Why would Lew Wolff ask for a 5-10 year extension at the Coliseum?

Lew Wolff visited the JPA on Wednesday. Staying consistent in his stance from last month, Wolff was seeking a lease extension, up to 10 years in length. Matt Artz’s Tribune article references the lease but not Coliseum City.

If Wolff is willing to hear out CC plans, chances are that he won’t make any kind of commitment unless a lease is in place first. Last month, the A’s put out a press release in response to a Matier & Ross column claiming Wolff’s interest in CC.

We are only prepared to meet with our landlord, the JPA, or elected and designated officials of Alameda County and the City of Oakland, to discuss any aspect of our venue or lease.

Remember that before lease extension talks broke down between Wolff and the JPA last summer, Wolff was seeking a 5-7 year extension with an out clause should the Raiders’ new stadium plans interfere with the A’s being able to play at the Coliseum. Two years at the Coliseum is only somewhat helpful, since there’s no way a ballpark will be ready at the end of the lease. Wolff will continue to ask for a lease extension as long as this uncertainty post-2015 remains.

Shortly after the press release I wrote a lengthy post about Wolff’s motivations, should they extend beyond merely getting an extension. Area A of Coliseum City (east of 880) is divided into three phases, starting with the new Raiders stadium, then the ancillary development designed to support the stadium, and finally the remaining surrounding development and a ballpark in the A Lot.

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

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

As part of Phase III, the A’s ballpark couldn’t come earlier than the end of the decade unless there was a major reshuffling of priorities. That’s where a 10-year extension could come into play. If Wolff wants to partner up on Coliseum City and the schedule can’t be significantly altered, the A’s would have to play at the Coliseum for the full length of that extension until the new ballpark was in place. MLB may have wielded the AT&T Park threat against Oakland successfully when it inserted itself into last fall’s lease talks, but sharing AT&T Park for any length more than a season or two will create enormous logistical problems for MLB, the Giants, and San Francisco.

Impacts from construction have to be minimized, which is a big reason for the phased approach. Not only does Coliseum City include new venues, it has tons of new infrastructure, including a new BART pedestrian overpass, new bridges over 880, and the “spine” that links all of it together. To understand those impacts, let’s compare the Coliseum complex now and what’s envisioned.


The current Coliseum complex

Coliseum City with all Area A phases completed

Coliseum City with all Area A phases completed

The above image has the new stadium slightly overlapping the current Coliseum footprint. Previous images had the stadium turned slightly and oriented further away from the spine, which could allow the current Coliseum to remain in place – or at partly demolished as was the case with Cincinnati’s Riverfront Stadium. To accommodate the football stadium where Mark Davis wants it (and where it’s shown in the image), the Coliseum would have to be demolished. That’s unavoidable, even though the new stadium’s footprint isn’t exactly on top of the old Coliseum. That’s also not a huge problem for the Raiders, since they could room with the 49ers for a couple years in the interim. It’s a huge problem for the A’s, who would be displaced. That’s why Wolff wants to get the lease in place. The A’s face eviction in this plan, even though there’s little chance for a new ballpark at CC or at Howard Terminal after the A’s are evicted. The lease would at least force BayIG and the Raiders to work around the A’s and the Warriors, who would be tenants for some time to come.

Another piece of infrastructure could be a huge factor: the power transmission lines running through the south parking lots. A big reason for building where the current Coliseum exists is that the power lines can be avoided. The cost of moving overhead transmission lines could be several million dollars, and easily double that cost if the lines were rerouted underground. In the end it may be best to move the lines underground, as it would free up land for other uses. Whether the lines remain overhead and are relocated down the road or moved underground, it’s a big infrastructure cost that has to be accounted for. Earlier renderings had the stadium displacing the power lines, so if there’s a consensus to avoid the lines, you’ll know it was a big factor. Besides the cost, PG&E and the Public Utilities Commission would have to be involved in the process, which could create delays.

Going back to the A’s and Wolff, as long as Wolff keeps some sort of dialogue going, he can have skin in the game. That disappears this summer, when BayIG is expected to have its anchor tenants signed on to the project, the Raiders being the first (I expect the deadline to slip). If Wolff can get an extension first, he’ll continue to have a say in how Coliseum City is developed. If not, and BayIG and the JPA can’t figure out a way to keep both the Raiders and A’s happy, Wolff can turn to MLB and force them to come up with a solution. That solution can’t be Howard Terminal in the short-term, since we don’t know what can be built at the Port site right now or in the future. Then there’s the possibility I wrote about in December:

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

Wolff can play this multiple ways, but the #1 issue is ensuring the A’s a home for the next several years. The rest is all process that should work itself out over the next 6-9 months. Lew may claim constantly that there’s no Plan B. I’ve never believed that. He’s not going to explain his contingency plans until he absolutely has to. That’s business.

