What could this mean?

The Merc’s John Woolfolk (recently assigned the the City beat), tweeted this about the San Jose-MLB case less than an hour ago.

I’m not going to go so far as to say that there’s a deal in the works, but there has to be a reason for both sides to agree to postpone mediation. Certainly San Jose’s stance has been to get depositions and open the books to make MLB squirm a little. MLB’s desire is to get rid of the lawsuit altogether. Something’s up. The owners’ meetings are happening this week.

Woolfolk responded to this post with another tweet:

If true, well, thanks for trying to get the two sides to hash it out Judge Whyte.

—–

UPDATE 11/13 1:55 PM – The Coliseum Authority cancelled a previously scheduled Friday meeting. It’s probably related to the ongoing lease negotiations.

In the meantime, San Jose lead attorney Joe Cotchett said this at a San Jose Rotary Club function (courtesy of Merc columnist Sal Pizarro):

More bluster? Or something else?

81 thoughts on “What could this mean?

  1. Interesting, maybe Frisco is ready to play fair now that the A’s have embarrassed them by making the playoffs two years in a row.

  2. God I hope this means they’re finally ready to make a deal… Enough if enough. With the Braves getting a free ballpark Selig no longer needs to worry about the A’s setting a bad precedent. The Braves have more than re-energized the notion that cities contribute to ballparks anywhere but California.

  3. Indefinitely? For a few months? A couple? Or just past the holidays? Questions, questions.

  4. OK, I’m going to have to resort to a straw man question: is this good or bad RM re A’s to SJ? Perhaps I’m just drained from an earlier workout, but I don’t get it (others can feel free to answer ? as well).

  5. And that small hopeful bubble I had formed just popped. Yet more waiting…

    Meanwhile in Atlanta they’ve decided to simply demolish Turner Field rather than re-purpose it or anything like that.

  6. Stadium barge plans are being finalized, I hope

  7. Do we know the scope of Discovery? Are depositions of Selig and the BRC even going to happen? Has judge Whyte ruled on that yet? San Jose has no reason to settle since the settlement would be financial. At least that’s my understanding. That’s obviously not the end game here.

  8. I think Woolfolk is wrong in his guess about “both sides see greater potential in taking remaining case to trial” as the reason for putting off mediation.

    I believe that fed district courts require mediation. So even if neither side thinks it will be worthwhile (which is often the case), they still need to get together once with a mediator.

    Hard to say what it means. Could mean MLB has told SJ something is coming. We’ll see.

  9. Wow. Make San Jose’s lawsuit strategy is going to work?

  10. Would seem to me that if SJ wants to pursue trial for remaining case there will be a very public announcement of this approach. Absent that it tells me something is in the works behind the scenes.

  11. Maybe MLB is questioning the wisdom of fighting a city that really really wants to provide a solution for the A’s stadium stalemate. (Albeit one that does not involve the city paying for the stadium.) MLB has had to deal with Oakland trying to strong-arm the A’s on a new lease, not providing a viable site or money for a ballpark, demonizing the owner, etc. Maybe MLB has had quite enough of Oakland and is willing to give San Jose a try?

  12. Now that I have my bearings and have finally caught my breath: don’t agree with Woolfolks take either. I guess someone had to have a negative stance on this one. While I agree with RM’s take on this development (shocker!), not getting my hopes up on this one. See “shocker news,” issue on the front burner, Baer’s softening stance, close to a resolution (Selig), etc etc…

  13. I think “agree” is the key word here re putting off mediation. If both sides were hell bent on going to trial there most likely wouldn’t be any “agreeing” in any of this.

  14. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ll try paraphrasing what’s happening here.

    SJ and MLB were attempting mediation to resolve SJ’s claim it suffered financial damages from MLB interfereing with the SJ/Wolff land option. Recall that the Federal MLB ATE was upheld and no longer being challenged.

    Mediation is not arbitration, so SJ and MLB were attempting to come to a resolution without a third party making the decision for them.

