Wolff reconsiders the Coliseum – to what end?

If you want to know what I thought immediately when I heard that Lew Wolff is reconsidering the idea of building a ballpark at the Coliseum, well, Ray Ratto beat me to it.

If, on the other hand, you want to entertain the idea that Wolff is being forthright and sees the Coliseum as a real option, I have some ideas about that too.

But first, let’s step back to June 2012, and the Save Oakland Sports meeting I attended. As we were wrapping up, one of the SOS principals (used to be “A’s observer” in the comments) asked me, Do you think Lew Wolff would consider building in Oakland? My response was, Yes, but you have to make it worth his while. He’s trying to pay for a ballpark and make it pencil out, so if Oakland has some mechanisms to make that happen, I think he would be interested.

At the time I figured people would interpret that to mean cash or free ballpark. What I was suggesting was that if Oakland can figure out a way to bridge the gap between what makes San Jose so attractive (corporate interest) and Oakland’s limitations, there could be a solution in Oakland. Can Coliseum City bridge that gap? That’s the billion-dollar question.

Remember that when Wolff was first hired as VP of venue development, he pushed for a ballpark on the Malibu & HomeBase lots, the latter of which was not owned by the JPA. The JPA nixed Wolff’s idea and later bought the HomeBase lot for Coliseum City and the Raiders. Steve Schott preferred a ballpark – if in Oakland – to be in the north parking lot of the Coliseum. That idea was a nonstarter due to potential conflicts with the other tenant teams (Warriors, Raiders) and the area still stinging politically from the Mt. Davis debacle. When Wolff took over as managing partner, he first offered up his Coliseum North vision. The light industrial area includes the old drive-in/swap meet, the now-shuttered Columbo bakery, and several other small businesses. This concept also died quickly, as the City didn’t want to entertain the prospect of buying out businesses and the limited amounts Wolff was willing to offer to seal the deal.

Now there is Coliseum City, which could bridge the gap via third party investor funds. In effect this is a substitute for the normal public subsidy we so often see in the stadium game. The idea is to have Colony Capital and HayaH Holdings take care of some amount of the gap on their own. How much they will be willing to fund for one or more new venues will depend largely on the what forthcoming market study recommends for the project.

BayIG, the combined group of developers and capital, is supposed to have reached out to both the A’s and Warriors in attempts to get them to agree to be involved in Coliseum City. Until now both teams’ ownership groups have shown little interest in partnering with BayIG and the Raiders on Coliseum City as they’re pursuing their own venue plans in San Jose and San Francisco, respectively. However, there is a way I could see Lew Wolff showing interest in CC, especially as a potential funding mechanism.

That way occurs if Coliseum City isn’t feasible for the Raiders. Even though the Raiders are the anchor tenant, there’s a great chance that they’ll have to back out, simply because the costs of building their own stadium are prohibitive. Recently there was talk of a $400-500 million funding gap for the stadium, and with typical football-related sources potentially maxed out, it’s difficult to see how development alone would pay for a large portion. For instance:

Three phases of Coliseum City have ballpark built out at the end of the project

Three phases of Coliseum City have ballpark built out at the end of the project

Phase I doesn’t address any new sources of revenue to fund the project, except the possibility of selling Coliseum land (Property Transfer). Given the remaining debt on the Coliseum of $100 million (and dropping each year by 7-8%) and the cost of infrastructure, it’s likely that any proceeds from land sales would be wiped out by that combination of costs. It’s likely that BayIG and the JPA would work together to create a Community Facilities District (Mello-Roos) or Infrastructure Finance District, whose purpose is to collect various taxes to fund the project. CFDs require majority votes, whereas IFDs require two-thirds supermajority votes. In the case of the 49ers’ stadium plan, a CFD was approved by the public. Historically IFDs are tougher to put together and approve, though some legislators including State Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) have been making headway on that front. It’s not quite the new redevelopment as it’s limited to infrastructure, but it’s an important step.

Phase II provides for limited ancillary development next to the football stadium. It could raise a $1-2 million per year, depending on how money is extracted from the condo developments. Hypothetically, if each condo provided $100,000 of its sales price towards stadium construction, that’s still only $83.7 million. Chances are that asking for more than that would either make the units not salable or eat significantly into the developer’s profits.