138 thoughts on “Why would Lew Wolff ask for a 5-10 year extension at the Coliseum?

  1. So does Wolff just let the San Jose plan play out in the courts while he locks the A’s into the Coliseum for a number of years? A’s fans should be grateful we have an owner committed to keeping the team in the Bay Area when he’s having other options (Portland, Sacto, probably Vegas) presented to him.

  2. Previously you’ve talked about building a temporary A’s stadium in San Jose. Would it be possible to fit one on the Coliseum site while the new stadiums are being built? Or if only one stadium can be built at a time, could they build the new ballpark first and eventually demolish the left field grandstands (or the entire bowl and put up new temporary stands on the opposite side of Mt Davis) while the A’s play in SF for a few years? And the Raiders could continue to use the Coliseum until their new Stadium is nearly completed and only spend maybe a year at Levi’s Stadium?

  3. This read was depressing as $@#%! You mean the Giants obstructionism, Selig’s incompetence, Oakland pols talking crap, treating the A’s like shit over the years and championing the G’s T-Rights to SJ MIGHT PAY OFF?! Please say it ain’t so RM! I just don’t see Wolff abandoning SJ at this point (his business partners, Silicon Valley supporters, close friends and even family members) to now consider CC for the A’s.

    I’ve never believed that there wasn’t a Plan B either…BUT IT SHOULD BE FREMONT! Not corporate poor, pathetic pols Oakland. You’d still get Silicon Valley and San Jose from Fremont, but you’d loose all of that at the Coli.

    Sure hope RM you just put out this take on the lease news just for putting it out sake…

  4. @Tony D. It may be 5-10, with no agreement on building a new park at CC, as much as I want the A’s in Oakland, if it comes down to the Raiders willing to do a new Coli (in old Coli footprint), or the A’s staying at the old Coli for 5-10 years, without saying they would build at CC or anywhere in Oakland, I think Oakland has to go with the Raiders, if this is the choice.

  5. I think that Wolff’s reguest for a lease extension at the Coliseum is also being done to send a message to both MLB and the Giants. What I think Wolff may be saying is that if his A’s are not granted a lease extension; and if they will then be forced to vacate the Coliseum, then the A’s will not consider the option of temporarily playing their home games at AT&T Park. I don’t believe that Wolff would want for the Giants to benefit financially from having the A’s as temporary tenants, as long as they continue on blocking the A’s from moving to San Jose. The idea is to force a situation where MLB has no reasonable alternatives other than to approve the A’s move to San Jose. At that point, the A’s could conceivably become temporary tenants of the Giants as part of a compensation package to them for giving up their territorial rights to the South Bay.

  6. @IIpec Wolff would be covering all bases, by trying to do that, and if he could not get the lease ext., it would look good in court, if it came down to that.

  7. @llpec,
    I sure hope you’re right. I don’t believe one bit that Wolff will abandon SJ/SV for the Coli parking lot, especially after all that hot air from Quan and East Bay interests/media targeted against Wolff. If this is all part of the master plan to finally get San Jose, then it’s all good…

  8. llpec, that doesn’t make too much sense. If they extend the lease they’ll have a place. If they get booted, they won’t have a stadium simple as that. And they’ll end up in SF temporarily. All this is is Wolff seeing that regardless of whether they stay in Oakland, go to SJ, or anywhere else, there won’t be a new stadium ready for them for another 5 – 10 years. The A’s need to be able to long term plan. You can’t do that not knowing where you’ll play in 2 years. Sign a 5 – 10 year extension, they’ll know where they’ll be for that time. That’s all this is. Sure there may be more motivations involved: waiting for 10 years for SJ to go through the courts, knowing it’ll take 10 years for Oakland to get CC off the ground, another location becoming truly viable, take your pick. But having a home, ANY home, is the primary one.

  9. I would like to think, the A’s would get a new ballpark in the Bay Area in my lifetime, but hell I am not so sure, and not to be funny or anything but Lew is almost twice my age, shi&¥%#t

  10. “All this is is Wolff seeing that regardless of whether they stay in Oakland, go to SJ, or anywhere else, there won’t be a new stadium ready for them for another 5 – 10 years.”

