Update 11/25 9:10 AM – Resolutions passed nearly unanimously, with one vote against.
@Athletics extension includes passage prohibiting “unfactual” statements about @OdotCoCOLISEUM. #oaccamtg
— Steven Tavares (@eastbaycitizen) November 25, 2013
#Oakland CM Larry Reid tells Coliseum City lead investor to “show me the money.” #oaccamtg
— Steven Tavares (@eastbaycitizen) November 25, 2013
Commish Goodwin says Coliseum Authority members labeled both deals less than satisfactory. “I don’t vote for bad deals.” @Athletics @RAIDERS
— Steven Tavares (@eastbaycitizen) November 25, 2013
Original post from Saturday:
In your typical Friday disclosure before a hastily called meeting, the Coliseum Authority (JPA) released its agenda for a Monday board meeting in which it will vote on short-term lease extensions for both the Athletics and Raiders. It’s funny to see how the negotiations have progressed. The A’s offered up a 5-year deal last year which the JPA ignored because it thought it had leverage, only to be that perceived leverage taken away by MLB two weeks ago. The Raiders have talked up a long-term deal, but only if it came with a serious plan for a new stadium. The resolutions that the JPA board is looking to pass will undoubtedly amplify the uncertainty surrounding the two franchises. Highlights:
- The A’s will get a two-year extension with no additional option years, thus extending the lease through December 31, 2015.
- The A’s would pay a slightly higher rent payment than previously negotiated at $1.5 million per year.
- In addition, the A’s would pay a mere $250,000 to maintain control over concessions.
- The parking revenue dispute between the A’s and JPA would go to arbitration, which should be decided before the end of 2014. The A’s would agree to put the disputed amount (not disclosed) in escrow.
It’s good to see that the parking issue will be resolved soon. Apparently the A’s are raising parking prices for 2014, which makes the actions seem linked. The big takeaway is that the JPA caved on concessions. Under the new terms, the A’s have the right to choose a new concessionaire, whose contract may long extend past the A’s stay in the Coliseum. However, you have to think that any concessions contract has to factor in the significantly lower value of the Coliseum should the A’s and/or Raiders leave. Yes, this could mean Aramark is replaced by someone else.
- The Raiders have a one-year deal for the 2014-15 season. The Raiders would pay $400,000 in addition to the revenue splits they currently share with the JPA. The end of the lease is described as 45 days after the end of the team’s season.
- The Raiders could pay up to $525,000 per year to use their Harbor Bay headquarters in Alameda.
- The lease terms acknowledge that the Raiders may play one regular season or preseason home game away from the Coliseum (London in 2014).
Also wrapped up in the Raiders’ extension language is something that I’d like to call the Santa Clara clause.
7.5 Additional Payments for Use of Permanent Training Facility and Training Site. If the Raiders announce a relocation or sign a lease to play football games outside of the City of Oakland or Alameda County for the 2015 season prior to March 1, 2015, then, commencing on March 1, 2015, Raiders shall have the option of continuing to use the Permanent Training Facility and Training Site for up to twenty-four (24) months, up to and including February 28, 2017 as determined in Raiders’ discretion and Raiders shall make an additional payment to Licensor each month for continued use of the Permanent Training Facility and Training Site in an amount equal to the fair market rental value of the Permanent Training Facility and Training Site on a monthly basis, as determined by a mutually agreeable licensed commercial real estate broker based on comparable rental space. Raiders and Licensor agree that the fair market rental value shall not exceed $525,000 per year. In the event the Raiders are engaged in good faith discussions concerning an extension of the Operating License or other arrangement for the Raiders to play future Football Events in the OACC Stadium as of March 1, 2015, any obligation to make payments shall not commence while such discussions are continuing and the twenty-four (24) month period and obligation to make additional payments shall begin when Raiders agrees to play football games at a location other than OACC Stadium for the 2015 seasonal provided, however, that if Raiders agrees to play football at such other location, Raiders shall pay such rental payments retroactively from March 1, 2015.
Got that? The Raiders won’t be charged to use the Alameda headquarters as long as they’re in talks about Coliseum City, even if they’re playing somewhere other than the Coliseum for 2015 and 2016. If the Raiders play elsewhere while using HQ and aren’t in talks over Coliseum City, they pay $525,000 annually. Obviously, the only place where they could play in this scenario (and while the Coliseum is demolished, presumably) is Santa Clara. UC Berkeley is forbidden by legal settlement from hosting NFL games, and Palo Alto would sue Stanford to high heaven for even considering it.
Both extensions should be easily passed, unless one or more of the commissioners complain that the terms are too favorable to the teams. The teams are effectively trading rent payments, and the JPA’s incoming revenues will not make much of a dent in ongoing debt service. At least the JPA will get the parking revenue they’ve clamoring for, which at the very least should help pay for additional Coliseum City studies or minimal prep work. As for scoreboards – you weren’t banking on that, were you?
P.S. – The resolutions would have to be passed by Oakland’s City Council and Alameda’s Board of Supervisors shortly after JPA approval.
“Obviously, the only place where they could play in this scenario (and while the Coliseum is demolished, presumably) is Santa Clara. UC Berkeley is forbidden by legal settlement from hosting NFL games, and Palo Alto would sue Stanford to high heaven for even considering it.”
One word: CANDLESTICK
@Eric Colby – Candlestick is being demolished in the spring.
2 years with no option to extend sounds like a major decision to move the team is coming?
Finally! While it’s not THE news we’ve been waiting for, the lease extension being finalized could have a major effect in other areas re SJ, new ballpark timeline, etc. Get the extension out of the way and get the ball rolling!
So it’s looking like Coli for 14-15, AT&T Park for 16-17, and Cisco Field “somewhere in the South Bay” for 2018! Raiders would definitely play in SC while new stadium constructed at Coli site; let’s hope it happens!
2 years for the A’s, one year for the Raiders. This is about kicking the can down the road a bit more. Yes, I wouldn’t be surprised if this means the final two years for the A’s in Oakland. Where they go after that, who knows?
All his means for the A’s is 2 years without talking about oakland. Also coming in December/January are proposals that are due for Howard Terminal uses. When the winning bid for that is chosen, then Quan and Oakland only crowd will just talk about coliseum city.
It’s looking more and more as I predicted. The A’s will remain at the Coliseum for two more seasons, then two or three seasons at AT&T Park while Cisco Field is being completed. As for the Raiders, one or two more seasons at the Coliseum, before a temporary move to Santa Clara.
This may be good news for Raiders fans. The Coliseum could be demolished after the 2015 season to clear the way for a new Raiders stadium. It’s doubtful Wolff would move the A’s to Portland, San Antonio, blah, blah, blah, after two years.
It’s possible the A’s could sell team to an owner willing to move the A’s to one of those small market cities, given the history of small market MLB teams struggling financially though, would a prospective MLB owner move the A’s to one of those small market cities? – possible, but unlikely. Also, despite the comments of the giants management, some giants fans, and some anti-San Jose A’s fans – San Jose has a good chance of winning the SJ vs MLB lawsuit (likely winning a settlement from MLB before that happens)
Yes, potentially good news for the Raiders. At least let us hope so.
Wolff ain’t selling! He knows the end game to this, and it most likely ends with Cisco Field in the South Bay (preferably DSJ).
Last comment for tonight. To all my Mexican family: Go Rios! To all my Filipino in laws: Go Pacquiao! Gonna be a great fight!
@Tony D, agree, the A’s are more likely to stay even in Oakland than move to the small market Portland, Sac, etc.
@ML – Interesting that the A’s didn’t get any option years, because it will take at least 3 years for anything to be built in San Jose. Does this mean the JPA wants to drop the wreaking ball on the coliseum at the end of the 15/16 NFL season? This really puts the pressure on MLB to make a decision regarding San Jose. Everyday that passes without a decision means another day of the Giants having to share ATT with the A’s, something I’m sure they are not too thrilled about.
Good news for the A’s. At least we know they have a home for the next two seasons. On the other hand, as pjk mentions, this just kicks the can down the road. We will have to wait another year plus to find out what the Raiders plan to do. I guess that coincides with the extra time the new Coliseum City backers wanted for feasibility studies etc. I was hoping that Mark Davis was going to play hardball with Oakland and get a new/renovated Stadium commitment or not. Now we all have to wait another year plus.
I have to say, this one I called correctly. Which is that we would know something before Christmas. The most important part of the article is this: “In addition, the A’s would pay a mere $250,000 to maintain control over concessions.” Why is it so important? Because the JPA & (more importantly) Raiders agreed to it. There must be something that is of enough value to those two entities for that to occur (otherwise Davis could have simply moved to Santa Clara in 2014). That something is most likely the Raiders taking control of the Coliseum Site after 2015 (when the A’s Season ends), and I would also guess the tearing down of the Coliseum will begin in January or February 2016. I also suspect, the probability is the A’s now know answer to the Dionne Warwick Question: “Do You Know The Way To San Jose?” That answer is two more years in Oakland, one year (2016) somewhere else (it could be AT&T or another spot), until the Elephant lands in SJ Spring 2017.
Well it looks like things are starting to move. This thing was never going to be resolved quickly, and with both MLB/Oakland dragging their feet, it has assured us that it’s going to take much longer than it ever should have.
I agree with what most have been saying, I believe its two more years at the coliseum for the A’s and that’s it. I Think they will play at AT&T after 2015, two or three years sharing with the Giants and probably down to San Jose, although I think it still could end up being in the East Bay, at this point it does not matter as much to me (physical location), as long as it’s in the Bay Area.
Looks like Oakland has a real opportunity with the Raiders, two years, then, they share with the 49ers in the South Bay for two or three more years and we have the Oakland Raiders in a new coliseum, the San Jose A’s in a new baseball only ballpark, and perhaps the San Francisco Warriors in a new arena, next to the Bay Bridge. Not exactly what I wanted, but all three of my teams (sharks too), being secure in new state of the art facility’s in the San Francisco Bay Area.
If the city doesn’t have to go out on the limb too much financially for the Raiders than this could be useful, but I still have my doubts given what similar cities have had to do to keep cities in town. My other concern is if you build, what else can you fill in at that stadium to make the investment useful?
