Think winning helps to get a new ballpark? Think again.

One of the emerging narratives I heard when the A’s started playing well in 2012 was

The A’s are playing well, they don’t need to move, they may not even need a new ballpark.

As the team continued to succeed through the 2013 season, the narrative changed to

The A’s are winning in Oakland, they have to build here. The fans are coming out!

…along with…

If the A’s win the World Series, they’ll get their new ballpark in Oakland.

That lingered with me for a while. Other than the bandwagon factor on attendance, what does winning have to do with getting a new ballpark built? Turns out that winning has very little to do with getting a ballpark built. One idea often thrown out there is the notion that a team can ride the momentum of winning seasons, pennants, and rings to build the public goodwill necessary to seal a stadium deal. Over the past 20+ years, that generally has not been the case. Most ballparks are built absent of significant on-field success, the deals forged by behind-the-scenes political planning, not so much the optics of celebrating fans.

I wasn’t aware of how little winning mattered until I did the math. I took a look at all of the ballparks (not multipurpose stadia) built in the modern era, starting with US Cellular Field (New Comiskey) in 1991. Then I added up their respective home teams’ records and attendance going back 7 years. Why 7? A ballpark usually takes 3 years to build, an additional 2 to plan and approve, plus another 1-2 years depending on political and economic climate, legal hurdles, or other obstacles.

Out of 22 new ballparks built and 138 seasons – 129 full seasons when accounting for strike-shortened 1994 – played prior to opening of those parks, teams have combined to accrue a grand total of 1 World Series championship, 7 league pennants, and 29 postseason appearances (division crowns or wild card spots).

A list of 22 new ballparks built in the modern era. Legacy ballparks that have undergone renovations are not included.

A list of 22 new ballparks built in the modern era. Legacy ballparks that have undergone renovations are not included.

The astounding thing about all this futility is that the sole World Series was won by the Braves, a team that didn’t need to win to build support for a ballpark because they were getting a free ballpark after the 1996 Summer Olympics ended. In the run-up to the Games, the Braves were folded into the venue scheme when the Centennial Olympic Stadium was conceived in such a way that it could be converted from a track-and-field stadium to a ballpark after the Games ended. Since the funding was provided entirely by sponsors, there was no need to sell the stadium to the public. The Yankees experienced 2 World Series losses in the years before the new Yankee Stadium. Only 2 other teams even made it to the Series during their pre-ballpark runs.

What happened more frequently was that teams were quite terrible leading up to their new digs. The Tigers were atrocious by design, as Mike Ilitch chose to use that period for rebuilding and to help pay for what would eventually be Comerica Park. The Marlins were built to tank until a park came, as were the Brewers. The Pirates chose to rebuild in their post-Bonds period, an era that lasted much longer than anyone envisioned. And Cleveland was continuing that great legacy of ineptitude that spawned a movie franchise. Two teams in the above list were expansion teams. The Rockies played at Mile High for two years while Coors Field was being completed, whereas the Diamondbacks were deferred until 1998 when Chase Field opened. A third team, the Nationals, effectively acted as an expansion team because they were sold by MLB to the highest bidder and Washington was granted the franchise move conditionally upon completion of a ballpark deal.

The Giants, whose new ownership made a big splash in 1993 by signing Barry Bonds, was often said to have started working on their downtown SF ballpark plan once they took the reins. Even so, the team split its time between being competitive but not good enough to win the division (late 90’s) and nearly unwatchable (mid 90’s). Winning didn’t build the park, Bonds did.

Some teams tried to follow the formula of building a team to coincide with the opening of a park. The Giants are certainly one of those. The Indians are a classic example, going to the postseason in 6 out of the first 7 full seasons at Jacobs Field (Progressive). The Twins tried to anticipate such a window by signing local superstar Joe Mauer to a long contract extension coinciding with opening of Target Field. Injuries to Mauer, Justin Morneau, and a slew of pitchers severely crippled the franchise, which is still trying to get back to relevance after its successful opening season outdoors. The blueprint worked for the Orioles and Rangers, and more recently the Phillies. In all of these cases the franchises anticipated major revenue growth upon moving to their new homes, which is exactly what happened.

Going into the recent winter meetings, Billy Beane talked about not having a “five year plan,” code for the kind of rebuilding phase we’d normally associate with the run-up to a new ballpark. That’s a very different stance than he had taken in 2007 or 2010, when he was more likely to speak in terms of planning for the future, with a ballpark in Fremont or San Jose in mind. Now that the competitive window is wide open and the future of the franchise is in flux, there’s no need to be in that mode. It’s as pure a win-now mentality as we’ve seen with Beane at the helm.

Some will look at this and talk correlation not implying causation. What I’m saying is that historically, winning isn’t associated with teams and new parks until after those parks open. My point is to drop any hint of causation in the run-up because there is no correlation. If you are looking for causation, consider that 5 World Series (and 10 pennants) have been won by teams in the first 7 years after a modern era ballpark opened (NYY 1, PHI 1, STL 2, ARI 1).

That said, could winning help make the case for the A’s? I suppose there’s a small chance, if winning gooses season ticket and premium sales sustainably to the point of funding the ballpark to a similar amount seen with other ballparks. That would mean hitting around 20,000 season ticket subscriptions or more (the A’s are under 10,000 currently). It might also mean PSL sales, or locking in several dozen businesses to sponsorships and suite contracts. But is that realistic? There’s a disconnect here, as the big corporate deals tend to run in the 5-10 year range if not longer. Winning is much more fleeting than that. The Yankees, Red Sox, and Cardinals can leverage winning tradition better than most because they’ve proven it repeatedly. It’s a form of currency for them. The A’s don’t have that. If the A’s aren’t competitive this year for whatever reasons, look for the attendance and sales gains seen in the past two years to quickly recede. By winning, I don’t mean getting to the LDS or even the LCS. I mean winning the last game of the season. That’s our legacy, whether we’re talking Finley, Haas, Schott, or Wolff. To look to winning as an elixir to solve the ballpark dilemma is to trivialize winning. Anyone who watched the A’s in the late 90’s, late 00’s, and late 70’s knows full well how difficult winning is. My advice to fans is to not worry about winning creating momentum. Enjoy the on field exploits as they occur, and let the ballpark business unfold on its own. You can’t count on winning being a big part of the solution.

178 thoughts on “Think winning helps to get a new ballpark? Think again.

  1. Except when it does. See Seattle’s Safeco referendum.

  2. The A’s winning a World Series does nothing to produce the massive amount of revenue needed for a new ballpark. There’s really no connection between the two events. In the NFL, the Miami Dolphins went to 5 Super Bowls and won two when they played in the Orange Bowl. Since moving into their new stadium in 1987 – which is now considered obsolete, by the way – they have played in a grand total of 0 Super Bowls.

  3. @BD,
    I think you missed the point. Having 35,000+ fans pack the Coliseum for the post season does not address the actual funding of a ballpark or (in Oakland’s case) lack of corporate support needed for privately financing a venue. Also, a vast majority of those fans at A’s games weren’t from Oakland proper but from throughout the Bay, INCLUDING San Jose.

    If (and it’s a huge if) the actual citizens of Oakland decided to tax themselves to provide $100-200 million for a new ballpark after a winning season, you might have a point. But that will never happen. Lastly, can’t compare $eattle to Oakland.

  4. @Tony D.
    I don’t think BD was comparing Oakland to Seattle, I believe he is just pointing out, the rare exception, to the rule, which is of course, that ballparks generally, don’t get built on the backs, of team success.
    If there was ever going to be an exception, we all know , it would not be Oakland, because, the A’s have been one of the more successful teams on the field over the last 45 years, and it’s got them nothing, interims of a new, modern baseball only ballpark.

  5. Getting a new stadium depends mostly on the willingness of the market/public officials/taxpayers to pay for the project. On-the-field success has pretty much nothing to do with it. Just look at the 49ers: 5 Super Bowls but they are finally getting their new stadium long, long after losers like the Lions, Bucs, etc got theirs. And the 49ers had to leave their name city to get it done. So the team will now pretend that they are still in Frisco, to get the cachet that comes with the name, San Francisco, when if fact they moved two counties away. Frisco was not willing to give them a stadium and I don’t see much weeping in that town over the team’s departure.

  6. What Bleacher Dave doesn’t realize about that Seattle situation, is that there was a city ballot measure that failed at the ballot box to fund the new ballpark before the team made that run. It also coincided with the team threating to move. Yes, the team had one magical run that fueled a new ballot measure to be voted on and approved. My question, do any of us think the oakland residents would vote for a city tax if the A’s happened to make a run, or win the world series? I doubt it. In fact, I am not sure how many people that read this website live in Oakland.

  7. If any public official in Oakland tries to raise taxes for stadiums, an anti-stadium campaign will rise up spontaneously. And we know what the arguments will be: How can Oakland even consider spending one penny on stadiums when more police, better schools, etc are needed? These are all valid arguments. Any stadium tax in Oakland is DOA. That’s why no one in Oakland has proposed one. Officials there are likely staring at the writing on the wall: Big Big Time Tax $$ are needed to pay for new stadiums and Oakland can’t provide that. So the stalling, PR campaigns, pep rallies continue, with no actual progress made on new stadiums. Praying for private developers to take care of the whole thing is a major league shot in the dark, a Hail Mary pass. And most Hail Mary passes fall incomplete or are intercepted.

  8. @jordan
    I don’t live there any longer, I did for most of my life, and I agree with you, the voting citizenry probably would not go for that. The Raiders debacle is still fresh in people’s minds; Oakland is going to have to figure out some creative ways to make this happen, if it happens at all.

  9. The only time I can think of that winning really mattered was San Diego. The Padres run to the World Series (only their second appearance mind you) with what remains the franchises best team to date just happened to coincide with the vote being held just days after the World Series concluded. The Padres did ride that immediate “good feeling” wave to victory in the public vote leading to the ballpark.

    But it was a VERY specific turn of events that really wasn’t planned. But it was one instance where winning did matter, but less because of any long term winning, but rather some very short term winning. The A’s obviously can’t predict if they’d make a run at the series, nor could anyone realistically plan for such an occurrence far enough in advance.

  10. For quite a number of years prior to moving to Citi Field, the Mets have had above 500 percentage winning seasons. Even in those years when they didn’t make the playoffs, the Mets remained competitive right through to the end of the season. However, in the five years since they opened Citi Field, in every one of those seasons the team had lost more games than they had won. In most instances, a team would make every attempt to field a quality club to coincide with the novelty of playing in a brand new ballpark. Not in the case of Wilpons’s Mets. The spike in game attendance profits, due to the higher ticket prices at Citi Field, was short lived. I believe that Wilpon mistakenly believed that the large New York market of Mets fans would still flock to Citi Field, regardless of the team’s play on the field. I do believe that if the A’s are eventually given the OK to build their ballpark in San Jose, the A’s ownership and front office will use their new ballpark revenue streams to maintain a top quality club on the field.