    @dmoas, It shouldn’t take more than three years after MLB approval to get the ballpark built in San Jose. Land acquisition will take the most time before the site is shovel ready. The environmental study was already completed.Also, if the A’s are booted from the Coliseum, MLB will be put in a most unenviable situation. At that point, the A’s may finally gain the leverage to getting a new Bay Area ballpark on their terms.

  11. The more I look at the overhead photos, the harder it is for me to believe the completed Coliseum City renderings were drawn to scale. The size of the baseball stadium looks way off.

  12. Let the owners build their own Damon stadium…we will come and sell out the place. Raiders are first priority then A’s..but I would look at C.C then Howard Terminal if city of Oakland can pay for clean up

  13. Were I Lew, my Plan B would be Oakland (not Fremont). But looking at the details is really what drives the whole thing.
    If I could have the entire Coliseum complex for my own, I’d be hard pressed not to pull the trigger. Especially when you think about using development to pay for the thing. If I had to share it with the Raiders, I’d want to be somewhere else.
    If I were Oakland, I’d be doing everything in my power to help make Howard Terminal (or something else near downtown) feasible. That’s where they’d get the most bang for their buck. Close to downtown.
    As a fan, I don’t care much where it’s built. I just want to have a place I know they will be for a long time. The machinations are getting old.

  14. @ Jeffrey,

    Respectfully disagree with your first paragraph. Fremont is basically north NORTH San Jose and still in his current designated territory. Don’t reward those who’ve been crapping on your team for 16 years by giving them what they want. Just my opinion of course. Hopefully we never have to see a Plan B…

  15. @Tony D
    San Jose is losing the fight…just join us in Coliseum City or u might be saying “Portland A’s

  16. Muppet, no that’s pretty much to scale. You can tell by the size of the diamond in the two photos above. That should impress on everyone just how oversized (and bad) the Coliseum really is for baseball. There’s WAY too much distance between the stands and the field.

  17. @harry,

    San Jose might currently be “losing” the fight (whatever the hell that means), but this fight is far from over. As for CC and the prospects for a new ballpark, well…it’s your world harry, believe whatever you want.

  18. Cheer up, Tony! Mark Purdy is about due for another one of his “An Announcement Is Forthcoming” proclamations. I hear Greenwich can even set time by them. 🙂

  19. While San Jose is still not done fighting. I do believe the fight is over for them… MLB will not go agianst the Giants… Even if it means the A’s will be forced to move.. And Wolff prolonging this I believe will put him in a bad position.

  20. A lot of people apparently have no idea what the San Jose fight is even about.

  21. @ Joel: I wouldn’t bet the farm on that. If the court proceedings continue, the stalemate won’t be MLB’s or the giant’s decision – the Federal courts will decide where the A’s play. Also, the law firm representing San Jose(who know what they are talking about) has more credibilty than giant homer media types such as Tim Kawakami, Ratto, Matier & Ross, KNBR (none of these people are legal experts and are not qualified to comment about SJ vs MLB), KNBR, etc.

  22. I don’t think Fremont wants the A’s, or has a real place to put them.

  23. @Rob,

    Well, when Mark Purdy does decide to come out with “An Announcement Is Forthcoming” article, that’ll be a first! Can’t wait for that one!


    As your well aware, there’s a lot of open land in Southern Fremont/Warm Springs area. Perhaps there are also some underutilized parcels that could be razed for development. Yes, industrial or open space areas not preferable for A’s ballpark, but that’s basically what the Coli parking offer as well. As always, just my opinion.

  24. @ML You could be running this bolg (if your up to it), for up to 18-20 years (its been 7 or 8 years already right?), befor we get a new ballpark. Well I will be here as long as you are, thanks man.

  25. I think there is another basis LW is trying to cover: MLB welfare. With the CBA up in a couple of years, I’m sure the same verbiage on ending the A’s subsidy will be embedded in tge new CBA. By getting an extension, he continues the status quo of getting $30+ million a year while watching Oakland polis and MLB execs make fools of themselves. Definitely a wise business decision and has nothing to do with either SJ failing, nor Oakland “winning”.

  26. @Anon I was thinking the same thing, even if Wolff where to go along with CC(big if), I think he would drag it out as long as he could, weather he waits as long as he can on SJ vs MLB, or makes MLB pay 10 more years (at most), till he has to build at CC.

