Negotiating Extension and Investor Group Approved for Coliseum City

Two weeks after a potential investor group headed by Colony Capital and Rashid Al Malik’s HayaH Holdings was revealed, that same group was formally approved as part of the master developer team. With that approval comes a 12-month extension on the ENA (exclusive negotiating agreement) to figure out all most of the details, plus a 6-month administrative extension if needed.

That’s the news. Now let’s try to understand what has to happen next.

The City of Oakland has about $250,000 remaining in money it assigned towards Coliseum City studies. Bay Investment Group (BayIG), the Colony/HayaH partnership, will put in $500,000 towards a market study to determine the viability of Coliseum City. This is important since BayIG is expected to push that study to its own individual investors, who as a group will decide if/how to move forward. The forthcoming study is not to be confused with AECOM’s feasibility study, which was made available during the summer.

Over the next 12 months, the public and private sides have to make good on a set of deliverables. Some within the City, especially CM Larry Reid, wanted a shorter 6-month + 6 month extension instead of the 12 + 6 deal that was approved. Reid’s concerns, aired last week in a committee meetings, were that 12 + 6 was too long a period and didn’t show the necessary urgency to the NFL and the Raiders. Raiders owner Mark Davis has indicated that he wants a lease/stadium deal in place shortly after the NFL season ends.

Nevertheless, Coliseum City will move forward on its own timeline because BayIG asked for 12 + 6 in order to get everything in order. A short list of deliverables looks like this:

  • November – Estimate on cost of remaining pre-development work
  • February – Assessment of new infrastructure costs
  • April – Letter(s) of intent from team(s) who choose to sign on with plan
  • May – BayIG market analysis
  • Summer/Fall – EIR and Specific Plan

These items, along with additional smaller ones, should lead up to preliminary project approval in whatever form it takes, plus a DDA (disposition and development agreement), the contract fine print on how Coliseum City is built, including costs, financing, and timelines. Zennie Abraham caught up with Oakland Asst. City Administrator Fred Blackwell at the meeting to summarize what’s next.

Simply put, BayIG just bought the City of Oakland and Alameda County some time. However, it’s easy to see how the list of deliverables doesn’t exactly line up with the timeframe that Davis is trying to dictate. Moving forward, the issue is whether the dev team can show significant enough progress to get Davis to sign on and sign a separate lease at the Coliseum that would keep the Raiders in Oakland throughout the transition. Then again, that part’s a little confusing too. When Raiders uber-fan Dr. Death asked JRDV’s Ed McFarlan when the earliest groundbreaking could be he received this rather optimistic response.

That seems unlikely given the scope of the project and all the little details that need to figured out. Is that groundbreaking for a new stadium alongside the existing Coliseum? Certainly it couldn’t be demolishing the current Coliseum and building on the same site, since the demo itself would take months and would displace both the Raiders and A’s. While BayIG indicated that it will reach out to the A’s and Warriors to gauge their interest in Coliseum City, it’s extremely unlikely that either team will commit. Despite recent setbacks, both teams are focused on their San Jose and San Francisco plans, respectively. Plus they’d have to commit without all deliverables in place, especially that market analysis. If you think that Lew Wolff would sign a short-term lease without knowing the development’s impact on the A’s, you’re crazy.

For the next 12 months, BayIG has control over most of the process. They could press the deal if they see encouraging signs, or they could kill it if the market analysis looks bad. They’re in great shape considering that they’ve only committed $500,000 towards the project – chump change for billionaires. Just as important, they don’t have to adhere to a specific vision of Coliseum City, though they’re positioning themselves to have at least the football stadium in place. Consider last night’s report on the agenda item:

The Coliseum City Master Plan is providing the basis upon which the City is currently under a separate contract with a specialized planning consultant firm to complete a Specific Plan and CEQA/EIR analysis. The Specific Plan will also identify alternatives to the Master Plan and will consider different development scenarios that will envision zero up to three sports facilifies at the site. Pursuant to CEQA, the separate planning contract will prepare an EIR to address the potential physical environmental effects of the Coliseum City project.

There’s nothing new there, but BayIG is positioned to take advantage of it. There could be a single football stadium, a football stadium and a ballpark, even an arena. At this early stage, it looks like it’ll just be the Raiders stadium, though even that is far from a given. BayIG could find that the best thing to do is to minimize its investment in the stadium, or seek out revenue streams from the stadium or team that could help pay back their investment. The infrastructure cost, which will be borne by City/County, could also prove prohibitively high on top of the remaining debt to be carried at the Coliseum. BayIG could even go with zero venues at the Coliseum. Such a plan would probably not get approval from City since it would represent a white flag. Yet it remains a distinct possibility – if not now, within a few years.

The upside, regardless of your optimism or skepticism of Coliseum City, is that things are coming to a head. Coliseum was introduced more than 21 months ago, and has shown only the most tentative progress until a few weeks ago. Now’s the time to put up, to see what results Coliseum City can yield. No more stalling, and for that we can all be glad.