    Both sides agreeing to abandon mediation only tells us they couldn’t come to an agreement on financial damanged from the Diridon land option. Returning to the court where a judge/jury would decide is the next step. In other words, abandoning mediation is not a sign MLB is any close to approving an A’s relocation to SJ. However, MLB could approve the A’s relocation and SJ is still within their right to fight for financial damanges from years of waiting.

  15. I was going to suggest that if there was something in the works, we probably wouldn’t hear about it until a lease extension was hammered out with the JPA. However after MLB fired that shot across the JPA’s bow a couple of weeks ago, I guess there’s no longer any need to wait. In MLB’s mind, they have all the leverage.

    Hope something comes out of the Owners’ meeting.

  16. Briggs, Mediation usually involves an unbiased third party attempting to get the two sides to come to a mutual agreement/resolution. The goal is to avoid a judge/jury doing the arbitration through a trial.

    Given that all it would take would be for MLB to allow the A’s into SJ for SJ to be appeased, I’m guessing Woolfolk is correct. Otherwise we’d be hearing that they’ve come to a settlement instead. The fact that the Owner’s meetings are this week coming in front of this means that it could have just been a misstatement (intentional or otherwise) of what’s happening though, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

  17. Briggs: allow me to correct you.
    .
    First, the parties have delayed, not abandoned, mediation. My guess is that this mediation was ordered by the court, which is typical for this district court. The parties have a deadline by which to meet with a mediator, and they can get an extension if they both agree to do so. But they can’t just agree not to mediate, even if both sides think it’s a wast of time.
    .
    Judge/jury is not “the next step.” They are pretty far away from that at this point. If this goes forward, there is a lot of evidence gathering and likely many more settlement discussions. The point of mediation is for the court to try to get discussions going before of lot of court resources are used on the case.
    .
    Bottom line, this development means either (1) nothing – MLB requested a delay due to owners’ meetings, scheduling problems, etc., and SJ agreed, (2) some variation of MLB telling SJ to sit tight, we are looking to resolve this at the owners meeting next week, no point in meeting now.
    .
    What it almost certainly does NOT mean is that the parties are further apart and that both sides are digging trenches for a long battle.

  18. There are two more variables involved in this. 1: Time is short with the leases ending for the A’s and Raiders. Thus, it makes sense for something to happen. 2: The worst case scenario would be for Quan for everyone to leave on her watch, it must be on her mind. Maybe just maybe, there can be an agreement, which would be the Raiders getting the Coliseum and Parking lot in exchange for building a New Stadium, Mount Davis Debt, and staying for a certain amount of time (30 years?). I threw that out yesterday. If so that would essentially leave the A’s Homeless” sometime in the future, and require San Jose to be opened up for them. In exchange SJ drops its suit. Basically everyone Quan, Wolff, Davis, MLB, SJ and even the NFL (because the Raider situation is settled and LA is still open Chargers? Rams?) win. The only losers are the Giants & maybe the 49ers.

  19. I think we are getting very close to getting MLB’s approval for the A’s move to San Jose. Therefore, making San Jose’s financial restitution claims as being a moot point.

  20. Perhaps MLB only wants a two-year lease so it can give San Jose to get the site acquired and approved. If this doesn’t happen, MLB then looks for another place to the A’s in 2 years. If it is approved, MLB moves the A’s to ATT Park in two years for two seasons while the San Jose ballpark is built?

  21. Huge Raider fan….I selfishly want the A’s OUTTA OAKLAND…so Mark Davis can have and maximize any and all revenue streams outta the Coliseum….plz mlb and sf giants let the A’s to san jose….as malcolm x would say “by any means neccesary”.

  22. @oakmetro- just possible Oakland’s desire to keep the Raiders and provide some public subsidy sealed mlb’s decision to allow the A’s to move to SJ- I for one personally think this decision to delay mediation means something more significant is about to happen given where we are at in lease negotiations-

  23. I work as a janitor (maintance) at ac tranist…I see and drive by the coliseum all the time…two things for Oakland to win big….
    #1. Mark Davis agrees to stay at the coliseum in exchange he gets all revenue streams parking, consessions, advertisements etc…he could use the 300mil to upgrade a Raider only coliseum paint job, etc (use ur imagination) however would like a new stadium in 10yrs…meanwhile Malik/Colony can move forward with coliseum city building around a “waiting” Warriors…A’s play at Sf giants place at meantime while San Jose is ready…the whole bay area wins.