  11. @Jordan
    I kinda live there because my parents own their home in north oakland for the past 45 years….I talked to my dad about this site and the whole sports situation. .. I can say even tho Mount Davis was a bad deal does not mean that Coliseum city has to be a bad deal…it can turn out good…we also talked about some Oakland pols who have a different agenda. We also encourage mayor Quan to pick the “pro sports” side and demand more unity and put this coliseum city project a priority instead of trying to play peacemaker…

    listen it will come a time maybe this year when Oakland/Alameda county will have to vote to make this work…and that is not a bad thing…its honest everybody is informed of the ramifications if the teams stay or leave…I for one would vote Yes..so 2014 would be a great year for this site . Good luck MLK and san jose

  12. I meant the lake shore guy tony…my spell check is messed up.

    But @pick…at the end of the day we got to ask Oakland/Alameda County are they going to do what it takes to keep the teams…other cities can do it..so can we…if the teams , private investors amd such can pay for 75% of the project we could put in the rest 25%…I do agree with Quan that a retractable roof would be better for thr new Raider stadium because u can use it as a convention center and other events outside of football season.

  13. A retractable roof is prohibitively expensive. And can Oakland steer convention center business away from Frisco? San Jose can’t.

  14. @harry I here you man, I just dont think the roof is going to happen

  15. @ Tony D
    I don’t know what you don’t understand about my comment. I am saying that every Stadium deal in the last 25 years has had public money invloved, except Pacbell, and even that park got money for infrastructure surrounding the area. That means, that any winning the team did may have led to a vote on taxes for a stadium, which will never happen in oakland. Winning isn’t going to provoke Lew to spend $600 mil to build at Howard Terminal. My comment on who visits this website is in reference to how invested we all are in this subject yet if you don’t live there, you could never vote on anything. I grew up in oakland, but don’t live there now, hence could never vote on a tax. Also, the people that comment here are such a small sample size of a group that may or may not live in Oakland that care about this issue, I thought it was an important question.

  16. That’s funny, I remember the San Jose only crowd used to argue a new ballpark = winning. You all used to say we’d never have a contending team unless we spent a billion for something we don’t really need, another temporary edifice which is entirely tangential to the game.

    Marketing puts butts in seats. The A’s marketing is primarily performed by the customers themselves. I’m in the marketing department. It’s a tough job, we’re constantly disparaged by ownership. But we’re winners. Yeah, winning is nice.

    Winning was conspicuously absent on the timeline presented for last year. If you’re not an A’s fan, winning probably doesn’t matter at all.

    If you wanna talk about winning, what’s Lew Wolf’s record? What has he won lately? If he ever builds a new stadium, he should get a jump on it, call it a dump and start petitioning for a new one on opening day!

  17. I don’t think the data helps conclude one way or the other, the reason being that only 1 team won a WS before their new stadium, and as you said they didn’t have to. Also as you correctly point out, a more relevant date might be when the ballpark/funding was approved.

    I think there would be a pretty big national story if the team won it all and considered moving. Not that it would necessarily change the outcome of the situation but the media uproar would be quite different for a moribund team than for the most recent WS champion. There is no empirical data to tell us one way or another, so to me that is a valid hypothesis despite some of the other data you’ve provided.

  18. @freddy – Reading comprehension is evidently not your strong suit.

  19. @jordon
    I fill like you brought up a vary valid point. We that read and comment regularly on this blog are a true minority, this is a vary niche subject, and most of us don’t currently reside in Oakland, or San Jose, so the chances that the majority of us would be affected by a new tax are remote. That being said I don’t think the residence of Oakland or San Jose will vote for tax payer money on this, and in spite of the fact that I wish either should, it’s probably best that they don’t.

  20. Soory: I wish either would, it’s probably best that they don’t.

  21. One of the things winning – especially in the playoffs – CAN possibly do is at least draw SOME attention to the A’s stadium situation on the national stage. Media outlets and fans who virtually never get exposed to the A’s probably have little to no knowledge about just how asinine the current stadium/location truly is.

    I bet some fans of National League teams in the MidWest and Back East watch their teams in Oakland during interleague games and are like, “What…that team is STILL playing in that craphole? They were there the LAST time we played them in interleague and the place sucked back then!” For a moment they might wonder why that is, and might even run across a story or an in-game dialogue about the situation…

    If the A’s were to get to the World Series, I would bet that ESPN or MLB Network might run a featured video story detailing the current situation, probably for dramatic effect – “The ever-Moneyball A’s, overachieving on the field even as their stadium falls apart and politicians, lawyers and judges decide their fate in closed-door meetings…”

    The real-world effect of something like that would probably be negligible, but at the very least it COULD bring about some sort of higher-level, national discussion about what’s going on, and might spur some sort of public support for an owner’s TR vote or something along those lines…

  22. @Taj Adib – Now that’s what I’m talking about…A full on grass roots PR campaign would be hard but a National piece, like FRONTLINE, or 60 Minutes would be awesome…The Giants’ litigious threats and greed need to be exposed NATIONALLY.

  23. @Jordan,
    100% Completely my bad brother. My “huh?!” was meant for Harry, not you. Please accept my apology.
    @Freddy,
    Uh, no…the San Jose crowd never stated such. A new ballpark would however go a long way towards keeping top talent and landing key free agents. Getting that new ballpark has always been the issue, and San Jose is best bet for private financing. If Oakland can throw $100-200 million in public funds at the A’s for a new ballpark, then I’m all ears my brother…

  24. +2/3K attendance deltas does not a new ballpark make:

    • Last game (81 of 81): 30,589
    • Series total (4 of 4 games): 104,510
    • 2013 Total: 1,809,302
    • 2013 Average: 22,337
    • 2013 Std. Dev.: 7,994
    • Difference vs. 2012: +2,038
    • Difference vs. 2011: +3,666

  25. @Rayburn’s Son
    Agree 100% with you, on that. It would take a perfect storm, but if we can get out of the first round the story is priceless, and would not be ignored. I am not sure it would actually lead to something, but I am so tired of the Oakland Athletics being treated like crap from a member of their own sport (SF Giants), and MLB for that matter, everyone should know the automate goal of the SF Giants, is to get the A’s out of the Bay Area. It does not matter to them how the do it, as long as they succeed, if the Giants could have got the A’s contracted, I bet they would have, hell the only reason they are ok, with the A’s building in Oakland, is because they don’t want them building in San Jose, this is the same organization, that helped table a vote, back in the 90’s of a potential ownership group, that was open, to the idea of building in Oakland. I respect the Giants fans, but them as an organization; I think I actually hate them.

    As heated as things can get, between the 49ers and Raiders on the field, and between the fans, the fact of the matter is each organization has gone out of its way for the other more times, then we could count.

  26. re: Getting that new ballpark has always been the issue, and San Jose is best bet for private financing.

    Tony: It’s the now-five-year-old argument: “If Wolff can build a ballpark in San Jose without public funds, then he can do it in Oakland. Too bad if he loses his shirt.”

  27. This whole issue I believe will come to a vote for public or tax increase to make Coliseum City happen. Malik/Colony will only private fund only so much. ..ill do my best to inform the inside Oakland crowd of that. Because honestly coliseum city is just a waste of time if us Oakland citizens are not willing to do our part.
    hold on lew Wolff ur new ballpark is coming…

  28. December 2012 headline: “Crime-ridden Oakland lays off 200 police officers while giving $17 million to pro sports teams” All the best to anyone who tries to sell new stadium taxes in Oakland.

  29. @Lakeshore/Neil, Your arguments are exactly what hopefully will be used against both MLB and the Giants, should the lawsuits be allowed to proceed in the courts.

  30. Yah harry! A city on the brink of possibly becoming the next Detroit is going to propose raising taxes on its citizens to fund sports facilities? Won’t even mention Mt. Davis debacle or rising crime rates (oops! I just did). Do you even think this stuff through before you post?

  31. I did Tony Douglas. I did. U have to keep it real with Oakland folks. No b.s because it just confuses the public. I remember that news article from Dec.2012 pjk but again just because Mount Davis was a bad deal does not mean that Coliseum City would be…

    I do have to say that im not anti san Jose. In fact selfishly im more a basketball football fan…and I prefer the Raiders/Warriors to be in Oakland then A’s.

    If A’s can get San Jose, I beileve Mark Davis would be happy “temporary” with the Coliseum all to himself and suck as much money out of it until he can get Oakland or private funding for the next Raider stadium…can we agree on that fellas cause u guys are tough on here??? Lol

    Does anybody know what is the latest with the Warriors move to S.F???

  32. @pjk and tony d
    Cough cough..maybe I did not make myself clear…does anybody know any news on Warriors moving to S.F????

  33. Some interesting news from September that went under the radar (probably because it has no real impact on either the A’s and Rays beyond being psychological), but after 2017 the Coliseum will be the last MLB baseball park being shared with a gridiron football team of any kind and Tropicana Field will be the last MLB ballpark still using artificial turf.

    Toronto has confirmed they’re kicking the CFL’s Argonauts out after 2017 and locking down the Skydome’s grandstands into the baseball configuration permanently. This is compounded by the news this week that Toronto FC is considering expanding their BMO Field to 40,000 which would make them an obvious location for the Argos to land if they don’t find their own venue in the next 3 years.

    http://www.thestar.com/sports/argos/2013/09/20/blue_jays_confirm_rogers_centre_to_get_grass_field_after_toronto_argos_leave_by_2017.html

  34. @Harry You will never win with those two it’s SJ or nothing for them… from what I have heard is there are still major hurdles for the Warriors to S.F 2017 is definitely not happening, with that said I believe there are discussions about other plans including staying in the Eastbay.

  35. Karim absolutely doesn’t know what he’s talking about. When Wolff said it might be possible to do something on the current site a few weeks ago, I said, “Let’s get it done.” But we do know no public money is being offered for a ballpark in Oakland and both the Raiders and A’s have had weak corporate support, thus shutting off that as a way to build a ballpark. Since Wolff made that comment, we really haven’t heard anything new.

  36. @pjk and what do you know besides Oakland bashing, you say you just want a stadium no matter where but every chance there is about a possibility of Oakland it’s negative. Also there is nothing to suggest the city has said no tax payers money will be offered. The fact is we don’t know nothing because its been said that tax money is being discussed and tax money isn’t, so what we do know is nothing. I have said since day one that taxes will be spent how much we don’t know but it will be used. We prob will not hear anything for a little while as it seems both sides were/ are playing for position to gain whatever there trying to gain, and like I said on numerous occasions the public will and doesn’t need to know all the happenings going on behind the scenes and when stuff “leaks” or teams/ public officials try to win the media battle that’s a bad move and it usually doesn’t end well. Reason why all has gone quiet on both sides.

  37. Karim: How do you define “Oakland-bashing?” Being only willing to accept a new ballpark in Oakland and nowhere else? I ask again – how many more decades will it take to get a new ballpark in Oakland? MLB cities from coast to coast, from north to south, have gotten new ballparks built. Not Oakland. It’s just pep rallies, press conferences, fancy drawings..