Note: The only local mainstream media coverage of yesterday’s news came from CSNBA’s Scott Bair. Seems like everyone else was preoccupied with transit strikes and some other multibillion dollar development in the South Bay which is a lot more than vapor.

99 thoughts on “Negotiating Extension and Investor Group Approved for Coliseum City

  1. Insanely stupid plan.

  2. I’d like to know where Dr. Death got his degree.

  3. Don’t know why but hearing they want long term commitment from the teams make me wonder just what is really going on with the A’s negotiations for next year. We know Wolff won’t sign a long term deal and the city seems serious about making that an issue. What happens if they remain stuck at an impass?

  4. In a nutshell, fuck San Jose! Smug bastards! Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Extremely biased and ignorant.

    • @!!!!!!! – San Jose was only mentioned in passing, but okay. Pin your hopes to this plan at your peril.

      @Briggs – Dr Death is a student at Sacramento City College.

  5. @ Dan: Oakland probably wants to breakground in 36-48 months. A’s will back down from the 60 month lease, and settle on a 36 month with an option an additional 12 months. Along the way, Coliseum City will miss cut offs and start dates will be pushed out. The 2017 option will be exercised. 2017 lease negotiations will go down a lot like the 2013 negotiations. Rinse and repeat.

  6. @Dan:

    Let’s hope they are stuck w/o a deal because I want to know what BS/MLB will do about it.

  7. In a nutshell, more of the same.

  8. Well, it sounds like the A’s will never find their way to San Jose. Should us San Jose fanboys give up now? I have a hard time believing MLB will support Wolff in moving to San Jose if Coliseum City works out in the next few years…

  9. I’m standing up and clapping to this article right now! Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray!

  10. Just ignore (and don’t feed) the ignorant trolls. Again, as a Raiders fan this is depressing. They’re the only team that realistically will remain in Oakland/build at Coliseum City AND EVEN THOSE CHANCES APPEAR SLIM.

  11. @Steven- MLB already has ruled out the Coliseum as it is not in urban downtown setting.

    If MLB was OK with the Coliseum the BRC would have pushed Wolff to build there but that has not happened because MLB knows full it is not feasible nor would be a profit generating situation.

  12. How does all this fit in with the Matier and Ross report that says the whole deal with the Raiders is still $300 million short? I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Raiders put Oakland’s feet to the fire by signing a two-year lease to play at the 49ers new stadium. With the team no longer playing in Oakland, we’d see if Oakland is willing to do whatever it takes to bring them back (again). If not, LA would likely have its act together by then and would welcome the Raiders (again).

  13. Well… more studies. Awesome.

  14. Dude… who needs scoreboards when we got like hella studies?

  15. If someone’s like, “Man, the Texans’ new scoreboard is like hella pimp,” we can be all, “Shiiit. We got like 4 feasibility studies on stadiums that’ll never get built instead. Wut. U jelly?”

  16. Please lets not over do it on every little nugget of news. I dont think the A’s will ever play at C.C., MLB has said they dont like the site, even if MLB pushes Wolff (and gives him a huge amount to stay in Oakland), they would push H.T. (if it can even be built on), not to mention that if the A’s are pushed to build in their area, they can go right back to Fremont (I know, many fill Fremont is out), infact if the A’s ever play at C.C., it will be because Lew made the choice to play there, rather then MLB (Wolff did look at the area) baseball has not considered it at all. This news may be good, or bad in the long run for the raiders (at C.C.), but thats it, thats all.

  17. I view this news as another major step closer to MLB’s approval of the A’s move to San Jose. This also shortens the A’s lease renewal at the Coliseum to two or three years with possible one year at a time lease extensions.

    As for the Raiders’ lease renewal with the Coliseum, they are in the Driver’s seat since this coliseum City project is intended for them, and they have viable options available at other locations.

  18. How does this affect the A’s sending out season ticket renewal packets? I assumed the playoffs were what postponed that, but not knowing if you are actually going to be in your stadium next year is kind of a difficulty.

  19. I think this is encouraging news for the Oakland city. For those who think the A’s would be moving to San Jose….you guys better think again. MLB would NEVER let them go to SJ. SJ isn’t MLB material and they would rather throw money at the city of SJ and call it good. We know that if the A’s ever did go to SJ… will die!!!

  20. Many thought ice hockey would die in SJ too.

  21. Not sure why this $300 million in the hole plan to maybe build a football stadium has all the Oakland only trolls in a dither. The A’s and MLB still have no interest in building a ballpark in an industrial wasteland like South Oakland. Oakland still had no plan for a ballpark nor any way to pay for one (never mind an arena). Really nothing has changed as it relates to the A’s long term future in Oakland.

  22. A lot of emotion today…………….

  23. It would be good to know what Mark Davis’ views on CC are. It doesn’t sound consistent with what he’s said he wants (smallish stadium on existing Coliseum site), but who knows, maybe he likes it. More likely, there just aren’t enough details at this time for him to be able to support it or not.