  24. @Steve,
    WOW! You throwing out knowledge my friend! Hopefully this is all about your 2). Worst case scenario it’s your 1), and our waiting continues…

  25. GoA’s, as far as a “subsidy” is concerned, MLB teams NOT paying one going forward to the A’s, is something every team would like (The Giants excluded), so while SJ is not paying for a Stadium, not paying money is a plus for MLB Teams (plus ending the A’s nightmare and embarrassment of stuff like Coliseum plumbing is worth a lot). If there is a Coliseum/San Jose deal, I would imagine it would take a couple of years to get the I’s dotted and the T’s crossed, and prepping to begin, so the A’s probably will get one or two more years at the Coliseum, and the same for the Raiders, before they undergo a temporary move. Obviously the Raiders to Santa Rosa, the A’s a question mark?

  26. @Briggs, attorney Joe Cotchett replied – after the judge Whyte ruling -that that San Jose will appeal, San Jose’s challenge to the MLB ATE is going forward.

  27. Looks like Atlanta’s not the only ones leaving us in the dust. Anaheim has floated a proposal, that the Angels probably like, that would grant the team development rights to the area around Angel Stadium to help pay for or completely pay for, another extensive renovation of their 60’s era ballpark again to keep it up to date with current standards.

    http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2013/11/13/6205/anaheims-proposed-land-gift-to-angels-could-pay-for-entire-stadium-reno-cost/

    Tell you what, after seeing this, what happened in KC with their wonderful renovation, and of course Dodger Stadium’s current and continuing renovation, the cities that built ballparks rather than concrete donuts in the 60’s and 70’s have sure come out ahead.

  28. The Anaheim deal has been on the table for months. Oddly, it’s Anaheim’s City Council that is pushing the deal while Mayor Tom Tait has been the lone opponent of the giveaway. In response to Tait’s intransigence the Council stripped Tait of some of his agenda setting powers. It’s a weird case where you don’t always need the mayor to push something through.

  29. Well regardless of the mayor’s objections I’m sure Anaheim will push this through securing the Angels in town for another 20 years, probably in the same park they’ve called home for 47 years. And despite its age they’ll be playing in a venue that still compares favorably with the best the most recent ballparks have to offer. Atlanta of course is getting a brand new pleasure palace to replace their existing pleasure palace. And the A’s… we remain stuck in limbo. Hell even Tampa seems to be making more progress toward a ballpark of late than we are despite having been working on it for far less time.

  30. With the amount of work that Angel Stadium needs to be a serious 21st Century money maker, I see the Angels demanding a new ballpark over renovations.

  31. Briggs, from what I’ve read they’ve already said a renovation would work for them. It’s not like Angel Stadium needs any major structural work. More pipe replacement, electrical rewiring and some other underlying capital fixes (the kind Oakland never did and has no plans to do to the Coliseum). And the cost would be anywhere from $130 million for basic renovations to $300 mil to make Angel Stadium top notch. But it would still cost $200-$300 million less than a new ballpark even if they go all out on the renovation. But even if they did decide to go the new ballpark route, which is possible, it would likely still be in the same parking lot Angel Stadium has called home for 50 years.

    And more importantly they’d be able to get it done, particularly with the city council driving these negotiations even in the face of an owner who has flirted with the idea of moving up the highway to LA proper. Unlike Oakland which hasn’t made any progress toward offering the A’s jack squat in the face of a similar move threat down the highway to San Jose. That’s the real difference, not the renovation v new build angle, but the fact that Anaheim isn’t run by inept politicians who can’t find a way to entice their team to stay unlike Oakland.

  32. Oakland’s way of enticing the A’s is to stay is say the A’s don’t have permission to go to San Jose, to work with the Giants to prevent such a move, to note publicly the Giants’ intentions to fight such a move in court, and to keep suggesting already-rejected sites and trying to pass them off as viable.

