Coliseum City’s Mystery Investors Revealed

Earlier in the year, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan talked up foreign investment in Coliseum City, which had the potential to fill in funding gaps for one or more venues planned for the project. The Trib’s Matthew Artz reports tonight, on the eve of a Tuesday City Council closed session, that those investors are a partnership between real estate powerhouse Colony Capital and Dubai financier Rashid Al Malik. The closed session would presumably lead to a public discussion item on October 8, which should include some basic terms for the price of the land, a development timeline, and other critical information.

Colony/Al Malik are no strangers to bidding on expensive properties. In the spring they jumped to the lead in bidding for arena/stadium giant AEG. Eventually they balked as AEG honcho Phil Anschutz refused to budge from his asking price, purportedly up to $10 billion. That led to the departure of Farmers Field champion Tim Leiweke, leaving the football stadium project in limbo.

Coliseum City, which could cost $2 billion just for a replacement arena and separate baseball and football stadia, is expected to have billions more in development costs associated with offices, retail, and additional infrastructure. It has the potential to be the biggest single redevelopment project in California history.

The main problem is that redevelopment is yesterday’s plan. Tax increment is off limits thanks to Governor Brown’s dismantling of redevelopment agencies all over the state. While TIF couldn’t finance a lion’s share of the project, it could’ve helped take care of the infrastructure work, which no developer wants to take on if he can help it. The closed session talks are centered around land sales, so Oakland (and Alameda County) could conceivably sell Coliseum land or other nearby properties to help raise the public share. It’s not much of a departure from Lew Wolff’s Pacific Commons plan, which involved a fairly simple purchase option of privately owned, not publicly owned, land. While the Bay Area’s real estate market is experiencing a rebound, chances are that Oakland would name a price favorable for Colony/Al Malik in order to get them to play ball.

If you’re Colony/Al Malik, you want to be able to get in with as little equity or borrowing as possible. At the same time, we’re hearing that the project could work with only one or two venues as opposed to three. That works in Colony/Al Malik’s favor, since there would presumably be less money going towards stadia that would otherwise go to their shareholders. Not having to build a new ballpark or arena would also free up 10-15 acres of “prime” development land near the Raiders stadium. Of course, that has to be balanced with the recognition that more venues equals more events and event days, which would make the project more attractive to prospective tenants. There’s the possibility that no teams remain, which would result in no new venues. There’s also a remaining disconnect regarding the different players’ respective visions. Raiders owner Mark Davis continues to focus on a smallish outdoor stadium with less than 60,000 seats. Planning consultant JRDV (and previously Mayor Quan) want something larger – and perhaps retractably domed – that could attract big events such as the Super Bowl.

There’s one other angle to play here. In 2010, Colony bought the construction firm Tutor-Saliba, the contractor responsible for rebuilding the Coliseum Arena, Mt. Davis (no, they weren’t the architects), and several transit projects including the planned California High Speed Rail and the BART-to-SFO extension. Colony could see some additional opportunities associated with having Tutor-Saliba control the construction process for much of the project. Not sure how that might conflict with an open bidding process often required when using public funds.

Besides the failed AEG bid, Colony and Al Malik have had their share of hits and misses. Colony invested heavily in Station Casinos just as the recession was starting, and Station eventually declared bankruptcy. Al Malik was head of Dubai Aerospace and launched an aggressive strategy to buy (and lease out) a bunch of jumbo jets in 2006. He quit the company in 2008 as DAE floundered. Colony once co-owned the French football club Paris St.-Germain, then flipped it to investors from Qatar two years ago.

There’s a great sense of irony in that much of the criticism of A’s managing partner Lew Wolff is that he’s a “greedy developer” who only wants to make money. Yet who is Oakland bringing in to give Coliseum City a whiff of viability? One of the richest developer/hedge fund groups in the world, Colony Capital. The master developer for Coliseum City appears to be Forest City, the company Brown favored for Uptown condos and apartments instead of a ballpark. When you need big money and expertise, there are only so many places to find it. What are the chances that this group isn’t “greedy”? Slim and none.

Update 12:25 PM – Got a copy of today’s agenda (thanks Matt Artz). The resolution calls for a 12-month extension of the ENA (Exclusive Negotiating Agreement) to figure out the terms of the deal. This comes on the heels of the the original ENA expiring October 21. In addition to the 12 months there would be another 6-month administrative extension option. No additional money would be needed to complete all of the project deliverables, a concern going back from the early summer.

What I have to wonder is what Mark Davis thinks of all of this. While it’s good to have the potential for additional investment to help defray the stadium cost, here’s another case of the JPA/Oakland/Alameda County pushing a deadline out. This time it could go into early 2015 before things are finalized. This doesn’t seem like the kind of urgency that Davis is looking for:

Whether there’s a sense of urgency or not? I know there is on our side. We have to find out how urgent on their side. The picture that’s been drawn is there. We know what needs to get done. It’s just whether it’s going to be able to be done.

It’s Davis, after all, who’s pushing for a long-term lease extension tied to a new stadium development deal. How does this news affect that? Another 2-3 year lease to stay in the game?