  38. clarification: Being only willing to accept a new ballpark in Oakland and nowhere else? should say, Being willing to accept a new ballpark anywhere in the Bay Area, not just in Oakland…too much multitasking going on today.

  39. You are right there Oakland has failed on occasions like Jerry Brown, but it also takes two to tangle as well, its been well documented and I can find articles back to 1995 of ownership trying to leave Oakland, Ed Alvarez ring a bell, a former attorney and EVP for the A’s under Steve Schott that scouted and researched the South Bay for the A’s to move under Schott. So you cant put all of this on the city. everyone has there hand it this to blame, Oakland, A’s Ownership, and MLB. If ownership truly wanted to work with a city they could have a ballpark built. We can talk about all the ballparks around the country being built but you can also point to the Teams and the city’s/county’s having better relationships than Oakland and the A’s ownership’s have had since 1995. Hell you could put Kevin Johnson in the Oakland Mayors seat and I’d bet that we will still be at a stand still. Look at the Maloof’s they couldn’t make it work because of there dealings. Its not like Sac is rolling in the dough but new owners wanted to make it work and Sac has a Mayor that wanted the Kings to work as well. So all the pep rallies, drawings, meetings etc you throw out there is a lot more then what good ol Lew is doing to make something work that’s not S.J

  40. Dddaaammmnnn pjk u got knocked out (in debate terms)

    @Karim….amen..im starting to see pjk and tony d are thr internet gangsters on this site…. I can handle them… I beileve if Oakland cam win the AL west for a 3rd straight year and avoid Detroit to make a World Series push it could bring up the topic on a national scale on how the A’s can get something done in Oakland with private and or public help.

    Karim do u feel that if the A’s can get their ballpark I feel that Coliseum City would be complete. Listen Oracle and Coliseum are fine venues to me. Oakland should hire a team to refurbished the place in and out. Call home depot, Lowe’s or local revamp companies that can make thr place better I.e paint jobs over the concrete, flooring, bathroom fixes…fixing the bridge.. we can have one new venue clean up the other Two and fill the rest with retail and office space and u have ur “Coliseum City” complete…If Raiders and Warriors management agree to stay and Oakland offers to clean it up this project Can work.

  41. @Karim
    I here you when it comes to some of the Pro/Only San Jose folks , some of them can be just as bad as the Pro/Only- Oakland folks, that give people like me a bad name. I am Pro-Oakland, but honestly have no problem with San Jose, as a matter of fact I have openly said that San Jose is the best place in the Bay Area (economically), for the A’s, but at the same time that does not mean it can’t work, and work well in Oakland. It’s always coming down to an Oakland vs. San Jose thing, I don’t look at it that way, I believe both places can work, and if one or another cant, for whatever reason, does not mean the other cant.
    To things can be true at the same time, one does not have to cancel out the other, O.J. can commit a double madder, and Mark Farman can hate black people, both things can be true.
    I think most people that comment here just want a new ballpark, and many of them don’t care where it is, they simply want it to be in the Bay Area, if there is a slant toward SJ, that’s probably because most people view it as the best place in the Bay Area for the A’s to thrive economically and not, simply because they would just love, for it to be physically located there.
    I also must come to pjk”s defense, as someone, whom I have not always agreed with, I must say he was the first one to say (after Lews positive comments, about the current location), let’s get it done.

  42. Dddaaammmnnn pjk u got knocked out (in debate terms)

    @Karim….amen..im starting to see pjk and tony d are thr internet gangsters on this site…. I can handle them… I beileve if Oakland cam win the AL west for a 3rd straight year and avoid Detroit to make a World Series push it could bring up the topic on a national scale on how the A’s can get something done in Oakland with private and or public help.
    Karim do u feel that if the A’s can get their ballpark I feel that Coliseum City would be complete. Listen I personally feel that Oracle and Coliseum are fine venues to me why need new stadiums both Raiders and Warriors sell out. Oakland should hire a team to refurbished the place in and out. Call home depot, Lowe’s or local revamp companies that can make thr place better I.e paint jobs over the concrete, flooring, bathroom fixes…fixing the bridge.. we can have one new venue clean up the other Two and fill the rest with retail and office space and u have ur “Coliseum City” complete…If Raiders and Warriors management agree to stay and Oakland offers to clean it up this project Can work.

  43. re: If ownership truly wanted to work with a city they could have a ballpark built.

    …for Oakland, “truly working with the city” means: Owners pay 100% of construction and take all risks.

  44. Karim: Mark Davis has been “truly working with the city” on a Raiders stadium deal for a couple years now but there’s no deal. What gives? I think we know the answer: A big pile of public money is needed and Oakland can’t offer it. Not that it should, given other priorities, but that is the holdup…

  45. @ Harry Yes I believe this needs to be on a national level we all know Bud Selig doesn’t care for the A’s what so ever he wanted to contract them. With hype of a WS I think it will help only to a certain extent yes it will gather the East Bay and region support around the team, but in terms of a WS getting a new stadium I wouldn’t go that far a lot more things would need to fall in place still, i.e POL’s, Ownership, and amount of public/private money will be spent. It will help boost ticket sales/ corporate support as the hype will be so high. look at the niners they had the perfect storm stadium almost done, started winning and went to a Superbowl so fans and corporations were and are willing to pay whatever the niners want because of there status now in the NFL. A lot of things would need to fall in place in my opinion.

    In regards to Stadiums I have season tix to Warriors and Raiders. the reason Oracle is nice is because the owners wanted to enhance the experience and actually put there money into there product. I believe within the last 2 years they have spent around 20 million into upgrades. That is the owners desires to satisfy the fans even if they said they want to leave. the Raiders and A’s I believe have no regard to touch there stadium, in part because of the battle between the two teams for concessions etc, and in all actuality the city and county owns the stadium. Everything you said about floors paint, bathroom etc. Lacob and Co did that to Oracle. That’s my grip with both teams, more so Lew for openly expressing “were just tenets” yes you are but wouldn’t you want to have visitors coming to your place look a little better. As for Coliseum City, all of the debt from mt Davis is being factored into the new project, Oracle is okay due to past upgrades, but the infrastructure at the coliseum is beyond bad, there is no fixing that unless a complete tear down.

  46. re: we all know Bud Selig doesn’t care for the A’s what so ever

    …Hey, we can agree on something.

    re: the reason Oracle is nice is because the owners wanted to enhance the experience and actually put there money into there product.

    …Yes, the Warriors are so committed to Oakland they’ve already announced plans to build a new arena in Frisco.

  47. @Lakeshore/Neil yes SJ economically is better than Oakland with them being the Tech hub etc. But I look at it like no matter how much money the city has people are spending owners are still only going to spend a certain amount. Some people think if they go to SJ the A’s will have a 200 million dollar payroll or something. No that’s not happening, so I say a new ball park in Oakland or SJ will produce extremely more revenue for ownership, and the A’s payroll will probably never crack top 5 in baseball like the other top markets do. Yes I want the A’s in the Bay Area and I feel like Oakland can and will work if all parties are on the same page. A lot of people bash Oakland as being the next Detroit etc but they prob have never stepped foot in Oakland and just want feel entitled to whatever they think they can get. We all know SJ is a great a thriving city when it comes to tech business and other such areas but there is History with the A’s and the city, and there is a reason why when the fans do come out and support there team, all that is talked about is how great and loud and passionate the fans are, and the best in baseball, there is a reason for that, The A’s aren’t just a sports team there a piece of the city. from there style of play to there loose attitude etc, that’s Oakland Baseball.

  48. re: more so Lew for openly expressing “were just tenets” yes you are but wouldn’t you want to have visitors coming to your place look a little better.

    ….I wonder how the the other MLB owners, who subsidize the A’s to the tune of $36 million a year, would feel about Wolff spending money trying to fix up the Coliseum? Would it bring in more fans, or is it the proverbial “lipstick on a pig” treatment? What kind of precedent does this set? Imagine this: MLB owner to host city: “We need you to fix up the ballpark a bit.” Host city: “That Lew Wolff in Oakland spent his OWN money on stadium improvements. Fix it up yourself.”

  49. re: but there is History with the A’s and the city

    ..unfortunately, a big part of that history involves top-tier teams and bottom-tier attendance, bottom-tier revenues and MLB subsidies.

  50. @pjk and 100% came from where you happen to skip over the part where I said no one knows a thing, and if tax money isn’t going to be used they why like I said before Measure B-1 Alameda county tax had earmarked money for infrastructure at the coliseum site ? your statements of Lew taking all the risk has never been proven, oh wait how can they when Lew hasn’t talked are seen any details of what the city is proposing. Also if 2 or 3 years is talking ask the niners and giants how long it takes to get a stadium built.

    As for the Warriors announced right but do you really believe that is going to pan out. Talking about just throwing money around, its a “civic gift” yea right over a billion dollars on a 17k basketball stadium come on, and Lacob and city staff has said it before they city was ready with plans so they looked to SF and the reason why S.F have them sign a exclusive negotiation contract cause they didn’t want Lacob playing Oakland v.s S.F. Teams announce plans all the time remember Bud Selig and Lew Wolf Cisco field in Fremont. Same thing is happening, lawsuits, funding, many roadblocks. If you read recent articles of Lacob he has lightened up a lot about S.F, now he has Plan B’s etc since announcing his plan to move to S.F and it includes staying in Oakland. We all know it’s what city will provide money and or land for free.

  51. @Karim I sure hope if Oakland gets the chance (not that they havent had it in the past), they can get somthing done

  52. re: ask the niners and giants how long it takes to get a stadium built.

    …Efforts to get the A’s a new stadium go back into the 1990s. It’s 2014 and there’s no progress, no nothing. And the only reason the Giants got a ballpark done was by agreeing to pick up 100% of the costs – the same deal Oakland wants. The 49ers, meanwhile, got big-time NFL funding, a $100 million from Santa Clara, and, get this, they are moving the team to Silicon Valley to get their stadium done. The A’s, for their part, are being offered $0.00 by MLB, $0.00 by Oakland and have been blocked building in from Silicon Valley. Any wonder there’s no new ballpark in sight?

  53. @pjk and that’s the difference of owners, one cares about maximizing his profit by enhancing the experience and the other that wants out of town and will degrade and belittle the city, area, citizens and its fans anyway he can so he can get to SJ and fill up his hotel. We all know the bottom line is making a profit but there are ways to do it and not to do it, and Lew has failed with this whole situation. Lacob buys the warriors for 450 million in Nov of 2010 and a little over two years there worth 800 million. There is a reason for that, great ownership, smart marketing and not alienating the fan base, understanding all sides of the business even though they said there moving. Also 50 straight games of selling out and strong corporate sponsorship from Clorox etc. I know your gonna say there the only b-ball team in the bay but they have been since they moved and they weren’t worth much and had low corporate sponsorship, why ? cause of bad ownership.