Oakland better have the public funding ready by 2015/16 for the Raiders…again I still say behind the scenes does the nfl support Mark Davis to move to L.A…again I call his bluff It would be the only way to really put pressure on Oakland to eithet put up or shut up…but maybe mark davis would consider a temp move to santa clara and the 49ers would give Oakland a fair rate..
@Oakmetro86: It appears that the Coli will be demolished after 2015 – one would believe that the Raiders and even the A’s might be involved with new stadiums there. Also Roger Goodell recently said that the NFL wants a team or team(s) in LA, however, however emphasized that a move there has to be the right situation (the NFL appears to be in no rush to move franchises to LA) Also the NFL would prefer that the Raiders stay in Oakland and the Chargers in San Diego. The NFL may believe that the Raiders attendance problems (which really aren’t bad considering the team has not enjoyed a winning season since 2002) may be of the Raiders own doing, and not because of a bad fanbase. Jacksonville, the Rams other other franchises may be considered for Los Angeles instead of the Raiders.
I RESPECTFULLY AGREE AND DISAGREE With some of your points….
#1 the nfl should know it would be a easier move and easier way to make money for the “Raiders return to L.A” in the mid 2010’s then the boring ass Jaguars and Rams (Good luck selling tickets to those L.A fans)..also I would recommend the nfl should go a smaller 50-60, 000 stadium route.
#2.A’s are going to San Francisco. ..then to San Jose…so that deal is done however ur overlooking the Warriors move to S.F (chuckle)…they could end up going back to Oakland after all, so get ur popcorn ready.
#3. QUAN/Oakland quietly has Malik/Colony is their BIG RED BUTTON, my hunch is that Malik/Colony could help bridge the gap for the new Raider stadium….but overall u make some good points.
Well…that was anticlimatic!
The NFL has used LA as a threat against Cities that are reluctant to build Stadiums. So they would rather keep LA open for teams like the Rams and Jaguars ( who should be moved ASAP). I am sure if the League had a choice of a team in Jacksonville or Oakland they will choose Oakland ( the other one going to LA).
@David Brown, Oakmetro86:
Both the Rams and Jags must be fudging their attendance figures big time. Judging by all the empty seats at their home games, Jacksonville appears to be drawing 25,000 per game, even thought their attendance figures claim otherwise. Also the Rams should copy Lew Wolff’s idea of tarping off their upper deck, because there are quite a few empty seat for their home games. The Rams could be returning to LA – both the Rams franchise (certainly) and the NFL might be content with one NFL team there if the Rams make the move, then Jacksonville to London.
The Jags are not moving to London anytime soon. They are locked into their lease until 2030. Unless Khan decides to spend 145 million to break the lease and move the team to London. Also he and the city council will spend 63 million upgrading the stadium and scoreboards. The Raiders have a better chance of relocating to another city before the Jags move to London.
@Mike2 that lease is not a big deal – worst case scenario, the Jag’s owner would be liable for $100 mil. by breaking it – not a big sum by NFL standards. Besides, the NFL would get involved about breaking that lease and that sum would likely be lowered considerably. Besides, there are clauses in that lease where if the Jaquars are unprofitable for two consecutive years, they can break that lease without a substantial penalty, with their attendance woes – they may have already achieved that.
Many NFL experts agree that the Jaquars are bolting out of Jacksonville (either LA or London) and evidently don’t consider that lease as much of a problem. Besides, if the Jag’s owner was serious about being profitable in Jacksonville – signing Tebow would be a no-brainer (Tebow could increase that team’s attendance by 15,000+ per game) Not signing Tebow is likely further evidence that the Jags don’t plan to stay in Jacksonville long term.
You don’t spend 20 million on scoreboards if you have plans on leaving in the near future. Instead you take a playbook from the A’s/Raiders and play it cheap and not offer to help with substantial renovations. Tebow might be a fan favorite, but the Jags are better off by not signing him. As for attendance, if the Jags put a quality product on the field fans will come. Same theory goes for the Raiders and any other team outside of Cleveland. Even the A’s and Raiders make enough money to help pay for new scoreboards and some stadium renovations. We all know the A’s do, the Raiders are a little more tight lipped on their finances.
LA is off the table unless there is a Jerry Jones type owner or investment group who is willing to come up with the money to buy and move a franchise to LA. No one in LA wants the Rams back, as for the Raiders there are still a lot of fans in the area, but are the Raiders willing to pay for a stadium on their own? For a team to move to LA (or expansion team) it’s going to cost 1 billion dollars or more for the land and stadium.
While it may take somewhat longer than the Raiders would like, I do feel that the Raiders will ultimately get done a new stadium deal at the Coliseum site. Playing at Santa Clara will be an excellent temporary stopgap measure, regardless of where the Raiders get their permanent new stadium.
Mike, that’s where Roski comes in ultimately. His site is already undergoing its transportation improvements and has been shovel ready for a while now. And he’s said he only wants minority ownership in the Raiders, minority ownership which Mark has been slowly reacquiring I suspect to sell to Roski. It seems quite possible that Davis and Roski are moving toward an LA solution for the Raiders in Industry. Is it what the NFL wants, maybe not, but do you think Mark cares? And based on the number of Raiders jerseys you still see on folks down in SoCal today on an average game day who can blame them. I feel comfortable saying that the Raiders still have more fans in LA today than they’ll ever have in the Bay Area if they stayed here to the end of time.
One of the music stations today talked up the “good news for Oakland sports,” referring to the lease extensions to keep the teams “in Oakland.” Of course, we know the lease extensions are just stopgap measures and there still are no permanent stadium solutions in Oakland and there very well may never be.
re: feel comfortable saying that the Raiders still have more fans in LA today than they’ll ever have in the Bay Area if they stayed here to the end of time.
…Once again, according to Facebook likes, the most popular team in LA is the Raiders. The most popular team in Alameda County is the 49ers.
pjk, why do you think I felt comfortable saying that 😉
That and walking around down in Temecula yesterday there were far more Raiders jerseys on folks than there were Chargers jerseys. The ghost of the Los Angeles Raiders has not dwindled at all. Thousands of LA Raiders fans still make the 100 mile trek down to San Diego every year and turn Qualcomm Stadium into the Black Hole south when the Raiders are in town.
“show me the money” , really? I thought Oakland can build stadiums w/o the money.
Wonder what qualifies as an “unfactual” statement in their minds. Because calling the Coliseum a “shithole” seems pretty factual after last season. And that’s about as bad as it can get in terms of insulting the place. Also factual would be “Giant Toilet Bowl” and “Smelly Dump”.
Be prepared for a slew of stories from the low-information news media talking up these kick-the-can-down-the-road lease extensions as the preliminary step to construction of new A’s and Raiders stadiums in Oakland (both of which apparently rely on foreign investors to pay the whole bill because the teams and the city won’t.)
Oh it’s already started. People actually see these short term leases as good for the future of the teams in Oakland. Nevermind they’re nothing of the sort.
Two years and the A’s can leave and one year and the Raiders can leave. These lease terms scream loudly that the two teams are not committed long-term to Oakland.
Have to wonder if Oakland regrets not taking the 5-year lease extension Wolff proposed when it had the chance. No, Oakland pols rejected that and proposed a 10-year lease and givebacks, only to have MLB come in and say “2 years or we’ll shoehorn the team into Frisco until we build someplace else.”
Definitely going to be an interesting 24 months. I have to believe that we’ll see something before the end of this current lease since MLB was dictating the length of the term. Either San Jose happens or the team starts planning their exit from the region. At this point either result would be welcome over the status quo.
You know, since we know Oakland pols have teamed up with the Giants in the past to fight an A’s move to San Jose, we have to wonder if there was any recent communications between Oakland pols and their pals the Giants about whether the we’ll-put-the-A’s-in-ATT Park proposal was serious. Based on Oakland’s caving, we had to believe the city and county took the proposal very seriously.
@pjk – I don’t think there’s much reason for regret on the JPA’s part. A five year extension probably would have had the last 3 years as option years. The A’s still could have bolted after years 2,3 or 4.
@ML – Obviously there are many issues which need to be worked out before any move to San Jose can be approved, but how important is this extension in the grand scheme of things? Why do you think MLB only asked for 2 years, not 3 or 4?
This short term agreement is necessary to get all the “Ducks In A Row”, to get both the Raiders & A’s taken care of. It starts with Jean Quan who does not want to be running for Reelection with the A’s, Raiders & Warriors running out the door. I am also sure there also must be some kind of Environmental Agreement for Oakland (and quite likely San Jose in the case of the A’s) needed to get in place before Construction begins (like with the Kings). For the person who thinks that this will lead to the LA Raiders, I do not see it. Basically, Davis could have cooled his heels in Santa Clara (or the LA Coliseum) until the City of Industry was ready. But he decided not to do so. It makes me think that there is a deal lined up to remain in Oakland, where Davis gets NFL Money to help build the Stadium (which allows the Family to hold onto the Franchise), Title to the Stadium and parking lot, and the A’s out of town. The A’s get the right to move to San Jose, and two years of Concessions at the Coliseum, to help them get through this stretch. Quan gets to keep one team in the City (and I bet the Mount Davis debt comes off the City Books to be assumed by the Raiders), the NFL still has LA open for the Rams, Jaguars, Chargers or some other team, and finally some kind of goodie package is given to the Giants to give the A’s the rights to San Jose (maybe the MLB payments to the A’s are part of it?). If so, the A’s hundred year plus nightmare (Not having a Brand New Stadium of their own since Shibe Park in Philadelphia in 1909) will finally be at an end.
fc, MLB only wanted two years for two reasons. 1: The City of Oakland needed to know that the Rebecca Kaplan Stall Plan was unacceptable and the A’s cannot and will not stay forever. Basically, you are better off putting the pressure on Jean Quan while she is still vulnerable, then if she is reelected, and would not have to care one iota about the A’s. 2: MLB is working with Wolff, Davis & the NFL, to make sure that since Davis is staying, the A’s do not get screwed and left homeless. After the embarrassment of the pipes at the Coliseum, and the 100 year plus Odyssey of the A’s and a New Stadium, MLB finally realizes is time for stability (and that means San Jose), instead of seeing a franchise wandering around like gypsies.