89 thoughts on “Coliseum City’s Mystery Investors Revealed

  1. well this is something the oakland only crowd can point to and use as a talking point finally instead of useless pep rallies or meetings that provided very little in terms of anything that related to a plan.

    still from the a’s pov they’re going to need an ownership group that is willing to put their own money on basically the entire bill of the park right? what is that 500-600 million at least? i seriously doubt wolff/fisher would want to risk all that money not knowing if it makes sense financially. so if all options fail in the south bay, i think there is going to be a need to get a pro oakland ownership group that is willing to spend that billion dollars that’s been talked about in not only building a baseball park in oakalnd but also buying the team from the wolff/fisher group if they’re willing to sell the team and according to all reports including the word from wolff himself, they’re not interested in selling the team.

    but this is good news regards to a new stadium for the raiders who at the time are the only team wanting to stay in oakland. though i doubt a retractable roof is even realistic let alone having something that is close to what a super would warrent which is a 70k capacity stadium. thought for a while now that the raiders probably would need a smaller than average capacity football stadium. throw all the luxury boxes you want but i think a 60k max stadium is probably the way to go and imo forgot about attracting a super here for the east bay when the nfl has levis stadium just an hour or so away.

    it’s a HUGE plan as was noted above and have serious doubts the local politicians could get something like this done.

  2. As a pro-Oakland fan I am certainly pleasantly surprised, buy this news. These are some real heavy hitters, but I won’t allow myself to get too excited, this news has the potential of becoming something, but so far it just potential, and it really only involves the Raiders, which is great, perhaps it could eventually involve the A’s as well, of cores that would take a series of things that would have to happen, if MLB does not allows the A’s to move to San Jose, if San Jose lawsuit vs. MLB does not work out, if A’s, and MLB would prefer the (new), coliseum city complex concepts, and of course if the A’s do stay in Oakland (big if), then I guess the preferred site would be HT (if it can be built on). Lots of ifs, it’s probably too many for the A’s, but it is good news…

  3. Yes! Potentially good news for my Raiders. Especially since they want to remain at the Coli site. Unfortunately for Oakland, Wolff/Fisher aren’t selling and aren’t interested at staying at the Coli site. If SJ doesn’t happen, Fremont a more likely candidate for an A’s ballpark than the Coli. Nonetheless, good news for The O!

  4. @Tony D.
    Yes-I agree with you Tony, if the A’s don’t get to San Jose, its back to Fremont, I know a lot of people here fell that’s a longshot, or not going to happen, but I continue to think it’s the most logical solution for the A’s, if they don’t get San Jose, because it accomplishes a few things 1. They build in their current territory, 2. They are close enough to Silicon Valley to get the financial benefit from being in SJ (could rename SJ A’s), and 3. Not pay the Giants one dime (my personal favorite…

  5. If San Jose doesn’t happen, there’s a good chance the A’s sit at the Coliseum until some other city comes up with a publicly funded ballpark. Vegas, San Antonio – some place will come through eventually. Fremont is dead. See my posts last week re: Fremont Citizens Network says ballpark brings “crime and chaos.” Think MLB wants to deal with that?…

  6. @pjk
    You know, you’re correct there are good reasons why it may not be Oakland, there are good reasons why it may not be Fremont, and there are unreasonable, outlandish reasons why it may not be San Jose. I hope your wrong, but I could see it going exactly as you describe. It would be a shame if the A’s left the Bay Area, when there is no better place in the country for them to play

  7. in fairness to the critics, it wasn’t just that Wolff was a greedy developer, it’s that he was a greedy developer that didn’t want to invest in Oakland.

    Even if Wolff & Co get shot down for SJ, I think wolff has no intention of restarting Fremont. When you think about all the millions he invested and how he was shot down by some little band of “concerned citizens” made me think he didn’t have his heart in that fight.

    Hypothetically if Wolff is hemmed in by MLB, does he build w/ the Coliseum City project or does he go big w/ Howard Terminal. You have to bet the A’s staff has gotten real good at cleaning up toxic waste; lifting the cap should be a breeze.

  8. @ML–for my own benefit–these are investors—there needs to be some cash flow to pay back these “investors”–any idea how risk is to be managed–i.e- in the event that cash flows don’t materialize who owns the risk–Oakland/JPA or the investment group?

  9. Fremont and San Jose are dead. Get used to catching Bart to downtown Oakland to see A’s Baseball within the next 5 years. Yoshi’s afterwards.

  10. @RU155
    Good points, and that was funny (A’s staff in hazmat uniforms), good stuff. I really never got the evil developer scenario out of (pro-only) Oakland folks, and yes some did not mind the development side of things, as long as it was in Oakland, but others?, downright ridicules, fact is no stadium, ballpark, arena anywhere is not going to get built these days, without a certain amount of ancillary development around it. People can’t have it both ways, you can’t say no public subsidy, and then be mad that a team spending their own money, wants to develop a site for more than the sports venue they are building.
    Anyway, I hope either of your thoughts happens (CC/Howard terminal)

    Yeah I bet money they get to skirt all regulations, and threw up a mega casino, close to the airport, that’s one way they will make their money, and then some, hay it’s all about the money, and that’s ok, attest most of the time.

  11. Much of what eventually will happen regarding the A’s will be determined by the status of the San Jose lawsuit against MLB. If San Jose gets standing, MLB will most certainly approve the A’s move to San Jose in a relatively short time. However, if San Jose does not get standing, then I see MLB using these Oakland site proposals to further maintain the status quo regarding a future home for the A’s. I do not see Wolff/Fisher being interested in any of these recently proposed Oakland ballpark sites, nor do I see them being interested in selling the A’s at this time. However, I can see Wolff/Fisher eventually getting sick and tired of their team staying in a perpetually bad situation, and eventually deciding on selling the A’s to out of town interests. This is exactly the scenario in what the Giants are hoping for, in due time.