    Yes Top Tier teams and low attendance, there are other reasons to the issue too, and not because SJ as a million people because a 32k seat stadium is still a 32k seat stadium. Yes you have more corporate sponsorship’s, doesn’t mean your gonna have a million billboards in and around the stadium. The A’s can pull sponsors from around the bay area with a new stadium regardless of the area, having a new stadium, having a good team, and ownership that cares starts there and goes a long way. Ask the giants if they had good attendance before they got At&t park

  54. We do need a my ballpark for the A’s because I feel one reason the A’s need is a superstar at his prime. Oakland might be in the run for that Japanese kid I think he a pitcher that the Y anks and Rangers want so badly….if we could pull that off hello 2014 all west champs. Also if more African Americans start playing baseball I think A’s management should sign more to attract the 33% black population of oakland to come to the games..every ticket sale counts..u have to get popular players that connect and bring enthusiasm to the team/city.

    Karim I agree with Oracle, but if u give the Raiders the Coliseum…mark davis would use his money with some help to fix the coliseum up. Again the A’s have to leave the coliseum in order for this to happen

  55. We doo need a my ballpark for the A’s because I feel one reason the A’s need is a superstar at his prime. Oakland might be in the run for that Japanese kid I think he a pitcher that the Y anks and Rangers want so badly….if we could pull that off hello 2014 all west champs. Also if more African Americans start playing baseball I think A’s management should sign more to attract the 33% black population of oakland to come to the games..every ticket sale counts..u have to get popular players that connect and bring enthusiasm to the team/city.

    Karim I agree with Oracle, but if u give the Raiders the Coliseum…mark davis would use his money with some help to fix the coliseum up. Again the A’s have to leave the coliseum in order for this to happen

  56. @pjk you ignored the previous statements again about ownership not working with the city, getting rid of and bashing the star players the city grew to love and trying to move to SJ/ South Bay in the early 90’s. Also where are these zero figures coming from, is that what Lew said who hasn’t talked to anyone from Oakland because he wants SJ. Like I said it takes two to tango and Lew or Schott never have so and when Oakland had someone who cared in Robert Bobb, non baseball mayor Jerry Brown killed it, so once in the last 20 years or so you can blame Oakland. what about the rest.

  57. What has Lew Wolff said that belittles Oakland, the area, fans and citizens? We know Selig has called the Coliseum a “pit” and the 1968 move to Oakland a “horrible mistake.” But what has Wolff ever said about the city itself?…As far as the A’s pulling in sponsors from around the Bay Area, we can be about 99% certain Silicon Valley companies will have little to no interest in trekking 40 miles through Bay Area rush hour traffic to get to a new stadium in Oakland. It’s simply not convenient for them. A stadium in San Jose provides the convenience these corporations would want..It’s not clear to me how you can be both pro-Oakland and pro-Lacob. He has made it clear he wants out of Oakland, no? Lacob, with no NBA competition within 60 miles and, as you said, sellouts, still wants to abandon Oakland but you praise him. I’m not following….The Giants had bad attendance at Candlestick because the place was inhospitable. Their radio/TV ratings were always good. The A’s, with always-great weather and, at one time, a stadium considered a fine one, have a history of poor attendance in Oakland.

  58. @Harry Yes they do but not do bring race into the convo I believe the A’s try and get and draft the best players they can, this has been brought up by Bay Area beat reporters as just a few years ago the A’s having a lack of minority’s of the roster, while playing in the city. I think its a bigger issue Baseball has as a whole, with teams leaving to the suburbs like the Braves, and expecting to attract minority’s. Other sports thriving playing a big part also, many reasons why. Every ticket sale counts but I don’t think that’s Lew’s plan since he doesn’t want to support the city or the area.

    Mark Davis can but I think with the money spent it will be much better to build a fresh new one with updated infrastructure technology etc, also I i’m not to sure how the NFL will loan the Raiders 200 million for a stadium if they just refurbish it.

  59. @pjk How bout telling your season ticket holders that your still committed to moving to SJ, and press releases about Oakland not being viable etc, or how about that weird laughable comment about him saying he was talking to a player about the attendance and he said something like its ok just try not to look into the stands. really that sounds like a movie script, a owner and the player talking like that lol. Is that not a slap to the city and area and its people. 99% certain why was the Fremont stadium name Cisco field, Fremont is only about 20 min or so from Oakland. Like I said its how you market and sell your team to potential businesses, the sponsors are there to make money too and if they can make money buy putting there name on a stadium they will do it no matter location because you will have 39k people at a place with your advertisement, and others watching on tv.

    And Lacob’s deal is you say he made it clear but it is not so clear, there are lots of problems with them moving and he has accepting Oakland as a possible plan B, has Wolf ever? not really unless you count his fake attempt at the coliseum parking lot that he knew wouldn’t work from the start. Also Lacob hasn’t touted SF or nothing and or said Oakland isn’t viably and still has invested into the city and the people that come out and pay to attend the game. He got his fair share of boo’s at Chris Mullins retirement but did he tuck his head a run, no he accepted it and has still shown love to the city and its fans. That goes a long way for people like me. You say its abandoning but no its not Quan and co didn’t have plans ready when approached and lacob being a businessman flirted with SF, now Oakland is getting the stuff together and its coming full circle for all the teams.

  60. So what did Wolff say about fans, citizens, residents, etc? Wolff is not the only one who hasn’t found a viable way to get a ballpark built in Oakland. MLB’s own committee, formed at Wolff’s own “come out and see for yourself” challenge, I believe, hasn’t either. It is what it is. It’s not insulting to point out the financial obstacles of getting a ballpark built in Oakland…When you praise Lacob, who is further out of Oakland’s door than Wolff, and bash Wolff, it almost sounds like a San Jose thing. Lacob is only going to Frisco so that’s OK. But San Jose? Never! Please tell me that’s not the case.

  61. @pjk Really do i need to post the article again of then Ron Dellums requesting Bud to form a committee after the Fremont deal fell through that you failed to ignore as well. So Wolff’s come out and see for your self challenge is mute. Financial obstacles aren’t just Oakland in regards to stadium building its all of California, not SJ not Oak, not SD. Not praising him i’m stating the facts of the differences between a owner who said he was moving to SF took the hit from fans, etc but still has played his cards right to still stay successful and keep a positive relation with the city, county and its fans. Where Lew has done the exact opposite to alienate fans to the fullest extent every chance he has gotten, and spreads lies to try and get his ultimate wish and move to SJ.

    And do you really believe that the Warriors are closer to SF than the A’s are, I beg to differ. Multiple plans to downsize the stadium, a failed project for high rise towers to be built which the warriors were going to mimic to help pay off there stadium a 5 million a pop for a condo, pier cost that is way over 100 million to rehab now, and that’s not counting the lawsuits that are on there way to block them from building there. And they still are a long way from approvals to even start building. So a 1.5 billion dollar project for 17k hoops stadium, is closer than Lew having a change of heart and saying Quan and co lets sit down and talk and work something out, since you already control the land and I looked at this site before and think it can work.

  62. Karim: Let me make sure I understand you correctly:

    Warriors owners – Want to leave Oakland despite a $121 million renovation of their arena in 1997, bringing it up to modern standards, and nightly sellouts: Good guys.

    A’s owners – Want to leave Oakland after the 1995 ruination of their stadium, no offers by the city to build them a new ballpark and a history of poor attendance: Bad guys.

    …Does that about say it?

  63. Quick Fact#1 : Name the Bay Area team owner that called Oakland a “depressed area”….

    Quick Fact#2 : Which A’s owner had an average attendance of 20,112 during his first 9 years of ownership (22,977 annual average overall)? And who has 21,566 average attendance in comparison to his tally?

  64. @pjk/Karim
    I think he may have you on at least one point, Ron Dellums did request, that Bud form a committee.
    Lew may have said come on and see, if what I have been saying isn’t true, but Dellums did make the request.

  65. # 1 Al Davis
    # 2 Haas and Wolff?

  66. Lakeshore: And after five years, what has been the committee’s recommendation on a site for a new Oakland ballpark and how to pay for it? Well, no such recommendations have ever been made public. We do know this committee, charged with exploring “ballpark opportunities in the A’s current territory,” somehow quickly expanded its mission to include San Jose, which is not in the A’s current territory. Why even look at San Jose if Oakland is such a slam-dunk as a site for a new ballpark? Wolff has said no one from MLB has approached him about anything he might have missed in Oakland. But last month, he starts speculating about the existing ballpark site. I hope he can get it done there. I really don’t mind if he stays in Oakland. But I can understand his reasons for wanting to leave.

  67. @pjk and things have change since 1997 for standards ask the Braves and renovation can only do so much, yes sell outs and a risk the new owner was willing to take by announcing that and with all of the roadblocks etc and seeing how the fans are hes cooled off on that talk possibly realizing that that might not be the best move. What owner wouldn’t want a new stadium for there team so how do you get it leverage, you ask the first time and the city says there working on it but are not ready, you go to them again and tell them there moving to S.F. to get the POL’s in Oakland off there asses and moving, ala Mark Davis doing the same thing with L.A and visiting Concord etc. Now Oakland has to put up or shut up everything has come to a head on no more delaying and down the road talk.

    Iv’e always said the A’s were screwed on the deal but you expect a city to approach a team about building a stadium? its usually the other way around, Team approaches city and then it goes from there.

  68. @ PJK : Winner, winner, chicken dinner! Al Davis crapped on Oakland calling the Coliseum a “depressed area”, yet was he ridiculed for this? Haas (RIP) was a wonderful philanthropist and owner of the A’s winning 2 WS, yet for all his success and love for Oaktown, his A’s attendance was basically on par with Lew “he didn’t try” Wolff. Why is this….? :X

  69. Karim, if you take offense to those things, you have extremely thin skin and have much bigger problems than what Wolff thinks about anything.

  70. Sorry, Karim, it makes no sense for you to defend the one-foot-out-the-door Warriors owners while bashing the half-foot-out-the-door A’s owners. Is this a San Jose thing? You don’t mind the Warriors moving to Frisco but will NEVER accept the A’s moving a whole 30 miles to San Jose?..I’m glad the Sharks have better owners than the Warriors. The Sharks arena is 20 years old and they’ve expressed no intentions to leave. The Warriors have what is tantamount to a 16-year-old arena and they are gone.

  71. @pjk We all know the A’s need a ballpark but like you say why has it taken 5 years. The BRC could have said already there’s no viably site in Oakland like Lew has said they must see or know something not to just rule Oakland out and allow lew to pursue other places, one interesting fact though from that L.A times article giving lew permission about guidelines to SJ was that it said it didn’t involve compensation to the Giants. So what is it that Lew cant or wont meet besides privately financing a ballpark. The million dollar question

  72. @anon exactly why they want to develop the whole area its been no secret and Davis was speaking it terms of generating more revenue and surrounding areas. Hell the city has said it that’s why there trying this CC project.

