap with no luxury boxes and little elbow space thru out the venue. can’t they build a quality venue similar to stanford stadium with luxury boxes and make it a bit bigger for 400-500 million?

    somehow they could use the same approach, building the new raiders stadium on the same spot the coliseum is right now as stanford did which i guess saved some money but just make it a bit bigger and better? i doubt raiders fans want another “jerry world” in dal or what the niners have with levis stadium, as long as it’s up to date it doesn’t need a huge # of luxury boxes, though the raiders owners may think differently due to them not having to share revenue from luxury boxes with other teams.

    aren’t the a’s in talks with the city of oakland in extending their lease? what would happen if they signed this lease for 4-5 years but then in a year or two this plan of the raiders building on the current coliseum location happens? i’d guess the a’s would have some sort of out if this were to happen and if the green light is given to sj eventually i’d guess the a’s would play their games at at&t as some part of agreement for the territorial rights.

    • @letsgoas – I’m at the SJSU-Stanford game tonight. They have new scoreboards and a ribbon board. Looks great.

      As I mentioned before, Stanford Stadium is basically a man-made, hollowed-out hill with stands on it. Locker rooms are outside the stadium, as is the training facility. That’s not a doable approach in the NFL. Maybe all that stuff adds an extra $50-100 million in terms of buildout.

      @bob234 – You win everything tonight.

  7. Years and years of Selig waiting (and praying) for Oakland to come up with a new stadium deal for the A’s are leading to this – an orphaned franchise. Just so Selig can avoid dealing with the Giants.

  8. I went to the Cal game today – saw the new stadium for the first time. They did a great job, but it’s still mostly bleachers, with little premium seating and the usual lack of parking.

  9. A sjsu game tonight- waited 40 minutes to try and get in stadium- wtf- for 55k fans- go to PennState or Michigan and they have 110k plus and no lines like tonight- bush league from my perspective- Stanford needs to step p and act like a big school program-

  10. That Dolich quote at the end is just sad. They’re businesses. I doubt he thought that when teams were moving their from other locations.

    And as for why the Raiders want that site should be obvious. Just look at the photo in that article. Putting a stadium in the back lot means your fans have to travel between two other venues to get there which involves climbing up and over a hill both ways. Eventually you’re going to have to do something about one or both of those venues since the current site won’t be used for anything else once both teams are out of it and the arena won’t be used much if the Warriors move to SF. So now you have fans doing that trek between a two ghost town stadiums. Are the Raiders then going to have to do a demo job of both sites and add more parking there?

    On the other hand, replace the stadium at the current site and you have parking on both sides. If the Warriors leave and the arena someday gets demoed, add parking on three sides with BART on the fourth. And for the sake of argument, let’s say all three teams were to stay. Why would the Raiders want to be the team with the venue in the worst location of complex?

  11. don’t think they’ll demolish the arena. the city of oakland still is going to need a venue to hold events like concerts and such even though the possible addition of a arena across the bay will take some events from oracle but not all of them.

  12. Back on the mainland brothas! I’m not seeing/reading it anywhere, but would Mt. Davis be incorporated into THE NEW Coliseum? Which would be the smart thing to do IMHO. Or would they implode it with the rest of the nearly 50 year old edifice? The hell with the SJ lawsuit! This development way more interesting. My ideal scenario: new Raiders stadium Oakland, new A’s ballpark San Jose (just my opinion).

  13. If the article is true, then the Raiders have more plans for the Coliseum site than just a stadium and parking lot. I could see a scenario with a minor league stadium (A’s having already left) being built with residential/commercial buildings also on location. Just having a stadium built surrounding by acres of parking lot is a no-win/no money making scenario. They must already have plans in place to develop the Coliseum so they have an alternate income source. Just my theory.

  14. It’ll work, ML, just someone give me the 20 billion. Larry Ellison? Peter Thiel? HOLLA AT ME

  15. @ML- not sure what the issue was- gate 2 was horrendous- we arrived at 745 from oil tailgate and got into stadim at 830- no staff around outside- mob was getting restless-once up front couldn’t figure out what delay was other than understaffed-

  16. @bob234: then you hafta get Alameda to go along. They’re not what you’d call development friendly …

  17. Where’d da beach go!? One thing that’s been obvious and made clearer by this development: the Raiders want to stay in Oakland, the A’s don’t. If in fact the Raiders want to build new around the current Mt. Davis then the City of O should put ALL energy/resources into making it happen. Let go of the A’s! At least in the media and maps with squiggly “viable” lines. Re a possible Raiders rebuilt Coliseum: I’d remove some of the highest rows of Mt. Davis, construct a western twin, add roof structures over both and bump club seating to 7,000. A 60k seat stadium is more respectable for an NFL franchise IMHO.
    As for our A’s, I’m thinking Wolff already has a place in mind to play in 2014, judging by his media statements. The man doesn’t seem worried one bit, I’ll guess we’ll have to be patient on that news…Go A’s and Go Raiders!

  18. re: I’m thinking Wolff already has a place in mind to play in 2014,

    …Raley Field, perhaps?

  19. The way I see it is if the A’s are unable to get an agreement with the Coliseum folks, then they will play a majority of their “home” games at Raley Field and play games against teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels and Gnats in San Francisco. The games against the Gnats will be a bit strange as they will probably play two series with one of those having the A’s as the “home” team. Raley makes sense because it is within driving distance from the Bay Area and has the largest seating capacity other than O.co and Phone Booth Park in the area.