  27. Wolff wants an extension so he has leverage in court in case the raiders and the JPA force them to leave because of CC.

    Mark Davis has stated he wants to build on the current site and the JPA has pretty much agreed to do so, Wolff doesn’t want to be stuck with the giants without getting something from the JPA if he is forced to leave.

    By getting a 5-10 year lease he can sue down the road and hedge his bets while sj continues in court and selig leaves office.

    Wolff won’t build at the coliseum unless MLB agrees to continue to have the a’s on revenue sharing and the ballpark is subsidized heavily. Neither is going to happen as if that was possible you would see the a’s trying to build there now.

  28. @Anon,

    Good point above. Never thought of the CBA or revenue “Welfare” sharing aspect to all of this. Wolff’s a very smart businessman and there definetely has to be some “method to the madness” (so to speak) re said lease extension request.

  29. The oddest part of this discussion is the reference to rev share as “welfare”. Welfare isn’t when a private entity allocates earnings amongst its franchisees, but when an a private entity receives funds from govt.

  30. @BD- splitting a few hairs? Taking from the rich to give to,the poor is a form of welfare- call it what you want but it fits the spirit of what welfare is-

  31. Not even close. Ever heard of the CBA?

  32. @bd- yup- and one of the the things it establishes is what determines rich and how much the have to pay to the poor- hence the 30-35M in welfare payments the A’s get for being poor compared to the many of their peers-

  33. I can’t see why Wolff would be given an extended lease at this point. I thought the recently drawn up 2 year lease agreement was specifically set at 2 years to deal with the possibility of the Raiders renovating or building a new stadium on or near the current footprint. Hopefully that is to be determined this year, unless Oakland/Alameda knows something we don’t…ie Raiders are most likely moving. I don’t think that has been determined yet.

  34. Who knows what’s going on? With the extended lease request, he can really shut up the “Wolff hates Oakland” critics should the Coliseum Authority actually turn him down on this lease extension because it might complicate a Raiders deal. And Wolff can likely lock into that revenue-sharing from MLB. Like I said in a previous thread – if MLB wants to turn down San Jose when there still is no viable solution in Oakland, then MLB can keep on writing those $36 million-a-year checks to subsidize the A’s in Oakland for years to come. Thankfully, Wolff has dismissed the calls from other cities outside the Bay Area – so far.

  35. I am not so sure MLB cares all that much, if the A’s are on revenue sharing. I think a lot of us overstate that fact, in hopes that MLB will grant the A’s San Jose. We can go on all day about welfare this, welfare that, but every major North American sport is supported by the teams in the bigger markets (larger population base), that make the bulk of the money, or are a greater draw on TV (getting more viewers than smaller markets), the problem is not, that there is revenue sharing in baseball (or welfare, as some call it), it’s the way MLB has chosen to operate economically, that’s the problem for the smaller market teams. The NFL does not have this problem, neither does the NBA, because they have hard revenue sharing streams, and true salary caps this is why smaller market teams, can compete constantly for championships in these leagues.
    Before anyone brings it up, I already know the A’s are not a small market team, they play in the San Francisco Bay Area (population between 7-7.5 million), and a defined two team market, by MLB, but they are confined, to two counties (Alameda/CC), out of nine Bay Area counties (which is ridicules), so in effect, they are a small market team.
    There will always be the NY’s, LA’s, Chicago’s, and Philadelphia’s, but unless they want to play, in a 4-6 team league they will have to help subsidies the Cleveland’s, KC’s, Pittsburg’s, and San Diego’s of the world.
    The overwhelming reason why small market teams in MLB, can’t make money, is not because they don’t make money, image that the overwhelming reason, is because the NY’s, LA’s, and Boston’s of the world set the salary bar, and where do you think they set it?, they set that bar where they can afford it, and then people say “Well that’s what the market dictates”, well if the high revenue teams set that market, and don’t have hard revenue sharing in place or salary caps, then that crates an imbalance, for the small market teams, which has more to do with bad economic practices, then Oakland sucks.

  36. Or I should say the problem is much more complex, then Oakland sucks.

  37. ML, off topic but pertinent to an article you posted the other day. The SF Bulls have indeed folded as of today. Message went out to their season ticket holders this afternoon.