  73. @Karim/pjk
    There is a lot that could be said against all parties involved (not just Wolff), I have said repeatedly, this is a three city (San Francisco , Oakland, San Jose), two team (Athletics, Giants), one league (MLB) high wire soap-opera, and I have been critical of Wolff in the past, for some of the same things you mentioned , as pjk knows, because this is one area of this complex situation, we have not seen exactly eye to eye, but that being said I have to side with pjk, on this Warriors ownership group thing, and I agree with him there seems to be a collective mind set (SF/East Bay), that as long as the A’s don’t play in SJ its somehow ok.
    The Warriors openly hold lunches in San Francisco, without sending one official repetitive to Oakland festivity to kick of the season, man what if Wolff did something like that?
    The Warriors have had historical fan support (for mostly poor teams) while playing in Oakland, and yet turn around and tell the city five years in advance we are leaving for San Francisco, and no we don’t want to talk about it, wow what if the A’s got that type of fan support and Wolff did the same thing?
    The Warriors have the least of reasons to leave Oakland, and they are the fastest to do it, and don’t get me started about the fact that they have never taken their host city’s name, what if Wolff changed the name to San Jose Athletics today?
    The Warries have official memorabilia, with the San Francisco skyline in it, wow What if Wolff stated to show the San Jose skyline, in the back ground of A’s memorabilia?, what’s wrong Warrior ownership, have a problem with showing downtown Oakland?
    Wolff has made a misstep or two, and I am not convinced he has always put his best foot forward, concerning Oakland, but Wolf is in a no win situation the Raiders (historically) and the Warriors have given Oakland more problems than Lew Wolf, ever has.

  74. re: The BRC could have said already there’s no viably site in Oakland like Lew has said

    …Selig is too much of a coward when it comes to the Giants, so he has basically kept the committee’s findings under wraps. But the dead silence screams loudly to the committee’s findings: No viable ballpark plan in Oakland. Can’t wait till Selig gets to appear in court to testify in San Jose’s lawsuit.

  75. re: The Warriors have the least of reasons to leave Oakland, and they are the fastest to do it, and don’t get me started about the fact that they have never taken their host city’s name, what if Wolff changed the name to San Jose Athletics today?

    …Thank you.

  76. @pjk like i said im not defending im stating the differences and the Warriors were never the felt to be a part of Oakland I talk to older people that haven been going to games since the warriors came and they preach this as why they were always the Golden State Warriors, there was always the thought that they would go back to S.F. Big difference from a 20 year old newly built stadium and a 16 year old refurbished stadium,like a car part you can only fix something that old so much, in reality it was still built in 1966, just because they gutted the inside and put new furniture in it doesn’t mean its new

  77. @dmoas naw I don’t take offence I’m just stating what i know and my view on things, im pretty well off and and doing great for myself, no big problems here

  78. Karim: You continue to apologize for the Warriors. Lakeshore just nailed it: “The Warriors have the least of reasons to leave Oakland, and they are the fastest to do it”…The Warriors’ arena is, basically, 16 years old. I’ve seen it since the renovation – they did a nice job. Everyone thought the Warriors’ needs were taken care of in 1997 (unlike the A’s, who have been neglected and ignored every step of the way in Oakland), and here we have the Warriors planning their grand move to Frisco anyway… The Warriors were never felt to be a part of Oakland? Why? Because they never took the city’s name? If A’s, by contrast, are such a great part of Oakland, why have Oakland politicians done nothing for them? Oakland resident Jerry Brown, as mayor and governor, has done more to push them out of town than anyone.

  79. “hey preach this as why they were always the Golden State Warriors, there was always the thought that they would go back to S.F”….yup, they’re not part of Oakland / Alameda, but gosh darn it, we’ll spend $80M for them anyways….but for the OAKLAND A’s, it’s Lew’s fault….. :X

  80. @pjk You guys are right lacob should be called out more than he has but im pointing out the difference of how they have handled the situations, not advocating for one or the other. Bud will never testify and There has to be more to this than bud just being scared of the Giants, I can’t believe that, this guy is getting paid 20 something million been the commissioner for however many years is scared. He very well may want the A’s to move to SJ but knows the votes aren’t there. what if he lets it goes to a vote and owners vote it down? It’s not bud’s fault then and the giants wouldn’t have a standing to threaten Bud if MLB teams voted it down right. There’s way more to the story than this single fact.

  81. Pjk has a point. Why Warriors and a small degree the Raidera get a pass for leaving but A’s dont???
    My theory is….sigh…Oakland felt we were “borrowing” the Warriors from San Francisco the last 40yrs… it sucks but that is what I beileve…however Mr.pjk…this S.F move on the pier does look pretty stale…I dont think they want to ruin their view of the pier..I hark that Oracle Arena as part of Coliseum City or maybe Howard Terminal would be a better for Warriors management.

    Pjk do u even go to A’s games???

  82. guess if the A’s moved back to KC all would be cool as Oakland was “just borrowing” them for the last 40 years. Really….

  83. @pjk again according to standards even then it wasn’t taken care of in 1997, from locker rooms to concessions to Vip/ court side areas. far from updated. I agree with you Jerry Brown dropped the ball that’s Oakland’s fault he hates sports and has let it been know. But can we all get over that if the city now wants to work with the A’s and get them something built….. according to Lew and you guys its no. all i’m saying is there is a reason no decision has been made you guys have your reason and I have mine based on what i know and what I have reviewed.

  84. @annon the arena also brings in more events as well, I know the city should have taken care of the A’s first plus considering that they were sharing a stadium instead of redoing one for a team that only plays in it

  85. Karim: If Bud is ordered to testify, he has to testify.

    Harry: I go to several games a year, traveling up Route 880 to BART, to see games. If I had more money and more free time, I’d go to more. I have an A’s souvenir giveaway Hot Wheels car, still in the never-opened, dust-covered box, sitting about six inches away from my computer monitor. It says “99” on the car so that must have been when I got it. I was at the famed game where Jeremy Giambi didn’t slide, the game right BEFORE Rickey Henderson broke the stolen base record (Canseco hit the ball when Henderson was about 20 feet away from setting the record, so Rickey had to try again the next day), and, when the A’s were drawing nobody, I saw Mark McGwire hit a HR after the other team intentionally walked Mike Gallego to pitch to a slumping McGwire.

  86. re: again according to standards even then it wasn’t taken care of in 1997, from locker rooms to concessions to Vip/ court side areas. f

    …Do you work for Warriors PR or something? The Warriors got a $121 million renovation in 1997 and sell out every night. The only reason they would have to leave is so the owners can – gasp! – make piles and piles of more money. Of course, the A’s owners, on the other hand, are expected to stay in Oakland even if they lose piles and piles of money building a ballpark there. Tough luck for them, right?

  87. GoA’s it’s two city’s fighting for one team not one team being able to move where every they want in the bay area. Thats why the debate. The A’s can work in Oakland in a new stadium and they can work in SJ with a new stadium that’s all its not one is better than the other, and I feel with the history and finally with the the city getting there act together why cant Lew try if he wants a stadium so bad that’s all. you can talk and cry about past failures but now the city is trying to get all the pieces together to make it happen but the owner that wants the stadium won’t talk, even so as MLB has reject his request on his plans to move. That shows enough from what we have learned from the last year that you cant blame Oakland on this one.

  88. @ Karim – if you’re trying to argue that A’s haven’t been ignored / neglected by Oakland for the past 2 decades all the while catering to the not-Oakland W’s and Oakland-again Raiders, you’re not doing a very good job there bud….

  89. @pjk yes I know that I’m saying its not getting that far

  90. @GoA’s That was a good one.

  91. “That shows enough from what we have learned from the last year that you cant blame Oakland on this one.” I think therein is the culprit for the Oakland-only hysteria: pride. We did all these things, so if/when the A’s leave, don’t blame us, it’s Lew’s fault. He lied, he never tried. We offered up VC, HT, CC, and XYZ yet he still refuses. Who cares about the W’s, they were never really “Oakland” anyways. And the Raiders, they left us once already, so it wouldn’t matter even if we spent $200M for something they don’t even use today. Do you guys even read what you write?

  92. @pjk not sorry I don’t and I Have said the A’s have been screwed in past years by the city. But I have been in and around the arena head to toe and have seen and heard executives and promoters complain about the standard of the area in the area’s they have access to. A new stadium SJ or Oakland will generate money if done right, that’s all

  93. @Anon did I say that no, I think you have been misreading what ive been saying I have said over and over again that the A’s got the shitty end of the stick in regards to all 3 teams, what i am sayin is now at this time we can’t and lew cant cry over spilled milk, if MLB turned him down for reason and terms that lew doesn’t want to or cant abide by to get to SJ then hell we all need to gather around and him to and show support or give one last try that seems like they other available spot for the A’s acceptable for MLB, and if the City is offering funds and land as a way to get it done at least sit down and talk.

  94. @Karim
    That last comment, I am right with you on that.

  95. Oakland is offering funds for construction of a new ballpark? I must have missed that one.

  96. @ pjk yes you have because you ignore the fact Oakland might be doing something, they have been talking about various way s to fund the projects and taxes are one of them, they have to lay out who pays for what first and that’s what they are in the process of doing now. Like i said numerous times again about the transportation tax included funds for the coliseum area site. And that tax measure after loosing by only about 700 votes has been tweaked some is going on the ballot most likely again this year and possibly without the needed 66.67 vote but the 51 percent vote.

  97. “the fact Oakland might be doing something”…classic!

  98. @anon fact that sj hope is a lawsuit and there’s a Oakland hater in the room, typical. So when all is said and done maybe you and others will give the city there props. Not counting on it but it’s cool, there will be something else to try and bash the city about

  99. @Karim – hater? Lol, really? Try realist, and SJ does have the land, EIR, government, and most importantly the owner’s support. Fact is, I might care about Oakland’s plight, or maybe not! Keep trolling, bro. We’ve seen your kind come and go here…..

  100. @Karim Hay man, you make some good points, and like you, I hope Oakland is doing somthing, that I dont know about. I guess thats part of the problem, we dont know, I am sure you fill the same way.

  101. re: they have been talking about various way s to fund the projects and taxes are one of them, they have to lay out who pays for what first and that’s what they are in the process of doing now.

    …Translation: Oakland has not offered any money for construction of a ballpark.

  102. @anon realist how about the real decision about MLB saying no and so far no counter from Lew to make MLB happy, not trolling just balancing out this site from the pro sj pat on the back stroke or ego we agree on everything u say board. You and others know sj prob a little more than me and I know oak and what’s going on more than most on here, no big deal I have my side u have yours aggree to disagree it is what it is. With that said like I mentioned before this well all come to a head on in the next few months and we can debate that next

  103. @lakeshore/Neil Thanks. Oakland is doing and trying things much more than we know, and you are right that is the agony that a lot of us on here are so frustrated with. But we have to remember the things we hear and do know from the media that get leaked are things certain party’s want to play for position, that’s why I’ve always said no news is good news and the longer sj is stalled by law suits etc it holds well for Oakland, peices are falling into place

  104. @pjk translation Lew hasn’t sat down to negotiate how can you offer something if there’s no one there. Reason why the city has for the past years by passed Lew and went directly to MLB and giving updates to them and the BRC coming in to Oakland to talk to Quan and co about where they are at on the process, while sj was told MLB will not meet with Reid. Now Lew wants to talk a little but most of the groundwork has been laid between BRC and Oakland

  105. Karim: And what happens when Lew says he needs public funds to help make the project financially viable in Oakland? The next day’s headlines: “Rich A’s Owners Want Big $$ from Struggling Oakland.”