  20. Not sure about Raley Field. Territory wise it would work. But then you have to take into account it being a private venue owned by the Rivercats that they also need to use all season too. And that doesn’t take into account the fact it’s not exactly close to either the A’s current or desired fan base. I’d think it’s far more likely that if the A’s were expelled from the Coliseum that Wolff would simply set them up somewhere closer to San Jose in a temporary venue not unlike what the Earthquakes are using now in Santa Clara or that the BC Lions/Vancouver Whitecaps shared a few years ago up in Vancouver, BC. The land he owns at Pacific Commons might just fit the bill assuming they moved the stadium down toward the Mission Blvd end of the land.

    • @Dan – Wolff is selling the Fremont land. The sale may even have already happened. It’s safe to rule that out.

      @Matt – Logistically, the only way Raley works is if everyone associated with the day-to-day operations of the A’s – including the players – moves to Sacramento during that interim period. MLBPA would probably object to numerous players to driving over an hour to Raley, even if it’s from Concord or Walnut Creek. Then the games played at AT&T Park would be like road barnstorming games, with the players staying in SF hotels. Very Expos-like.

  21. @ML Are you saying, that you fill the players would have to stay in hotels, if the A’s played in SF? (AT&T), if so I dont see why that would be the case, some of them may have homes closer to AT&T then the Coli. at this moment. I am sure you have a better read on this, then myself but that seems odd. I could be incorrect, but I think AT&T is closer to downtown Oakland then the Coli. is. I understand what your saying about Sacto., being further then the players union would like, but would any of the players have to go that much further, then they do today, if they played at AT&T? Also do you think AT&T will be the short turm home? Many people think that should have been the case, even if the A’s could have played at the Coli, short turm as they wait for a long turm home, in San Jose, Oakland, Fremomt, or Mars.

    • @Lakeshore/Neil – Consider that players’ homes tend to be spread out among the East Bay and SF. Let’s say 60 home games are played at Raley Field. Are you going to promise that a player and his wife living in North Beach can stay there even though Raley Field is over 90 minutes away? Unlikely. Or if the players move to Sacramento, many of them may live in the foothills. Are you going have them drive to Raley, then bus the players from Raley to AT&T before and after every home game? That’s much too much to ask. More likely that they’d stay at the Parc 55 or Westin St. Francis for the duration of the homestand. It’s the most practical situation. Some players choose to have long commutes – Dallas Braden chose to live in Stockton while he was on the A’s. That’s a choice though. Players shouldn’t be forced to commute exurb-like distances.

  22. Like ML said Davis is puting his cards on the table, I dont see how Oakland can’t get behind him. Oakland has run out of time, and its the Raiders whom have the levrage. Its nice to here someone (Mark Davis), say what they want, and mean what they say (if he does), you dont here that every day fron spors owners or Pols. in general (not talking about Lew Wolff)

  23. Ultimately, Raley Field is not a practical “interim” situation because of how it was designed and built. The clubhouses are scratch-AAA level at best, and are located in center field behind the wall. It cannot be radically expanded for temporary seating because they used poured-in concrete instead of steel to support the upper deck. Putting additional bleachers in is a possibility, but having people sit on metal bleachers in the Sacramento sun is a dubious proposition at best.

    Ironic though it’s true – the most logical “temporary” venue for the Athletics is Candlestick Park. Once the 49ers are done for the season and gone to Levi’s, just yank out the slider section (don’t even worry about retracting it), get the old fences and the old bleachers back out, put the pillboxes back in, replant the grass for baseball configuration, drag out the mound, and play ball.

  24. @ML
    I am sorry ML; I was not clear on my question. Excluding Sacrament for the moment, do you think AT&T is the answer, short term? Would the Giants even be willing to do that, or would MLB have to force them to do so, or as Sierra Spartan suggest is Candlestick the best place short term. Candlestick will certainly be vacant; they would not have to share with the Raiders, 49ers, or the Giants in that case. They would also be within the Bay Area, so no disruption for their fan base, or long commutes up to the capital city to see their team…

    • @all – Lennar wants the ‘Stick land for development and they wanted it yesterday. Demolition could happen before the next baseball season starts. Nothing’s going to interfere with that because SFRP doesn’t want to deal with the overhead associated with running the stadium anymore. Plus I understand that the folding east seats have been in place so long that they’ve locked (rusted) in place.

  25. @SS- wondered the same thing but as I recall the stick is already slated for demo next year

  26. To me, the chance of the A’s taking up home in Candlestick Park seem slimmer than any other scenario. However, let’s just pretend that it does happen. They’d average 11k per game. Scary.

  27. Thanks ML, well with Candlestick not an option, and it sounds like Sacrament is not a realistic option (innless everyone agrees to move, and with payer’s union ok), that leaves AT&T, so if that’s the case, is that going to be ok with the Giants, it’s not like they have done any fevers, for the A’s, I wonder if they would they require the A’s to build in their current territory, if they agreed to share, with them, for five years. Man this whole thing, is one hell of a mess, I guess it had to get to this in order, for someone, anyone to do something about this situation.

  28. The article pints out a very important thing and that is if Oakland/Alameda County puts up a substantial public subsidy, then they will have some leverage as well. I have no idea how they come up that kind of money, I guess some sort of tax, but none the less, if they do, then perhaps they can make some sort of agreement with the Raiders that they will abolish the old coliseum, within a five year window after the first season is played in the new one.

  29. I don’t recall Oakland ever saying where the Athletics would play if construction gets started on Coliseum City. If Jean Quan (of any Oakland City official) is interviewed about Coliseum City, I’d like to hear their answer. It’d at least provide a glimpse at how this whole thing could unfold.