  24. I think that short-term the SJ A’s are becoming a real possibility. The OTHER “SJ” that is… San Juan, Puerto Rico is where they will end up before they have a permanent home IMHO.

  25. @J Marx,
    Thank you for the intelligent, well thought out, grounded in reality opinion on this entire situation. I for one have been enlightened! Hallelujah and hip hip hooray!!

  26. @DP,
    YES! Exactly! The San Juan P.R. A’s they will be. Brilliant! How come none of us thought of that? (I guess because we’re all to stupid to come to such brilliant conclusions)

  27. Gee, Gammons thinks Wolff should sell. I’m “shocked .” (Why not support San Jose’s freedom from the Giants you moron?!). BTW, it’s still totally amazes how this “positive” Oakland development brings out all the Oakland-only Wolff haters out of the woodwork. Need to turn the lights on of reality so that they can all go scattering back into their dark corners…

    • @all – Could you guys not confuse the East Bay Express reporter, Robert Gammon, with the baseball writer, Peter Gammons? Not that hard.

  28. So what happens to this study if none of the teams are willing to play ball at Coliseum City? Wow another year of Bud Selig and BS from Oakland!

  29. @Tony D. Dont trip off fools, you have the facts, like I said I would rather disagree, with anyone who reads this blog, then agree with someone who does not, because ML’s blog is the place to go if you would like reasonable information.

  30. I’m from Oakland but I’m also realistic. This city has had developers come in time and time again promising to make Oakland “THE NEXT BIG THING in the Bay Area”. These promises bring excitement to the City Council, which then spreads to involved citizens, only to all be told a year or so later that that “next big thing” won’t happen. I even remember an article from the late 2000s where these big developers (was it Signature Properties?) proclaimed they would make Jack London Square “the next Pike Place Market” and direct competition to Pier 39. Several years later, Jack London Square is still Jack London Square – plus a few new, shining, EMPTY buildings.

    I love Oakland as much as the next guy, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking this is the be all end all for Oakland. As a matter of fact, it may just end it all for pro sports in the East Bay.

  31. If Wolff sells, it’ll likely be another Seattle SuperSonics situation:
    * Team is sold to buyer who pledges to keep team local
    * Feeble attempt is made to get new facility built.
    * Effort fails
    * Team is relocated to Oklahoma City

  32. re: Gammons column. I’ll repeat what I said last week. MLB, Selig, etc have been hearing the Wolff-should-sell and there’s-plenty-of-sites-in-Oakland sermons from East Bay and Frisco writers for years but have been unmoved by any of it. MLB has neither directed Wolff to build in Oakland or sell to someone who will. Because MLB has looked at, and concurred with, Wolff’s findings that options have been exhausted in the A’s current territory. We all know Selig would love it if an Oakland solution suddenly appeared. But it never has and is unlikely to do so, absent a huge pile of public funds from Oakland that is not coming

  33. I mean, Coliseum City is KIND OF on the water. It’s not on the bay, but it’s on the Estuary. sort of.

  34. Hear, hear! Ignorance is bliss. Lew’s family is planning on owning the A’s for the foreseeable future. The set-in-stone succession of Keith Wolff and Lew’s grandson Drew (in college on East Coast) have big plans for the long haul resurrection of this storied franchise – the cornerstone of which is a downtown ballpark and franchise museum in San Jose, CA. Not Oakland!

  35. I love “Solutions” like Wolff must sell. Even if he is “Dr. Evil” as he is made out to be, or he will sell, where are you going to find someone who has a HALF A BILLION DOLLARS or so to buy him out, and this does not include the cost of building a New Stadium (or even upgrading The Coliseum). Until that happens lets quit with that.

  36. When Rayburn talks people listen…

  37. Instead of these “Wolff should sell to local investors who want to build in Oakland,” Frisco and East Bay columnists should be specific and tell us exactly who is interested in undertaking such a venture ($1 billion+ for the team and stadium), tell us which site works and tell us how the Oakland ballpark will be paid for and what kind of return on investment the new owners should expect. Obviously, these columnists know something about the A’s chances in Oakland that the current owners, the previous owners and MLB itself don’t. So let’s hear it. And no more Don Knauss and his mysterious, forever-unnamed investment groups and his unwillingness to have Clorox match the Cisco naming rights deal. And please, none of Knauss’s PSL nonsense, since PSLs already have been been tried and failed in Oakland. No bank is going to underwrite a private venture, with no public funding guarantees, that relies on PSLs in Oakland. When PSLs failed for the Raiders, the city had to come in and make up the difference. This wouldn’t be the case with the A’s, where the owners have to take 100% of the risks and Oakland none of it.

  38. @ Tony D You are QUITE welcome ha ha!!

  39. Let me ask all the pro SJ people some questions. What makes San Jose so great??? How do you know that San Jose is the “right” choice for the A’s??? Where is your proof that San Jose is “right”?

    It wasn’t long ago that the A’s were having more than 2 million fans walk into the Coliseum and watch A’s baseball.