  106. re: sj was told MLB will not meet with Reid

    …MLB will meet with Reid in court, instead.

  107. @PJk
    what about Oakland’s new champion Malik and Colony Capital??? Dont you think they have the knockout punch to get the funding done to help A’s and or Raiders/Warriors of putting a shovel in the ground. EXPLAIN PJK

  108. Harry, no. The profit margins likely won’t work out favorably for what they’re trying to do. At this point it’s still a very long shot. They’re likely interested in taking over the entire site and building it up with all the teams gone so doing the leg work of trying to stir interest and working something out favorable to their terms isn’t a big waste of time for them. It’s as much as hail mary as SJ’s lawsuit and wait and hope attitude.

  109. ML briefly discussed the challenge to making CC work in his Reaction Time post. Bottom line for a developer like M&C to provide $1-$1.5B for stadium/ballpark construction than there has to be some huge profit margins in the rest of the development to make it pencil out. That’s why some council members have indicated that there is discussion on what the public contribution could be because no developer will sign on to foot that bill alone regardless of what the development rights are. It may be a chunk of land but its all about location location and CC comes up well short in that regard

  110. Private developers saving the day for Oakland sports is indeed a long shot. We’ve already seen the Raiders buy into the Coliseum City idea and still, no stadium deal. Developers want to make huge profits, not generously donate billion-dollar stadiums. There is likely a huge funding gap that would fall on the city, which, of course, is in no position to be spending money on stadiums.

  111. @pjk and public funding that’s why you negotiate behind the scene ala the Braves and a lot of other teams. Rule number 1 is you don’t negotiate in the media and public for reasons like that. Might not be right but that’s what these big business do, so even if there were headlines it would be more like “A’s and Oakland agree to build new baseball only stadium with help from public funding” it comes after the negotiation/ terms are completed.

  112. One thing to note regarding the long shot lawsuit. A timeline of recent happenings leading up to the lawsuit show things weren’t going well for SJ. We all know Chuck Reed and Lew are in constant communication with each other and that Reed is moving with Lew’s blessing. SO

    April 2, 2013 Chuck reed sends letter to sit down with Bud. Why after all these years he decides now? Understandably he is frustrated like all of us are. Also did he get word from Lew things aren’t going well, Reed writes “direct communication between us will help resolve any lingering issues about our commitment to having the A’s home plate be located in San Jose and could reduce the probability for additional litigation.” So questions were raised by MLB & BRC to Lew and co and Reed wanted to clarify the questions directly, but threatens MLB and Bud with a lawsuit.

    April 11, 2013 Bud responds by denying/ rejecting the sit down request from Reed and says,the threats of a lawsuit is “neither productive nor consistent with process that the Athletics have initiated under our rules.” and if he wants to talk, talk to Robert Starkey who is part of the BRC. Reed responds by saying he will take that offer and would set up a meeting. A question to know is if anyone on here that has connections or get into contact with Reed can ask if that meeting ever took place. Why? because if it did take place it must have not been a good outcome for Reed and SJ as two short months later they sue MLB on June 18, 2013.

  113. Pjk look at the entire land area of Coliseum City. That is a lot of land that even trickles down to hegenberger…just a short overpass to Edgewater rd. That is a lot of development for the retail and office space to make money off of. I would be interested in a condo with direct freeway access, public transportation and a freeway to keep my home away from “deep east oakland….he’ll ill buy or rent one…. also got the Raiders, Warriors and A’s in my backyard??? Malik/Colony can make money off the land as long as they do it smart.

  114. Karim: Oakland has sat back and watched pretty much every other MLB city get a stadium deal done in the past 20 years. Oakland has sat on the sidelines because it simply does not have the money to pay for a modern stadium that would put the A’s on par with other teams. All this behind the scenes this that, negotiating blah blah. Oakland won’t show its hand because its hand isn’t very good. If Oakland could pay for a ballpark, we’d know about it. Instead, it’s pep rallies, press conferences and fancy drawings of stadiums that won’t be built. I remember the fancy drawing of the never-built new Montreal Expos stadium, too. The Blue Ribbon Committee has been meeting with Oakland for 5 years – where’s the stadium deal? There isn’t one. WWII was won in less time…Now, we’ll have to wait to see if Wolff elaborates on his notion that something could be done on the current site. What did he mean?

  115. @Harry he wont agree, because Oakland might be on to something, like its been said it could be the biggest urban development in California history but the pro SJ folks say it wont work cause Oakland’s poor, it cant happen in Oakland. How do you generate money… from taxes and building business and condo’s, retail etc. There is also a airport down the way too. There is really none of that in Oakland or even the East Bay/ AlCO really. but it will still fail…. How do you remove blight and bad surroundings from areas… price them out and allow more developers to invest and swoop up property to flip and build even more. But anything Oakland will fail, just like Brooklyn Basin.

  116. Karim: Please explain 5 years of negotiations with the MLB Blue Ribbon Committee producing nothing. Other cities worked hard to get their teams modern stadiums over the past 20 years. All the A’s have gotten are Mount Davis, the firing of Robert Bobb and Oakland resident Jerry Brown immediately killing off redevelopment when taking office as governor.

  117. @pjk yes they have failed for some years now not just with the A’s and how they have treated them but you don’t see the city turning around and whats going on in the city. And the fact that we would know about it is false, u may hear random rumblings true or not true but for a city or team to come out and say they have a deal before they have a deal is inaccurate, Didn’t the Braves shock everyone? yes didn’t the warriors come out of the blue? yes, deals are made out of the public eye we all are secondary to this.

  118. @pjk here is your answer in the last 5 years or better yet since 1995 has any owner of the A’s given a good faith effort to sit down with the city? No. You can say Oakland resident but he could care less about sports he said public funding for a stadium wouldn’t happen over his dead body, and even so you can blame the city and him for that, we can look at it even if brown was in favor of the uptown deal it wouldn’t have happened. Why? because still that project you point to the failure of Oakland’s the A’s owner still didn’t even show up or care about that project either, and even put together a commission about moving to Las Vegas again its anything but Oakland. So again where as been the good faith effort from A’s owners?

  119. The Braves are getting several hundred million dollars in public funds, no? As opposed to the $0.00 being offered to the A’s.

  120. re: in the last 5 years or better yet since 1995 has any owner of the A’s given a good faith effort to sit down with the city?

    …And what’s the point of doing this when the deal offered is going to be: Owners pay for 100% of construction, take 100% of risks, and too bad for them if they lose their shirts? If the A’s owners ask for a city contribution, they get to look like rich greedy meanies in the next day’s newspaper.

  121. @Karim and Pjk
    Our city of Oakland pols/citizens at least at minimum has to pay for the land prep re: Coliseum City or Howard Terminal and lew Wolff can take care of the rest…even anti sports business S.F played for clean up for AT@T park to be ready….that is something I would pay for and is fair (no matter if cops and school s are shut down) we can figure ot out and still take care of Oakland business.

  122. @harry- the gints got development rights to land around ATT. LW will at minimum expect the same compensation for building a ballpark. If CC land goes to M and C then what’s left for LW or Marc D?

  123. @pjk and that’s what i mean buy things happen behind closed doors you think the braves care now that they pretty much secured money for a new ball park…. No they will take the media hit and move on with there new stadium. And you still haven’t said where the city of Oakland is offering $0.00. You may not like hit or discredit him but someone that’s in of whats going on and has been in meetings with Oakland its boosters and MLB Don Knauss has already stated that the city and Alameda county has funds set aside for the project, also that Transportation tax that’s going to the ballot again, do you not think that they will ear mark more funds for CC or HT to make it work…. you say no but history says yes since last years ballot had 40 million ear marked for CC, I will bet you its gonna be a lot more this time around weather its for HT or CC.

  124. @GoA’s @Harry and thee is more than enough to go around about 850 acres. Oakland is not giving away all of that land to one group, if they do I’m done with them. lol j/p but yes all of that land can leave everyone more than happy in MD LW and the investment group, and that is what is being negotiated, finally a fair plan for all party’s and not the city being dumb ala MT. Davis.

  125. behind closed doors, blah blah blah. In Seattle, Cleveland, Phoenix, San Diego, Minnesota, etc fans get to go to new ballparks. We A’s fans are still waiting on things happening “behind closed doors.” Waiting and waiting and waiting. Other cities all have jewel new stadiums while our nearly half-century-old edifice is described as a “pit” by the commissioner.

  126. @pjk yes you are right we have been waiting forever weather it has been the Oakland POL’s A’s ownership whatever the issue has been but we will all know soon, if its Oakland, SJ, or new ownership, they only thing after all these years we can cheer about is ours will be the newest at least.

  127. I hope Tanaka chooses Oakland to sign with. C’mon Billy Bean close the deal

  128. @karim–you need to really come up to speed on the “value” of development rights–you have to be making serious margins to do what you are talking about–and frankly a developer isn’t in the business to give away his profits; hence why public subsidies for the stadium/ballpark are being discussed–it can’t be done on development rights alone—and btw–Diridon Station build out (which they have already prepared a draft EIR) is more than equal in terms of proposed development to CC. The difference in SJ is they have the corporate support that affords an owner to consider developing a private ballpark without the public subsidies–

  129. The private investment in CC sounds good, but these folks are in this for money, and they aren’t doing this to be nice people. There is a lot of land for CC (800 acres I think), but it’s going to take more than the land at the coliseum and surrounding area to get it done, even if Oakland where to give that land to the developers, I don’t see where that would be enough. I would guess the developers would want development rights and property at CC city and HT (if it can be built on), and you might as well, toss in Jack London Square while you’re at it. That’s the type of deal these people are looking for, and we will still need to come up with some sort of tax on top of that. I am not saying it can’t be done, I hope it does get done, but there will have to be a lot of heavy lifting, before we can say, it remotely looks like a reality.

  130. @GoA’s i am up to speed I never once said that public money or subsidies wouldn’t not be used, They will and have to. And yes a EIR is drafted for the site but is still a long way out due to the lawsuit and that is a one of many reasons why I say the time is on Oakland’s side with there current negotiations for the various projects. Lawsuits will take years but all of this is coming to a end at least from Oakland side this year. They will have there EIR for CC soon and if HT is ok’d that will still take less time than the lawsuit. Yes SJ has corporate support tones of it but there are still only so many suites and so much signage, etc a stadium and team will have, weather SJ or Oak

  131. Karim: Tell us how Oakland comes up with public money for stadiums when it is laying off police officers? Tell us how Oakland drums up public support for more spending on stadiums when it is laying off police officers and has a bunch of other problems?