If the Raiders stadium proves too costly, the A’s could easily slot right in with a much less expensive stadium option that has a much smaller funding gap, say $200-300 million. Plus with only one stadium there instead of two, there would be additional land to develop or reassign as needed. Wolff’s in a good position to wait and see how the market analyses work out for them and the Raiders. Numerous outcomes could be put forth:

  • Coliseum City works financially for all three teams
  • Coliseum City works financially for two of the three teams
  • Coliseum City works financially for only the Raiders
  • Coliseum City works financially for only the A’s
  • Coliseum City doesn’t work financially for any team

I’m sure there are specific benchmarks for each of these outcomes, but we’ll have to wait until April to understand what those are. The Warriors component is even fuzzier than for the A’s and Raiders, since the replacement would be built in Area B of Coliseum City across I-880. To date the arena has not been part of the identified planning phases.

For now, Wolff gets to provide the most tacit support to Coliseum City, while letting the chips fall where they may. If the plan doesn’t pencil out, which I suspect he believes, he’ll have the numbers to prove himself right and to shut his critics up. If it does work out, he’ll be in a good bargaining position to ask for some piece of the pie. BayIG is being asked to get teams to sign on by no later than next summer, so we’ll see if this has legs.

Of course, the last 1,100 words are only believable if you endorse the idea that Wolff is actually considering Oakland in any way. If not, you’ve just wasted a few minutes of your time. Get back to your building your Wolff effigies and altars.

84 thoughts on “Wolff reconsiders the Coliseum – to what end?

  1. It would make sense, if Oakland can only provide for one facility, for it to be a baseball stadium, used 80+ times a year and costing half what a football stadium costs. A football stadium as the principal or only sports facility in the Coliseum City “vision” makes the least sense. Used 10 times a year, costing $1 billion. But it just looks like Oakland loves it Raiders more than the A’s.

  2. @ML- great summary- hypothetically lets assume it pencils out in Oakland and because of this no changes are made to the TR. do you believe that as a requirement of building in Oakland that LW will want the imbalance of the market reflected in being considered a small market team by the CBA? I would think he has leverage here after this extended battle over TR and the gints having 7 counties to the A’s 2.

  3. Yes, Wolff could say “You’ve boxed me into this six counties-to-two territory, with the continued weak prospects for revenue generation. So if this is what you (the commissioner and the other owners) want, then you’ll need to continue subsidizing me in a new Oakland ballpark.”

  4. One thought, IF it were only a baseball stadium, as said above, you’re getting 81+ dates over 10+. And the overall footprint of a baseball stadium is smaller than that of a football stadium. So in essence, you’re gaining more revenue for subsidiary development around the park and a stronger anchor to drive foot traffic to the area making the area more attractive to tenets. The real issue is getting both sides to agree on how to split the profits the development would create. If the Raiders & Warriors are out of this, it may make more sense to cut out Colony and have Wolff develop it.

  5. Didn’t LW propose a version of CC in Oakland way back in 2005/2006; what is the major difference between today’s plan and that one?

  6. That plan required acquisition of a bunch of private properties. This plan does not.

  7. @GoA’s: The 2005 North Coliseum plan looked at the lot north of 66th Ave. Beyond that, it’s anyone’s guess as to how the dollars and cents compare.

  8. @GoA’s – Addressed in article, 5th paragraph.

  9. crazy man, looks like we may have to wait another 5-8 years for somthing to get done, weather its SJ, Oakland,or Fremont. The goodbad news is by the time we get somthing done (if), we will be the only new park to celabrate

  10. Wolff’s consideration of the Coliseum site means MLB owners can look forward to many more years of subsidizing the A’s at their current site, while the Giants don’t get the market all to themselves. A win for A’s fans and a loss for some folks who deserve to lose.

  11. @pjk – Point noted, you don’t need to repeat yourself.

  12. While I don’t subscribe to Ratto’s jaded opinion about Wolff’s motivations… I do agree with ML that it could be any number of his plans above. And it is quite possible we’re seeing the end result of SJ’s end as a viable option. Just as it’s also possible we’re seeing Plan B being formed.

    Only thing we seem to know for sure right now is what Neil just mentioned… we’re likely in for another half decade or more of the same old crap.

  13. At your earliest convenience Rayburn, would like to get your take on this feces of a development. Wonder what SJ/SV pols and business leaders have to say about this one…

  14. @Dan,
    Please stop; you’re killing me..

  15. I can’t bring myself to believe that Coliseum City would need an entirely new indoor arena for the Warriors. I understand that club space is limited right now, but there has to be a way to renovate Oracle that gets the Warriors what they need in the long run. Obviously right now the arena is more than up to par for NBA games and concerts. Spending $500 million on a new building when the existing one is already modern and well-liked is just insanity.