The A’s aren’t staying in Oakland long term and they’re not leaving the Bay Area. It’ll be all about Cisco Field “Somewhere in Silicon Valley” 2018. Rest easy my friends…
“Somewhere in Silicon Valley” 2018”
Yeah as you like to say that would include northern Silicon Valley (Fremont), come on guys those stones don’t fill so good, I think I got that one in before pjk, or Sid could remind the world, “That ship has sailed.” (:
Amen. Hope u right…I haven’t put thought in the Raiders taking the mount Davis remaining debt and comvert it toward a new stadium…again just an idea…and again Malik/Colony might have some real plans for east Oakland. ..hope they privide jobs for the “hood” to keep liberal somewhat good race relations Oakland ppl happy…
Just a test. Submitted 2 long comments that didn’t post.
Condensing what I tried to post earlier, “Somewhere in Silicon Valley ” also refers to other potential sites in SJ if Diridon falls through, proves to difficult to pull off. Since Opening Day 2018 is a ways off, we have time to figure it out.
@Dan- You cannot compare LA to Oakland. The entire south-land is 15M people while the Bay Area is 8M and half the size. Of course by sheer number there might be more fans in LA for the Raiders but in terms of % Northern California is their “heart and soul” of their fan base.
If the Raiders move to LA they will have to “share” with another team no matter what. The goal for Davis is to have his own stadium and control over it. That is why LA will never happen again for the Raiders.
@Tony- Your optimism for Bud Selig to do the right thing and Fremont being still alive is commendable…..But it is also appalling at the same time. Cowards never do the right thing….Selig is KING at being coward.
As for these new leases, both teams are buying time. The A’s need to stay put for 2 more years so the lawsuit can be figured out. MLB has to put an end to it and also send a message to Oakland “we are through with you” and this is it.
The A’s are done in Oakland officially at the end of 2015. They will play in ATT Park after that until San Jose is ready, or be moved from the market for good. The Giants will be kicking themselves at that point being stuck indefinitely with the “San Francisco Athletics”.
As for the Raiders, it is obvious Davis has been given word the A’s are gone after 2015 so they can demolish the current site and build it up for football only. At that point they will share with the 49ers in Santa Clara on a temporary basis.
Davis could have left now to Santa Clara but is giving Oakland/Alameda County the benefit of the doubt.
Good moves by both teams, they bought the time needed for them to make their final moves.
Yeah I get you; there are other places in SJ that could work out well. I really hope its Dirdon, if the A’s get the go ahead to move SJ; it really seems like the perfect site for SJ. I like the HT site in Oakland a little better, but as we all know that’s about as likely as Man landing on Mars sometime soon.
Sid, we are in agreement on this. However, I think the Lawsuit will end with the A’s on their way to San Jose. Everyone who has ever read this Blog knows the problems involved with Selig and the Giants (and to a lesser extent the other teams in MLB). But since the Raiders are staying at the Coliseum Site (call it “Coliseum City” or whatever you want), means as of now, the A’s are essentially homeless come the end of 2015, and that (coupled with the Lawsuit), gives Selig and the Lodge the necessary Political Coverage to circumvent the Giants, and settle the A’s issue once and for all. Does that mean AT&T? No but San Diego is possible or even playing 162 Games on the Road (like the Scranton Yankees did in 1012) is another option. Oakland Metro 86, for any fair deal to work, there must be something of benefit for each party. The Mount Davis debt wiped off the City books, a New Stadium, and the Raiders remaining for 30 years (or so), are the benefits for the City (and of course, Quan). There will also be some kind of Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), for minority, female, and locally (owned) businesses, in various ways such as Construction Contracts. It goes without saying, that it is huge for Davis to have his own Stadium (which is impossible in LA) and without ever again dealing with the A’s or the JPA (even with the additional Mount Davis debt) is a bargain (especially with the NFL helping to build it). I must say I have no more insight into what will be the particulars than anyone else, but the direction of what is happening is leading me to think that soon enough, we will have two new Stadiums for the Oakland Raiders and yes, the San Jose A’s.
Simply hilarious how some so matter of factly state that they’ll be playing at AT&T for 2 years while they await their home in SJ. 2 problems
1. Giants will never allow the A’s to play in their home for an extended period of time and MLB cannot make them
2. The Giants have a signed document from MLB about their TR rights to the South Bay – if that was to be overturned the Giants would sue and win a case that would be in the courts for years
There should be no problems with the A’s sharing of AT&T Park with the Giants for two or three seasons while Cisco Field is being completed. For one thing, there will be no additional scheduling conflict issues with a NFL team. Secondly, all the time needed in planning the ballpark for having a two team full season schedule will be done way in advance of the 2016 season. It should be noted that there have been numerous instances when two MLB teams playing in the same market had, at lease temporarily, shared playing in the same ballpark. The Dodgers had invited the Angels in as tenants at Dodger Stadium for four years while Anaheim Stadium was being constructed. Also, the Mets had given the Yankees their approval to share city owned Shea Stadium with them for two seasons while Yankee Stadium was undergoing a complete renovation. As for the Giants, I’m sure that they are now seeing the handwriting on the wall. The Giants will be a team player within the Lodge, and will provide a temporary home for the A’s until Cisco Field is ready for baseball. Lastly, and not to be overlooked, the Giants will be compensated nicely with the additional income coming from rent, concessions, and parking that their short-term tenant will provide to them. This additional income to the Giants will be viewed as part of the compensation package for giving up their so called “territorial rights” to the South Bay.
The two year lease likely has nothing to do with the A’s. It appears that Davis is going forward with his plan to demolish the Coli and build a new Raiders stadium at Coliseum city (perhaps Davis has obtained additional financing for the new stadium)
@glenn d- gints can’t sue their MLB partners- unless they want to challenge the same a/t exemption that protects their territory today-
Glenn, #2, the same document the Giants have that give them that right, also says the A’s can get that overturned with a 3/4 vote of the owners. It also makes it clear that the Giants can NOT sue. And even if they did, guess what, it would remove the AT rights that currently keep the A’s out of SJ in the first place. Suing is a no-Win event for the Giants.
As for #1, I have my doubts about it, but no one is suggesting they get forced. What’s suggested is that as part of whatever package the Giants get as a result of losing their T-Rights would include rent from the A’s. There’s little chance of a new stadium being built within two years and if the A’s move forward in SJ, there’s zero incentive for JPA to extend their lease on anything but City/County terms resulting in the A’s needing a plan B for a couple of seasons anyway. It stands to reason that IF the A’s get approval for SJ, the Giants will get something in return AND that plan B (rent for ATandT) would be part of any compensation package.
The only real unknown is whether the A’s get approval for SJ within the next couple of years. We could be playing this game of chicken heading into 2016.
Welcome to the blog. Now, I suggest you start reading up on this site going back 4-5 years because you have a whole lot of learning to do. Enjoy…
I hope Frisco sues BS and MLB, seriously. I am sure BS will gladly answer any and all questions under oath !!!!!!!
Ask AROD if he found BS yet. I know NY is very crowded and hard to find people.
Glenn D: Is that Glenn Dickey? Got a site yet for an A’s ballpark in Oakland? How about financing? How many more decades will Oakland need?
re: if that was to be overturned the Giants would sue and win a case that would be in the courts for years
…the Giants know the T rights can be overturned with a 75% vote. The Giants also know they would be in violation of their franchise agreement if they sue MLB
The Giants also know they have T-Rights to SJ because they’re going to build a MLB ballpark in North San Jose. Any progress reports on said ballpark?…
There are some folks who simply will not support an A’s move to San Jose under ANY circumstances and also refuse to believe a: there is no site in Oakland and b: there are no private or public financing options available to build a ballpark there. It’s the same old “Let the rich owners pay for it, even if they go broke” financing plan.
@glenn D – the idea that the giants have a “signed document stating that the A’s will not be allowed to move to SJ by MLB” is a complete crock of b.s. – Selig has never said the giants have any agreement like that at all.
Notice how Glenn D offers no stadium solution for Oakland. He just says why the A’s can’t go to San Jose. Glenn has no more of a solution than anyone else.
Glenn D. is just another kamikaze troll who comes in here, post’s uneducated nonsense and leaves. Most likely just to get a reaction out of all of us. Hey, it worked!
I don’t know if Gleen D is a troll (probably is), but I sure wish people would get read up before they start commenting, I don’t mind disagreeing with anyone, (as most commenters here have), but please have an informed opinion. Anyone that does a minimal amount of homework, and keeps up with this blog, should have an informed opinion, weather I agree with it or not.
Sorry, I mean Glenn; I guess with reading up people should also spell correctly.
Hey, Glenn D: Do you think it makes sense for MLB to have one team in prosperous Frisco, another team struggling 12 miles away in a depressed area and no team at all in a lucrative area 45 miles away? Do you agree that this is the best placement for the two Bay Area MLB teams? You agree with it if your stance is “No team in San Jose under ANY circumstances.”
The best way to stop trolls is simply to ignore their Commentary. Responding to them will only serve to encourage their trolling even more. There is one thing to have a difference of opinion, there is another to make one sided baseless commentary whose sole purpose is to agitate those who read their posts.
You are certainly correct about that last statement; the good news is a resolution seems to be in sight, even if a new ballpark is still between 4 and 7 (just my guess), years away.
so much for leverage…
Yeah, guys like Glenn and I have to hop on this board and slap you back into reality sometimes. We understand it’s a SJ leaning free-blog, whatever. I love Santana row . . but . .
I’m starting to wonder if San Jose even deserves an expansion team at this point. SJ acting like a spoiled little brat in a supermarket store as MLB tries to put it on time-out. (Hey, you can’t put us on time-out, we’ll sue!)
“So much for leverage”
Yeah that leverage sure went a long way. Last year Wolff wanted to stay in Oakland for up to 5 years, probably 2 hard years, with 3 one year options. That leverage has translated to a two year hared option at the coliseum, with what will probably be 2-5 years at AT&T Park. I don’t expect it to take up to 7 years for the A’s to get a new park in the Bay Area, but it’s taken this long so you never know, and we all know the Raiders had a hand in this as well, if they are going to build on the coliseum footprint, there was no way the A’s could have played there beyond two years, without Oakland telling Davis where he was going to have to build the new coliseum, so that the A’s could continue to play in the old one, for what would have ended up being 5-8 (more) hellish years, I am just glad the JPA did not think they had any more leverage then they did, which as we all know, really was pretty much none.