    As for the Raiders, I do see these Coliseum site proposals as potentially good news toward getting a new stadium built, especially given the fact that the Raiders are the only one of the Oakland teams that has expressed their wishes to remain in Oakland.

  12. @Ivan
    Doubt your right, but I would love it.

  13. Wolff tried to invest in Oakland with his North-of-the-Coliseum project. He received no assistance from the city and ended up giving up on that project. Apparently, Wolff is expected by some to “invest in Oakland” even if it means losing piles of money. I’m still waiting to hear from these other parties eager to build a ballpark privately in Oakland, as per “If Wolff won’t build in Oakland, he should sell to someone who will.” (crickets keep chirping) Wolff was brought in by Selig to get a new ballpark done in the A’s current territory, not to come in and challenge the Giants’ “territorial rights.” We’ve all been waiting nearly 5 years now for MLB to refute Wolff’s assertion that there are no options left in the A’s current territory. support is weak.

  14. re: Fremont and San Jose are dead. Get used to catching Bart to downtown Oakland to see A’s Baseball within the next 5 years.

    …Sounds like a plan, except that Oakland is not prepared to do its part and provide funding for a ballpark. This is how ballparks are built in MLB (except for Frisco): Cities partner with the teams to pay for ballparks. Not just the city pointing to a slab of land and telling the teams to pay for the whole thing. Would Cleveland, Houston, etc, have MLB teams if the cities weren’t willing to help pay for the stadiums? No, they would not.

  15. @Ivan,
    Re A’s, you spelled “Oakland” wrong.
    Re the “might” of Fremont NIMBYS; IMHO they were just an excuse for Wolff to bail on Fremont and focus entirely on SJ (once given permission by MLB to do so). See “Kings” bill thread; SB743 would help blunt frivolous NIMBY lawsuits over traffic, aesthetics and noise. I don’t care which municipality it is, you don’t allow a small groub of rabid, shortsighted, ridiculous individuals to dictate development and progress.
    Back to the topic at hand, despite some already ridiculous commentary, this IS a good development for Oakland and the Raiders…but nothing more.

  16. Wolff spent millions on Fremont but wanted to bail so he could take on the Giants’ territorial rights in San Jose? If you say so. More likely, he bailed on Fremont because insurmountable obstacles were placed in the way (collapse of the real estate market, opposition from the Big Box Retailers, fervent opposition from the NIMBYs.). Was he supposed to go to the neighbors and tell them, “You’re getting this ballpark whether you like it or not” or could he see the writing on the wall that the neighbors were NEVER going to let him build there and would block it for years to come?

  17. Any chance Quan can tie investment from this group into Howard Terminal clean-up and infrastructure in exchange for development rights/free land at the Coliseum? Give the A’s a clean slate (and perhaps something near HT they can develop themselves) and Wolff might just be interested in building a stadium there if he can’t get SJ.

  18. Come on, Fremont is a terrible location, just like the Coliseum. A baseball park surrounded by warehouses and other light industry is so last century. It needs to be downtown. Not some fake Santana Row downtown, but an actual central business district. Diridon is ideal. With the right infrastructure improvements, Howard Terminal could be too.

  19. HT could be ideal if corporations would line up to buy luxury boxes, sponsorships, etc. But those corporations are 40 miles south and west in Silicon Valley and won’t be leasing inconveniently located suites in Oakland. The history of corporate sponsorship for the A’s and Raiders has been poor. And the Warriors? The fact that the team wants to move to Frisco speaks for itself as which spot the team thinks is better. The only way to get a new ballpark in Oakland is a big pile of taxpayer money, and that is not going to happen. There was a report on TV last night about Oakland’s robbery problems and poor police response times. Oakland simply cannot give any priority to paying for pro sports when it has so many critical priorities.

  20. @Turin- agree with that concept–question is whether or not CC can generate enough money in the investors proforma to support them spending an additional $200M investment to prepare HT for construction. As I recall its not only cleaning up the site but also building infrastructure (bridges over tracks etc) to support the development. Question also remains–LW isn’t willing to invest $500M in Oakland regardless of site as the corporate support is not there to privately build the ballpark–so city of O needs to come up with some additional funds there–

    At minimum MLB needs SJ as a stalking horse to try and drive something to conclusion in Oakland–and if they are successful it will still be a small market team on annual welfare unless TR’s are changed–not a bad deal for LW if O pays to prepare the site and provides 50-60% of ballpark construction–and can still get $40M of welfare a year–btw–that would be the same deal the Raiders are asking for in their new stadium absent the league providing any welfare payments–

  21. re: At minimum MLB needs SJ as a stalking horse to try and drive something to conclusion in Oakland

    …San Jose’s usefulness as a mechanism to prod Oakland into paying for a ballpark has been thwarted by the Giants. And even if the Giants were not in the way, the city can’t spend $$ it doesn’t have on a ballpark. Brown, Dellums, Quan – not one has advocated taxpayer $$ for ballpark construction. I believe if push comes to shove and MLB says Oakland needs to publicly fund the ballpark or lose the team, then the team will eventually be gone.