  38. @Lake shore Neil
    That was a well thought out comment about revenue sharing. Kinda sucks how the system favors the NUMBER, Chicago and L.A teams…means the only way the A’s win a world series is by getting passed “Verlander” pitching with our “money ball technique” ..we are not getting Robinson Cano or afford a Japanese pitcher in Tanaka. So we will have to take our “welfare check” and try our best. So if Lew Wolff can build a ballpark in Oakland and still get revenue sharing checks. ..then he should just build at Coliseum City and get this over with

  39. harry: At this juncture, the A’s are off revenue-sharing once they get a new ballpark. So if Wolff builds at CC and loses lots of money, he will get no revenue-sharing to save the day…We should look at what happened to the NJ Devils – they spent a pile of money helping to pay for their own arena in Newark and then the revenue streams were very weak afterward. The franchise was in such dire straits financially that the league had to come in and make payroll for the team, which was then sold to some other party who hopes to make money booking events at the arena.

  40. Lew Wolff views the Raiders as his Ace card in the Bay Area stadium game. It’s becoming abundantly clear that Oakland cannot accommodate the new stadium needs for both teams concurrently. It also appears obvious that a football stadium on the Coliseum site is the priority of the CC project planners. It is also known that Mark Davis wants his stadium to be built on the Colisum footprint. This will force the A’s to vacate the Coliseum when their lease is up in two years, and thus becoming homeless.

  41. Sorry! Comment was erroneously posted before completion.

    MLB would not accept being pushed out of Oakland by the NFL. At this point, MLB will have no choice but to allow the A’s to move to San Jose as the only realistic solution to keeping the A’s in the Bay Area for the long-term.

  42. illpec: If that happens and MLB insists on staying in Oakland, it is going to have to pay for the stadium itself. It can’t force Wolff to do it. So, either Wolff pays for the stadium in San Jose or the other owners all chip in for a new Oakland ballpark – and keep paying revenue-sharing, too. All to keep the SF Giants happy. Unless some city out of the Bay Area makes an offer that can’t be refused

  43. @pjk, If the A’s are forced to vacate the Colisum and thus become essentially homeless, MLB would be put in an unenviable situation. At that point, MLB would finally have no choice but to try to accommodate the A’s on their own new ballpark terms. If that means throwing the Giants under the bus, so be it!

  44. When the Raiders get their new stadium..is a it agreed with the NFL brass and city of Oakland that Oakland, CA will be seriously considered for a Superbowl Location???

    If that is the case that would mean huge dollars for thr businesses retail and hotels space in the second half of the decade. If im Oakland a new stadium = Superbowl. .I guarantee the new Santa Clara stadium will be a successful superbowl location. ML and pjk u know im right

  45. Harry: I think the NFL requires 70,000 seats for the Super Bowl. The new Raiders stadium, if it ever gets built, would only have 58,000 seats. So they’d have to put up some temporary stands. And we can be sure all the dignitaries, etc, will be housed in Frisco hotels, for most part…Given the $40 parking planned for the new 49ers stadium, I’m in a great spot – I can get to the place via a $2, 15-minute Light Rail ride.

  46. @IIpec I agree with you, but if Oaklands only choice is a new football only park, that will keep the Raiders in town for 30-40 years or longer, and a 5-10 year lease, for the A’s at the old coli, with only the hope of them building at CC after that time is up. Oakland has to go with the Raiders.

  47. Pjk are u #! $! Serious???

    The nfl is becoming more a tv sport.. a small 58 thousand with the best transportation access stadium in the nfl in Oakland (not to mention best weather) would not loose not one hotel room along hegenberger rd. Especially with the area transformed with Coliseum City. .. (I almost forgot all the area on the other side of freeway. And yes it would be built…Mark Davis would be gone like now if behind the scenes there is some “rabbit outta the hat deal” to get the Raider stadium. ..

  48. @ML

    Hey what is going on with the Sacramento king arena. Seems like a tough battle to get this public funding. ..if Chris Hansen sabotage this deal would the NBA punish Seattle again???

  49. @joel

    Looks good, Sacramento should try and lure the Coyotes from Phoenix once that team gets the go ahead to move.

  50. The Coyotes aren’t going anywhere for a while. They were just sold to a new ownership group. But there they are again – ranked 30th out of 30 teams, despite a decent record.

  51. Coyotes will most likely relocate to Vegas and a spanking new arena on The Strip (if it ever comes down to them leaving Phoenix).