    Yes, I will agree that the Coliseum doesn’t work now. The Coliseum is 47 years old and its out of date. Yes, the A’s and the Raiders do deserve a home in the bay area. So do the Warriors.

    Convince me that San Jose is the choice for the A’s. Show me proof that Baseball works in San Jose. then, I’ll shut up. No jokes please….ha ha!

  40. (sigh-facepalm) Alright ….

    Trivia Thursday:

    Name the last time in MLB history a U.S. city sued MLB and was awarded a major league baseball team for it. (Setting aside the FACT that it is in another teams territory)

    (cue the Jeopardy music)

    P.S. Keep in mind, the U.S. has an estimated 20,000 municipalities.

    P.S.S. If anybody can guess the answer, I won’t post anything on this blog for a week.

  41. @J Marx
    I am pro-Oakland, I am Pro- San Joes, I am Pro-Fremont, at this point it does not matter, ML has been over every conceivable piece of financial data that’s out there, San Jose it a great place for the A’s do we really have to go over all the reasons . Please all this leads to be an Oakland vs. San Jose debate. Let me say this, as one of the most pro-Oakland folks, that regularly comment here San Jose is the best solution, for the A’s, that does not mean Oakland can’t work, and lord knows it would take a lot for that to happen, but I just get so tired, when we are reduced the SJ vs. Oakland argument it’s so old.
    Hopefully this will eventually mean good news for the raiders, at Coliseum City. For anyone to suggest that’s its good news for the A’s, or even potential of good news for the A’s (in Oakland), is either not thinking clearly, or vary misinformed, at this point it may not even be good news for the raiders (given Mark Davis stated desire on a lease extension), at Coliseum City. The only truly good news, is that Oakland is actually doing something (with the potential of significance), and that may me too little too late.
    Jeffrey made the point (I think it was the last post), that we tend to overreact, when any little amount of news is released, I could not agree with him more, and as I said earlier, up to this point San Jose has been restricted from making any news, thanks to the Giants/MLB, and Oakland/ Alameda county can’t seem to get there head out of their A– long enough to make any.

  42. @ J Marx :

    it does not really matter because LW and Fisher will take the hit
    if fans don’t show up for games. It is on the A’s ownership group. If they lose money after moving to SJ, it is on them but they should be able to move their team to wherever they want. They should be able to sell to some out of town. There is nothing Oakland can do about it.

    Frisco team was sold and was close to moving to Toronto and Tampa.

    It is the same situation when George Gund brought hockey to SJ in 1990.
    Ice hockey in SJ ? Many were sure it would fail then but did not.

  43. @J Marx:

    – San Jose is further along in the process of offering the A’s a downtown ballpark.
    – 75 companies pledged their support of the A’s if they’re allowed to play in SJ via a published letter to Bud Selig from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
    – The A’s would be further away from AT&T Park and in the heart of a large population hungry for more pro sports.
    – Oakland hasn’t offered up a workable plan for a new ballpark, so you gotta go with the best option on the table.

    Those are the biggies, I thinkest.

  44. re: How do you know that San Jose is the “right” choice for the A’s???

    When it comes to major pro sports in San Jose, we can look at the Sharks, who have never won anything and still sell out night after night year after year. In Oakland, the A’s have a long history of winning and a long history of poor attendance. And a 2 million-fans-attendance figure for the A’s still would rank them well within the bottom half of attendance, which has been their legacy in Oakland anyway, despite a 18 or so playoff seasons.

  45. J Marx, I think you’re forgetting the fact that, despite what people want to believe about ML and the commenters here, most people have stated they would be perfectly fine with a ballpark in Oakland. Being a South San Jose resident, I haven’t been to a Sharks game in years, yet I have full season tix for the Warriors. If Oakland could get a ballpark done for the A’s, I would be at the top of the line to get in, no problem. And if Oakland and Alameda County residents vote to use tax dollars to help pay for it, be my guest.
    Cities don’t matter to me, the Bay Area matters to me. I know that doesn’t jive with what the pro-Oak folk want to believe, because that gets in the way of their jaded narrative.
    San Jose at this point is the top choice purely because so much is already done (Site, EIR completed, financing, naming rights sponsor). Quan lied about the Victory Court EIR, and no site in Oakland is even close at this point.
    By the way, 2 million fans would put the A’s in 22nd place amongst 30 teams in 2013. 23rd place? Your 2013 Oakland Athletics. Two million is a pretty low bar for attendance numbers. For all the great teams in Oakland’s illustrious history, the A’s never cracked 3 million in Oakland. Eight teams did that this year. And keep in mind, that 2.9 million that’s trotted out was when the Coli was an excellent baseball stadium, Candlestick was no competition, Raiders were in LA and playoffs were played without football lines. It was also in its early 20’s, young for a stadium.

  46. Also, there is not “right” or “wrong” choice for the A’s. This isn’t a ethical issue. The minute you can move away from seeing it that way, the better off you’ll be at understanding the process we’re watching unfold.