  16. I found it very interesting to note that among all the specific concerns mentioned at the joint Oakland/Alameda County representatives meeting on the CC project, the one that surprisingly seemed to stand out the most was the repeated questions regarding the density issue for the football stadium. The question was being raised as to whether a football stadium, given its limited event date usage potential, would generate enough revenue for the project to be profitable. It started to become apparent that while a football stadium for the Raiders may have been the sentimental favorite priority for the project, it could very well wind up being more of a financial liability than the Mt. Davis fiasco. As a result, there may be a chance that Oakland/Alameda elected officials may begin to take a second look at a ballpark for the A’s, with its eighty-one guaranteed event dates, as being the one sports facility anchor that could make CC a profitably run project. With the ongoing stadium/ballpark situation in a constant state of flux, only time will tell.

  17. Tony, I know it’s killing you… but you may be dead already and don’t know it yet. Or you could just have a very long lasting case of indigestion. The next few years apparently will tell.

  18. Well it hasn’t been a dull week that’s for sure.


    The Warriors are the real money behind Knauss’ Howard Terminal “plan”? They’d want to fund a $500 million ballpark (presumably with Knauss and co. handling the surrounding development and infrastructure?) while also trying to build a half billion dollar arena across the bay in SF?

  19. Or it is also there plan B if and when S.F fails. Read prior interview of Lacob he said he has studied HT in depth and knows about it very well. Pretty interesting, S.F Waterfront…. Oakland waterfront with more land, Designs wouldn’t change much. Like i said in the past there are many ways for this. Split it up 25 acres and 25 acres and its still more land than SJ and Sf for them to build condos, Hotels etc on. Crazy, interesting to say the least though

  20. Also side note correct me if I’m wrong I believe the dubs co owner was part of the initial group to try and buy the A’s. He can sell his share of the dodgers

  21. The Warriors buying the A’s? This has become a soap opera. Would be interesting to see what the Giants would do if, yes, a brand new waterfront ballpark were to actually get off the ground right across the Bay from their now-teenage ballpark. Would they quickly cede San Jose? Or do they already know the environmental, etc issues mean Wolff is right about the impossibility of Howard Terminal?

  22. W’s owners interested in buying A’s and building at HT show how pissed off,they are at the gints also for trying to block their arena in SF. Keep it up Larry and we will make sure you have cookie cutter competition within view across the bay. Wouldn’t be surprised to read something about LW sitting down to talk with these prospective owners- smiling and laughing the whole time that they now have the gints shitting bricks that something might happen in Oakland.

    Back when SJ was trying to get the W’s to move down the Sharks who operate the arena thought that they had a deal in place for the move and then they decided to get a bit greedy and the deal fell apart over parking revenues. That executive soon departed the Sharks after the W’s decided to stay in a remodeled Oracle. He will always be known as the guy who facilitated the re-development of a competing arena 35 miles away- imagine being Larry Baer and being remembered as the guy who drove the construction of AT&T 2 just 7 miles away

  23. @pjk everything not sj is a pipe dream and never happening in Oakland, but from what were seeing is sj pipe dream slowly disappear, no offense but can we just look at what keeps leaking to the media and take it as fact and not oh maybe Lew is putting pressure on sj by mentioning Oakland for the first time in 8 years, oh if they stay in Oakland they need revenue sharing come on everyone pro sj on her is hoping for that fanasty that it’s still sj team and Lew has a master plan don’t worry will get it guys. How bout we all look back starting in June with the letter from MLB with open eyes and stop turning a blind eye. MLB said no for the current plan, Lew and co won’t meet the demands as we can see since that letter he has lighten up on his comments towards Oakland a lot. The city of Oakland finally has most of its shit together and bud doesn’t wanna touch TR so it’s all coming to a head on now Lew builds or Lew sells. Like I’ve mentioned in all previous post it’s happening, there is no maybe it’s a smoke screen anymore. Lew got the message loud and clear from MLB and were slowly seeing the outcome…. Working with Oakland

  24. Frisco ex-mayor Art Agnos is running an anti-arena campaign against the W’s and we all know where the money is coming from right?

  25. Karim: I’ve never objected to a new Oakland ballpark. I’ve already been an Oakland A’s fan for more than 20 years. I am still skeptical that it can be done, though.