    As for right now, Oakland wants to build a football stadium on the Coliseum site. The Raiders want a new football stadium on the Coliseum site. Ignoring for a moment all the other factors on about site-control, at least there’s some agreement on location.

  30. MLB is running out of options and is facing a major lawsuit because of their gross negligence of this situation.

    The Giants would fight tooth and nail from letting the A’s share ATT Park, even if it made them money on a revenue sharing deal.

    MLB would have to intervene and force the teams to share but that would then defeat this whole territorial rights issue that has forced the A’s to stay in Oakland and not move further away from the Giants.

    For all this delay, it would serve MLB and Selig (who will be long gone) right to let the A’s play in ATT Park and force the Giants to do so.

    It would suck for the A’s because all of signage would be SF Giants including the scoreboard. But it would be a huge upgrade from the Coliseum as they could revenue share suite and club seat sales that they have zero of now.

    Candlestick is being torn down as ML pointed out once the 49ers are done this season. By the time this whole situation is sorted out Candlestick will be long gone.

    Bud Selig cowardice is why this has been going on. The Raiders and A’s “colluding” in this case will speed up the lawsuit settlement and allow the A’s to play in a nice ballpark (ATT) for a few years and get their wish of moving to San Jose.

    The Raiders know Oakland is desperate to keep them and they know Oakland is on the ledge….They just have to push them over.

  31. FWIW, I’m not really sure there is much of a story here because the Raiders want public money from Oakland and they are highly unlikely to get it. Raiders-to-Los Angeles seems like a more likely outcome than a new football stadium in Oakland. Whatever amount the city/county gives to Oakland will have MLB asking for at least the same. See my post last week re: Oakland having $1.4 billion unfunded pension and employee medical liabilities. Think they can spend money on new toys for the Raiders and A’s under these circumstances?

    • @pjk – They’re not at the point where they can talk about money. There are reasonable doubts about either Davis’s or Oakland’s ability to secure the financing needed to get a new Coliseum built. They both have the most leverage in these discussions as long as they choose not to talk about money. So it won’t come up, at least not until they’re much further along in the talks. Money is practically a moot point right now.

  32. ML: The question remains – can they get to that point? Seems kind of doubtful. But how much longer can Oakland get Mark Davis to sign lease extensions with no new stadium plan? Looks like those days are coming to an end…So you’re saying there are doubts Davis can even come up with the $300 million from the Raiders. Not surprising. Between Davis and the city not having the money and the NFL probably not wanting to throw its own $200 million in, this project sounds like a fantasy if there ever was one.

  33. Hope db runs for Mayor also–want to hear him explain why he is being paid to do consulting associated with helping the Warriors move to SF while simultaneously trying to keep the A’s in Oakland–sounds like money influences his opinions and actions.

  34. @pjk – I’m sure Davis can get the $300 million, that’s current attendance/revenue pledged for X years. It’s the remaining $500 million that’s the problem, the part that both sides will have trouble covering.

  35. @GoAs Yeah, that a little fishy, but , at this point he can do all he wants on the Warriors to SF, as long as he can get something done for the A’s in Oakland, Well that’s how I fill anyway.
    I hope he does. With the sort of political connections he has, if he were to run, and win. Oakland may actually get something accomplished, where the A’s are concerned. Hay it’s always a long shot with Oakland, but at least he’s not Don Perata.
    @ML, I know the NFL has backed off a little concerning the idea of building in Oakland, and they really would like the Raiders to become roommates, with the 49er, but if Oakland and Davis got close, don’t you think the NFL would kick in the usual 200-250 million?
    @Doug
    Hay Doug, if you run, and win, can you try and get Robert Bobb back here to help with the A’s ballpark quest?

  36. This is exactly what I predicted months ago, that Selig will wait things out until something happens with the Raiders ( who is the biggest priority for Quan and company to keep ( she does not want her legacy to be losing three sports teams)). Once something becomes official with the Raiders, then we will get a better idea of where the A’s are playing next season. If it is Santa Clara while a Coliseum renovation is underway, then it will be out of Oakland for the A’s. Why? I cannot see where the Giants can be legally compelled to let the A’s into AT&T Park. The next question is will it be out of the Bay Area? Montreal maybe?

  37. All, while Raley, Candlestick and AT&t are all non-starters for various reasons, they’re not the only options. Remember in this day and age a major league temp venue can be thrown together for between $20 mil and $60 mil depending on how elaborate and how big. The BC Lions showed the A’s the way when they built Empire Field. The only question would be a matter of where to build said temp venue.

  38. @Dan: A temporary ballpark could work for 1-2 seasons, but what about 5 seasons? Even if it were possible, it’s be a nightmare from a compliance/regulatory perspective. Electrical, water, etc. The A’s rely on JPA now, but if they’re going to construct their own temporary facility, they’d have to hire an facilities/operation staff to learn and run the venue simultaneously. That said, I agree. the AT&T Park or Raley Field options aren’t any more or less likely.

  39. @David Brown,
    Montreal; that was funny! Let’s just remember all that If (hypothetically) the A’s need to play outside of the Bay Area next year that doesn’t mean they would forfeit their current territory of Alameda/CoCo Counties. Regardless of what Wolff states in the media, Fremont/WS is most likely Plan B in the event San Jose falls through.
    @RM,
    Is there any way you could find out through your sources if the current Mt. Davis would remain under the latest plans from the Raiders? As I’ve stated far to many times here, it makes too much sense to build new around the current structure, which is still fairly new and being paid for. If the Raiders can come up with $300 million I say the public amount from Oakland/Alameda Co. would come down to between $200-300 million; $500-600 million for “new” coliseum.