  47. @J Marx, It’s all about location, location, location, as being a necessary major factor on whether a particular ballpark would be able to provide the revenue streams necessary to make the team playing there to be financially very successful. The Giants played in front of near empty crowds at Candlestick Park for some forty years. With your logic, San Francisco was the wrong choice for the Giants when they moved there from New York. I gathered that when the Giants decided on moving to the China Basin area of San Francisco, you believed that the Giants were also making a big mistake, too. Well, the Giants rightfully took the risk, and hopefully the A’s will be given the opportunity of taking on the risk or building a new downtown San Jose ballpark for their team. Both the China Basin area and the Diridon Station area of San Jose offer a lot of factors that make them ideal locations for a MLB ballpark. I would think that a possible move of the A’s to San Jose would be worth the risk, and in fact would be very foolish not to take, if given the opportunity.

  48. @Briggs
    “Also, there is not “right” or “wrong” choice for the A’s.”
    Thank you, Oakland does not have to be bad for San Jose to be good (or right), and San Jose does not have to be bad for Oakland to be good. (or right) this is getting to be like two women haten on each other, while San Francisco walks off with the man that both the other women (Oakland, San Jose), wanted. It’s stupid.
    “J Marx, I think you’re forgetting the fact that, despite what people want to believe about ML and the commenters here, most people have stated they would be perfectly fine with a ballpark in Oakland”.
    Thank you, can we please get the thing built, all d*** measuring is ridicules. Let’s Go San Jose, Oakland, Fremont Athletics.

  49. J. Marx-
    I know it wasn’t technically the City of St. Pete or Tampa that sued MLB, but private investors. If that is semantics you want to go with, go ahead.
    How bout this… How many times have the A’s been in the playoffs (forget about how many times they have been in the hunt for a playoff spot only to miss out in the last few weeks) since 1968 and how many times have they been in the top half of MLB attendance? That’s way more relevant than 2M tickets sold.

  50. I say it before and I’ll say it again. San Jose is NOT MLB material. You maybe the 10th largest city in the U.S. but it doesn’t prove the data facts that SJ can support Major League Baseball.

    Sure, you guys can support the Sharks and NHL. It’s proven fact you guys can sell out the Shark Tank. However, it doesn’t prove anything for Major League Baseball. Two different sports, fellas.

    I can tell you this. IF this great injustice does happen, I’ll NEVER step foot inside San Jose, nor the “suppose” new ballpark. I’ll BOYCOTT MLB.

    Oakland doesn’t deserve this great injustice. Sorry but that’s how I feel. You may have the data, and the facts to bring forward that SJ can support NHL hockey. However, it doesn’t bring the fact that it can back up Major League Baseball on 81 home games for the San Jose A’s.

    My apologies to the City of San Jose.

  51. J Marx: You should get a job at Mel Cotton’s sporting goods. They have quite a bait section there.

  52. @pjk Maybe I will. ha ha.

    Tell me why you think San Jose is such a good place to play?

  53. @J Marx
    Hay Man I am one of the biggest Oakland supporters you will find, but why hate on San Jose, the evidence is clear SJ can support the A’s, that does not mean they can’t make it in Oakland, both things can be true, what’s the problem? Fact is neither SJ, or Oakland will be supporting the team by themselves, no matter if SJ is the tenth largest city in America (both cities’ need the rest of the Bay Area), even San Francisco can’t support the Giants by themselves.

  54. i will say this. If the data backs up and Oakland DROPS it, then I’ll say go for SJ A’s.

  55. @Lakeshore/Neil San Francisco dropped the 49ers. Now, they want the Warriors?!?!?!

    Good luck with that.

    I remember back in the 1970’s SFO tried to get an arena for the California Golden Seals NHL team. It didn’t happen.

  56. J. Marx- what data are you looking for? And what does a 1970’s arena effort have to do with now? When was the last time Oakland built a new Arena? It’s odd that you require facts to support opposing views but buy whatever anyone will say in favor of Oakland. The “data” on that is called “confirmation bias.” Also, I am an Alameda County resident, not everyone who thinks San Jose is an acceptable outcome lives in San Jose. I’d prefer the A’s played anywhere in the Bay Area, Oakland included.
    Data that backs San Jose? More personal wealth to spend on tickets (most people who pay for the big tickets aren’t even die hard fans, go figure). More companies willing to buy suites and place signs within the stadium. An actual identified naming rights sponsor, and an agreed upon price (though this is different now. They agreed on a price in 2006 and it’s like 7 years later, or something) to help pay for the stadium to be built. A City government that has actually advanced beyond studies in the process of building a stadium. A unified approach between the San Jose business community and the city Government (in Oakland you have a business group pushing Howard Terminal, a City pushing the Coliseum and a booster group pushing anything).
    I am guessing from your approach you already know this stuff and don’t care, or don’t know it but don’t really care. But, anyway… Go A’s.