Ivan: So what’s your solution for a new Oakland ballpark? Where’s the site and where’s the money going to come from? Please enlighten us on how you’ve been able to do what two ownership groups and MLB itself have not – come up with a workable site and a way to pay for the ballpark?
Hay man I have said it before I will say it again, I am one of the biggest Pro-Oakland commenters on here, and you have every right to believe this is a San Jose leaning blog, but when you say that reamer, the only real creatable news that’s coming out, happens to be from San Jose, ML can’t change the news, or thankfully not make it up as he goes, if Oakland/Alameda county does anything of a creatable nature ML Weill be all over it, he has went out of his was to cover anything that could possible translate in to news in the past. Think of it this way if it were not for the San Francisco Giants/ MLB, San Jose would be making a lot more news concerning the A’s then they already are doing.
Why is everyone so sure that SJ will be given to the A’s. The agreement doesn’t guarantee anything it pretty much kicks the can down the road. Bud doesn’t want to make a decision because it will open up a huge issue he doesn’t want to deal with in regards to Territorial rights. The A’s will not play in SF. And everyone blaming the city of Oakland for not getting a new stadium yes you can blame Jerry Brown for the Uptown failure but look at the history of facts dating back to the previous owner, neither owner has ever put faith any effort to build in Oakland. There is a reason Bud has delayed it so much for Oakland/ East Bay to get there B.S in order and finally set a time table for Oakland to act serious about building a stadium and eliminating all issues with territorial right period. (I.E reason for the forced two year agreement with Baseball as well as the Raiders 1 year agreement). This is Oakland’s last chance with both teams to get it done. With firm dates for the new development team to have studies and reports done, come April, we all will know what the future holds for the teams.
Karim: Oakland pols expect the A’s to pay for the stadium, which is not a viable solution in that city. Wolff wants to build with his own money in a place that IS viable – 30 miles away. As long as Oakland won’t pay for a new ballpark, there won’t be one there. Yes, the Blue Ribbon Committee has given Oakland almost 5 additional years to get its act together. Has it? Nope. Still no site and no financing.
Not again! Today is obviously troll day. Please don’t feed and eventually they’ll go away…
@pjk That is why they brought in private investors. Oakland has the land which is gold to investors, allows them to build Hotels, business, casinos (a little more far fetched but was brought up before by the city.) That is where the developers will make there money. Also don’t be surprised that the city does use tax payers money for infrastructure etc, as Quan stated in her latest interview, and the city did earmark funds (about 60 million)for infrastructure for Coliseum City in the transportation tax bill that needed 3/4 vote and failed by only 700 votes last year. Now a law is trying to be passed to make in majority 50% vote to pass and bring it back to the ballot. They are saying no taxes will be used but trust me a lot of back door issues are being handled to make this work, and with all of these new stadiums and stadium improvements happening around sports, one city Oakland, or SJ will have to pony up money. And the blue ribbon committee was formed by the request of City leaders in 2009 due to the fact that Lew Wolff claimed he was trying to build in Oakland but when faced with sit down meetings with the city of Oakland he refused talk or negotiate in good faith.
“At least in two years time for the A’s, we’ll know where we sit with a new A’s stadium and in one year we’ll know what we’re going to do with the Raiders. It just gives us some more time to work out some more details and get some more infrastructure in place for the new sites for both teams,” said board member Chris Dobbins (JPA) via cbssports.
I REALLY hope the A’s choose new concessions vendor for the 2014 season. The Coliseum has the worst food of any ballpark I’ve visited. Honestly, the only food item I’m partially ok with are the philly cheese steaks. Everything else is crap.
@Tony D Sorry not a troll I have been following this site for years and have observed and commented every now and then. Just a open debate and I am talking facts based on the history of the issue and not assumptions based on the unknown future
Oh yeah @pjk
Explain to us all how an MLB ballpark site in another MLB teams territory, IS viable!
what a joke.
Karim: These private investors and the city have been working with the Raiders for some time and, still no deal. I’m skeptical of this whole notion of private investors paying for the stadiums so the city doesn’t have to. What’s in it for the investors? What kind of guaranteed ROI do they get? What stake in the teams do they get? As far as Oakland using taxpayer money for stadiums, I don’t think anyone gives that a chance whatsoever of passing. Wolff has not has not made progress with Oakland officials because the city’s idea is – the owner pays for the stadium and it’s his problem whether he makes money or loses money. The corporate backing needed to privately finance a stadium is NOT in the East Bay and Silicon Valley corporations are not going to lease suites at a stadium that is 40 miles away and accessible only through thick rush hour traffic.
Ivan: I see you have no explanation for how a new ballpark gets sited and paid for in Oakland. That’s OK – nobody else has one, either. And people have been looking at the problem for many years now. Oakland needs more time? What about the 5 years the BRC has just given them? No progress.
re: Explain to us all how an MLB ballpark site in another MLB teams territory, IS viable!
…the whole “territory” concept is artificial. The A’s want to move further away from the Giants. But the Giants want to keep them penned in Oakland because the Giants know the insurmountable obstacles to the A’s getting a new ballpark there.
Tony – to you, anyone who does not stand and cheer, “Let’s go SJ, let’s go!!!” is a troll (ala Mark Purdy). I would bet the farm that my statements of the future are way closer to reality than yours – but that’s not what you want to hear, huh???
re: I see you have no explanation for how a new ballpark gets sited and paid for in Oakland. That’s OK . . nobody else has one, either. (sigh)
Not O.K., There is a plan in place, which is why the teams signed to stay to see if the plan pans out. (despite factual evidence, dispute that fact) I even provided a quote for you by a board member but it went way over your head like a pair of F-15’s. (Vroooooooom!)
Some days you will be able to come on here and post lies without opposition and we will leave you alone. Hang in there though, you’re doing great buddy.
No hard feelings, Happy Thanksgiving by the way . . I enjoy our talks.
@pjk I agree with being skeptical as the City as been dragging this on forever and ever. As far as the tax payers footing the bill on the infrastructure it was a ear marked part of it where most of the money was for Bart extension and upgrades in Livermore and it did not really come out until after that it the 60 million or so was for Coliseum City so the POL’s were most likely trying to slip it through as that was a small portion of the hundreds of millions being asked for, so that part was not on the ballot. due to that and switching the Law to allow simple 50% vote is why it will pass when brought to the ballot box again. Where it already got 66% of the vote. And Jerry Brown already passed legislation to put it on the ballot and raise the tax. The City Idea has never been to have the A’s pay for the whole thing we can date back to when Wolff purchased the A’s he has never given Oakland a chance to negotiate, that is a fact it is very well document buy news outlets across the Bay Area. from Wolff s comments etc and that can not be changed, he is still trying to state a study from like the late 90’s early 2000’s about Howard Terminal not being viable… Technology and laws have changed a lot to circumvent the issue. Its a excuse to say he tried. Alot of people come from every where to watch the games and if built right and in the right place it doesn’t matter about location, if the team is winning in a state of the art park they will thrive. Also it is on the owner to sell the product too, i.e the Warriors have enough corporations buying suites etc. and its still in the so called pit of “Oakland.” Yes the Warriors are the only basketball team in the bay but there in “Oakland” Lacob and Co sells and markets the team as should be and there is enough support from Sacramento to San Jose to support The A’s in a new Stadium in Oakland.
“Why is everyone so sure that SJ will be given to the A’s?”
I for one am not so sure, but if they are not given SJ, there is a good chance they will be forced out of the Bay Area all together. San Jose not getting the A’s does not mean Oakland wins, it could very well mean Portland San Antonio, or Montreal wins.
“The A’s will not play in SF”
So where are they going to play after 2 years? I think most people know the A’s will be leaving the coliseum after 2 years.
“Neither owner has ever put faith any effort to build in Oakland”
I actually agree with you, to a point. I don’t think either ownership group has made the concerted effort, they could have but even if that’s true (and we don’t know, that it is), that does not translate into Oakland/ Alameda county, having a viable plan. There is a lot of blame to go around, and it’s not just on Oakland politicians, we could spend all day deliberating the dirty hand in this three city, two team one league, high wire soap-opera, but none of those things translate into a viable plan.
“There is a reason Bud has delayed it so much for Oakland/ East Bay to”
Why do you assume Bud is delaying for Oakland/East Bay? That could certainly be true, but it could also be try, that Bud is delaying for San Jose.
Look man I hold out hope with you that the Raiders and A’s can build in Oakland, but as far as the A’s all I have is hope, and at this point as a Pro-Oakland fan I would rather the A’s be in San Jose then out of the region. I hope some of the thing you pointed out, with regard for tax’s works out, because Oakland is going to need all the help it can get, just to keep the Raiders, let alone the A’s, and the Warriors love, but they have treated Oakland and the East Bay treble, and we all know the Raiders are the only team that wants to stay in Oakland (hopefully that’s true), if the A’s stay it will be because they did not get San Jose, and if that happened Fremont, or the tri-city area is not out of the question, if the Warriors stay in Oakland its only because SF did not work out, so let’s hope Oakland can firstly get something done with the Raiders, and if they get a shot at the A’s (if the A’s don’t get SJ), hopefully something will transpire.
Also everyone keeps talking about money and coming up with money. Heres another fact of History that money is being thrown towards Oakland by investors so don’t sleep on the city or the “Incompetent Mayor Quan”
Fact Oak to Ninth street project proposed by Mayor Jerry Brown over 10 years ago. But due to failures of previous Mayors securing funds it never came to reality. Fact Jean Quan got investors to invest 1.5 Billion dollars on the project where clean up is underway and construction is starting soon.