  22. Jerry Brown’s tax initiatives gobbled up all of the voters’ illusory largesse last November, so the county-wide initiate failed to get 2/3 (by what, 700 some votes?). Get everybody on the same page, lending support, and the county (or the City of Oakland) may become amenable to a tax measure that would help pay for this new south Oakland sports metropolis. Hell, if San Francisco can give CCSF a new parcel tax while the school’s going down like the Titanic, you’d think Oakland residents could help build a few stadia.

    Having Tutor-S in the mix does nothing to reassure me, btw.

  23. @pjk–one of mlb’s objectives is to establish the bay area as a 2 team “large” market–this is reflected in the current CBA. You are right that if mlb fails to figure out how to “share” the territory as all other 2 team markets do then the CBA will need to be modified in 2016 to reflect that the A’s will remain a small market team subject to welfare. If that’s the case then I agree with you that any owner of the A’s will want some level of public investment in the ballpark directly; not just the site and infrastructure improvements. And if O is unable to do this then your right…the gints just may get what they want adn who knows where the A’s go. This scenario may be beneficial to mlb as the gints would have to pay for the remaining East Bay TR and there would be a kings ransom paid by some investor to get the A’s to a new city–

  24. If Coliseum City is a big pie, it’s going to have a lot of different hands in it. The City has its investors of choice, who are apparently not affiliated with the Raiders. The Raiders want the Coliseum to themselves. All of these parties want to control as many of the revenue streams as they can – unless some outsider is willing to consider investment in a stadium a potential sunk cost and isn’t expecting any direct return from it. This conflict is what eventually held up any discussions with AEG, since they wanted either a big share of ongoing revenue streams or a sizable % of the team in exchange for forgoing some of those streams.

    Colony/Al Malik aren’t a charity. They need to see clear, projectable returns based on the scale of the project, and they’re not going to throw nine figures at something completely unrelated just to curry favor with an inept local government. When Colony owned PSG, they focused mostly on reducing debt and making the balance sheet look good for a future sale. The Qatar group they sold to spent like crazy on players.

    • Another thing to consider is that Arte Moreno is looking for a similar deal in Anaheim – revamped or new stadium & dev rights to the 160+ acre site. The City Council is willing to lease the whole thing to Moreno for only $1/year in exchange for not having to foot the bill for improvements. I figure that Colony/Al Malik knows this and wants their own sweetheart deal.

  25. Can they find 35K-40k butts in Oakland ? If they build but nobody comes, then what?

  26. Right now, the team generally gets about 18,000-20,000 a night (often less than that), with fans paying bottom dollar to see a first-place team. And the luxury suites go begging. A new privately funded ballpark has to charge top dollar, be sold out and have filled suites leased at premium prices. I don’t think any bank is going to make a $500-$700 million bet on this paradigm succeeding in Oakland.

  27. “I’m thrilled,” Quan said about the new investment team. “They are very successful and they have very deep pockets, so they can probably afford to do the project exactly how we would like it.”

    Pssst…. if they are the ones with the deep pockets, guess what? They’re gonna do it exactly how THEY want to do it.

  28. Nice preview. The fallout from the Oct. 8th public discussion should be fun. ALDS #4 is also that night, so let’s hope the A’s have the ALCS in the can by then.

  29. Update 12:25 PM – Got a copy of today’s agenda (thanks Matt Artz). The resolution calls for a 12-month extension of the ENA (Exclusive Negotiating Agreement) to figure out the terms of the deal. This comes on the heels of the the original ENA expiring October 21. In addition to the 12 months there would be another 6-month administrative extension option. No additional money would be needed to complete all of the project deliverables, a concern going back from the early summer.

    What I have to wonder is what Mark Davis thinks of all of this. While it’s good to have the potential for additional investment to help defray the stadium cost, here’s another case of the JPA/Oakland/Alameda County pushing a deadline out. This time it could go into early 2015 before things are finalized. This doesn’t seem like the kind of urgency that Davis is looking for:

    Whether there’s a sense of urgency or not? I know there is on our side. We have to find out how urgent on their side. The picture that’s been drawn is there. We know what needs to get done. It’s just whether it’s going to be able to be done.

    It’s Davis, after all, who’s pushing for a long-term lease extension tied to a new stadium development deal. How does this news affect that? Another 2-3 year lease to stay in the game?

  30. …Have to wonder if Mark Davis is on the phone with LA interests right now.

  31. Iam confused. Why would this group put any money in CC without being a majority owner of the Raiders? The Raiders aren’t for sale, so what’s the end game? Without being an owner, what is the revenue stream?

  32. @Tony

    “Back to the topic at hand, despite some already ridiculous commentary, this IS a good development for Oakland and the Raiders…but nothing more.

    If that’s your bet, I would love to play you in No-limit Texas Holdem one day. There is a lot more to this story that hasn’t come out yet. Don’t jump to conclusions. Be objective.

  33. @jordan- maybe Ivan can answer that for you–he seems to have some inside intelligence

  34. Wow, I thought this was good news, for the Raiders and Oakland “I wonder what Mark Davis is thinks?”, “Wonder if Mark Davis is on the phone with LA?” Mark Davis should be happy with a 12-18 month delay, he will get what he wants, without giving up control of his them, he will not get a better deal from LA and it will take him twice as much time to get a deal (in LA) that will give him less. I get that he will not be thrilled with any delay, but he is part of the reason for the delay, or are we so used to hearing bad (or no) news from Oakland, that even good news has to turn bad?, if Mark Davis does not want, what this deal could give him (even with a 12-18 month delay), to hell with him.