  40. What would the likelihood be of SJ’s lawsuit getting dismissed on standing, Wolff, being out of options in Oakland, making an official agreement with San Jose to move to San Jose Municipal Stadium or Santa Clara University, giving legal standing to SJ in their quest to gain a new ballpark? MLB would clearly prevent the move from ever happening, interfering with a legitimate agreement between two parties. A new trial!

  41. Mt. Davis is almost old enough to vote (and gamble).

  42. It seems horribly wasteful for the Raiders to plan on doing anything that involves demolishing Mt. Davis, unless they’re planning on paying off the debt for the city/county and not asking for more money. It’s ugly and ruined the stadium for baseball, but it’s perfectly functional and adequate as 1/3 of a football stadium.

  43. @Dan,
    Talk about brilliant! Just did some quick research on Empire Field and checked out some Google images. Not bad for a temporary facility! $14.5 million for a 27k seat football/soccer stadium! All of a sudden SJ Muni looks highly doable for a temp facility, especially with temp grandstands in the outfield and along the baselines. Perhaps next door SJ Ice could serve as temp locker rooms as well. Things looking up!
    @Tim,
    Completely agree with you on Mt. Davis. Even if it is old enough to vote, it’s fairly “new” by stadium standards; newer than SAP Center and other modern football venues. Of course, it could be updated in a Coli redo; turn blocks of suits into party suites, take rows off the top (ala new Comisky) and add a roof structure that incorporated lights. Just a thought.

  44. @Tony D.
    Yeah, I really don’t get why so many people, think Fremont is out of the realm of possibility. I know Lew Wolff sold/selling the land that he owns there, and that’s a major downer, but personally I thought he only sold the land, because he had a strong belief he would be able to get to San Jose. I guess since that time things have gotten muddled, but if he can’t get SJ., I say were right back to the possibility of Fremont (as fare as Wolff is concerned), and Oakland may have an outside shot, depending how much MLB is willing to concede to Wolff, along with how much other interested parties are willing to pay to make that happen.
    @David Brown
    “Giants can be legally compelled to let the A’s into AT&T Park. The next question is will it be out of the Bay Area? Montreal maybe?”
    No of core the Giants can’t be legality bond, but if they are under the threat of losing San Jose, because the A’s have nowhere to play, they will be more than happy to have them for house guest, if it’s been solidified, that its part of an overall agreement, that the A’s will no longer pursue S.J. I am not saying it’s going to go down that way, but we just don’t know. It’s all tea leaves
    @Dan
    “ All, while Raley, Candlestick and AT&t are all non-starters for various reasons, they’re not the only options”
    Candlestick, defiantly especially after what ML was saying earlier, but I am not so sure you could say the same, for AT&T, or Raley Field, I think a deal, although not easy could be worked out, I am sure the A’s don’t want to be to fare from their fan base.

  45. Lakeshore, that is the beauty of a temp venue like I was talking about further down the quote you snipped. You can build it virtually anywhere there’s open land Wolff owns or rents. Fremont, Pleasanton, North San Jose, Milpitas, Oakland, you name it. And while it won’t be a glamorous stadium, it wouldn’t be much of, if any, downgrade from the shit smelling foulness that is the Coliseum. And it could work indefinitely as Wolff knows with his “2 year” visit to temporary Buck Shaw Stadium for his Earthquakes in Santa Clara which is already in its 6th season.

  46. Tony, SJ muni wouldn’t work for the same reasons Raley won’t. It already has tenants you’d have to work around, doesn’t have room to expand much without eating what scant parking exists there. From an access POV it has none, to say nothing of the neighbors you’d piss off. The facilities are already below CA League standards, so they’d never work for MLB.

    It would actually be much easier to just find an empty field than it would be to work around an existing venue like Muni. And SCU only holds 1,500 so it’s REALLY a non-starter.

  47. @ML- didn’t you do a post on this exact scenario at some point in the past- cant find it- it had ro do with building a temporary stadium-

  48. How about: Suspend franchise operations until the A’s can get a new stadium built somewhere in North America? Rub Selig’s nose in his failure to act.

  49. @Dan You may be on to somthing, I looked it up it looks really nice, I would say somthing like that may work in the open space of Fremont, although you would still have the TR problem, in the South Bay

  50. @pjk – that would seemingly hurt LW and everyone else in the organization way more than it would hurt the rest of baseball.

  51. @pjk You are funny, defiantly a piece of work. (in a good way)

  52. I read some place online that San Jose Giants’ operating agreement is currently – or about to – enter into new negotiations for access to Municipal Stadium. It would be nice if San Jose did an agreement that left some wiggle room to rent it out to the A’s if Wolff needed a place to move.

  53. @Dan,
    Nearby Spartan Stadium. Has a capacity of 35k but usually averages 17k per game. The precedence is already there for moving large amounts of folks in and out of that area for sporting events. IF Muni was temporarily expanded to 14-20k seats it should be no different than when the Spartans are playing at home. Neighbors, even if there aren’t any in that mostly industrial area of central SJ, shouldn’t complain to much. As for SJ Giants, perhaps Stevens on to something with his above post. Arrangements could also be made to have the A’s at home while the Lil G’s were on the road (and vice versa). Again, just a thought and thinking outside the box with the temp idea.