Fact Oakland army Base is being transformed into a port logistics and warehousing center… Another billion dollar project that is underway
You may not like the Mayor or Oakland but money is flowing into the city, and it is turning around big time and fast under the Mayors watch. So when these new investors were brought into the project for funding the Coliseum City Project and or Howard Terminal project, there is a reason i’m going with Quans track record. Past mayors were all talk and brought no substance or hard cash, you may not like her but her history has proved the naysayers wrong
@Lakeshore/Neil Yes I totally agree the should be in the bay area no matter what, and with the 2 year agreement with the city it is for the plan to move forward with the Coliseum City and or Waterfront project. Within the next year we will all know the future. The years on the lease were signed for the city of Oakland put up or shut up. They come up with funding and proceed with these projects and no more delaying year after year and the SJ lawsuit is mute.It is the same reason why Mark Davis signed the 1 year agreement. With promises that this huge project will move forward. Remember Mark Davis said he wasn’t going to sign anything unless a deal for a new stadium was in place, same for the A’s, many people discount the fact that the City of Oakland has been doing all of the negotiation with MLB to keep them in Oakland it hasn’t been Lew that asked for the Blue ribbon committee to be formed, or having sit down meetings with Bud Selig and MLB it has been the city along with there threat to sue as well if the A’s tried to leave. Another fact to remember is Don Perata who lost to Quan received money from Lew Wolff for is campaign for a promise that he wouldn’t fight the A’s move out of Oakland. Everything in regards to this issue and hold up has been initiated by and because the city of Oakland.
You’ve got to be kidding me! Until the next thread…(LOL is right!!!)
re: many people discount the fact that the City of Oakland has been doing all of the negotiation with MLB to keep them in Oakland it hasn’t been Lew that asked for the Blue ribbon committee to be formed,
…And what has Oakland offered so far? No suitable site and no money for ballpark construction. There’s been no MLB endorsement of Howard Terminal or Coliseum City. And we do know the lease extension negotiations were going so badly MLB had to threaten to move the team to Frisco…Wasn’t it Lew Wolff who told MLB to come out to the Bay Area and see for itself, when he said a new Oakland ballpark was not doable? This led to the formation of the Blue Ribbon Committee, which in nearly 5 years has not refuted Wolff’s assessment of the situation in Oakland.
Pretty much of a stretch to say Oakland asked for the BRC- the realty is Fremont went down in flames and the BRC was established to assess all viable options including San Jose- not exactly what Oakland wanted
@pjk MlB didn’t take Coliseum City as serious previously and told the city they prefer downtown areas for parks, that we know for a fact, and we know that Victory Court was stopped not because of funds but for the reason as the BRC wanted a better downtown site. Fast forward to now and the city has acquired the Howard Terminal site, and negotiations are still ongoing between the city and MLB. Reviewing all the press releases and interviews it has been noted that Oakland has been in constant contact with MLB trying to sort out a viable site for the A’s and it has been said by the city that they were talking straight to MLB because Lew will not sit down and talk but only complain about having no sites in Oakland. If that is true why hasn’t he proved it to MLB, He even went on 95.7 the game with and said he would sit down and show to Bucher & Towney all of his so called research etc etc on Oakland but after numerous calls to Lew Wolf and over a year since the interview still no sit down. He simply can not prove it and that is why there is holdup with this. As far as the blue ribbon committee it wasn’t Lew Wolf that asked Bud to form it it was Ron Dellums and the city of Oakland. Bellow is a link to the follow up letter after they requested to form a committee to study the issue at hand
@goA’s Also please check the document above from Ron Dellums and the city of Oakland dated in 2010 referring to when 16 months before that they requested Bud to form the BRC.
Ron Dellums ? LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Karim: The BRC and MLB have known about the Howard Terminal site for many, many years and have not endorsed it. If a ballpark were viable there, MLB would have already told Wolff to build there or sell to someone who will. But Howard Terminal has major, expensive environmental and railroad obstruction issues. And besides, the corporate base is not there to pay for a ballpark at that site – and we know Oakland can’t pay for it. You really think San Jose and Sacramento companies are going to flock to Howard Terminal to lease suites? All we need to do is compare the sales of suites at the Coliseum (abysmal) to the sale of suites at Levi’s Stadium (going fabulously well) to gauge where the corporate $$ is for luxury suites.
@daniel yea he was a joke I even had to laugh when going back and seeing he actually did something in office lol.
@pjk The city never had control of Howard Terminal so it couldn’t have been endorsed, baseball would have never said OK if they didn’t have control of the site. it does have issues but many places have issues and things get built. This is when infrastructure tax comes in to play along with the private investors. everyone says its a major expense but that’s only one part of the expense and no one knows for sure how much it would be. Also you can not compare the coliseum built in 1966 and never really has been kept up or upgrades to a brand new billion dollar beyond state of the art stadium. All company’s in Sac or San Jose don’t need to buy suites for it to be successful there are many company’s in the east bay that will pledge as well. Everyone points to fortune 500 company’s as a mark for being able to finance a stadium but there is enough money in the East Bay Area, as well as the number one way to pay off the stadium is for hotels and condos to be built which there is more than enough land to do at either spot in Oakland. Also what about all the Silicon Valley money already being taken up by the niners new stadium, the sharks, earthquakes etc.
“SJ acting like a spoiled little brat in a supermarket store as MLB tries to put it on time-out. (Hey, you can’t put us on time-out, we’ll sue!)” – Ivan
There is so much irony in this statement. Entitlement, sitting on one’s arse, procrastination, doing jack sh#$….lol
re: Everyone points to fortune 500 company’s as a mark for being able to finance a stadium but there is enough money in the East Bay Area, as well as the number one way to pay off the stadium is for hotels and condos to be built which there is more than enough land to do at either spot in Oakland.
…Experience tells us that revenues for the Raiders and A’s are amongst the lowest in the NFL and MLB – maybe even dead-last for both. The Raiders had 120 state-of-the-art luxury boxes built just a few years ago and they were a bust. This is not a good environment for privately funding $1.5 billion worth of new stadiums, which is why neither Wolff nor Mark Davis wants to build with their own money in Oakland.
To adapt Capt. Kirk from STII: TWOK, of all the internet fanboyism I’ve encountered in my travels, this is to most…. ridiculous.
Shit. I mean Admiral Kirk.
@pjk also with relestate development as lew has his hotel down the street from the proposed SJ site and the warriors owners want in there Stadium deal in order to build theirs. Yes company’s with money to spend on boxes are a important factor but there are many more factors and it sucks to say it but fans are pretty much the last factor now with real estate projects pretty much always connected to stadium deals now. The teams will always make millions on millions. But what I’m say is the A’s history sells its self and the city of Oakland and the east bay can support this team in a new ballpark, if Lew would accept Oakland and the East Bay it would thrive with the ballpark. no matter how it is spun the Coliseum is way old and outdated and hands down ugly, it is not comparable to anything so the comparisons are mute they have had to share a stadium forever. Put at&t park in downtown Oakland you will have the same results, considering how well the A’s always field a competitive team year in and year out, and all the upstart business and restaurants in the area. building those boxes still didn’t fix the problem that the coliseum is outdated run down and ugly concrete structure it was built in the 60’s throwing more concrete on it wasn’t going to fix it. Bad move for the city and the Raiders and the A’s suffered for that.
re: But what I’m say is the A’s history sells its self
…the A’s history in Oakland is this: 45 seasons, 17 playoff appearances, just 7 seasons above the median attendance. A’s history is definitely NOT selling itself. We just had yet another division title season where the team was again amongst the bottom in attendance, despite rock-bottom ticket prices and great giveaways… I’m sure Wolff would be happy to build in Oakland if the city would offer to pay at least half the cost of construction; but Oakland is offering $0.00 for construction. Should Oakland be able to tell Wolff “Build with your own money, but only where we tell you to?” It’s Oakland’s sense of entitlement – that it deserves the same free stadium deal that Frisco got – that keeps us in the stalemate we’re in (combined with the Giants blocking San Jose, of course).
I’m sure RT will write up about this soon, but more power to Cal seeking $$$$ where i can get it (yet LW get’s chastised):
Cal to host Oregon game at Levi’s instead of their newly minted Memorial stadium (http://www.calbears.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=30100&ATCLID=209324868)
U make some great points. But at the end of the day it will be a new Oaklamd Raider stadium + Coliseum City surrounding development….tthe temporary San Francisco A’s- to San Jose A’s….and maybe the Golden State Warriors of S.F…however S.F could rum them off like they did the 49ers…. thats just how I see it. It wouls be a double win if the Warriors came back because Oakland is more a footbll/basketball town
MY suggestion for C.C is to make it a silicon valley north…get up and coming computer or video art companies.. offercheap office space…I will have all the CCAL, Stanford and other types flocking to Oakland. That’s how u get the apple, Twitter type ideas and that is how u grow corporate money. Add in the diverse artsy Oakland tradition…u can steal some thunder from. S.f
@Anon, it’s also because Cal doesn’t want to deal with the logistics of a Friday night game with parking especially.
@pjk but again you dismiss a 47 year old stadium and now pretty much football stadium with none of the amenities that any stadiums around the country have, even at the very minimum, it doesn’t have it. Any stadium will most likely have worse attendance that A’s have had in the coliseum. we have to remember there are the die hard fans that will watch there team play no matter what but there is a great percentage that will not go based on the stadium. Look at the attendance with the Giants at candlestick the averaged as low as 7k a year for a few seasons. A lot of it was due to the stadium. At&t park rises and attendance issues are over. in every sport we have fans and we have spectators who will visit the stadium but the game being played on the field is second to them. Also there is no sense of entitlement, how can you negotiate as a city when the owner wont sit down, hes been pressed on this many times and says hes not doing it. so he cant even and hasn’t used the excuse that would be a good one, that the city wont help build a stadium with tax payers money because its never been talked about. Ever since Lew bought the team the city has tried to negotiate and hes said no or acted like he tried and it failed, those are the facts widely reported on by various news outlets. Negotiating cant even start with him, that’s not the good faith effort MLB wants and that’s why the city stopped trying with him and went directly to MLB. Like I said earlier with sneaking in those earmarked funds to get money and or bringing in those investors that is the money they are coming with. Taxes will be used.