  57. @ Jeffrey

    FL State AG Mr Butterworth sued MLB. The AG alleged that there were conspiracies among baseball owners to stop the Frisco team sale to a group of investors from Tampa.

    Read it here

    Click to access op-82287.pdf

    FL Sup Ct let the AG proceed to discovery. Of course MLB was scared shitless amd whola Tampa Rays were born. MLB could have appealed to US Sup CT but as we all know, they will never let it go that far.

  58. @J Marx
    Its true Oakland has been done some injustice’s by MLB, (tabling a vote for pro Oakland ownership group in the 90’s act.) but even if that was not the case the Oakland/Alameda politicians, (Brown chief among them
    ), have done enough over the years to blow any chance Oakland, had if those injustice’s where not true. Look nobody’s hand are clean here not Oakland, not San Francisco, not San Jose, not MLB, not Wolff, and defiantly not the Giants.
    Hay I don’t think any pro Oakland people will be crying over injustice’s done to the A’s, if one of those injustice’s (SF Giants T.R. rights), leads to Wolff, or someone’s accepting a settlement that would require the A’s build in Oakland, in that case the real injustice, would be to San Jose, now would it?
    It’s not about San Jose, it’s not about Oakland, it’s not about Fremont, and it’s about the A’s finding a new long term home in the Bay Area, as much as I would love that to be in Oakland, the fact is there is a good chance it will not be, and when you hate on San Jose, you may be hating on the A’s last best chance to stay in the Bay Area, it’s the BAY AREA, not Portland, I don’t get it, but it’s your prerogative , and I respect that, all I am saying is you don’t have to trash SJ in the process.
    The big difference in Seattle, and Tapa, was the fact that no other MLB team was calming the area) SF Giants T.R. over S.J.)
    BTW looks like it really there is a chance at being good news for the Raiders, and C.C. (Tim Kawakami article)

  59. Rayburn: Oakland is still holding out for another Wally Haas, who was willing to lose Big $$ running the team. Good luck with that.

  60. @ Rayburn’s Sons

    I probably should had worded the Jeopardy question better to exclude Expansion teams like the Mariners and the Devil Rays.

    My fault, man of my word, won’t see me for a week . . won’t quit my day job

  61. Reminiscing to the very first Baseball San Jose meeting I recall specifically a very powerful individual commenting that it took over 10 years from “idea to first pitch” for Petco Park to get done. I remember saying to myself that “it wouldn’t take long.” Now I see the finish line and I couldn’t have been more wrong. Patience is a virtue and Wolff has showed a tremendous amount of it and looks like he will finally be rewarded for it shortly. Unfortunately he probably won’t be around all that long to enjoy the new ballpark, but he will be forever remembered in the hearts and minds of the Bay Area Sports enthusiasts whom he will have touched by his patience and perseverance.

  62. @Rayburn’s Son
    “He will be forever remembered in the hearts and minds of the Bay Area Sports enthusiasts whom he will have touched by his patience and perseverance.”
    I agree with you on that. I will be the first to say I really appreciate Lew and all his efforts, it is with mixed fillings however, since I would love to see it be completed in Oakland. None the less, if Lew Wolff can pull this off anywhere in the Bay Area, I will be grateful to him for the rest of my days.

  63. “he will be forever remembered in the hearts and minds of the Bay Area Sports enthusiasts whom he will have touched by his patience and perseverance.”

    And he will be forever hated in Oakland for stealing our team.

  64. @Tim

    “stealing” is the wrong verb and “our” is the wrong adjective….

  65. No that’s correct. The A’s were Oakland’s team a long time before he ever came along.

  66. Of course before that KC and Philly. Doesn’t make it not suck to lose a team and doesn’t mean Oaklanders should forgive Lew

  67. @ Tim – if the A’s are Oakland’s team, why not subsidize them? Why not put a vote to the Oakland residents to finance a new ballpark directly? Why ignore them the past few decades in favor of the Raiders and W’s?

  68. re: And he will be forever hated in Oakland for stealing our team.

    Oakland has had two decades to get its act together and get the A’s a new ballpark. It has elected not to do so, instead spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the Warriors and Raiders and $0.00 on the A’s. When the city manager made a valiant attempt to get the A’s downtown ballpark, he was “rewarded” with his dismissal. Now, after all this, Oakland plays the victim card while still waiting for a magic billionaire to open his wallet and save the day.

  69. Of course, Oakland wants to play the “Let the owner build his own damn stadium” game, which only works if the team is profitable in its existing market. The A’s are not profitable in Oakland – they are subsidized by league-wide welfare. There’s no incentive for the owner to build in Oakland on his own dime if he’s not going to make his money back.

  70. It is possible to at once not support using public handouts for rich owners as well as hate the rich owner who moves your team. It would be odd to feel any differently.

  71. @ Rayburn’s Son: That data doesn’t prove anything that San Jose is “worthy” of Major League Baseball. Besides, Bud Selig will try to do anything to not let the A’s go to San Jose, even though “Uncle” Bud wants to Contract the A’s.