  54. Tony, you laugh at Montreal, but the Blue Jays are likely going to be hosting Spring Training games there next year and there’s growing private workings to try again up there. While likely too soon to call it viable, in the space of what ifs, depending on what gets done to fix up the old Stadia, it may end up one of the better options.

    While Giants can’t be compelled to share ATT with the A’s, I have no doubts that if it came to it, that’s where the A’s would play in the interim. For everyone involved, it’s all about the money and deals will end up being made. If anything, it may be something Selig has been waiting for (the A’s being forced out) so that everyone involved (specifically the other owners) had no choice but to get behind it.

  55. @all,
    Stand corrected on the capacity of Spartan Stadium; 30k. Also forgot to mention parking for Spartan could be used for Muni as well.
    @dmoas,
    I’m not laughing at Montreal. I’m laughing at the notion of the A’s relocating there. Heck, building a new ballpark at the Coliseum site (and staying in the Bay) probably makes more sense then relocating 3,000+ miles out of the country. Not happening. That said, I do wish Montreal all the best in their quest to become a Major League city again.

  56. @ DanTony D. good ideas, but you still have the TR issue, I know it would seem reasonable, that the A’s would be able to play in San Jose, if they become homeless, but I dont think the Giants will drop S.J. simply because the A’s dont have Coli to play at.

  57. The Giants are not going to do anything at all to help the A’s – that much has been clear for years.

  58. Tony, while Spartan does hold 30k, and averages 17k it also only hosts a handful of games each year, not 81. And while the area south of the stadium is industrial, the areas north, west and east are very much residential areas. And there in lies part of the access problem. The roads into that area aren’t exactly designed to handle the traffic that gamedays bring. I’ve been in plenty of backups trying to leave that place after both Spartans and Earthquakes games.

  59. @Lakeshore/Neil: I brought up SJ’s Muni because of T rights issue. San Jose is currently suing MLB as we all know. One of the issues vital to the case is whether or not San Jose has standing. In order for SJ to pass the standing issue with flying colors, it would be nice if there was a specific agreement between Wolff and SJ, not just an “option” agreement. So let’s say Wolff made an official agreement with SJ to move into SJ’s Muni and MLB blocked the move. THEN San Jose would have a STRONG STRONG STRONG case against MLB that can pass standing with flying colors because the agreement is an official agreement and not an option. Damages from MLB’s actions would be real.

    So SJ Muni should be used as a means to get what Wolff wants, a new ballpark in SJ, even though Muni may not be a practical location.

  60. From a Giants perspective: If I am the Giants why do I want to let the A’s move in to AT&T? ( Even if I can keep SJ?) Remembering Giant history ( New York Baseball), they shared the Polo Grounds with the Yankees, and because of Babe Ruth’s popularity kicked them out. Everyone knows what happened next ( Giants included). If I can capture a segment of the Oakland market ( as well as SF & SJ), why not do it? Particularly when you have Comissioner Selig who makes Obama on Syria look like a decisive leader.

  61. @Steven- Yeah I see what your saying and I think it would be a smart idea, if Wolff did it, but Wolff does not stike me as the (Al Davis) sort of person that would do that. He has gone lock & step with the comish/MLB, I dont think that will change.

  62. @Dan,
    But a hypothetical game day at Muni would bring 14-20k fans through the Spartan/Keys area; very similar to a Spartans football game and not out of the ordinary. Knowing the area well, dont think whether you have 17k fans travel through the area 11 or 81 times per year will matter much to residents living north near 280 (just my opinion of course). Yes, I’ve also experienced backup leaving Spartan Stadium…and leaving the Coliseum and SAP Center as well. Traffic…welcome to the big city! 😉
    (Good discussion BTW)

  63. @David Brown,
    It’s not up to the Giants and wouldn’t be up to the Giants. This notion that they’re in control of this situation has to stop..

  64. @Lakeshore/Neil: I agree with your perspective on Wolff. He probably would never do it. But it’s important to note who really has the power to make it happen. If push comes to shove, Wolff could enter into an agreement, causing all sorts of headaches for MLB and he wouldn’t even have to sue MLB!!

    @Tony: I think the ideal strategy would be for Wolff to enter into an agreement, wait for MLB to block it and play on a different, more ideal field than SJ’s Muni. The A’s wouldn’t even have to play a single game at Muni for the strategy to work. All they have to do is enter into an agreement and then complain MLB is interfering with the agreement, while playing in a field that’s actually suitable like where they are now. The key would be having the agreement, not actually playing at Muni.

  65. @David Brown The Giants may want the A’s out of the 1. Bay Area,( keep in mind there really is no place for them to go), but keeping them in 3.Oakland (or A’s current area), is much better then 2. the A’s in San Jose. Since 1. really is not in play Portland and San Anton are not ready yet, and Jays will not let another team in to North America any time soon, now that they have it to locked up. Then they would be real happy with 3. @Tony D. looks like the Giants have had their way in this situation, up to this point.

    • @all – Remember that the SJ Giants also have their lease up this year. The have a sweetheart deal because the they’re run as a nonprofit, and pressure from the City last year forced Stand for San Jose to revise their lawsuit to remove the SJ Giants from the case. The mini-Giants still have a year left on their player development contract with the big club, so they have to play somewhere. That said, I don’t advocate the A’s playing any games at Muni. Might as well build a temporary ballpark closer to downtown.