  33. A couple of things that strike me as odd.

    Where is the A’s new lease? It has been almost 2 weeks and they have not come to an agreement?

    Granted this whole process has been going on but I think Oakland is calling MLB’s bluff and are standing pat with the 5 year lease extension. The other terms such as parking and concession revenue the A’s have no reason to give up as that has been status quo for years.

    For the JPA to think otherwise is foolish, my bet here is they are playing hardball with the A’s even with MLB’s intervention. Hence no announcement, it should have been pretty cut and dry, 2 year extension of the same terms as before with options…..This is not hard.

    The only reason I can think of on why they are putting off mediation is for MLB to buy time to speak to the lodge in detail about the lawsuit and the future of the A’s in general.

    San Jose must have gotten some kind of word from MLB or they would have given them the big middle finger and pushed forward. It is not like San Jose trusts MLB in the least bit and for them to agree to this says something is about to happen.

    The question is what is that?

  34. @Dan: You’re right. Reports indicate the Angels and Anaheim are getting along and will to split the bill on stadium renovations, but given the money making potential of the Angels, it’s hard for me to accept they’ll be happy signing a 20-year lease for $150 renovation. A new Angel stadium in the parking lot makes perfect sense, but it has to be closer to the street. Currently, there’s a lot of foot traffic through the parking lots. Those are lost dollars. People coming/going from games could be bombarded with commercial/retail options and funneled in a way that doesn’t slow car traffic. Then you have the stadium itself. The premium seating in the lower bowl should be re-done entirely. The dual lower concourse setup left over from the Rams renovation would go too. The suite/club level isn’t on par with new stadiums either.

    The structure of Angel Stadium is fine for the average fan paying $27.00 a ticket, but it needs to major renovations to tap into that richer OC fan base. Even with $150 in renovations, in 2034 it’ll be so far behind the pack that I can’t help but feel they’re maneuvering to get a new yard.

  35. @Sid – The JPA was scheduled to have a meeting on 11/15 to approve lease terms. However I looked today and the meeting has been cancelled. Looks like they had to go back and review the terms. They’re also supposed to get a Coliseum City deliverable on pre-development costs.

  36. You answered ur question sid.

    Lodge metting
    Selig: Oakland is playing hardball with the lease…Mr.Baer have u and the giants come up with a comprimise to share the santa clara territory with the A’s???

    Baer: uuummmm….still workin on it cheif.

    Selig: Awesome!!…Baer meet ur new roomate……the Oakland A’s. You two play nice untill u figure out when they can move to san jose.

    Mark Davis (in mustache disguise) yyyeesss we got the coliseum all to ourselves…

  37. @ML- Interesting it got canceled, thanks for the info.

    @OakMetro- LOL!

    The Giants should let the A’s play at ATT Park. They can charge a nice lease fee of 10M per year and revenue share the excess sponsorship, concession, and premium seating revenue.

    The Giants could make close to 40M extra a year, that is 2 big name free agents. But then again….We are talking about the greedy Giants here, I love them to death but this is just wrong.

  38. @briggs- As a man who lived in OC during his college years the Angels would be far better of moving to Irvine.

    North Orange County where they are now is the poorest part of the county. The richest part where they get most of their fans is South OC. Irvine, Newport Beach, Mission Viejo, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Beach, Tustin and Lake Forest.

    Also the majority of corporations in the OC area are located in those areas as well.

    Irvine has plenty of land they can offer up if the Angels are willing to pay for it privately which is 100% do able in that area.

    Now if Anaheim offers a ton of land for development then they should stay by all means. But if that falls through, Irvine is where they should head to.

  39. “Attorney Joe Cotchett makes a bold prediction to San Jose Rotary that SJ will have an MLB team or a contract to get one within 2 years.” Tweet by Sal Pizarro from the San Jose Mercury News.

  40. Sid, given that the city of Anaheim has land for them (that they’re currently sitting on) and seems willing to give them the development rights to it (not to mention it’s on a public transit line and near 3 major freeways (which as we know are king in LA)) it seems to me they’ll be staying put right where they are now. Only question is really renovation or new build. And both seem possible and both have their pluses and minuses. But either way Angels fans will be watching baseball at Katella Ave for a long time coming.