  26. @pjk fair enough @ml yes but like I’ve been telling other posters about news being released, and investors being reveled until something is happening. We only hear what they want us to know, there’s a reason for this info. so I believe something with MLB/Lew/A’s issue is coming to a head on fast, now this stuff is being leaked. Everyone involved is making moves for position/negotiation. I beileve where gonna know something a lot sooner than that April CC deadline we marked on our calendar.

    • @Karim – None of these various moves/non-moves cover costs. Cost to prep, cost to build, cost to acquire, cost to develop. Until those are addressed I can’t take much of this seriously. Makes for good website traffic though!

  27. @ Tony D – after a slew of text messages – nothing has changed – still only Plan A – son and grandson looking forward to running team in future…period. Heard today…neither MLB, Oakland, nor Giants control the future location of the team….some expletives deleted

    BTW LW used to own a piece of the Warriors at one time….you can look that up.

  28. @Dan,

    I’m not as pessimistic as you are re this whole soap opera. I personally feel there was “method to the madness” of Wolff resurrecting the Coli parking lot for a ballpark. He would be burning far too many San Jose/SV bridges if he were to abandon the current effort for an eternal “depressed market.” He (again) would also be rewarding the “bad actor” and Oakland pols who’ve shit on the A’s for over 15 years.

    Look, we learned last week that SJ is there for the taking (financial concerns aside). SJ has really been there for the taking since 2009. The majority of owners want the move and SJ is the best LONG TERM option for the franchise. If Selig/MLB were going to make it extremely difficult for Wolff to relocate to SJ THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE OPENED IT UP; they would simply have told Wolff in 2009 “make it work in your current designated territory, end of discussion.”

    Remaining optimistic and not running for the hills based on a quote here/a quote there and opinions on this blog. SJ, it will happen…

  29. @dan that initial interview was a while but just bringing it up then it was intresting lacob has studied HT etc deeply, as that’s why I always thought that’s his plan b for the warriors since that interview, makes perfect sence, both sf and ht are waterfront so designs wouldn’t change much. Now this rumor about the A’s throws another wild idea out there building stadiums for both teams there as the site is more than enough

  30. BTW,
    Lacob and Guber must be insanely super rich! Owning the Warriors, buying the A’s AND building two insanely expensive sports venues over the waterfront? Not even Larry Ellison could pull that off. So why hypothetically buy the A’s and blow a bunch of dough in a depressed market? Wouldn’t they rather make money in $J/$V? Oh well, to bad the A’s aren’t for sale…

  31. @Karim,
    Show us proof that MLB is working with Oakland! As far as I know, the MLB committee has already ruled out Oakland for the A’s (see Wolff quotes from earlier in the year) and has rejected HT (per Wolff). Again, provide proof (I.e. facts), not just talking point from Quan and the Oakland-only.

  32. ML – Would it be worth your time at some point to draft-up a shared Google spreadsheet as a link broken-done by site (CC, Diridon and now maybe HT) highlighting any published figures of costs/funding needs to make each site actually happen, with each cost associated with either published or theoretical source(s) for the funds?

    For instance:

    Diridon – land acquisition cost $6.9 million. Source – must be paid from team to City of San Jose to begin building of field.

    Howard Terminal – $XXX,XXX – Hazmat abatement costs – could come from Federal grant

    CC – Cost of Raiders Stadium – $1.2 billion – partly funded by NFL grant funds; currently, up to $500 million unfunded

    That might be a lot of work, but it seems like it would be a great resource to take a look at the true costs of each one of these alternatives to at least arrive at some form of quick comparison beyond the rhetoric flying around…

  33. @ Rayburn,
    Thanks (Karim thanks you as well)

  34. As a realist, I can see a couple other possible reason for backtracking to CC:

    – LW realizes HT might be a reality, therefore is leading Oakland away back to CC so that when CC fails, he can fallback on SJ. This doesn’t make too much sense given the penchant of Oakland of throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks, which means HT will eventually be brought up again even if CC fails.

    – LW and MLB knows HT is a nonstarter, so wants Oakland to concentrate on CC, hoping this massive effort will fail, thereby give reasons to default to SJ, finally. This seems more likely given past HOK studies and the short term lease signed by the A’s.

    Either way, it is LW who wins regardless.

  35. @Taj Adib – It’s a good idea when everything’s out in the open. As of this moment – too many ?’s

  36. San Jose loves you forever and always, Lew Wolff.

  37. I don’t understand why commentors on here seem to think that the A’s would keep getting revenue sharing checks if they built another ballpark in Oakland.