    It’s like this folks. Some of you, no matter what I say, is going to be convinced that San Jose deserves the A’s. I will admit that, yes, data proves that economic impact has boomed the City of San Jose ten fold. Data shows that the average median income in SJ is about $77,000 per household. Thank you Rayburn’s Son for providing that data. However, it doesn’t show that anything Major League Baseball can be supported in SJ. The city is showing financial hurdles during the 2013-2014 fiscal year. Police, Fire, and other public programs need more attention than just a baseball team.

    I think San Jose does deserve to become a Major League sport powerhouse someday. I will admit that people can support the Sharks. NHL is STRONG is SJ. It has been strong since 1991.

    How iconic if Major League Baseball were to grant baseball to San Jose, but grant the Tampa Bay Rays to play in San Jose….move the Rays to San Jose…..Dionne Warwick would love that. Let it be known that the Bay Area can support the Giants, A’s and Rays.

    “Lets root, root, root for the San Jose Rays. If they don’t win its a shame. For its one, two, three strikes, you’re out at the old ball game.”

  72. @ J Marx

    I remember the day when visiting teams used to lodge at the Hegenberger Hyatt across (then Highway 17), now 880. Now traveling secretaries won’t book rooms in Oakland, as all teams stay in San Francisco. I’d say that was fairly insulting.

    I indicated that Socio Economic Status (SES) from the per capita income data is only ONE reason that San Jose is more preferable to MLB. Here are some more reasons at the link below. Notwithstanding the murder advantage Oakland enjoys look at average temperature and add that to the SES data and the corporations surrounding Cisco Park area of dominant influence.

    Moreover, if MLB were to place 2 teams in the Bay Area today 1 would be in North Bay (SF) and 1 would be in South Bay (SJ) – that’s just common sense based on economics, logistics, viable tangible data.

  73. @ Jeffrey: The last time I checked on Oakland building a “new” Arena was in 1997, for which the old Oakland Coliseum Arena was getting a facelift. The data shown in the 1970’s proves that they tried to lure the Golden Seals from Oakland, but there was financial backing and it was killed in 1976, which was at the time the Golden Seals played in Oakland. The Seals moves to Cleveland to become the Barons in 1977 by The Gund family.

    I know you guys are trying to do everything to keep the A’s in the bay area, for which I applaud the efforts, and it may work. I maybe outdated that Oakland may have a miracle or two to pull a rabbit out of a hat to get funding for a Sports Stadium project.

    However, I still believe Oakland may save the day….for which some of you think its a joke that Oakland has become recently. They may deserve some harsh criticism, but does that deserve losing ALL 3 pro teams??? Doesn’t it hurt if the A’s, Raiders and Warriors leave town??? Doesn’t it affect the economic structure of the bay area as a whole???

    Yet again…what do I know, I don’t know anything….you guys have ALL the answers. San Jose is king and Oakland is Queen….ha ha!!

    GO San Jose Rays!!!

  74. J Marx, with all due respect, it seems that you are making a point against your own argument. As much as we probably all hate that baseball is a rather corporate business (most of us can certainly wax poetic about what the A’s and Coliseum meant to us as kids), that is the reality of the situation. Whether I like it or not, corporations matter, selling suites matters. In your own argument, you are stating that economics certainly favor San Jose.
    When you bring up things like fire, police, that sorta thing, doesn’t Oakland have the same issues?
    Other than anecdotal evidence, I’m just curious how you are quantifying how baseball cannot work in San Jose? If you are looking for evidence, then please provide some to your point as well. A study of San Jose residents? A Mercury News poll?

  75. Ivan, please fee free to comment. It’s not the goal of anyone here to silence anyone who has a reasonable view of things.
    J. Marx… odd that you had to put “new” in quotes. Odd that you think something that happened in 1970 is more relevant than the current, and decades long, economic trend.
    Tim, hate is such an ugly thing. And blaming Lew Wolff for something that has been going on since 1996, and was set in motion by the City of Oakland’s short sightedness is a little unfair. Not that it matters to you.

  76. @Jeffrey
    You are all over it; again you have taken the words right out of my mouth or in this case right off my keyboard. I agree with you 100%. It would be nice if people did not take such a narrow view of this, but it’s a niche subject (new ballpark for athletics), and the few that comment (regularly), and view ML’s blog have an intense interest in the A’s, Oakland, San Jose, or simply baseball, and as we know that’s a small percentage of the Bay Area and general population. I guess we are just crazy

  77. @J Marx,
    I’m with Daveybaby on asking…WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THAT MLB WON’T WORK IN SAN JOSE? Or that somehow San Jose is not MLB material? Those lines of crap aren’t based on anything factual, just your complete (obvious) bias towards San Jose. Yeah, it’s your right to be bias towards San Jose, but please stop confusing your opinion with “fact.” BTW, it appears Dickey has taken the Nonsense Crown away from Gammons..