@ Oakmetro86 – I work at a Fortune 500 tech company in downtown SF, that was heavily subsidized in order for us to stay here. SF is not ideal to cultivate a large tech co. imho (and strictly mine), because this is more of a financial / tourist area. I think our execs recognize this as well, and to continue to attract the top talents that is necessary to stay competitive in this heavy tech economy of ours, we are looking to expand to the south bay. In order to make C.C. (especially Oakland) attractive it has to ditch the blue collar mentality that most folks associate with it (and I’m not even going to mention the crime either). JMHO from someone who has been in the tech industry for the better part of 2 decades now, so take it FWIW…
Karim: You dismiss the A’s long history of poor attendance in Oakland, even during the 1970s dynasty years when the ballpark was considered state of the art. 1974: World Series champions, almost last in attendance. The Raiders, meanwhile, came back to a “state of the art” football stadium in 1995 (half of one, anyway), with dozens of brand new luxury boxes, and it has not worked out so well: Lots of empty seats and empty suites and now the same tarps that has had Lew Wolff skewered by the local media. (Mark Davis gets a free pass from the media on tarping the seats.) None of the key indicators – historical attendance, historical corporate support, revenues, radio ratings – works in favor of privately funding a ballpark in Oakland. None of it. And Oakland has NOT tried to negotiate with Wolff – it wants a free stadium. Period. That’s not negotiating – that’s saying “You don’t have any other choice, Lew, than to build with your own money here. You have no place to go.”
@ Karim – I would suggest you read this : http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/the-fremont-athletics/Content?oid=1082316
@ Nathan – is that the same as LW not wanting to deal with the logistics of having a crappy, run down stadium? :X
@Oakmetro86 Thank you, and yes i believe that the raiders will be the main tenets since they are willing to work with the city and they can get 200 million from the NFL, I also believe that things will work out for the A’s and Dubs. Every one has mentioned the SJ lawsuit and SJ pursuing and everything but when this all started the City of Oakland and there Lawyer also threatened to sue if they were to leave and the past two mayors have requested and have been in contentious dialog with Selig and MLB. We have to remember that Selig could have made a decision years ago if Oakland didn’t contact MLB or if don peralta beat out quan. The A’s would be gone already. Its not 100% because of territorial rights. As for the Warriors there are alot more issues for Lacob than hes letting out, and between lawsuits etc with that site I believe he will settle for Oakland if they have there issues together. If you remember his interview with tim kawakami awhile back he mentioned that he studied Howard terminal deeply and thoroughly as well when asked about it, but quickly mentioned it as a great side for the A’s ? why the study from Lacob? And in a recent interview he has lighten up a lot since his days of no means yes and were gonna get it done and the SF site is the only viably site… But in that interview with Monte Poole, now he states they have a plan B and C and one of the is staying in the Oracle now, as the reason why the put 20 million into the area in the last two years. Also he mentioned about being able to build a area for a fraction of the price of the billion plus dollar SF project. Howard terminal has 50 Acres, SF site only has 12. Split it 25 and 25 A’s and Warriors. Let them build condos and Hotels, and Oakland reaps the new tax flow.
@pjk The stadium was never considered state of the art, even as Aaron shows in the article he posted. Also can you show me where Oakland hasn’t tried to negotiate because there are numerous articles and statements from both the city and Lew Wolff bad mouthing and being admit that there is nothing to negotiate because Oakland is not “feasible”. Mt Davis was a disaster from the get go it was all a money grab for someone to pay for AL’s project and it worked for him but backfired for the city, that was many years ago and I believe the A’s have deeper roots in the Bay Area then the Raiders tried to get back after leaving to L.A
Karim: Can you show me one instance where the City of Oakland has offered to help pay for a new ballpark? All it’s done is point to sites on a map and tell Wolff, “Go build your stadium here.” It’s not even certain Oakland has any money for infrastructure, even. Oakland would be feasible for a new ballpark if there were a public-private funding partnernship offered by the City of Oakland to pay for construction of the ballpark. But there has been no such offer. Given the lack of public funding, there are two options for building the stadium: private funding via corporate support (which is strong in Silicon Valley and weak in the East Bay) or a flat-out act of charity by the owners. Good luck with that one.
@Aaron was there something particular you wanted me to check out I know the history and have read that article. The city of Oakland requested Bud Selig and MLB to appoint someone to study the viability to build a ballpark in Oakland after Fremont (in Alameda County) failed then Selig formed the BRC. Also below was a letter to the Oakland tribune from the Mayors office in 2009 to the paper to clarify the issue from a previous article written by the paper about the city requesting to appoint a committee.
Anon i dont beileve u one bit..u could be a janitor for all I know…don’t care. Again talking to Karim, Coliseum City should be a tech hub + new Raider stadium. The blue collar guys that work at the junk yards, mothers cookies, ac transit, bart would not run blacks and Hispanic s outta east oakland just because u have tech companies there. Imagine the”limited commute” for some of those white collar workers at C.C tech village to their homes in Oakland hills, Berkeley, Hayward, Fremont and Palo Alto…. again Karim knows where I’m getting at…because that is who I was commenting too.
@pjk Here is what i was talking about in regards to the measure and Jerry Brown has since passed a bill to allow it to go to the ballot again. That is a start for the infrastructure and there are various investors interested in the project, which people seem to still discredit or pay no mind. Us as the public are feed information they want us to know but most of the happenings we don’t and will never know. just because you say Oakland is saying build it with all of Lew’s money is just not true. If everything was made public nothing would be done in this country. Things are happening at City Hall and proof shows it by the money coming in from investors with in the last few years.
Hay man I love your spirit, and you do make some valid points, I hope it washed out the way, you would like it to, I unlike some others believe, that not only is there still a shot for it to happen in Oakland for the A’s (if they don’t get San Jose), I believe it could work well. Oakland/Eastbay is not San Jose (Silicon Valley), and I am not as optimistic as you concerning an AT&T park in downtown Oakland doing just as well, as in San Francisco, but Oakland and the East Bay are better options then Kansa City, Cleveland, or Pittsburgh, not to mention Portland or San Antonio (places they may move if no SJ or Oak), but that being said Oakland is a reasonable market (comparatively to other lower end markets), because of the rest of the Bay Area around it San Francisco, East Bay, South Bay, North Bay, not because of it.
I do not care what Karim says, everything has been ” Second Class A’s” courtesy of the City of Oakland ( Mount Davis is simply an obvious example of this). Beyond that, if I am Wolff, I know that the Politicians and media constantly make me look like someone in between where Bush & Bin Laden are viewed, and ” negotiating” with the City means games like Howard’s Terminal or having Quan go back with information to her new buddies located at AT&T. Why waste my time? Basically if MLB and Davis would not have held Quan and Company’s ” Feet to the fire” nothing would ever happen. with the A’s.
@oakmetro86 yes I defiantly do know what you are saying, and there are already some buildings on other side of 880 freeway just need more expansion. cc and tech area in which many startups are already flowing into Oakland such as downtown, it will raise the standard and push the “ghetto” problem people or whatever we like to call them out of the city and to others such as we are seeing with people moving to Antioch etc. the criminals will stick out like a sore thumb and have no choice but to leave and take there issues elsewhere. Also if cc is built that brings more investors to buy up surround property and market value condemn them and build new houses, condos etc and sell them for 4 to 5 times what they paid.
@davidbrown yea you are right A’s have been and were screwed over by the raiders but can we not say that was in the past, and we can go as far back as the last two ownership groups and last two mayors and all the facts pout to A’s want SJ no matter what that’s all document. Even Wolff saying he will never touch that because it’s not his territory. And the city of Oakland trying to work on something, yea jerry brown screwed us hard with his backdoor deal on the uptown stadium project. But the only reason the A’s are still in Oakland now is because the city is fighting, that’s a fact as well. It’s documented. Like I said if Quan lost the election we would not be here debating because the runner up was paid by go ol Lew to not fight there move. Seems like Lew and the fishers like to try and by there way to things, legal or illegally
@Lakeshore/Neil thank you, I keep up with all the happenings and read all the postings, and it’s bash Oakland go sj it’s like lets have a serious convo about it were all the bayarea. But anything Oakland is negative and I’m trying to help kick that. I’m from Oakland I have family who work for the city and I hear rumblings etc, and I hope they come true cause all the hate Oakland talk is foolish between sj and reading sfgate kinda like damn lets have adult convos were all adults. An I agree with you sj and sf and surrounding bay helps the teams but before we know it it’s going to be all a corporate playground. Atlanta moving to the suburbs and all these other teams going for more billions. And baseball wants to do a study why Intercity baseball doesn’t exist anymore. Where did the Ricky Hendersons, Joe Morgans, Gary Payton’s, and Bill Russell’s come from. The inter city’s of Oakland. And there’s thousands more hall of Famers just like them. I remember being like 10-11 years old sneaking into the warriors game just to see them play and to stay out of the streets, the warriors and A’s and sports kept me out of trouble, now I’ve had season tickets since 2004 and never been in trouble in my life. You can still thrive in the innercity and make more than enough money. They fans already don’t matter, the teams make there money by building “entertainment areas” with condos, hotels etc. between that and tv deals they don’t need the fans and that’s a fact.
Karim, Inner City baseball still exists ( for example look at the increase in number of Africian Americans taken in the last MLB Draft). That said, tastes do change and sometimes sports die (look at Boxing and American Men’s tennis) and the NFL and NBA are to be honest, more popular than MLB in that Community. I am sure the amount of action and people they can relate to is another ( although American born Hispanics have been picking the game up). I can tell you that although I am not of color, baseball has been surpassed by Hockey in my rooting interest. It’s NFL, then College Football then NHL then MLB. There is nothing wrong ( let alone sinister), it is what it is.
I’m a minority. And regardless how ppl feel about east oakland. I respect “their space”….good or bad. I never liked gentrification (hope I didn’t spell it wrong) and ill give Quran credit for not only respecting black neighborhoods but all neighborhoods in Oakland…in other words u can keep ppl here happy get out the crime without making it look “were getting all those ppl out of here”…maybe by can articulate it better.
“Anon i dont beileve u one bit..u could be a janitor for all I know…don’t care.”
Lol @OakMetro – you exemplify everything wrong with Oakland only crowd: you refuse to listen to the people you are trying to attract/retain. You are so close minded and only care about the opinions of others that agree with you believing anything you tell each other. Keep keep going down that path and you’ll just end up where VC went!