  66. Tony, if you think adding 81 dates of approximately 17k worth of cars coming through their neighborhoods from 280 wouldn’t elicit a response I have to question how long you’ve lived in the Bay Area. The NIMBYism would be in full force and would derail any such attempt at an expansion of the dates that are filled like that. These people have a hard enough time dealing with the SJ Giants “crowds” along with the Spartan’s schedule. Add in 81 more dates on top of that and you’ll have a neighborhood revolt on your hands, I’d guarantee it.

    But it’s largely irrelevant. SJ Muni is barely capable as it stands of hosting Single A ball. It would never work as an MLB venue, even on a temporary basis with an extensive expansion. It doesn’t have the field space, expansion space for stands, or the available parking nearby to make it work. As it stands Spartan Stadium’s “parking” is largely composed of SJSU’s practice fields which are in use most non-game days. There’d be no parking for a 20k temp baseball stadium. Not to mention most of Raley Field’s deficiencies would be present at Muni only magnified by a factor of about 10.

  67. Could the future Earthquakes stadium be an option for a temp home? It should be complete by mid-2014.

  68. Steven, not a chance. It’s designed as a soccer stadium only. It has no conversion capability and doesn’t have nearly field room for a baseball diamond on top of all that.

  69. Nearly a year after the groundbreaking ceremony, the Earthquakes stadium site remains just piles and piles of excavated dirt.

  70. pjk, actual groundbreaking wasn’t until about 6 months ago. And they’ve been clearing out the remains of FMC, including some unexploded ordinance, which ended up being far more extensive than they anticipated. That said, site prep is nearly complete by many accounts.

  71. What about transforming Bellarmine’s baseball field on Emory and Stockton into a potential site?

  72. A shuttle could go from Diridon station to the field.

  73. I love this blog! Points well taken Dan. Regardless, seeing Empire Field gave me hope for our A’s if this is in fact there last year at the Coli. Thanks.

  74. Could the SAP Center (formerly HP Pavilion) be transformed into an indoor baseball center?

  75. If if looks apparent that the A’s would likely be without a home stadium, then MLB will most certainly be forced to do the obvious right thing and finally give approval of the A’s to move to San Jose. At that point the Giants would have no choice but to allow the A’s to temporarily move to AT&T Park as tenants until the new San Jose ballpark is completed. At least the Giants will benefit by the added income generated from rent, concessions, and parking with the A’s as temporary tenants.

  76. @llpecall The Giants letting the A’s play at AT&T, while they build a new ballpark in San Jose? good luck, with that. The Giants may do that if they get the ok, that the A’s will build a new ballpark, in the A’s approved building area (OaklandEast Bay). The A’s not playing at the Coli (if they dont), does not make San Jose any more likely, then San Jose vs. MLB (if it falls through), makes Oakland any more likely, just last week we were talking about the A’s not playing at the Coli.,regardless if they could or not, well as long as we are all reading the tea leaves, Go Oakland, San Jose, Fremont A’s.

  77. Lake, it’s altogether possible that the A’s losing their stadium could result in MLB fronting a nice chunk of change to appease the Giants for both the A’s to SJ as well leasing their stadium temporarily to the A’s. At the end of the day, it’s all about the money.

  78. @dmos dmos it’s alltogather possible that the A’s losing their staduim could resolt in MLB fronting the A’s a nice chunk of change, to appeas the A’s for both building in their current area (Oakland Eatst Bay) as well leasing their stadum tempararly to the A’s. at the end of the day it’s all about money. Point is when we read tea leaves, we tend to read them in a way, thats most favrable, to the outcome we would like to see.

  79. “At that point the Giants would have no choice but to allow the A’s to temporarily move to AT&T Park as tenants until the new San Jose ballpark is completed.”

    Actually the Giants would still have a choice. They’re under no obligation to allow another team to use their stadium, particularly since they own it. And I suspect under a desperate circumstance like that the Giants wouldn’t really jump at the opportunity. Remember their goal is for the A’s to leave the Bay Area, preferably permanently. There’s no way they’d help the A’s stay and there’s nothing MLB could do to stop them if they don’t want to share.

  80. @Dan/domas

    “Actually the Giants would still have a choice. They’re under no obligation to allow another team to use their stadium, particularly since they own it. And I suspect under a desperate circumstance like that the Giants wouldn’t really jump at the opportunity. Remember their goal is for the A’s to leave the Bay Area, preferably permanently.”
    Of Corse the Giants still have a choice, and are under no obligation to allow another team to use their stadium, and we all know their number 1. Priority (concerning the A’s), is to see them out of the San Francisco Bay Area altogether, no doubt about that. However The choice may very well be, hay the A’s don’t have anywhere to play, and there is no other suitable opened market in America, or Canada at this moment, for a variety of reasons. Well there goes priority number 1. for the Giants (concerning the A’s) so either let them play in your wonderfully nice ballpark or your territorial rights to the South Bay are up in smoke priority number 2. For the Giants (concerning the A’s) , you will be compensated well, as you will receive revenue for the 81 site dates a year, for up to five years, in return we will stipulate that part of an overall settlement with the A’s will be they must build in their currently designated territory of Oakland/East Bay, priority number 3. For the Giants. (Concerning the A’s)
    Simply put if the Giants have a choice, and number 1. Is either not realistic, or not ready at this time, it comes down to choice numbers 2. and or 3. I believe the Giants will go with 3.
    Hay no one knows what’s going to happen here, and obviously my preference is that something gets worked out in Oakland. I would be thrilled if it was San Jose, or Fremont if it can’t be Oakland, but none of us know, all we have are tea leaves, and that my friends is a shame.