    OT: the Warm Springs/South Fremont Community Plan was just released on January 6. Talk about awseome! Basically a new city will one day sprout around the WS/BART station. Very Santana Row- “ish” if you ask me. Why not an A’s ballpark! Much, much better alternative then Coli City if SJ can’t happen. Just work with Fremont pols and sane, rational residents (ie non NIMBY) and make it happen Mr. Wolff. Enough of this everlasting bull shit!

  52. Is new Sac arena configured for NHL? Do Sharks have territorial rights to all of Northern Cali, and if so, do they whip out the 10 incher and block an NHL franchise to Sac? Everything is easy until the details are revealed.

  53. @Tony D.
    That’s sounds cool, and a new ballpark would spur that growth even more, but very few people outside of you and I view Fremont, as realistic at the moment.

  54. The Warm Springs folks have made it clear there are no conditions under which they would accept a ballpark there. Time to move on. Fremont is over. A shame since it makes so much sense to put a ballpark right by a new transit hub. But it’s not going to happen.

  55. @pjk It is a shame.

  56. I was down by south San Jose last night (at Branham and Snell Ave.) and noticed a huge vacant plot of land, which of been another nice site for A’s stadium: 287 acres worth of space(!!), near HWY 87 and 85 access, right by Caltrain and Lightrail. Turns out that is going to be a public park called Martial Cottle Park. Too bad and so strange that such a large swatch of land is going to not be urbanized (see http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23831692/silicon-valley-holdout-287-acre-farm-heart-sprawl for info on it).

  57. @Mike2
    I agree…… But I believe the owners did say that the arena could house an NHL team… But that they had no interest at the moment to bring a team here…. They do want to bring back the Monarchs though. :-/

  58. @pjk
    California pols have spoken. No more inner bay area teams leaving the east bay for san jose…from boxer to gov. Brown to the sf giants. Lew wolff should surrender and build at Coliseum City north parking lot. Enough is enough

  59. @harry–but its ok for them to leave for SF….really?

  60. Harry: If MLB and Oakland give him the money, I’m sure he’ll be happy to build there. But he is not going to be forced to build with his own money if a: he won’t make any return on his investment or b: he will lose his investment. Right now, neither Oakland nor MLB are offering him a dime, so we have a stalemate.

  61. @pjk,
    Knew you’d say that. FWIW, it wasn’t all Warm Springs/Fremont residents who were against a ballpark; just 500 or so rabid foamers out of 200,000 citizens. The REAL Plan B…
    That plot of land you mentioned will never be developed; at least not in our lifetime. Forever an open space…
    You STILL don’t know what the hell your talking about! (That’s some world you’re choosing to reside in)

  62. @pjk
    It’s odd is it not, MLB will not let Lew Wolff spend his own money in San Jose, but they may be willing to allow him to spend a good chuck of it in Oakland, not that they would want it totally privately financed, but I guess the SF Giants have a lot of power behind closed doors.

  63. Tony D: Can we count on those anti-ballpark folks to try to obstruct the process at every step, file CEQA lawsuits, whatever it takes? I’d say we can. Not worth it to pursue that site anymore.

  64. @Pjk
    Save Oakland Sports said NFL would approve Oakland as part of Superbowl rotation when new stadium is built. 50,000 or 73,000 doesn’t matter.

    @Tony D
    I know the world im living in has no San Jose ballpark in site…so I chuckle to myself when I go to San Jose (met this gal off match.com) u fellas should check it out…but I chuckle to myself that Lew ain’t getting San Jose…in fact some San jose residents I talk to feel that it is just taking too long for this to happen I mean BART would be done by the time A’s can move to San Jose…some dont mind going to a new ballpark in Oakland right next to the Raiders Coliseum. …

    so yeah like Nas said “The World Is Yours”

  65. @harry
    As you, and every reasonably thinking person would know, the A’s, Raiders, and Warriors for that matter, may never call CC home, but I do fill where you coming from, it seems that some folks would rather fall on their sward, then to see any of the three call it home, and as I have said many times before, there are some Pro/Only-San Jose folks, that are almost as bad as some of the Pro/Only Oakland folks.

  66. @harry ….repeat after me….crack kills! Lay off the pipe, bro.

  67. @harry
    As much as I here you, I got to say I am not with you on the hole “No more inner bay area teams leaving the east bay for san jose”, thing, I have never looked at it that way, I am totally fine with the A’s being in San Jose, and I think another area where we have disagreed is the way the Golden State Warriors, I mean San Francisco Warriors, have totally sh#ted on Oakland in my view , and I wish all these people that have a problem with Lew Wolff, would be 1/10 as critical toward the Warriors ownership group.