P.s. ML can vouch for my authenticity via my ip address which btw might be one of the companies you previously mentioned. 😉
Gentrification is a bad word in many circles but it is a reality. and it is not new. The most important things for the majority of people are in this order: 1: The safety of themselves/ loved ones. 2: Employment. and Economics ( home ownership being one example). 3: Quality of life issues that makes things better such as Schools and Transportation . If certain areas cannot provide those things people ( who can), will move. Some will automatically play the ” Race Card” but that is highly inaccurate. For example:,Even the old TV show ” The Jeffersons” had this line in their song:?” We’re moving on up, to the East Side, to that deluxe apartment in the sky.” Of course, ” The Jeffersons” were fictional characters, they were also black and wanted a better life for themselves. If you want a different example: The first thing the Jerome Bettis did when he signed with the Rams (Pre Steeler days), was move his Parents out of the worst section of Detroit. Both of these things happened long ago but are relevant because guess what? They wanted better, and people still do today. Guess where Detroit is today? Bankrupt, because they could not provide the basics to its Citizens regardless of color, the people who pay the taxes to provide necessary Social Services leave. Hopefully the next generation that moves to a Detroit ( call it gentrification or whatever you want), can make things better. But until people feel there is a future there they will not.
Very insightful David b. Maybe should have worded it better but yeah in some cases it works. East Oakland is pretty big so when the developers come in, I’m sure they will have a certain area zoned maybe upper 73rd toward hegenberger to be cleaned up to make it safe for whatever is developed at Coliseum City….I will say San Jose is kinda “wild” as well even when the A’s get their new ballpark don’t tell me it won’t have their “ratchet ppl” hanging around but should be preety much safe at Cisco field. ..
Oakland metro 86, I am certainly no expert on the particulars of Oakland but a lot of people ( not all), who oppose development, are people with their own agenda ( and do not care about anything but their own narrow interests). For example: One of the three worst areas in New York is the area where the Mets Stadium ( Citi Field), is located. It’s Willets Point, Queens ( also known as The “Iron Triangle”), it is so bad that only one person lives there, and it is the only place not connected to the City sewer system. It has been that way, because the local business owners ( mostly junkyards and industrial companies) have successfully fought any kind of change. It has also brought about a major Environmental disaster to the Flushing River, that will take Decades to clean up. In October, the City finally passed a Bill last month, to start the process of cleaning it up, and building something better. The discrimination, wealthy developers, and gentrification charges were exactly what they used to get away with this for Decades.
Damon that messed up. Queens huh??? Is that were Eddie Murphy & Arsenio Hall “Coming to America” was at??? A lot of history, but yeah its not fair those junkyard and truck in owners fought change for so long which hurt that area of town….but if its going to redevelopment I get it point. I admire the Mets from afar, they really need to get their act together to keep up with the Yanks. ..
@David Brown Last years draft does not show or prove anything close to the over all fact of this issue at hand. I’ve attached a few articles that are pretty interesting reads and it pretty much proves the issue baseball has had and know for many years, just like knowing about the steroid and PED era’s but Baseball continues to ignore it for the profit of the sport. But Bud Selig magic committees will study and try and fix it, we all know how well his committees work lol. There is a problem and I believe its the way MLB targets its product now. I never hear anymore about the A’s in the community of Oakland, Richmond etc helpings or throwing baseball clinics anymore. There use to be Oakland Athletics youth Baseball in the city but not anymore. The Giants went from Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, and Dusty Baker to not having a African American on there whole roster. Even the A’s a few years ago had the same issue, where Monte Poole of the Oakland Tribune wrote an article regarding the A’s being in the city of Oakland and with all of the diversity and rich history of African Americans on Athletics teams, etc, and yet they had no minority on there 25 Man Roster at all.
@Oakmetro86 I totally agree and the diversity is what makes Oakland so great you can seen and experience damn near any culture you want in Oakland. I just see if they build this it allows a lot more opportunity for the city and boost moral to bring a new standard for the city but that starts with the POL’s if you keep the city run down it will stay run down invest in the city and it will invest back.
You are right on the money, I hear a lot of people talk about the diversity of the Bay Area, and it certainly is, but (growing up in Oakland, I know you can attest to this), you can literally experience dog near every culture in the world within the Oakland city limits, that being said I think people also tout that too much as a strength of a community (I personally love it), but fare too often in the past you might here an Oakland politician say something to the effect of “Well this is a diverse county, that deserves baseball”, I can’t stand the fact that so many in my home town of Oakland seem to fill they deserve something, MLB does not care about diversity, and the only color they care about is green, and we certainly don’t deserve anything, other than a fair shot at keeping the A’s, which many fill we have already gotten.
@Karim, I admire your strong civic pride and passionate advocacy for Oakland to retaining the A’s as their permanent home. With the most recent approval of the new short-term leases for both the A’s and Raiders at the Coliseum, it now seems apparent that decisions on new facilities for both teams will be forthcoming in the not too distant future. I’m certain that just about everyone on this blog, whether in the Oakland or South Bay camp, would want at a minimum for both the A’s and Raiders to be getting each their very own respective new stadium somewhere within the Bay Area market. Also, for those in the Oakland camp; if Oakland can work out a deal to permanently retain at least one team with a new stadium, then you should view this as a win for the City of Oakland.
” I can’t stand the fact that so many in my home town of Oakland seem to fill they deserve something, MLB does not care about diversity, and the only color they care about is green, and we certainly don’t deserve anything, other than a fair shot at keeping the A’s, which many fill we have already gotten.”
@LakeshoreNeil – well said!
@Karim- You make some valid points about Oakland and your actually one of the few Pro-Oakland guys with intelligent arguments.
Howard Terminal was considered as part of the HOK study in 2001. It was deemed then the “least feasible” of all the sites looked at. That included Uptown, Fremont, Pleasanton to name a few others. Now it is feasible all of a sudden? The cost of a Howard Terminal ballpark would be 550-650M dollars. A San Jose ballpark is 450M because the infrastructure exists already because of the Sharks.
Lew Wolff has been in real estate for longer than most of us have been alive. The reason why Selig wanted Wolff to buy the A’s was because he felt if anyone could get a ballpark done in the East Bay it was Wolff.
Wolff cannot sit down and show his 227 pages of documentation to anyone because Selig issued a “gag order” on this whole ordeal. He has full proof Oakland and the East Bay is “not viable” hence why MLB opened up discussions with San Jose after Fremont fell through in 2009.
MLB is facing a lawsuit and major issues because of this. If by any shot in the dark Wolff could build in Oakland or the East Bay they would all jump on it in a heart beat. Anything is better than the Coliseum. Even sharing ATT Park is a better option.
Oakland gave the Warriors and Raiders major subsidies back in the 90s. The Warriors deal worked out very well for Oakland but the Raiders not so much.
The Warriors are clear evidence of how a public subsidy can work. But Oakland refuses to pony up any money for the A’s as they did for the other teams and it looks they will cough up 300M to keep the Raiders.
So in the end, it is Oakland’s ineptitude that is the issue here not Lew Wolff.
Wolff is better than most owners, he is not even asking for a handout. He wants to pay for it himself but in San Jose where there is a downtown site almost ready (2 businesses need to be moved) and corporate support (SVLG letter)and it moves his team further away from the competition (Giants).
I do agree with you that a Downtown Oakland ballpark would work nicely. Uptown was the last chance and Jerry Brown should have used it as a catalyst for that entire area instead of putting up condos.
There just isn’t anywhere to build as Oakland is very built out much like SF is, hence why the 49ers are moving to Santa Clara.
The A’s are done in Oakland in 2015. The clock just started ticking officially….
@Lakeshore/Neil @Anon Yes I agree there are some people even maybe to many people feel they deserve something or entitlement to having a team or whatever it may be. But I know speaking for myself it is more so the passion and love that I have for my city. Oakland no matter what good that comes from the city is always kicked down by our beloved neighbors. The A’s play on the field is a good reflection on the gritty never say die attitude. So seeing a successful Oakland is seeing the teams stay to help continue the rapid uprising of the city. As long as the city is trying to fight to keep the A’s I support that, and if the city can get it done why not Lew Wolff negotiate? The City going back to the last two mayors, maybe even three mayors never once said no to anything. Jerry Brown screwed the A’s and the fans, since then the city has been trying to make up for it but the owners wont try, and that is well documented. All that I hear on the threads is Oakland cant support or Lew Wolf tried to but its the city’s fault, or San Jose is bigger so they will draw more fans, but all of those comments really can be debunked. There planed 36k seat Stadium in Downtown Oakland or SJ will succeed. And the people and owner that try and throw out that Oakland and the east bay cant support that is simply not true. The fact of the matter no in today sports world is the fans and attendance do not matter were last on the list of importance. TV deals, and huge development with hotels retail, condos, etc are the top of the list. Example is the Houston Astros,they finished 27 in attendance but that report came out that they brought in over 100 million dollars, why because of there tv deals and having a newer stadium. We will never know the true amount of income and value of these teams but that owner was pretty upset that that leaked out. Just as so as Jerry Richardson the Carolina Panthers owner saying he lost 200 million and tried to swindle the city for upgrades but it got leaked he made over 110 million dollars in the last two seasons. The L.A dodgers TV deal pays for there 250 plus million dollar payroll itself, not including parking, concessions, and attendance. Why did the billion Shad Khan buy the Jaguars? Sports money is there from the other revenues than us. My point being is the A’s can thrive in Oakland with a new stadium and development, attendance does not mean anything it today’s sports. With the reports that MLB is struggling with African Americans in Baseball as I posted the links early, this I feel is a major reason. Yes money rules all, but money can still be had in Oakland. And in regards to that fair shot that is all I want too, but Lew hasn’t and will not and that’s the bottom line issue. This dates back to 1995 when Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann bought the team. Oakland keeps fighting lol, 18 years and going.
@Karim I agree with much of what you have said, a lot of people talk up eather SJ or Oakland, while putting the other down. It can work in both places, I fill it can work best in SJ, but that does not mean it cant work in Oakland (and well), it has been said, that most people on this blog, weather Pro-SJ or Oakland, just want the A’s in a new park in the Bay Area, many people dont care where it is, they just want it done. I like you grew up in Oakland jumped on the 57 rode through most of the city, to get to the coli, to catch an A’s game with my boys with only $2.00 on me (bleacher seat), got back on the 57 rode back across they city got off near Lake Shore( handle name), I loved growing up in Oakland, and share a lot of the same fellings you have talked about, concerning growing up there. If there is any hope the A’s can stay in Oakland, I share that hope with you, and I am glad you have a open mind toward San Jose, because San Jose may be the only thing standing between our team, and Portland.