  41. I would tend to believe that if and when MLB finally allows for the A’s to move to San Jose, it will be announced as suddenly as the news about the Braves intending move to the Atlanta suburb of Cobb County.

  42. @Dan- Of course if they are given land to do what they please with it for pennies on the dollar then stay, of course.

    In reality, the current stadium is really old and they maybe better of starting new and if they build a new one in the current parking lot it will affect their attendance big time.

    The public transit is minimal to this whole thing as it is to most of LA and OC.

    Freeway wise, Irvine it right in between 405 and 5 and every road is 3-4 lanes each way with 50 MPH speed limits so access is not a problem.

    Irvine is more ideal to their fan base and corporate sponsors than Anaheim.

    But free is king in this world and free land to build what you want is paramount.

  43. @llpec: We can’t forget about the December 2011 Bob Nightengale tweet reporting the A’s received approval to move to San Jose… or maybe we can.

  44. Looks like the other MLB team stuck in a less than ideal stadium situation who have been trying for a new park, the Rays, are realizing they’re stuck where they are for at least the next few years. Their owner Sternberg, has decided to make some modest upgrades to Tropicana Field including rebuilding the batter’s eye restaurant and finally making it a 360 degree walkable park.

    I’m usually pretty quick to defend Wolff, but I really wish we’d read about the A’s making similar upgrades to the Coliseum in the off season. The Rays may be putting lipstick on their pig, but at least they’re putting the lipstick on it rather than simply berating it for how ugly it is…

  45. @briggs,
    I’m confident (based on quotes by Wolff) that the committee has recommended San Jose for the A’s, and that determination was probably made in late 2011, early 12. The recommendation also was probably leaked to the media as “MLB approving an A’s move to San Jose.” As we are all painfully aware of, MLB hasn’t approved squat! Our wait continues…

  46. @dan,
    Disclaimer: never been to the Trop personally, but watching many of a game on TV, it appears to be better suited as a ballpark than the Coli. Real dugouts, no football played on the field, built in late 80’s vs late 60’s. The Rays can probably afford lipstick on their pig because the actual infrastructure within the Trop is still sound: plumbing, electrical, etc. Such is not the case with our football/baseball paradise…

  47. @Dan – I think the upgrades ship has sailed. It seems to me that the chances of the A’s staying in the Coliseum beyond two years has been reduced dramatically over the past couple months.

  48. @Dan- why would Wolff invest in the coliseum when he shares it with the raiders and doesn’t own it??

    Blame Oakland for that one and if I was Wolff I wouldn’t put a dime into that garbage pit when Oakland ruined it years ago.

    Wolff is saving up for a new stadium in San Jose.

  49. Yes, it looks like it’s two more years in Oakland and either the A’s end up at ATT Park for two years while Cisco Field is built, or the team is relocated out of the Bay Area. Keeping the A’s in the Coliseum waiting for an Oakland Miracle (private investors willing to spend $1.2 billion to keep the team there) is getting old.

  50. Sid, why would Sternberg invest money into Tropicana Field, which he doesn’t own and plans to be out of in a few years for a ballpark in Tampa (and like Wolff, Sternberg was saying 7 years ago that the Trop was no longer suitable as a long term MLB venue).

    You do it because it improves your customer’s experience now and gives them more reasons to come back now while you’re waiting for your new palace. The Rays aren’t the first ones to realize this or do this, the Giants did the same thing in the late 90’s at Candlestick. And who cares if we share the stadium with the Raiders, they use it 8x a year. We used it 85x last season. Wolff shouldn’t determine how his customers are going to be treated based on the schmucks who move in for a few days every fall.

    • @Dan – Sternberg has tried make improvements to the Trop twice now, when he first bought the team and a few years ago. It hasn’t worked. Sure, Wolff could make improvements on his own, but he’s not locked in to see that investment pay what minimal dividends it may provide unlike Sternberg. At least he’s willing to provide money for the scoreboards.