    They would not. The Astrix is simply until they get a new ballpark (and maybe not even until then, depending on if it is renewed in the next agreement).

  38. @Jeopardydd the A’s wont get it. there trying to proove a pro SJ point and are trying to make it that Oakland and the A’s “territory” is so poor and wouldn’t support the A’s in a new stadium because SJ is so great and has so much money, thats all the underlying effect there saying

  39. @ML I feel ya and agree I just feel these things have been addressed behind closed doors and there is in fact a financial plan that’s why the city all of a sudden is trying to be forceful with the issue after being quiet for so long. But we have not seen or heard anything about the bottom lie and you are right the almighty dollar

  40. @Karim,
    The Raiders called the Oakland area a “depressed market,” and there’s a reason why the owners of the Warriors want to move to $F. How have those luxury suite sales gone for the Raiders BTW? Sorry that the truth is so inconvenient for you..

  41. @Tony D Larry Ellison was also very cheap as he lost out to lacob and complained he bid higher to save face and he also dropped out of the piers because he was to cheap, yes he may be one of the riches in the world but he would rather buy a island than a sports team. Also you are just stating talking points from good ol Lew so whats the difference. and he has even less creditably since this week he has said maybe Oakland now.

  42. @ Tony d sorry its not I actually see and accept the truth, Yes mt. Davis was a mistake and the area needs a face lift that’s why it was called depressed area you have to build things and have things to attract people and bring in money, what do you think the city is trying to do build things to draw visitors etc.

  43. In tennis, no one player gets to serve the ball. Both players take turns. So that’s kind of the situation we’re in right now with Oakland having their turn to show what they can manage to lob over the net. For the first time, we have a semi deadline, I would argue. Oakland’s serve ends by Summer 2014. They have done the easy part of putting together cute concept photos, but now can they show they can afford to finish? Personally, I doubt Oakland is even in the game. Summer 2014 will come and go and Oakland will only have those same cute and cuddly photos with no actual plan. Gangster residents will keep blaming Lew Wolff for their own incompetence and MLB will have no choice but San Jose. Having someone serve the ball, who is shown to always hit the net, does not hurt San Jose.

  44. @Steven,
    Agree wholeheartedly that Oakland isn’t even in the game, despite all the “news” and cute drawings we’ve been bombarded with as of late.

  45. @Karim As you know, I am a Pro-Oakland fan, thats really cool with SJ, I have even stated that I fill Dirdon is the best overall site for the A’s in the BayArea, but that does not make Oakland a bad place for the A’s, not by a long shot, I am not an “Oakland has to be good, so SJ has to be bad” person, and I dont think you are eather, but its like I said to you befor, some people will not think it can happen in, Oakland till the day it does.

  46. At max build out the Diridon Station area will have 5M of commercial square feet (enough for 20k employees), 400,000 for retail, 2600 residential units and 900 hotel rooms- this in addition to the proposed 32k ballpark. Absent the football stadium this is bigger in term of commercial, residential, retail and hotel rooms than what is proposed in all 3 Phases of CC.


  47. “the A’s wont get it. there trying to proove a pro SJ point and are trying to make it that Oakland and the A’s “territory” is so poor and wouldn’t support the A’s in a new stadium because SJ is so great and has so much money, thats all the underlying effect there saying”

    @karim, That’s the Giants’ underlying reason as to why they do not want to give up their territorial exclusivity claims to the South Bay. The Bay Area was divided into two distinct unequal territories with wide disparities in terms of both land area, population, and wealth. On that basis alone, MLB was correct to give the Giants large market status and the A’s small market status. This adjustment was given to the A’s to compensate for this territorial disparity. I truly hope that MLB corrects this two territory nonsense, and reverts the Bay Area back to being a two team one territory fully shared market. If that happened, the A’s would then be given large market status provided that they were also free to move anywhere within the Bay Area market.

  48. @Tony D. Fact is we have no idea, who is in the game, fact is at the end of the day, San Jose, Oakland, and Fremont may not really be in the game, which would mean we would all be out of the game.

  49. Lakeshore/Neil yes I just want the A’s to have a new stadium and if something can get done in HT great that will transform the whole area, CC great too but I think one team will be at HT, with CC there pretty much making a downtown 2 which could bite in to downtown $ but if its the raiders @ CC I think wont hurt Downtown that much due to amount of games played. You are right and I think that day will come soon and shock everyone.