  35. Can Mark Davis wait around for a couple years when teams such as the Rams and Chargers also might choose to move to Los Angeles? Or should he act now and get there first? He’d have to gamble that Oakland can pull this off, sans any taxpayer dollars. What happens if the LA market closes and Oakland still cannot provide a new facility?

  36. @Ivan Its good news , a nice start for (oaklandraiders), please let it be that..

  37. One week it is Howard Terminal. The next it is Coliseum City. Confused? I am.

  38. @pjk You always make good points, but if Davis wants to run to LA based on a delay he helped to produce, so he can get there befor other teams can, when what he wants is on the table, like I said to hell with him. It seems that its always Oakland that has to make work, well the Raiders have a choice, and they have to make it work too

  39. How did Davis produce a delay other than by signing a lease extension three years ago instead of insisting on a new stadium then? The fact is, the Raiders in LA are worth much more money than the Raiders in Oakland. If Davis wants to maintain control, he stays in Oakland. If he decides he’s had enough and it’s time to cash out, LA is the place.

  40. @LSN–I don’t know if its good for Oakland or not–they need another 12-18 months to negotiate a deal–since there is no guarantee of a deal actually happening (ML pointed out that this same group was involved in the LA stadium negotiations and we know what happened there). Bttm line it doesn’t seem to fit with Mark Davis request to have a deal in place before he will consider signing a lease extension. Also, keep in mind when Mark Davis says he will give $300M for stadium construction he expects every penny of that to be paid back with, development rights, PSL’s, naming rights etc–the same revenue streams that others might depend upon for their investment.

  41. @GoA’s

    Damn good point. (sigh)

  42. @Ivan,
    Perhaps there is more to this development story. What I meant it that it doesnt involve a future ballpark for the A’s. This is all about the Raiders (which I’m happy about) and a real estate development for Oakland; nothing more as it relates to the A’s. Hey, didn’t we hear similar comments when that “huge” Chinese funded development at Oak/9th first surfaced?…

  43. @GoA’s Point taken, it has a chance to be good news. If its to late for Davis, or there are problems with over laping revanue streems so be it. @pjk Sorry, I should have said the Davis family (not Mark), his father had been back from LA for years, and never made the kind of commitment to Oakland, that he wanted from Oakland, he hashad always held LA over Oaklands head, If he would like to move his team, he has every right, I have been a Raider fan since I was 7, and stayed with them throught the LA years, but If they leave a reasnable deal (if there is one), on the table, then like I said, to hell with him. I am sure he will not miss me.

  44. @Tony

    Yeah, funny how these stadium deals fall through. They should put us in charge, we’d get it done Tony!

  45. What I most want to know is if this project is somehow tied into Howard Terminal. If the A’s aren’t even remotely interested in Oakland, but Colony/Malik are still interested in financing Coliseum City, then it tells you that they’re fine without the A’s, thus possibly creating pressure on Oakland to close the door on the Athletics, or at least decline the 5 year lease extension depending on when they plan to begin development… 36-48 months?

  46. Screw the A’s. Get that prick Wolff outta Oakland, and take your miserable ballclub with you somewhere else. Oakland’s team is the RAIDERS!!! This site should center on the RAIDERS. Hell A’s, go back to Kansas city and share a stadium with the chiefs. I hope so bad that this new project only includes the Raiders.

  47. @Briggs – It would be very difficult to tie the two projects together. Separate and very different environmental review requirements. Coliseum City is already so complex. That said, I wouldn’t assume that Colony/Al Malik want only the Raiders there.

  48. This fan knew that Quan had a surprise up her sleeve – with Oakland running those feasibility studies, one knew something was up. It also sure is a better idea than the lame HT idea – and would be less costly to build.

  49. even if the w’s move there is no way the city would demolish oracle or whatever the arena will be called in the future. wouldn’t the arena have to be part of the area and the potential huge project would have to work the arena into their plans?

  50. anyone here go to the rally on Tuesday? Few hundred people were there, Reddick popped by, which was nice. Tons of Oakland bigwigs too. Jean Quan said some words about a downtown ballpark, without much backing behind it.

  51. @bob234 Did she say anything new?, or pehaps somthing we may not have already herd?

  52. KTVU had a very deficient report about the rally and the investor group, implying this was about the A’s and then quoting Oakland as saying Howard Terminal could be ready “within months.” It closed with Quan saying the city wanted to either persuade Wolff to build at one of these two sites or sell to someone who will. No mention of who might be interested in such a venture and, of course, no offer from Oakland to pay for any part of the construction. So it’s business as usual – Oakland wants a free ballpark and no one has come forward ready to provide one.

  53. JQ must be a Tea Party Republican at heart; she assumes everyone is stupid! HT ready within months? Downtown Oakland ballpark? Oh boy! Look JQ, just cheer the A’s on to victory like the rest of us and stop trying to sell pies in the sky at every given opportunity..

  54. Quan, etc, are appealing to the low-information folks like the reporters at KTVU: Talk up the sentimentality of having the team in town by throwing another pep rally; leave out that Oakland won’t help pay for the ballpark, which is how ballparks are built in just about every other MLB city; don’t mention that there is insufficient corporate support to privately finance a ballpark in Oakland; don’t mention the huge problems with HT or the inadequacy of the Coliseum parking lot; make Wolff look like the bad rich guy; never name these mysterious folks who are supposedly chomping at the bit to spend $1 billion+ to buy the A’s and build on their own dime in Oakland. That about says it.