Karim there is nothing wrong with African Americans preferring the NBA to MLB anymore than there is Hispanics preferring MLB to the NBA, it is what it is. As far as the only color that MLB cares about, you can apply that to most things. I am a huge Penn State supporter, but let’s be honest they let a Sexual Predator ( Jerry Sandusky), prowl around Campus so they can make money. Don’t even get me started on Hollywood and the music industry. Why should MLB and the NHL be the only organizations in this country who get hammered over money and ethnic make up?! To me if the NBA is 90% black and the NHL is 90% white, it is okay, because they simply are better at it, nothing more nothing less. I remember when there were complaints about the lack of Black Quarterbacks and Coaches. Guess what? It ended as soon as they showed they can no only compete, but excel at the job.
@ David BrownKarim David I here what your saying in a general sence, with the NHL the sport was created by the Vikings and has been played in mostly cold weather places (large white populations), through out its history, so it makes sence that most of the players, coaches and fans are white. I think your a little off when it comes to the NFL QB, and coaches. 85-90% of the plays in the NFL are Afro-American, and it has only been in the last 15-20 years that the plays had real oppertunity to play QB (only smat player) and coach game, Waren Moon had to play in another leauge, because he wanted to play QB. Big Al Davis was ahead of the NFL when it came to succh things
@David Brown BTW I think it was 1987(could be incorrect about the year), when Doug Williams won the first SB by a Afro-American QB, I think its fair to say that if given the chance to (really) play QB it would have happend way befor 87? odd that an Afro-American QB (first) won a SB for a team Washington, that has a name Redskins, that is seen by many to be just as racest as not giving (Afro-American) QB’s or coache’s a (real) chance to play(QB) and coach in a sport that is 85-90% Afro-American, I cant think of anything that has an 85-90% rate of particapation , and does not have persons of that rate in key places QB and coach, in till the last 15-20 years thats a problem.
Lakeshore/Neil, let me give you a shocking number. Since Jackie Robinson integrated the Game in 1947, how many minority Pitchers have been elected to the Hall of Fame, based upon their MLB output? 1; Juan. Marichal. 2: Ferguson Jenkins. 3: Bob Gibson. I feel comfortable adding Prdro Martinez and Mariano Rivera to that list. Basically there is one American ( Gibson) on that list. Exactly the same amount of Black Quarterbacks who are in the NFL Hall of Fame. Why it it? No idea, it just is what it is.
“If there is any hope the A’s can stay in Oakland, I share that hope with you, and I am glad you have a open mind toward San Jose, because San Jose may be the only thing standing between our team, and Portland.”
@Lakeshore/Neil, Well said! As for myself, growing up in Brooklyn and losing my baseball team as a little kid, I sure know what the feeling was like. I would have gladly accepted the move of my Dodgers to nearby Flushing Queens, as was proposed by Robert Moses, instead of having the team move some 3,000 miles away to Los Angeles. Yes, the Dodgers would have not been still playing in my beloved Brooklyn, but they would have been playing close enough to still be able to attend ballgames in person at Flushing Dodger Field, or to be able to follow my Dodgers on local broadcast television or radio. I would hate to see Bay Area A’s fans lose their team to Portland, or some other distant market. Fortunately for myself, National League baseball did return to the New York market, five years after both the Dodgers and Giants had departed for the West Coast. However, if the A’s ultimately do move out of the Bay Area, the Giants will get their wish and would indefinitely have the entire Bay Area market all to themselves. Despite respecting the almost fifty year tradition of the A’s in Oakland, I do value even more the A’s remaining within the Bay Area market. If it is determined that San Jose is the most viable locale for a successfully operated new A’s ballpark within the Bay Area, so be it. Otherwise, in the best case scenario, the A’s could be forced to operate continuously as a small market team while playing at a less profitable Bay Area location. Of course, in the worst case scenario, the A’s could be sold and moved to another market, altogether. Both alternatives are not acceptable, and explains why I’m firmly in the San Jose A’s camp.
@ David Brown “No idea just is what it is” 85-90%? Your world man, no disrespect but you can right off a lot of things in history by saying “just is what it is”, man and people in here talk about the Oakland-Only folks (rightfully so), being off the mark.
@IIpec I agree with you 100%
Lakeshore/Neil more often than people think it is what it is is very accurate. Look at a Soccer. Everyone said Soccer is the next big thing, due to Demographic Changes. I have now heard that for 30 years, and it has slipped further behind the NHL in TV ratings ( let alone not caught up to the others). Another is the potential of Rutgers Football. They have never been good ( going back to the 1860’s), but I always hear of their potential. The Cubs. sucking for over 100 years is a good one. Why is that? No idea, it is what it is.
@ David Brown I am not saying, that “It is what it is” can not, or does not come in to play many times in life, but in this case, 85-90% of any people doing anything in life, and not being able to have key input QB and head coach for over 50 years (once they are alowed to take part in that activity), is crazy, and should not be simply cast off as “Is what it is” I fill like your useing it as a reason, not to look at the facts, much like the Oakland-Only folks can do, but its cool we can agree to disagree.
I am a huge numbers guy ( although at least when it comes to baseball I go by what I see ( NFL is harder because of grading say an Offensive Lineman). I generally use ” it is what it is” to define something unexplainable like the Cubs, or there are facts that will not be changing ever ( or anytime soon). But when I am wrong I say when I am wrong. As I research this subject a bit, I can say my numbers are off a bit. The NBA is 78% African-American while the NFL is 67% and MLB is 9%. However, the basic principle applies: Larry Bird said ” But it’s a black man’s game and it will be forever. I mean the greatest athletes in the world are African-Americans.” Now there are exceptions to every rule (CC Sabathia in Baseball comes to mind, so does Tiger Woods). However, These people are statistical rarities ( as are all MLB Hall of Famers ( I did a thesis paper in College dealing with the Baseball Hall of Fame and it is shocking to see that less than 1% of players actually make it)). If you look at the number of NBA Players who were elected to the Hall of Fame since 1947 ( when the game was integrated ( it’s a perfect year since that is when Jackie Robinson broke in) I count 74 based on their NBA career. Now there are obvious cases like Kobe Bryant and Lebron James who will be Elected as well, but I am just citing guys who are in already. Interesting enough the same amount of MLB Players (74) were elected in the same time frame ( based upon the same criteria ( not pre 1947 to make it simple)). Now I concede the point that certain guys like Clemens and Bonds would be in already without Steroids, and certain others are locks like Jeter and Rivera. Finally the voting rules are different, but there should be a wider difference between MLB and NBA Hall of Famers, based on roster sizes ( more than double the amount of players on a roster). The “is what it is” really applies here. The Quarterback and Coach issue “was it is”what is based upon Historical precedent and mythology, nothing Scientific. Sort of like there will never be a Black a President. I will say however that no matter how Obama does ( and I am not his biggest fan to put it mildly), the probability is there are greater odds that there will be another Black President than the NBA will be a white league. ” It is what it is.”
You say you’re a numbers guy, but I think your ignoring them, or at least the reasons behind
Them. I believe you said the NFL was made up of 67% of black players, that’s almost 70% of the league.
Yet it has not been it’ll the last 15-20 years, that African American players have even been encouraged to even try to compete at the QB (leadership position), and they had to instatetute a league wide rule, that a minority must be interviewed for a head coaching position (leadership position), although the overwhelming majority of them are former players, you know those same nearly 70% of the league. You sited the NBA and the racial difference between the
white and black players, but the Euro-American white player was never prohibited from playing in the league, or not give real chances at coaching opportunities in the league, in spite of the fact that they make up 78% (I believe you said), of the league, that my fried suggest there are real underlying problems, and not “it is what it is”, there are real reasons behind those numbers, people’s lives, and lost opportunities, which is not new to human kind. One of the reasons I love sports, is because, it constitutes one of the highest level of compaction in our society, this usually weeds out classicism, or racialism, and many other things, because to win you must have, and be the best to win, does not matter how tall, short fat, thin, black, white, does not matter who your parent are, or if you have non
this is why sports often leads society in social change, and in spite of that it still took fare to long, for there to be a level playing field.
So…..San Jose signed a lease extension with SJ Giants through 2018. Thoughts? Is 2019 the earliest we’ll see Cisco Field?
IMO, This lease renewal between the City of San Jose and the SJ Giants is another early sign that a settlement between San Jose and MLB, and between the A’s and Giants is in the final stages. With the A’s only signed for only two more seasons at the Coliseum, the MLB approval of the A’s move to San Jose will be based upon a compensation package to the Giants for giving up their so called “territorial rights” to the South Bay. I’ve previously stated that a significant part of this compensation package would be that the A’s become temporary tenants of the Giants for two or three seasons until Cisco Field is completed. It’s now looking definitively to be three seasons, which would have the A’s playing in San Jose starting with the 2019 season. This in effect gives the Giants five more years before the A’s actually move to lucrative Silicon Valley. Also, it should be noted that 2019 coincides with the estimated completion of the first phase of the BART extension to San Jose.
Your San Jose Giants: Keeping the Nation’s 10th-largest City Minor League
2018 I would not worry, 5 years is the time line we have all pertty much come up with, that would be a perfrct time frame for San Jose at Dirdon, or Oakland at CC, if the A’s cant get SJ.
Bud Selig is something else. He should have bribed bay area politicians ten years ago to get the A’s a public funding ballpark….sigh as long as A’s leave the coliseum for a possible contrusction on the new RaidRaider stadium by 2015 thats all that matters to me.
I wouldn’t read anything in to the A’s 2 year lease. It’s a 2 year lease because the Coliseum may not be available to the A’s after the 2015 season. ie.. if the Coliseum is demolished or renovated. If the Raiders leave, the A’s may renew the lease for a few more years. Nothing has been decided. Mark Davis must feel that there is a good chance Oakland will come through for him. He is giving Oakland one more chance. Unfortunately, the A’s will just have to continue to wait this out.
Hey Guys, I just wanted to say that it was nice to read a mine filled comments section in which nobody really stepped on the mine and turned it into a flame war.