  50. @ llpec yes the TT rights are stupid especially when its not evenly divided. It needs to be fixed but the people saying there still gonna be small market etc poor on revenue sharing, we all know that’s not gonna happen. If Lew or whoever owns the team markets and makes the right decisions they can be successful and bring in money from corporations, TV deals etc. If you flip the A’s and Giants around the A’s would be what the Giants are now. The Giants have the advantage of having a great new stadium and 2 World Series within a 3 year span of course the money is flowing in, same would have happened to Oakland and the A’s. all I’m saying its not SJ or bust like everyone wants to claim

  51. @karim- what businessman wold give up nearly $40M dollars when nothing will have changed in the market other than the A’s going heavily into debt to build. Ballpark. And what A’s fan would advocate that they do this knowing that they have got to compete with a very wealthy team right across the bay (at least currently)

  52. We need LE to step up and say he wants to buy the warriors and keep them in Oakland. Would love to hear Lacob’s response-

  53. Idk maybe the ones that want to buy them, they must see a lot more than Lew and you guys on here. why would Joe Lacob spend 450 million to buy the warriors…. because hes a businessman that knows how to market and make his team succeed on and off the court has connections and has brought investors from around the bay, etc to buy luxury boxes advertisement etc. and now there worth over 800 million in just 3 years. The owner has a responsibility too. The A’s are not gonna go heavily in debt no Oakland team will they are gonna have investments attached to any project built. 38k is 38 k weather in SJ or Oakland and it can work in either city. The area around SJ has lots of company’s but that doesn’t mean they will not invest if its in Oakland. you guys say SJ is only 45- a hour away. well lew had Cisco field in Fremont and that only 10-15 min a way so why cant Cisco field be marketed in Oakland?

  54. @GoA’s agree with you, as much as I would like to see the A’s get somthing done in Oakland, I would rather see them in SJ, if it ment they would not have RS rights, they can do much better in Oakland, for a number of reasons, then they are at the moment, but we are talking about 36mil this year, even if they did well enough to not need it, they should not give up the right to receive it. The A’s are confined to 29 of the Bay Area, no way they give that up

  55. @karim- and what is the first thing JL did after he bought the W’s- announced plans to move them to SF- which is a bigger market. I fail to see that as a ringing endorsement of the Oakland market-

  56. If wolff/fisher are willing to deal with Oakland where does that leave San Jose’s already tenuous claim that it has a binding agreement for the A’s to move there? You’ve gotta be deluded if you don’t realize that wolff/fisher are as deeply responsible for this debacle as are the Giants owners.

  57. @xoot- bs is the one who is responsible for this mess for not being able to make a decision when he is paid 25M a year for his ineptness. Any other commish would have told the gints to F off awhile ago- personally I relish the thought of an AT&T clone within sight of AT&T- so Larry Baer can see a much newer ballpark every day– but I don’t expect it to happen-

  58. @ xoot – if someone at MLB didn’t tell LW to make a go of SJ he would not have….thus, your strained logic is ???? well, strained…

  59. The NFL would likely help the Raiders with a $200 mil. contribution to a new Raiders stadium (The NFL commissioner prefers that the Raiders stay in Oakland) The Davis ownership will fund $300 mil. – leaving a $300 mil. tab for Oakland and Alameda co. Small Santa Clara found a way to fund $150 mil. of the new Niners stadium.

    Subtract a stadium naming rights deal also – worth $100 mil. or more likely) leaving a deficit of $200 mil. to split between Alameda county and Oakland – the new Raiders stadium sounds doable.

    Wolff is demonstrating his evidently shrewd knack for business by naming the Coliseum as plan B if San Jose doesn’t work (this fan believes San Jose is still very likely though)

  60. @GoA’s That one about LE, was so funny, but it does make you wonder, if the SF Giants just pissed off another Bay Area team. Dont think it would happen, but it would be sweet, if both the A’s and Warriors teamed up to piss of the Giants, would be real sweet

  61. @Go’A’s no sorry it wasn’t, it was actually 2 years after and because everyone’s favorite mayor wasn’t ready with plans when he approached the city for a new stadium and then he entered into a contract with SF, confirmed by both sides, because the early stage of the CC concept. Warriors spokes person said regarding it. “The Warriors and the city have expressed the desire to meet and discuss the impact of recent developments in Oakland,” said team spokesman Raymond Ridder. Also Rick Welts said there was no desired choice but due to the size of the plan and they wanted more details the city couldn’t provide then. But since sf isn’t working out looks like he wants to stay why because they have been pretty successful. And a bigger market doesn’t work when you are going from almost a 20k seat stadium to 17k, you get the same viewership and like I said earlier it doesn’t matter where the teams are you market good and run a good business it will work.