  55. @Tony D. Tea Party, that was a good one..

  56. Don’t know what the reaction has been like in Oakland to the revelation of who the investors are or that Coliseum City might be more than hot air for the Raiders at least, but in San Diego the press has already reacted fairly alarmed at the prospect that the Raiders could be staying in Oakland. Most of it seems to stem from a latent assumption down here that the Raiders would eventually be making their way back to LA. But if they don’t not only do SoCal Raider fans not get the team back (and there are still a lot of them), but it also ramps up pressure on the Chargers as it relates to LA and a new SD stadium.

  57. It’s funny how everything is a pie in the sky there are reasons why information and potential developers aka investors to build and or buy the team haven’t been reveled,they don’t want to be until things are set in stone, and it just gives Lew Wolff ammo to sabotage again like in the past when information was released. Quan and the city have worked with and stayed in continuous contact with MLB in regards to the stadium situation. The public doesn’t need to know everything until its time. Everyone wants to discredit Quan but she has secured 1.5 billion for Brooklyn Basin which took so long to get money for Jerry Brown was still in office. Chill out she and the city of Oakland have been very inadequate in a lot of things but at least shes fighting to keep the teams in Oakland unlike Don Perata who took money for his campaign from Lew Wolff and the A’s to not fight there move to San Jose if he won mayor of Oakland. Were lucky he didn’t get in, and Quan is using her resources to actually bring investors and big time money into Oakland, who’s the last mayor to do that? It’s been a while.

  58. @Dan – Davis is talking to people in LA and Oakland. He doesn’t have to do anything until the season ends, and I expect that he won’t until he sees more concrete plans from all “bidders”.

  59. In the event that San Jose does not get standing for the lawsuit against MLB, I believe that MLB would not want to tackle the ongoing new ballpark issue of the A’s until a new commissioner is appointed. That Said, MLB is perfectly happy to have Mayor Quan do all the grandstanding she wants on a phantom new A’s buyer and new ballpark plan.

    At the same time, any of the proposed Coliseum site plans for a new Raiders stadium will most likely take at least two or three years before a shovel hits the ground. In effect, this will allow both the A’s and Raiders to remain at the Coliseum for at least two or three more years before they will be forced to vacate the premises. By then, MLB will have a new commissioner and hopefully the A’s will be approved to move to San Jose, or to some other new location. As part of possible territorial settlement compensation, the A’s would become tenants of the Giants for two or three seasons while a new A’s ballpark is being constructed. Also, the Raiders would be playing temporarily at Santa Clara as tenants of the 49ers, until their new Coliseum site stadium is completed, as well. This is the fastest and best case scenario for both the A’s and Raiders to permanently remain in the Bay Area, if there is no help to expedite the plan from the courts.

  60. Just for fun, I’d like to know what the townhouses at Coliseum City would be like and their general price range. Neighborhood are defined by who lives in them, so I’d like to know what kind of neighborhood these developers and Oakland/AC would like to see.

  61. @Briggs pretty sure/ hopefully there priced at a upscale amount since it will be privately financed, and with that development and others it will push the crime out of Oakland due to the criminals sticking out too much and it being un-affordable. This is where I feel Jerry Brown messed up with his 10k plan for housing as he received federal money for those condos in uptown area, and made them low income, and you can see that though good condos there are some pretty ghetto people living there and hanging out sometimes.

  62. @Karim I here what your saying, if Quan (whom I have had problems with), does anything correct it will be met with sarcasem, its funny her and Wolff are alike in that no matter what eather do, they will get all of the blame and not any of the credit.

  63. Ah. I should’ve clarified. I was more so wondering if the housing would cater to young families or affluent singles. With the money it’d take to get this project off the ground, I’m just assuming they’d be higher-end designer condos.

  64. @Karim,
    It’s your world, reside in it as you see fit…

  65. Pingback: Playoff Fever | Life In Right

  66. fyi, the federal courts apparently aren’t reeling from the TParty’s shutdown. Judge Whyte’s 9 am Friday calendar shows only two matters up for hearing–so San Jose should get plenty of time to argue. Some district judges tip their hand during argument, some don’t. (In state court you usually get a formal “tentative ruling” in writing before the hearing; not in federal court.) Most district judges issue decisions on Rule 12 motions fairly soon after the hearings–but not necessarily.

    Hey, A’s fans. I’ll see you at the game on Friday night! Can’t wait. I’m sure Duff will be there, giving Tigers fans “the business.” Everybody else going?

  67. @xoot,
    Hey! I actually agree with you; damn Teahadist government shut down!!

  68. T/Tea Party Shutdown?? I am not aware of such an event.

  69. @Xoot: I’m defintely pumped for Friday. I’d hope every local A’s fan able to attend does. I don’t know about everyone else, by the rag-tag quality of A’s teams has always been my favorite aspect of the team over the years. The 2012 & 2013 teams are a distillation of that are are without a doubt my favorite iteration of the team since I became a fan.

    Oct. 4th 2013 will be a historic moment for A’s fans. It’s when they’ll tear the tarps down. Hopefully they’ll win some Giants fans too when they dismember the Dodgers in the World Series.