  81. @Dan, Throughout MLB history, in those markets that had more than one team there were numerous instances when a team had to temporarily vacate their home ballpark. In all those instances, they had been given permission to temporarily play in the other team’s ballpark. You give too much power to the Giants to their own self interests, and in their unprecedented behavior. Ultimately, MLB will do what’s right and resolve the A’s ballpark issues, even if it does not happen to the Giants’ liking. If the A’s move temporarily to AT&T Park, the Giants will be compensated nicely. The Giants will have really nothing to cry about, other than the fact that they couldn’t get their own way, especially when it impacts the bigger MLB picture.

  82. @llpec
    And alas, they may partially get their way, if a deal is reached to keep the A’s in their current territory (Oakland east bay).

  83. I haven’t been following the details of this nightmare recently, but my WAG is that it will take at least a couple of years before anyone has a clearer picture of where this is headed. Questions regarding stadium capacity, corporate support and financing should all be answered by then. Because of this, I think the JPA and the A’s agree to a two year lease extension, with options for years 3,4 and 5 in favor of the JPA.

    This scenario buys time for the A’s, hopefully until the SJ situation is decided. It also protects the JPA if in case negotiations with the Raiders fall through.

  84. curious if the Raiders and JPA worked out a deal how long would it take before construction could begin? Not sure of all the ENV hurdles—if its a couple of years then I agree with fc–A’s wont be leaving in 2014–but if its only 1 year then I could see it being a bigger issue for A’s since they will have to demo th existing coli

  85. If the new Raider stadium can be shovel-ready in 48 months, the A’s might be interested in signing a 4-yr extension. I’m just pulling that number out of the air, but the JPA and Raider still need a feasibility study, EIR and time to secure funding, then prepare for demo/construction stuff.

  86. For the Raiders, the nice thing about replacing the Coliseum is that they wouldn’t need to do an EIR. The land is already entitled for a stadium with a certain capacity and height. A second stadium would trigger the need for a review of some kind.

    There’s no way the Raiders and A’s can continue to operate jointly at the Coliseum if the Raiders’ wish is granted.

  87. Ilpec, in those instances however it was the team who owned the temp venue or the city that allowed the second tenant to use the stadium, not the league. In this case the Giants hold all the cards. MLB can’t force them, nor coerce them with idle threats that would more likely end up with MLB on the losing end of a federal lawsuit. It’s up to the Giants if they want to share their privately owned home, just as you control whether you take on a new roommate or not.

  88. @ML- any idea when the Raiders would have to file for relocation- thought it was February for 2014 season. Only reason I ask is I am trying to pin down the timeframe in which Oakland/JPA has to put together a deal for the Raiders,

  89. The A’s have released their 2014 schedule, even though they technically don’t have place to play next year since their lease runs out in a few weeks.

  90. @Dan, I dont think MLB pulling the Giants TR rights, will ba an idle threat.

  91. “in those instances however it was the team who owned the temp venue or the city that allowed the second tenant to use the stadium, not the league.”
    True. In the vast majority of the cases the ballparks were team owned and the team that owned the operating ballpark allowed the other team to share their ballpark on a temporary basis. Whether it was motivated by the additional short-term income or by just plain goodwill is not the point. The historical facts show that teams that shared a common market coexisted on relatively good terms. The leagues did not have to coerce the teams to share their ballparks, if a short-term situation called for it.

    If MLB believes that the Giants are not acting in the best interests of MLB with their selfish antics, then MLB has the ultimate decision making powers to resolve the problem. No one individual franchise has the power over the full MLB entity.

  92. illpec: Hasn’t Selig already insinuated that, by saying Wally Haas acted in the best interest of baseball when the Giants needed a new stadium? He made no similar comment about how the Giants were behaving. Now, Haas’s generosity is being used to crush the A’s…

  93. @Lakeshore/Neil- There are zero options in the East Bay for the A’s. That includes Fremont, Oakland, Pleasanton, Dublin, San Leandro….Need I go on?

    With that said, your options 2 and 3 are irrelevant because of this fact. You are stating Lew Wolff is “lying” and that the East Bay has a viable site, you are wrong and so is Tony D with his Fremont fantasy.

    You maybe correct in the sense the A’s sharing ATT Park maybe part of the settlement to let the A’s into San Jose. But that is far as it goes, there is no option 3 under any circumstances.

    If Wolff could build in the East Bay he would, you need to understand that and same with Tony D. Fremont was the last hope and it died a horrible death in 2009.

    The Giants cannot pidgin hole MLB with their selfish interests if it came to that point. IIpec is 100% correct on his assessment on this.

    Wolff and Davis know this to be true so they are “colluding” to force Oakland’s hand so the A’s can move to San Jose and settle the lawsuit quickly while the Raiders can get control of the current Coliseum site 100% while in all likelihood get a public subsidy from Oakland in a sheer move of desperation.

    This is all politics and Wolff/Davis got together and figured out what works best for both of them.

    The A’s are done in Oakland and that is clear and the Warriors are going to SF and if that fails they will end up in San Jose. While the Raiders are the only one who wants to stay at the current location.

    Wolff/Davis are exerting as much pressure as possible on MLB and Oakland to force both their hands. The Giants are secondary and Wolff/Davis know this full well.

  94. @Dan
    “It’s up to the Giants if they want to share their privately owned home, just as you control whether you take on a new roommate or not.”