  62. @LSN- I actually think that’s what Lacob is doing- in one fell swoop he “threatens” to build a copy of AT&T while also playing nice with JQ who is trying to block his arena. He’s killed two birds with one stone yet I don’t think he gives a rats ass about the A’s and HT- if it was such a great biz opts he would already be building his arena there not offering it up to another sports team

  63. Xoot Please – FYI: There is no other situation in pro sports, in a two team fanbase situation, where one team is attempting to hose the other as much as the giants are attempting to shaft the A’s. The Angels/Dodgers organizations are not attempting to sue each other out of town, ditto for the NY Yankees/Mets or Chisox/Cubs. The other major sports teams in two team fanbase situations similiarly also don’t attempt to drive their neighbors out of town.

    Furthermore, it’s quite certain that in the history of professional sports, in a two team fanbase situation, one team has never opposed the other team moving further away from it. What the giants are attempting to do is a unique first in professional sports – blaming the A’s for their stadium woes is complete nonsense. The giants are a greedy, sleezeball organization.

  64. @duffer- nfl doesn’t “give the $200M” it loans it and is to be paid back by luxury suite revenues. Mark Davis will expect a return on his investment- and more than likely naming rights will be one of the revenue streams he will want to tap into. Bottom line is cumulative revenue streams will be divided by all investors which typically leaves a city holding the bag to pay off their contribution with tax revenues.

  65. @ xoot – For an argument to be valid the logical form of it must work, i.e., it itself must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true. Unfortunately, yours is not.

    A conclusory argument, like yours, attempts to hide its ugliness. Your premise about LW’s action in pursuing SJ is false because you have made assertions without any basis of fact. This line of argument colors your persuasion black and orange. LW relied on someone at MLB encouraging him to pursue SJ, without such reliance we would not find ourselves at this point. We can’t blame LW for relying on the rainmaker. Someone at MLB believed, and still believes, that the deal is doable – the price of which is at issue.

  66. @Rayburn’s Son The price, is what may make it none doable. The A’s have the money (as you know), but if its counted as debt toward the team, as well as paying for the park, land, and along with not receiving RS rights. That seems to be more debt then some in MLB are cool with.

  67. @Lakeshore/Neil: Come on, LW and Fisher who is incredibly rich, can tell BS that they, not MLB or anyone else will take care of their own biz.

    The Kings stayed in Sac after the new owner refused RS even though they are in a small market. The A’s can do the same. No problems

  68. @daniel does not matter how rich they are, all of them are rich, problem is other owners dont want them to use their own money, it apparntly is counted as team debt, if thats true then the money they have outside baseball does not come in to play much. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the debt load, the A’s would have to take on at Dirdon, seems to be the issue

  69. @daniel BTW as we all know the NBA works a little diffrent then MLB, see Clippers coming to Lakers area with no control by the leauge, to stop it

  70. Ratto’s latest comment proves what a dip he is: Ratto is in no position to tell anyone that they look “forlorn” Furthermore, Ratto is a typical gnats/anti San Jose A’s fan who blasts Wolff no matter what action Wolff takes. Wolff’s admission that staying in Oakland is a possibilty is the first good news for A’s fans who want the team to remain Oakland since the Haas ownership days (19 years ago)- Now Ratto is accusing Wolff of waffling? what a complete duface Ratto is (He, along with the giants ownership, would prefer that the A’s leave the bay area so the giants could claim a monopoly on the bay area MLB fanbase.)

  71. @Lakeshore/Neil : no difference. LW and Fisher can tell BS that they don’t need MLB or financial support from MLB or other owners. That is it. You tell me MLB/BS will not accept that? Come on. You are talking non-sense here.

  72. @Karim – there were no plans for the W’s by Oakland. It’s the same ol’ tired shit they’ve been telling the A’s for decades, but Lacob saw right through it and bolted:

    “We’ve met with Mayor Quan on numerous occasions,” Warriors owner Joe Lacob said. “We’ve not gotten any definitive proposals from her.”

    As for when Lacob turned hitls attention to SF, I think your man Blackwell said it best:

    “It’s been clear to me the new owners have been interested in San Francisco since acquiring the team,” Blackwell said.

    Lacob is a smart businessman as you insinuated, and he, like Wolff, knows that Oakland is no gold mine that the city presents itself as. This, even after the countless sellouts and even renovation of the Arena, he still wants to move even with a $17M penalty!