  132. @pjk actually lets get up to speed they are hiring more officers your data is years old as when they had to have the mass cut was 2009 and was in part due to the recession just like every city across America including yours truly San Jose. Oakland has been and is is continuing to climb out of it and a good rate. So the fact that a lot of people say that is false and last year and this year there have been numerous police academies, and funding has come in from taxes and federal funding for officers.

  133. San Jose: “And yes a EIR is drafted for the site but is still a long way out” – – (I believe this would be independent of the MLB lawsuit)
    .
    Oakland: “They will have there EIR for CC soon and if HT is ok’d that will still take less time”
    .
    No credibility, just pure emotion.
    .
    For San Jose, remember, Diridon already has a certified EIR (that took, at minimum, 18 months and A LOT of work). I would hope that HT could ideally get through all the necessary validation too, but don’t disrespect the process and waive your hand at things just because it’s Oakland and expect to convince people that what you speak is FACT. I can’t decide if it’s insulting or funny. (If you state things as your opinion or what you think/hope will happen, I’d respect your view point more.)
    .
    That’s not bashing Oakland either, that’s fair skepticism.

  134. @Karim
    I will say Oakland has gotten further then I thought they would (although that’s not saying a lot), I was not even sure they could come up with provide developers, and they did that, that being said I don’t know what these provide developers are willing to do.
    One advantage that Oakland may have over SF (piers 30/32), at HT (if it can be built on), is that it does not seem that the NIMBY groups will be nearly as much a problem, not to they there will not be any at all (jack London or west end Alameda), but it does not seem like it would be a project killer, like it may be at piers 30/32, of cores that’s if the Warriors don’t team up with the Giants, being that they would love to be in SF, don’t know but it looks like the Giants pissed the Warriors, are these things enough for the Warriors to reconsider CC or HT?, but that pretty much, is what would have to happen, for them to reconsider .

  135. @dirty actually do your research because CC has been in the process of the EIR and is almost done. so no emotion there just stating what is fact. How would it be independent when that is the hold up for SJ yes the EIR is done, but MLB said no to what was proposed. So the two are together, Lew cant move with out MLB and MLB is being sued so they can, so why the separation? Not waving my hand. How long would a lawsuit take? years and that’s not counting the threats from the Giants and also the City of Oakland to sue as well if the A’s were allowed to move, so add a few more years to that. So your 18 month at least would not compare to the years of litigation if the Giants and City followed through with there threat’s and that is not including the current Stand for SJ and SJ lawsuit vs MLB.

  136. On what grounds could the city sue if the A’s complete their lease terms and then leave? Didn’t they go to court to try to use “eminent domain” to keep the Raiders? That didn’t work, either.

  137. @pjk isn’t sj suing because of so called loss for business etc, which is invalid because how can you have millions of dollars of losses if you never had the team anyway. Remember Judge Whyte questioned this very thing by saying about SJ loss, “It’s pretty speculative, isn’t it?” Whyte asked. “It injures San Jose how?” This will be question again most likely in state court. On the other hand Oakland will lose money and jobs that they can claim, you may laugh or discredit it but it is just to tie up the situation like the Giants are doing already.

  138. @karim- you assume the lawsuit will run its course. More than likely there will be some sort of settlement if mlb feels threatened by it in the least. Furthermore, if mlb feels threatened by the lawsuit you can bet the last thing they would do is try to push oakland forward. When they do that it says that SJ will take it all the way to the end because what would they have to lose? More than likely, assuming mlb feels threatened, and I believe they do, the figure out how to make the bay area a true 2 team shared market and then they step away and allow the A’s to build their ballpark in whatever city offers them the best financial deal or provides the least amount of risk if its privately financed.

  139. SJ is suing on anti-trust grounds – to invalidate MLB’s exemption – and because MLB interfered with the valid contract Lew Wolff signed with MLB. Once the A’s complete their lease terms, there’s no valid contract left between then and Oakland. So how do they sue? Because the city doesn’t want them to leave?…Hey, maybe the local ice cream truck guy could sue me if I moved and sold my house to someone who didn’t buy as much as ice cream from him, no? Loss of revenues here.

  140. @GoA’s I actually think it will not go that far, I think it will be tossed out from the state and it will keep delaying, and in turn a decision will be made by MLB before that to Keep the A’s in Oakland if the city truly has it’s stuff together this time with a plan, a site, funding, etc. That is why I point to this year as being the crucial year for the A’s. Lew will be pushed to work with the city, or sell. I think MLB is not going to settle like people claim they did with other teams but that fact that the giants so called “territory rights” wasn’t a issue when MLB settled with other teams. I do agree that this territory thing is BS no matter where the A’s stay SJ or Oak, the so call territory area needs to be equal between the two teams no matter what.

  141. @Karim
    Again man you bring up some good points, and as you said there is a long way to go, at this point the only owner that wants to build in Oakland is Mark Davis, and honestly we really don’t know if that’s true. If the A’s do build at CC, as I have stated in the past, it will be because it’s the path of least resistance, and I am ok with that.
    These massive projects are difficult to pull off if everyone is on the same page, and wants to do the same thing, throw in lawsuits, the threat of more lawsuits, one team trying to literally destroy a charter member of its own sport, and a league that turns a blind eye to it, and well with all that in the mix it’s going to be hard as hell to get something built in San Jose or Oakland.
    I believe I said to you once before, and I still believe it, some people won’t believe something can be built in Oakland, in till something is actually built in Oakland, keep up the good fight

  142. @pjk but too bad the A’s fall under MLB as a corporation so MLB decides on where they can move, why Lew claims he is following the process. What if Lew is told to build in Oakland and he says ok does SJ drop the lawsuit? Also what if the owners did vote and voted against relocation does SJ drop the lawsuit. What standing would SJ have if this happens. That contract with SJ is gonna end soon one way or another in my opinion and the lawsuit will be tossed, they will sell off that land along with the others they are in the process of selling.

  143. Karim: So far, MLB has chosen to do nothing except continue to heavily subsidize the A’s to play in a substandard facility in a place where many have tried, and all have failed, to get them a new ballpark.

  144. @pjk very true which is truly baffling to have all the owners to continue to do that instead of making a decision one way or another, and that is still why I believe there is something way bigger than the Giant’s threat. 29 teams vs 1 Giants team, and all the money they are giving to the A’s. Bud has had to update the owners on this issue before right…(hopefully lol) my belief is that the owners wont vote because that will allow teams to choose to relocate anywhere they please, along with numerous other issues a potential move will cause.

  145. re: that the owners wont vote because that will allow teams to choose to relocate anywhere they please

    So you think all these teams, most with ironclad ballpark leases (even Tampa Bay) are going to abandon their markets to go to NJ, LA, Chicago. It won’t happen, but you can believe it if you want. Want to know what happens when a team moves into the neighborhood of a well-established franchise that’s already been there for decades? Just look at the history of the New Jersey Devils: 30 years in NJ and they are still pretty much the third-most popular NHL team in the state that bears their name, following the Rangers and Flyers. This despite three championships from 1995 to 2003. The Devils lose money most of the time.

  146. @karim- mlb won’t do anything that would reduce their options if the lawsuit is still active. Second, mlb would never tell one of their owners that they have to build in a certain location within their territory…LW has made this point many times–“they can tell me where I can’t build but they can’t tell me where I have to build”. Now if Oakland puts together a good package and it makes financial sense for LW/JF and the future of the A’s then of course they would move forward—but to date that has not happened primarily because a large public subsidy will be required and what you do for the A’s must be done for the Raiders and vice-versa.

  147. Karim has pjk on the ropes.

    Malik/Colony is the private help we need to get a version of Coliseum City a reality. Whether for Raiders and or A’s face it pjk…u should be mad at the sf giants. .not us

  148. Harry: You keep bringing up these developers at heroes who will save the day. They haven’t, so far. As has been said, developers like to make Big Big Big Money. Tough to do when you have to build billion-dolar, money-losing stadiums as part of a development..One thing that could make the situation work at Coliseum City but of course is forbidden in the state of California would be casino gambling. The Pittsburgh Penguins got their new arena because the state allowed casino gambling to go through to pay for it. Not going to happen here.

  149. re: Karim has pjk on the ropes.

    …You remind me of Giants fans I know who insist the A’s didn’t actually win the 1989 World Series – the earthquake did it for them, you know. Just fashion your very own make-believe “reality” that suits your particular agenda.

  150. @pjk you are right but what stops a city or another billion dollar person from challenging a precedent set buy this move and wanting a team and building a stadium lets say in NJ. Also in regards to a casino one was proposed by the airport in Oakland in 2004-2005 and offered 30 million year for 20 years to the city of Oakland. It died due to the old and corrupt idiots no longer with the city such as Ignacio De La Fuente, and there have been casinos pooping up around California and in its future so to say its forbidden is a understatement to say the least. Also Larry Reid supported it then and still is the Council member of that area. Times have changed a lot since then so we wont know a thing until details are reveled so never say never.

  151. @pike
    Re: Coliseum City but of course is forbidden in the state of California would be casino gambling. The Pittsburgh Penguins got their new arena because the state allowed casino gambling to go through to pay for it. Not going to happen here.
    That’s a good idea, wasn’t Brown once pushing for a casino, out near the coliseum, because it was close enough to some native lands?, if so the combination of privet development, with native rights (gambling), could work.
    Hay I know it’s a shot in the dark, but something is going to have to stick, if this ever gets done.

  152. re: you are right but what stops a city or another billion dollar person from challenging a precedent set buy this move and wanting a team and building a stadium lets say in NJ

    …Good luck competing with the Yankees and Mets in NJ. Whoever tried it would have even less success than the Devils have had competing with the Flyers and Rangers. I personally voted against a major league stadium proposal in NJ some years back. Don’t look for NJ residents to foot the bill…Remember the New Jersey Nets? New Jersey’s NBA team? Poorly supported for 30 years in “Knicks Country,” they gave up and moved back to New York last year.

  153. re: there have been casinos popping up around California

    …these are on native American lands not subject to California’s anti-casino laws. And even if a tribe owned property across the highway from the Coliseum, there would be no need for them to fund stadiums as a way to entice state approval. They could just start building, bring in the slot machines and they’re all set.

  154. re: Also in regards to a casino one was proposed by the airport in Oakland in 2004-2005 and offered 30 million year for 20 years to the city of Oakland.

    …was this one of these slot machine-less card clubs? There are two of these card clubs down the street from me – each trying to one-up the other. They bring in big tax $$ to the city of San Jose but enough to build stadiums? I doubt it. Put in the slot machines and it’s a whole new ballgame. But slot machines are forbidden.

  155. @pjk
    Well it was a good idea, anyway.