  70. re: It’s funny how everything is a pie in the sky there are reasons why information and potential developers aka investors to build and or buy the team haven’t been reveled,they don’t want to be until things are set in stone, a

    …How convenient. I would think someone willing to plunk down $1 billion+ for the A’s and a new stadium would be eager to go public. Even the guys on 95.7 asked, why has no one come forward publicly who wants to buy the A’s and build them a stadium in Oakland? As I’ve said before, we all knew it when Steve Young wanted to buy the 49ers and Larry Ellison wanted to buy the Warriors, when neither team was technically for sale. Why the big secrecy over these potential A’s buyers?

  71. For one it would undermine the effort to get the team since they are not for sale, and why would Lew want to sale to a group of people that would be trying to strong arm him to force the sale of his team and keep them in a city that he does not care for,he already has made statements to discredit everything in regards to a stadium and or people buying the A’s so why revile the names to give him more ammo to discredit the group. Also when Don Knauss did say on 95.7 that they were respecting the process of MLB why piss them off by jumping into a situation that is already a highly heated situation with the A’s, San Jose, Oakland, and MLB. If and when the A’s would be put up for sale he specifly said that his group is ready to purchase them. Also behind the scenes it was well known that the Warriors were for sale, it became public when they had the bidders etc in place to make it offical

  72. @Karim:

    you are making no sense whatsoever. If LW wants to sell, he will sell. Nobody can force him to unless BullShit tells LW it is time to go and I highly doubt that BullShit will do that to LW and Fisher.

    If Knauss wants to buy a team, he can announce his group today. The fact was LW told him to F off.

    Say if Ms Quan put together a doable package for a new park, BullShit will go to LW and Fisher, tell them hey maybe it is best to build in Oakland instead of going to SJ. We will see when it gets to that point

    So far, there are lots of BS throwing around w/o concrete plans. As I have been joining the discussion here, show me 1B+ then will talk and it will cost at least 1B to buy the team and build a new park in Oakland. The true cost will be way over 1B.

  73. Wolff apparently is well-liked around MLB. He spent several years trying to get a ballpark built first in Oakland and then in Fremont. Those efforts were unsuccessful. MLB appointed a committee which, in nearly 5 years, has not refuted Wolff’s contention that all efforts have been exhausted in the current territory. Is Wolff supposed to sell to some other party to start the whole process over again and, in 5 years, come to the same conclusion as Wolff and MLB? Whoever buys the A’s with the intention of keeping them in Oakland should be required to put up a $700 million escrow account to ensure they mean business – and that a ballpark gets built. Not several more years of “We tried and couldn’t get it done. Sorry.” The $700 million would be on top of the $500 million or so purchase price for the franchise. Or is Wolff supposed to sell at a discount – and thus devalue franchises leaguewide – just to please the Oakland-only folks?

  74. Knauss & Co don’t have to come out and say they want to buy the A’s. They can simply say that they have formed a group investigating the possibility of purchasing a major league sports team.

  75. And we have Knauss promoting the problem-plagued Howard Terminal site and suggesting PSLs as a payment mechanism for the ballpark. PSLs were an absolute disaster the last time they were tried in Oakland. It all adds up to not much.

  76. Artz was interviewed today by Lund & Papa. He said that the Mayor & project folks continue to want a larger (70k), retractable roof facility & convention center, which would attract more event days than a plain football stadium. That remains a difference in vision from the Raiders & NFL, who want a smaller, open air stadium. Artz called the Raiders for comment and hadn’t gotten anything back.

    Artz also mentioned that the Mayor also was concerned about making sure that the ENA extension went into next year. Otherwise Oakland & and the JPA would’ve spent $3.25 million with nothing to show for it. At least she can point to this as the next mayoral election approaches.

  77. Does Oakland think it can compete with Frisco in the convention business? In 20+ years of attending tech conventions, I’ve attended an entire one convention in Oakland, which is a shame because it was a fun downtown area for attending a convention. San Jose can’t even compete with Frisco for conventions… Also, it must be fun to listen to Oakland pols try to convince Selig that his lifelong friend, Wolff, has to go and to not listen to him. In one ear, out the other, I suppose…

  78. @ML: your last point highlights my fear: that the negotiations and planning with ENA has gone sideways and the extension is more about face-saving and politics than substance.
    This will end up being a very long time to give a party exclusive rights to a project, still with potentially nothing to show for it at the end.

  79. I dont get Oakland, if DavisNFL want a smaller staduim then thats what needs to be done. The NFL should tell Oakinvest-group “Look we are not giving you a SB, if your not cool with 58- 60 perhaps even 65 seating, then we go to LA” but 70 (with a roof), no way if Davis really wants to stay at the Coli, Oakland needs to get it right, its the one team thay have the best chance at keeping

  80. Colony Capital also had to walk away from a $280 million investment in the Las Vegas Hilton (now LVH).

    (Sorry, posted this in wrong topic first.)


    nice tweet pic by the w’s of kids holding w’s sign with the skyline of frisco on it instead of i don’t know the city of oakland.

    has there been any pro oak “stuff” this new w’s ownership has brought out the past few years? even the secondary logo they released back in 2010 when they changed the whole logo and color scheme had two letters s and f inside a blue/gold basketball,, though they didn’t use it much but still.

    amazing how the w’s have been just as vocal in wanting to move out of oakland and get no media backlash unlike the a’s and a’s ownership as it’s been brought up many times here by other posters. can you imagine if the a’s brass released a sj green and gold a’s cap in the last year or two and the negative media attention it would receieve.