  73. @daniel – yes, that would work at really well…just look at Madoff and McCourt… Oh wait! 😡

  74. ….oops, meant McCourt and Wilpon and not Madoff lol..

  75. Xoot, These are two separate issues that, at least it seems to me, are a stretch to connect. Yes, the A’s owners are partly responsible for their stadium/can’t move to SJ situation. Chalk that up partly to LW making his MLB membership status too important (IMHO). Ironically the A’s need a Giants’ type ownership who see their own team as singularly important. Regardless, that’s an issue that sits on its own/separate from SJ’s lawsuit.

    As far as the A’s exploring Plan B options, you are saying this is a germane part of the legal question? That if the A’s are exploring a backup plan (in case MLB/the courts definitively say ‘No Way to San Jose!’) it chops off one of the legs of SJ’s legal case?? I tell you what, if that is true then you have been MORE than right all along. This lawsuit is a waste of the court’s time and SJ’s legal team didn’t have a grain of sand of ground to stand on to begin with.

  76. @daniel I did not say, I thought it was a good idea or anything, I am just saying (if thats the way MLB looks at it), thats the way it is, if its non-sense, its MLB’s non-sense, not mine.

  77. @Anon That is what I said, re read that I said Oakland had no plans ready when the warriors approached the city. I don’t know where you got the Oakland presents itself as a goldmine but I haven’t heard it. All i have been saying that the A’s can succeed in Oakland with a new stadium and actual ownership support. Everyone acts like if they go to SJ there gonna compete with the Yanks, Bos, Dodgers etc in payroll. that’s not happening, the A’s can have 100 million dollar payroll in Oakland or SJ. Yea he is pretty smart but pretty bold. even though the Area wont get built and he will be back in Oakland but spending over a billion dollars for a 17k seat basketball stadium is not really a business move

  78. @ Karim – Isn’t Quan touting for developer’s to trust her on the revitalization of Oakland, no? As for “actual ownership support”…what does that mean exactly? For them to foot the bill? Oakland seems so positive that it can build more sports complex that sometimes, I wish the league would just allow SJ to have an expansion to team to say FU to the Giants and let Oakland control its own destiny. That would be a win-win for all!

  79. @Anon shes not shes pitching them about the area what every mayor does to bring investors and if they feel it be worth there investment they invest, so since these people are committing to Oakland it must show something about the city. Ownership support no not the footing the bill. How bout lets start with the A’s getting back into the community and maybe bring back there little league teams, and doing events for the city that they use to do. Second if Lew our you want to see a blueprint on how quick you can turn a team around, look next door to the warriors. From advertisement, production, to the product Lacob has went head to toe revamping the team and stadium. Hell he said he was moving to SF but guess what he still has invested damn near 20 million in the last two years for scoreboards, new renovated bar areas, digital screens across the stadium, sound system and many more things. What has Lew done take away perks for season ticket holders take back advertising, left the community that pays him, (up until recently when he was spotted helping serve food at a shelter which made news because why…. he never did that before). That’s what I mean by invest Lacob has given and Lew has taken. So that equates to the Warriors going from a value of 550 million to over 800 million in 3 years. The teams will support the community and the community will support them. Yea I bet Oakland fans wished lew would have never bought the team but guess what he did, may not like it but right now signs point to Oakland one way or another.

  80. @Karim – You do realize that the A’s have tripled in value since LW took over and that’s with crappy attendance with one of the lowest overall salaries in MLB (how many playoffs have the W’s gone to again)? As for what LW and the A’s have done for the community and its fans. First, there is an A’s community page that you should read: http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/oak/community/baseball.jsp. Secondarily, having one of the lowest tickets in MLB, free parking, and other promotions has been great. And Lacob didn’t spend $20M… Oakland did to renovate the Arena. However, I applaud you on your optimism, however misguided it may be. Hopefully, you and Oakland can put that confidence into something like that of guaranteed revenue generation for the A’s, similar to that for the Raiders. That would be the final show of commitment.

  81. The reason why the Value increase has been because all of the tv contracts across the board,and you said it over time, that’s that’s what happens. it hasn’t been because of Lews efforts. can you show me where the city spent that money, that they supposedly don’t have. And what specifically does SJ have that makes it so appealing for people to visit. I invest in my teams, have season tix to all the teams I show my commitment and watch in a few months when all of the Pro SJ peeps are coming with another excuse cause the stadiums are being built. In Oakland

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.