  68. @pjk,

    I don’t care which municipality it is or what kind of development it is, you don’t dictate planning based on a rabbid minority who can kick, scream, throw out lies and pack town hall meetings. It’s one thing if the vast majority of citizenry are against a project; it’s quite another if you’re just talking about a mostly conservative, older minority who are against progress at all costs.

    FWIW, the “Kings Bill” made approving projects near transit lines much easier re traffic impacts.

  69. Warm Springs was getting 700 protestors a night, put up a Web site called “Fremont Citizens Network” and said a ballpark would bring “crime and chaos” to Fremont (even though the complete, exact opposite has happened at ATT Park). Wolff even told Bob Dupuy, the president of MLB at the time, not to come to a Fremont city meeting because Wolff didn’t want him subjected to yelling and screaming from the residents. There really is no point in a “You’re going to get this ballpark whether you like it or not” strategy, when lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit and nightly protests can be expected.

  70. @Anon
    that’s it??? Come harder.

    Coliseum City doesn’t have to worry about TR rights and pissed off old people. The owners can have all the land for free to develop a sports complex

  71. @ pjk,

    Well, you are more than entitled to your opinion I guess. I’m no mathematician, but I do believe 200,000 is greater than 700. Will you at least give me that the minority shouldn’t dictate for the majority? That is all…

  72. During the Fremont debacle, Wolff lamented that it wasn’t enough to have the public officials on your side (He had that). He didn’t have other factions and down went the Fremont ballpark project.

  73. Hay guys, you know Lew talking to the JPA is interesting and all, but it’s really meaningless innless Oakland is stupid enough to give Lew a 5-10 lease extension, without any assurances he will build at CC, or anywhere in Oakland in the future. There’s no way Oakland should go for that, if the Raiders and Bay IG are serious at all about building a new football only stadium at CC.
    The real conversation will be between Lew and the Bay IG, no way they sit there waiting (5-10 years) for their potential investment, to pay off without Lew signature, somewhere saying, that after 3 years at the old coliseum you must vacate if you haven’t agreed to the long term CC projects plans, or in simpler terms join the project or get the hell out.
    I get all the reasons why Lew does not want to build in Oakland, but he is not the only one with cards to play, if he really does not want to build at CC (or anywhere else in Oakland), I say the JPA should give him what he really wants, an eviction notice he can show to MLB, and I hope the lands in San Jose, but if not, and the team leaves the Bay Area, so be it because at that point he may have overplayed his hand.

  74. Who needs ML when Lake shore so eloquently put itnn…Lew did overplayed his hand…so either he commits to C.C or he can get kicked out and MLB cam decide the place for A’s to play. Everything works itself out

    • @Lakeshore/Neil & harry – You really want a repeat of what happened last time MLB got involved? The City/County got their asses handed to them. Good luck with that.

  75. @harry,
    We need ML! The real question is who needs you and your incoherent opinions that are all over the place..

  76. The only way I can see Uncle Lew agreeing to do anything at CC is if he gets the whole damn thing to himself. That seems pretty unlikely right now. ML did a pretty good analytical piece about potential paths forward for CC, one of which was the A’s slotting in to the Raiders position in the development, partnering with BayIG.
    If I was the owner of the A’s, my goal would be to find the most favorable development deal for me. The deal that gives me ancillary development rights (it’s the new “new” revenue stream, after new stadium, improved local media deal). That’s probably most likely at CC, but in a much different vision than what the current plans look like. Hell, that was what the first plan he ever put forward was way back in 2005 (or was it 2006?) just before he moved on to Fremont.
    Look at the Braves plan in Cobb County. Improved in stadium revenue by being close to the folks with money. They already have their local media deal in place and it isn’t that great, but it isn’t able to be improved for a while. So the next step was having acreage directly adjacent to the stadium on which to build a mixed use development. It’s almost an extension of the stadium, from their perspective.
    That’s not really possible at Diridon. It’s debatable that it is possible at Howard Terminal. It’s not possible as Coliseum CIty is currently envisioned because the pie is split up way too much. But if it is just the A’s, it is potentially a thing.

  77. Is Harry our latest troll? We were deff due… Been about 2 months since the last one.

  78. PS- it really sucks to still be speculating about all of this stuff all these years later.

  79. Yup…Larry e its troll time.

    I agree that if Coliseum City could be redone with A’s and Raiders splitting the Coliseum land in half…its more development for both to maximize …again this thing been to long..just build it all ready before the next economy crash..