  82. re: mazing how the w’s have been just as vocal in wanting to move out of oakland and get no media backlash unlike the a’s

    That’s because the East Bay and Frisco media likes to keep San Jose “in its place.” They like it that MLB still treats San Jose as nothing more than a backwoods suburb of Frisco, not the 10th-largest city in the country and the economic engine of Silicon Valley. Oakland losing a basketball team to Frisco? No big deal. Oakland losing a baseball team to San Jose. They’re going to fight it every step of the way. As far as the 49ers, the team trains in Santa Clara, lives in the San Jose area and flies into SJ Airport. But even the 49ers plan to pretend that the team is still in Frisco, once they move to Santa Clara next year. ESPN, etc, will get around the “inconvenient truth” that the team has moved 45 miles away.

  83. “nice tweet pic by the w’s of kids holding w’s sign with the skyline of frisco on it instead of i don’t know the city of oakland.”

    Tribune Tower is on the right

  84. @pjk: Do you know what BANG is? Do you know who their flagship masthead is?

  85. Bay Area News Group – featuring (until recently) Monte Poole, who doesn’t want the A’s in San Jose under any circumstances; Tim Kawakami, who writes more like a Giants PR rep than a San Jose sports writer, and, previously, Dave Newhouse, who right up until his last days on staff still referred to San Jose as “Prune City.”

    Dave Newhouse, in 2009. (He’s got his finger on the pulse of modern-day San Jose, doesn’t he?): “Early reaction to the A’s shifting to the Prune City has been tepid at best. Plus there’s that territorial rights business the Giants are wielding like a sledgehammer.”

  86. Of course, the Mercury News only became part of BANG recently. It used to be owned by Knight Ridder. The only Bay Area columnist who has consistently advocated for the A’s coming to San Jose has been Mark Purdy. The rest of them won’t consider it. I asked one of these columnists if he’d rather see the A’s leave the Bay Area or come to San Jose. He refused to answer. San Jose is the Bay Area’s forgotten stepchild (to Oakland and Frisco) that has breezed past those places in terms of population, corporate dollars, etc. The Frisco and East Bay columnists don’t like that. (See Dave Newhouse’s quote in my previous posting for all the proof you need)

  87. Coliseum city could become the hottest sports and entertainment complex in the country and the fans of the Oakland sports teams deserve nothing less. I believe in mayor Quan and would like to personally thank her for doing everything in her power to save the professional sports teams in Oakland.She has been working tirelessly to build relationships with powerful wealthy people and change the perception of the city I love from violent and dangerous to blue collar and fun. She has been instrumental in the groundbreaking of the Oak to ninth or Brooklyn basin housing project at the estuary and the redevelopment of the Oakland Army base into a state of the art bulk terminal and logistics cluster.Providing the citizens of Oakland with new affordable water front housings and well paying job opportunities is just the beginning. Coliseum city would be the icing on the cake, but it will never take place if the ownership groups don’t jump aboard. The Raiders ownership has publicly expressed their interest, but the Athletics and Warriors Ownership seem to have their eye set else were. Based on what I have researched, the Warriors are gone, but there is still hope for the Athletics. MLB has an obsession will building ballparks on the water near downtown. Coliseum city is not close to downtown Oakland, but will potentially have all the enmities of a downtown with bars, restaurants, business, etc and the infrastructure is already in place. The coliseum site has Bart, Amtrak, and AC Transit bus lines. The 880 freeway is right next to the location and Airbart will soon be running from the Oakland Air port. This is why I personally prefer the coliseum site more than the Howard terminal site near jack london square at the port of Oakland. The coliseum site is just so convenient and simple when it comes to transit. No venue in the country is more convenient to get to than the Oakland coliseum. If the city picks up the pace a bit on the coliseum site proposal and Howard terminal potentially with the funding in place and corporate supports that some argue is not strong in Oakland and present all of this to MLB, how can they say no to Oakland. This city has one of richest sports history’s of any small market area. Oakland is the home of world series, super bowl, and NBA finals champions. The mere fact that this city could potentially loose all 3 of its professional sports franchises is absolutely absurd. If the Athletics ownership group showed that they cared about the people of the East Bay even a little bit, instead of constantly ripping us and publicly flirting with other city’s, the coliseum would be pact every game. All this talk about relocation is stressing me out. I constantly am searching the internet everyday looking for information that will give me some hope that my favorite teams that I follow and support will remain in Oakland. I play the lottery all of the time, because If I every win big I know exactly what I would do. I would use that fortune to keep my favorite teams in Oakland.Oracle arena rocks like no place in the country, but for financial reasons the Warriors Ownership group have set there sites on SF like that city needs any more reason for people to go there. Oracle arena is not falling apart like the coliseum. I have a hard time believing that the Warriors will recreate the same type of atmosphere in SF if the plan to reduce the seating capacity and triple the ticket prices. This is the new area that sports are moving towards. Instead of the guy who works 9am to 5pm looking forward to spending his day off watching his favorite team with his son and a beer, you’re going to get a lawyer or corporate executive seating in some luxury box with some other guys in suis answering there phones every minute not caring that their ticket for that luxury box cost $400 bucks for the night, because that’s just a drop in the bucket to them. Oakland loosing any of its sports teams would signify that attending a sporting event is no longer going to be a commodity, but a luxury and that will be the day that I will no longer call myself a fan, because my kind will not be wanted.

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.