  51. There is still a ballot issue in SJ even if BS/MLB approves the move. This has been a problem because BS/MLB told Mayor Reed to not go forward but instead wait for their signal and as we all know, the wait is ongoing and going and maybe the A’s is gone for good.

    It probably will take a year to run a similar campaign that SC did to get the 49ers. We should have had the land and the ballot issue done by now. The new park should be ready by 2016.

    It is so f’n stoopid.

  52. In all likelihood, the A’s will be playing at the Coliseum for two or three more seasons at most. If need be, the A’s would likely be playing at AT&T Park as tenants of the Giants until Cisco Field is completed. Wolff would not want to spend one penny more on the Coliseum than he has to.

  53. Are we talking about minor renovations or just some more A’s decorations on the Coliseum walls? Refreshing the tarps, outside banners and gate signage can’t be any more expensive than a Nick Punto.

  54. Funny how Wolff had sought a 5-year lease extension but the Coliseum folks, thinking they had a position of strength over the A’s, sought a 10-year lease and givebacks. Now, MLB apparently only wants a 2-year lease. Oops…

  55. Does anyone know when the A’s lease expires? Is it 12/31/13 at midnight? In the meantime, do the A’s keep their administrative offices at the Coliseum or do they move out when the Raiders move in?

    • @Briggs – That’s the date. Though if both sides are still discussing the lease, it’s highly unlikely that there will be immediate changes. The Raiders do all of their off-field business at their Alameda HQ. They don’t have an office presence at the Coliseum. Plus the Raiders will still be on their lease for a few more months. There’s no move to be made.

      And technically the only way the A’s are out immediately is if Oakland/Alameda County evict the A’s. I can’t imagine how badly that would go over.

  56. Will mayor quan get re elected…I loke her on liberal social matters..but when it comes to business I like a lil conservatism in my coffee.

    I only been to a la dodgers game not a la angels game…but I agree with another user who saod the angels should build in irvine l
    ..closer to their rich fan base….

    As for jpa/Oakland…looks like they can’t run amymore…either put up or shut up…but the real losers arr the “waiting Warriors”…I can see them crawling back to Oakland. Ml maybe a post when more info comes up

  57. If Wolff buys Diridon land at FMV (not current option agreement) then the ballpark ballot issue becomes more complicated. Sam Liccardo would want an election because of the City financed apron improvements, Dave Cortese, on the other hand, has a different take. Liccardo and Cortese, are considered front runners for next Mayor, are both lawyers and both have been very closely tied to this project since Day 1. Next Mayor of San Jose will be determined first in June 2014 and then finally in Nov. 2014 and the ballpark issue may play an important role in this mayoral election. Without an ballpark ballot measure the timing is much different for everything.

  58. @RS,
    If Wolff owns the Diridon plot AND privately finances the ballpark, I say no to a referendum because this then mirrors what is going on with the Earthquakes SSS, which didn’t require a referendum. Even if the city did some slight prep work on the land parcel, muni code is clear that a vote is only necessary if actual public funding goes toward stadium construction (or venues seating 5,000+). City leaders present and future shouldn’t make this thing more complicated then it has to be. It’s bad enough that they filed a lawsuit rather then make an honest attempt to influence MLB (ie getting ALL the land acquired/cleared for construction and/or providing Mello-Roos funding like Santa Clara).

  59. BTW RS, any idea how much the “apron improvements” cost? Probably chump change as far as Wolff is concerned.

  60. I don’t know, but it’s enough to make Liccardo squeamish. Cortese on the other hand is an outsider because his office is on North First Street at Hedding not Santa Clara Street any more.

  61. The reasons why Wolff should not add things include: 1: If he knows (or believes) that he either has no more or one year left at the Coliseum. Or 2: This is a High Stakes Poker Game involving Quan, Kaplan, the Raiders & others and you cannot allow all of your cards to be shown in advance.

  62. So if San Jose is given, say, a back door deal to have a public vote and carry forward with plans to build a stadium… what else is preventing the A’s from coming to San Jose? Land deals, etc… ? Most of us want the team in San Jose but what is a realistic timeline for it to happen depending on when MLB reaches a deal?