  156. Oakland has to change. We need more corporate support and maybe a casino. I would challenge and vote yes on any new taxes for Coliseum city. U have to challenge the corrupt leaders A’s nd anti sports ppl of thr bay. Kevin Johnson did it and won…so can pro sports fans of Oakland. My last comment

  157. @Karim, “almost”? Right over your head. Sorry I’m too busy to create narratives that fit my fantasies (which is just as equally that the A’s can get a ballpark at HT as it is they build it at Diridon). Again, no credibility.
    .
    Please indulge me (or anyone else), because I honestly might be forgetting, but has Oakland hosted public comments then for the CC EIR? What’s the expected date for issuing the draft (which, pending the issues identified, doesn’t guarantee a speedy completion)?
    .
    Regardless of the lawsuit, and for that matter S4SJ’s shitty challenge, the Diridon ballpark EIR is certified. You can forgive & make excuses on Oakland’s behalf all you want, but they’ve not come close to that.

  158. Stay classy ML. Stay classy ;)…

  159. Man..have to admit…if Malik/Colony dont like what they see…maybe it would be time to have the adult conversation amongst Oakland citizens and pols…

    But on Oakland behalf ML…where are the Raiders and A’s going to go??? U have to admit the city does have a slight leverage when it comes to that….look forward to the next article

  160. “…But on Oakland behalf ML…where are the Raiders and A’s going to go??? U have to admit the city does have a slight leverage when it comes to that…”

    Regarding the Raiders, they can always move back to Los Angeles and make either the Rose Bowl or the L.A. Memorial Coliseum their interim home until Farmers Field is completed.

    As far as the A’s, who knows? They could move to Sacramento and share Raley Field with the River Cats. It is not too hard to believe to think Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson would be heavily involved in getting an MLB appropriate stadium built either in the Natomas area or at the Sacramento rail yard. A more likely move may be to Montreal where the team could play in Stade Olympique. Other possible cities include Portland, Las Vegas, and San Antonio. Please keep in mind that I am just answering your question as to where the teams could move to. I personally DON’T believe that Mr. Wolff is interested in ANY of the cities mentioned (especially Sacramento). The Raiders moving to Los Angeles, on the other hand, is a more viable possibility in my opinion than the A’s moving out of the Bay Area. As a Davis resident, I would LOVE to see the A’s move to Sacramento, but Mr. Wolff said that is absolutely out of the question. I would like to see the team stay in Oakland since it would be a cheaper train ride for me to attend A’s games. However, as the days go by, I’m becoming more and more convinced that the A’s will inevitably end up in San Jose. Not what I want to see happen, but, oh well!

  161. @Matt
    do u think Mark Davis has the balls like his daddy to move to L.A…because it is still California. ..and to me it seems that ppl in L.A have their arms folded when it comes to public funding just like here in the SF bay area….so L.A to me is smoke and mirrors unless Davis really does call his bluff then move….that would be news.
    A’S TO SAN JOSE?? MAYBE…it would help my Raiders have the Coliseum all to themselves which can put more money in Davis pocket

  162. @harry – Before I comment, full disclosure: I was born and raised in L.A. but now consider Northern California home. I grew up a Dodger fan (still am) but have since become an A’s fan as well and I have enjoyed a few A’s games at the Coliseum. Yes, I believe Mark Davis will move the Raiders to Los Angeles IF he doesn’t get at least some help from the city to build a new stadium in Oakland. It is quite true that voters in L.A. are very reluctant to publicly fund a stadium. However, just about everything else needed to build Farmers Field is in place. They have a selected a location to build a stadium, the final EIR has been completed, and in 2012, the L.A. City Council approved the project on a 12-0 vote. In other words, they are light-years ahead of where Oakland is now though it is also true that there is some question about funding the stadium since Tim Leiweke has left as president and CEO of the Anschutz Entertainment Group who spearheaded the project. The building of Farmers Field is supposed to begin once a team agrees to move to Los Angeles. I personally believe that Mark Davis wants to keep the Raiders in Oakland but not if it means playing in an antiquated stadium with its infamous plumbing problems. If the powers that be in Oakland can’t or won’t figure something out to the satisfaction of Mr. Davis within an acceptable (to him) period of time, then yes, he WILL move the team back to L.A. By the way, in case you’re thinking that I, as a former Los Angeleno, am hoping that the Raiders DO move to L.A., you are incorrect. I find the NFL to be quite boring and I don’t care one way or the other about the Raiders or any other team in the NFL.

  163. Nfl is not boring. Once the Raiders start winning again, it is proven the NFL is more popular and ratings go up. Raiders have a certain magic that boosts the west coast sports world. Even east coast guys admire Oakland/LA Raiders when successful…i.e 2000-2002 &2010-2011 seasons…im skeptical matt. La has the e.I.r done??? I didn’t hear that. .. also what happened to San diego chargers??? Is the new mayor going to convince public to help chargers (and they should after helping Padres)
    Again have to see it to beileve it..because being in Oakland like right this second…the vibe in the city and among ppl is that at worse Colony/Capital could be minority owners of Raiders to get the new stadium in Oakland which means A’s are homeless …Again

  164. “However, as the days go by, I’m becoming more and more convinced that the A’s will inevitably end up in San Jose. Not what I want to see happen, but, oh well!”

    @Matt, Would you much rather see the A’s move altogether out of state?

    As far as the Raiders are concerned, Mark Davis may have to ultimately decide on whether he would rather have his Raiders share a stadium in Santa Clara with the 49ers, or to share a stadium in LA with some other NFL team. This scenario could very well happen if Oakland cannot come up with a mutually acceptable new stadium plan at the Coliseum site, or if Davis just loses his patience. The NFL has indicated that they would want for two NFL teams to eventually share a stadium facility in LA. As of now, it appears more likely that the Rams would be given first consideration for LA, since they will have a short escape clause window after the 2014 season on whether they would want to break their lease in St. Louis. On the other hand, the Raiders will have more time to hopefully get a new Coliseum stadium deal done.

  165. Raiders/Rams could share as well…I was listening to Colin Cowherd on Espn radio and be brought up a great point about newer nfl stadiums being “smaller”…because nfl has been trending ad a HD tv sport…some ppl get together at Buffalo Wild Wings or at the house to watch NFL games…(it gets preety wild in there).
    But i do like Colin’s opinion thAt if the NFL is planning a L.A stadium make it a 50-55,000 seat stadium..it has a better chance selling out games then the 60-80,000 and it could be more exclusive. I like the 50,000 stadium capacity in Oakland.

    I disagree my cousin lives in thr city of St.Louis and there are some rumblings that the Rams could get “some state and public funding” to move the Rams to the suburbs of St.Louis so ill keep paying attention to the news there.

  166. A move to Los Angeles must be very tempting for a lower valued NFL franchise such as Jacksonville or the Rams – their franchise value would automatically rise $400 mil. or more by making the move, also the NFL would be in favor of those moves. Very puzzling why these teams haven’t made the move by now (the Jacksonville and Rams owners are out of state owners and dont’ appear to have strong ties to those cities also)

  167. Different will u STOP..with the Jags. LA Jags??? Good luck selling tickets.. in order here would be the more popular teams in L.A if NFL team moves there
    1.Raiders
    2.Chargers
    3. Rams
    4. Jags

  168. @harry – true, The Raiders and Chargers both likely have cold feet about moving to LA though. The Raiders were drawing 35K-40K per game (even with a decent team)there previously. The LA NFL fanbase appears to be fickle, if the Raiders were to play 11 consecutive .500 or worse seasons in LA – they likely would draw alot worse in LA than what they are doing at the Coliseum. Also the Chargers franchise always achieves sellouts or near sellouts with their games at Qualcom – they must have second thoughts about what type of fan support they would receive in LA, considering how LA has supported the Raiders and Rams in the past.

    Both the Jags and Rams (despite the bogust, inflated attendance figures) are drawing poorly in those cities – moving to LA would improve the Rams and Jags attendance.

  169. I can fix Jacksonville ticket sale problems… sign Tim Tebow…that would GUARANTEE sell outs..Rams are getting better on the field so even casual fans are coming back. Raiders sign J.Manziel + L.A move….hello Hollywood. What im saying is organization needs to be better on player personnel.
    You know who would be a great Oakland A’s???…Robinson Cano…yeah yeah Seattle got him….but A’s could use a power hitter to make a World Series push

  170. Teboew would sell out in Jacksonville, even if they couldn’t actually put him in the game since he is not an NFL QB.

  171. @pjk…no u did not disrespect Tebow!!!
    Tebow was 7 and 4 win the afc west beat the Steelers. …he can be a QB just not the prototypical QB ppl like.

    Could he be a Fullback/Tight End….yeah…but Quarterback would be good too pjk

  172. @harry – First, the final EIR for Farmers Field was released in April 2012. Regardless, remember that Los Angeles not only has one, but two stadia where an NFL team can play (the Rose Bowl in Pasadena and the Coliseum in Los Angeles). However, don’t forget that I was answering your original thesis that the Raiders and the A’s have no where to move to. I’m merely saying that the Raiders definitely have at least one city that they could realistically move to and that city is Los Angeles. I also pointed out places that the A’s could move to. In other words, I presented a counterargument to your original thesis. Second, I opined that the NFL is boring TO ME. If you enjoy this overrated product called the National Football League, then by all means, kick back on Sundays in front of the tube and enjoy. You cited the huge popularity of the NFL. Please note that popularity of a product or item doesn’t necessarily mean anything. If it did, you would agree that McDonald’s makes the best burgers ever. In any case, when I say that I think the NFL is boring, I can only speak for myself. I can’t tell you the number of times I have fallen asleep recently trying to watch an NFL game at my local sports bar. But if you or anyone else enjoys the NFL, fine with me.

    @Ilpec – Re: “@Matt, Would you much rather see the A’s move altogether out of state?”

    HELL NO!!! My apologies for not being clear. This is not the first time I’ve been misunderstood. Here are preferences for where I’d like to see the A’s call home. Please keep in mind that I don’t drive and thus am dependent on public transportation to get around:

    1) Sacramento (round trip to a game: about $6)
    2) Oakland (round trip to a game: about $58)
    3) San Jose (round trip to a game: probably around $80)
    4) Anywhere else in the country (I simply wouldn’t attend, though I would still follow the team)

    The figures shown are just the cost of transportation and doesn’t include the price of tickets or concessions. As you can see, it would be cheaper for me to attend a game in Oakland than in San Jose which is why I hope the team stays put in the East Bay. However, given a choice of spending close to $100 to see an A’s game or not being physically able to see a game at all because they are in Portland or Las Vegas or wherever, I’ll choose San Jose every single time.

  173. Train rides or relaxing huh matt? Yeah well lets hope Coliseum city or Howard terminal comes true

  174. Yankees won the WS the 1st year of the new stadium.

  175. Mets have 0 Post season appearances in Citi Field. Not 1 0. That Chart is wrong. I am a die hard Mets fan…. We’ve sucked since 2009 and I love it!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s