    To use your analogy correctly (somewhat apples, and oranges), but here we go. Say the Giants own a wonderful house in San Francisco, and the A’s own a fixer-upper in Oakland, well the A’s would like to improve their lot in life, so they find this beautiful property in San Jose. They decide they would like to move there, but the Giants (already having a wonderful home of their own), say hay wait a minute, we have building rights to that land, and you can’t build a house there. The A’s check with the building office (MLB), and sure enough the Giants own all building, leasing and development rights, to the land (fine print, reads, if Giants don’t build here, there is a small chance other party could). Now the Giants don’t ever intend on using that land to build a home, but they are afraid the A’s might build something on that land, so spectacular (perhaps even nicer, than their wonderful home in San Francisco) Well the Giants just might take on that new roommate, as you describe, because they would be far less envious if that roommate built a really nice house in the Oakland/east bay, where coincidently enough, their roommate (the A’s) owns all the land.
    BTW All land outside Bay Area can’t be built on, because its already spoken for, or is less desirable to build on then Oakland /east bay, and will not become more desirable for another 10-15 years, so the Giants being the ultimate fren-emy, say hay you can stay with me till you get that really nice house built in Oakland/east bay, don’t worry I will take care of you. The Giants would dump their friend in the street, since they really don’t care for them, but there is one thing that keeps coming to their mind, back at the building office (MLB) they recall a stipulation, that says, if they don’t sow kindness to their friend the beautiful property in San Jose can automatically be given to their friend, and so they do it.

  95. @Sid
    “There are zero options in the East Bay for the A’s. That includes Fremont, Oakland, Pleasanton, Dublin, San Leandro….Need I go on”
    Wow I should have just asked you in the first place, thanks.

  96. Ilpec, true MLB can solve the underlying problem through a 2/3rd vote of the owners. But as for forcing the Giants to share AT&T Park, they have no power to do so. They could offer incentives to make it worth the disruption to the Giants, but that’s about it.

  97. @Dan, When the original Yankee Stadium was being renovated during the 1970’s the Yankees played two seasons at Shea Stadium. Also, in addition to the regular tenant football Jets ,the football Giants also played at Shea for one season while the Meadowlands Stadium was being completed. As a result, for one season four NY area teams played at one venue. The Mets could have had with good reason challenged their lease arrangement, yet for the good of the NY sports scene they didn’t. Also, for four seasons before Anaheim Stadium was completed, the Dodgers allowed the Angels to play at their own Chavez Ravine(Dodger Stadium)as tenants. Otherwise, the Angels would have been forced to temporarily play at a rundown old minor league ballpark known as LA Wrigley Field. The Dodgers were of no obligation, yet they helped their LA rivals with their temporary stadium problem.

    Yes, the Giants are not under any obligation to have the A’s move in to AT&T Park as temporary tenants. However, it will not serve the Giants’ interests if they come across as not being a team player within the MLB Lodge.

  98. Ilpec, problem is you assume the other owners care about the money pit A’s. To date they’ve shown no such concern and neither has Selig. This isn’t the mid-60’s or late 70’s anymore. It has been over 35 years since 2 MLB teams have shared a venue. And a lot has changed with how the owners view their venues in that time.

  99. re: You are stating Lew Wolff is “lying” and that the East Bay has a viable site,

    …if the East Bay had a viable site, Bud’s Blue Ribbon Committee would have told us about it no later than Christmas 2009. Instead, it’s complete, dead silence. The committee found the same thing Wolff did – no viable sites. And then started looking at San Jose. Thus sending Bud running for cover from the Giants and too terrified to do anything “in the best interests of baseball.”

  100. @Sid/pjk/Tony D.
    Re: “You are stating Lew Wolff is “lying” and that the East Bay has a viable site”,
    Sid I am not stating that Lew Wolff was lying about anything, and I don’t come, to and regularly comment on this site, to be accused of saying someone is lying. Like I said, I should have simply asked you in the first place (sarcasm), I have said (reputedly), we are all simply reading the tea leaves. I try to respect and appreciate what everyone here has to say. ML, has done a wonderful job with this site, it’s the most informationaly based site a person will find (on a vary niche subject), regarding the never ending search, for a new home for the A’s, wherever that may be. If I want to interact with immature people that put down other people thoughts, and ideas there are plenty of other places to go.
    BTW: It was also not cool to be calling Tony D. ideas about Fremont Fantasy. I am out, no response needed.

  101. FWIW, in conversations probably years ago with a staunch Oakland-only advocate in the know, I was told the BRC couldn’t find any sites in the A’s current territory. In other news flashes today, water is wet, fire is hot, ice is cold…

  102. …probably 3 years ago

  103. Just an interesting tidbit: I sent an email to a higher-up at SAP Center to see if they could configure the stadium for baseball and they said no.

  104. Steven, didn’t need an email to confirm that fact. Simply looking at that place or any other arena should have been enough confirmation.

  105. @pjk
    Please man, let’s not let this turn into a referendum on Lew Wolff I appreciate the man, I admire the man, I will be grateful for the rest of my life, to the man if he builds a new ballpark for the A’s in (wait for it, wait for it….) San Jose, San Jose, San Jose, how clear do I have to make that, for you.. Ok now that that part is out of the way, do I think he is perfect? Do I think he has done everything correctly, representing the ownership of the A’s? No, and (believe it or not), I don’t think he has to. Most people don’t think their own parents do everything, without fault and I am sure Lew Wolff hasn’t, or as you would say (in a not so un-rude way), Lew Wolff has made a misstep, or two (no matter how little), in his time heading the Oakland A’s ownership group “in other news flashes today, water is wet, fire is hot, and ice is cold”… We can disagree, can you leave it at that?

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