  63. Steven, I would say 2017, because the site needs to be prepped before any construction can begin (checking for Environmental issues is an obvious one), this assumes that Title Searches (an absolute necessity for even 1 family home sales (let alone something worth hundreds of millions)), and all legal issues are dealt with, before any possible referendum. That would mean 2014 & 2015 at the Coliseum, and then an alternative site for 2016.

  64. Hopefully we hear something tomorrow about this crap. I think we all are getting tired of speculating on the what ifs.

  65. FYI – there is finally steel arising at the site of the Earthquakes stadium. Looks like it’s going to be that ancillary building that was referred to, though, and not the stadium itself yet.

  66. Marine Layer, the only way the A’s are not playing at the Coliseum in 2014, is Oakland turns Title, and Deed over to the Raiders on January 1st, and Davis throws them out. Since Davis & Wolff have been working together, I do not see even that remote possibility occurring.

  67. @RS,
    Sam shouldn’t be squeamish. All he has to do is read SJ Muni Code (which I’m sure he’s well versed in) and look at what’s happening up the road at Coleman across from SJC. If he and others are hell bent on taking this thing to a vote, then make it worth everyone’s while: reduced land price for Wolff, below market-rate lease on land, heck…Make the land free! Put some CC Mello-Roos funding towards ballpark, etc. Don’t just have a ballpark referendum just to have one. (For the record, opinion assumes SL will be our next mayor, as I will personally support and vote for him)

  68. @RS,
    Final, interesting thought: if the ballpark parcels purchased by the defunct SJRDA now belong to the Successor Agency (SCCO), doesn’t that make Cortese an insider as much as Liccardo? If the acquired parcels belong to the Successor Agency and Wolff buys the remainder at FML, then there’s definitely no reason for a referendum on a privately financed ballpark. Just my opinion. Please Lord let this thing finally end tomorrow…

  69. Last comment should have stated FMV for fair market value, not FML.

    • Where are people getting the idea that something is happening tomorrow? The owners’ meetings are effectively over, the JPA meeting is cancelled/postponed. Nothing should be happening tomorrow.

  70. The City will be in good hands if either Sam or Dave wins.

  71. BTW when Chuck Reed won, everyone and their brother, believed Cindy Chavez would win…..Just saying….

  72. @RS, that’s not the way I remember it. Cindy Chavez was way too close to Ron Gonzalez. Most voters wanted distance from the corruption associated with him.

  73. It will be Liccardo for the win!

  74. @RM,
    Thought owners meetings went into tomorrow. So much for that thought; can exhale now…

  75. The Great Oaklakd Comprimise by Oakmetro
    Possible Coliseum City outcome

    Malik/Colony:Hi lew wolff. I know u want to move to san jose…but if we offer u say 100-200mil to help fund a least expensive ballpark at the coliseum site, would u consider it???

    Lew Wolff: ggeee Malik I really want san jose but yes ill give it some thouhght.

    Mark Davis: hey!!! What about us???
    Jpa: u can have the whole coliseum with parking and other revenues to help make up for our lack of effort to get u a new stadium….u love oakland right marcus???
    Mark Davis: well yeah….ok deal as long as I get everything outta the coliseum…

    CITY OF OAKLAND: So wariors…how is the move to s.f working out???

    Warriors: too be honest didn’t see all these issues coming… even eddy lee is having a tough time getting support…..

    City of Oakland: well if u change ur mind…We Will welcome u back with open arms..oracle is not a bad venue, make some upgrades and u will be the final piece to Coliseum City….what do u say fellas????

    Mark, Lew and Joe: You gotta deal Oakland….

    Coliseum City wins…
    ..THE END…..OR TO BE CONTINUED?????

  76. @ A’s Fan
    Having worked on one of the losing campaigns the internal polling from early on had Cindy with a large lead which she squandered; most would say a combination of self-inflicted wounds and obviously Gonzales baggage did her in.

  77. OakMetro… interesting piece of fantasy you wrote there.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s