  78. @ Tony D. re: WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THAT MLB WON’T WORK IN SAN JOSE? Hey, if you got the facts and data, then back it up. For now, it just doesn’t work in San Jose due to that your officials owe a ton of money for your Fire, Police, Hospitals, Schools, and other public services that people are going to require in order to live.

    You want baseball buy the Tampa Bay Rays…and called them the San Jose Rays. Works with everybody in the bay area…well maybe NOT for the Giants.

  79. Just so we clear…I wanna apologize for being biased for the City of Oakland.

  80. I think J Marx is just baiting us, but having a privately funded ballpark in San Jose means more tax revenues that can be spent on more public services. Oakland also has issues of its own with needs for more public services. But privately funding a ballpark in corporate-poor Oakland is not a viable solution. Lots of city money would have to be spent on a ballpark there, thus subtracting from funds needed for public services.

  81. J. Marx- Data has been presented. You choose to ignore it. That’s your business but stop acting like it hasn’t.
    You give “Pro Oakland” folks a bad name when you ignore math.

  82. @J Marx
    I am cool with you being biased toward Oakland, but why do you have to be biased against San Jose? San Jose and Oakland are fine places and it can work in both places for a variety of reasons. I said this yesterday, ML has put out a ton of information since 2005, and San Jose can support an MLB team, and again like I said yesterday neither San Jose or Oakland will be supporting the A’s bythemselvs, it will take the hole Bay Area to support both MLB teams, the Bay Area is a two team market, but not three, San Jose or Oakland will not be getting a team, anytime in the next hundred years depending on which city the A’s build a new stadium, hell for that matter neither San Jose or Oakland will be getting a team if Fremont get the A’s, again even the Giants need the greater BAY AREA to support them (not just SF), no need to hate on San Jose, can San Jose and Oakland be ok? One dose not has to be bad for the other to be good.

  83. Sorry, meant to say “by themselves”.

  84. Guys, c’mon now. We ve been throug this before. Every now and then we get a troll baiting us. Calling SJ this SJ that. You throw facts out and they ignore them. At the end of it all, the troll throws out F bombs and gets personal and eventually gets banned. If some if you can’t see that J Marx is just another troll, I don’t know what else to say. You guys are eating the cheese. Just a matter if time before history repeats itself. Just ignore an carry on, cuz it’s not too long before the F bombs drop.

  85. @Larry E Yeah your right.

  86. “For now, it just doesn’t work in San Jose due to that your officials owe a ton of money for your Fire, Police, Hospitals, Schools, and other public services that people are going to require in order to live.”

    Looks at crime statistics of Oakland vs. San Jose…./facepalm

  87. Thank you Lakeshore/Neil. For the rest of you Pro-SJ people, I’ll say this. You may present facts that San Jose is the city of the A’s, and maybe so. However, I still believe Oakland will prevent the A’s from going to San Jose.

    For those who think that I am a troll like Larry E thinks I am…so be it. I’ll pretend to be Daniel Bryan…ha ha!! Will the A’s be in San Jose…NO..NO…NO. Will the A’s stay in Oakland…..Yes….Yes….Yes. Sorry!!!

    I do wanna apologize to Marine Layer and to the San Jose A’s fans for being a TROLL. I have no intention to make people mad at me just because I think Oakland is a better city to host pro sports. In my personal opinion, I still think Oakland is the choice for the A’s. If San Jose can give me facts that can back up what you guys say…then I may change my mind and go with you guys on the San Jose A’s.

    San Jose is such a beautiful city. San Jose is a great city, like Oakland and San Francisco. San Jose is NHL strong. It maybe that San Jose can and could support Major League Baseball, and maybe the NFL. Why not get an NBA team and call them the San Jose Clippers….hey Daniel Sterling….San Jose wants you. All kidding aside, the City of San Jose is a great town, and has great people and fans.

    I may not have all the facts, but I know that I will do whatever it takes to keep the A’s in OAKLAND!!!

    “May the Force be with You.” O B 1

  88. re: I may not have all the facts, but I know that I will do whatever it takes to keep the A’s in OAKLAND!!!

    …How about running for Oakland City Council, then? This legislative body hasn’t had anyone on it in a while who gets it as far as the value of an MLB franchise to a city. The city has been unwilling to do anything for the A’s except hold “Oakland loves its sports teams” pep rallies.

  89. @pjk I was wondering when you would respond to that statment(-:

  90. @pjk I just might do that. Run in 2014 once I get back from the Pacific Northwest.

  91. @J Marx I wish I could vote for you, but I dont live (had to move because of my job), in Oakland that way I would know we had someone in City Hall, that would work on the A’s situation. BTW I hope Doug Boxer runs, Its been reported that friend are asking him to run. I have mixed fillings about Boxer, because on one hand if anyone can work somthing out for the A’s as mayor (thats not Robert Bobb), it may be him, but as it seems the case in Oakland Pols history, on the other hand, he works vs Oakland in the case of the Warriors (helping with SF peir 3032)

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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.