  80. @ML/Tony D.
    I said “if the Raiders and Bay IG are serious at all”, and if that’s the case, and (ML) MLB can get as involved as they want, hell they have blame in this as well. Look Oakland has scrued up to high heavens, that’s a fact, but as much as we talk about a day of reckoning for Oakland, there is a day of reckoning for MLB, and Lew Wolf as well, MLB created this ridicules situation so they need to make a decision, as bad as the situation is Lew has to make decisions as well, again IF THE RAIDERS AND BAY IG ARE SERIOUS AT ALL, then this may give Oakland the leverage to say hay, we made our choice, so Lew/MLB can join us or, or we hope you give him SJ, because, we have other redevelopment possibility’s if the A’s don’t want to sign on.
    What’s the problem with pointing out, that there is a possible scenario, where Oakland may have some leverage? (However small it may be), I realize Oakland and leverage does not appear in the same sentence often, I also realize for many, all roads lead to San Jose that is in till they don’t.
    We talk a lot about MLB holding the A’s, /San Jose hostage, all I am saying is, the A’s and San Jose are not the only hostages here.
    Oakland is not going to fall into the San Francisco Bay, if the A’s/MLB leave, like you said ML we will find out a lot in the next 6-9 months, either the A’s/ MLB is are in, or out and I am fine with it either way, I guess I have made peace with it, but I am not going to sit here and tremble in fear of BIG BAD MLB and what they might do, hell they have not done Oakland any fevers is over 45 years, and before anyone brings up the TR’s, that’s a favor to the San Francisco Giants, and not the Oakland A’s, as well as a disservice to San Jose. If things work out for Oakland and the Raiders (BIG IF), someone ells may be getting their “asses handed to them”.

  81. MLB has not done Oakland any favors? How about locking the A’s into Alameda and Contra Costa counties? How about continuing to play in that football stadium after the city and county ruined it? Oakland has proudly done zip for the A’s and MLB and MLB has kept the team there and subsidized it heavily. Sounds very charitable to me

  82. @pjk I did not say Oakland did any favors for MLB, and you are to smart to think MLB has done any for Oakland.

  83. Lakeshore wins this debate. None of us san jose guys like ml, pjk and tony d can refute this… get ur popcorn ready

  84. Lakeshore: You don’t think MLB has done Oakland any favors by subsidizing the A’s to the tune of $36 million a year and letting them continue playing in a football stadium while Oakland offers no viable plan on a facilities replacement (viable, as in a viable site and money to pay for it)?

  85. Harry: Lakeshore could argue that 2+2=3 and I could argue that 2+2=4 and you would still say “Lakeshore wins this debate.”

  86. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. This whole years-long debacle shouldn’t even exist if territorial rights were handled properly in MLB. First off, even as an avid lifelong baseball fan, I think MLB’s anti-trust exemption should absolutely be stripped. Alternatively and/or in addition, the Bay Area should be treated like the other 2 team markets. The Yankees/Mets share their geographic territory. So do the Cubs/White Sox. So do the Dodgers/Angels. And MLB had no issue allowing the Expos to move into Baltimore territory and become the Nationals (albeit with certain stipulations). Barring removal of anti-trust exemptions, the A’s and Giants should absolutely have a coterminous geographical territory. Then the SJ move wouldn’t even be an issue like it has been for years now.

    Total sidenote: I really think this site could use a better comments system (something akin to Disqus). I know you work hard on this site ML and we appreciate it. I’m simply making the suggestion because I really feel that a different system could drastically improve the conversation among readers.

  87. @ pjk Come on man, subsidizing the A’s for 36 mil a year, a favor for Oakland? It will be a favor for Oakland when MLB subsidizies Oakland, thats just the way baseball does business, no favor there. Letting them play in a football staduim? When the A’s moved to Oakland it was the norm for the NFL and MLB teams to play in the same staduim, again no favor to Oakland, since that time MLB did not let a vote happen, in the 90’s of a group that was favrable to building a new baseball only park in Oakland, no favor there, since then MLB have made the A’s play there against their will, has Oakland gained fram this? sure but thats not a favor. Oaklands none effort, is not a favor from MLB to Oaklnd, its a favor from MLB to the SF Giants, Oakland may have gained from stupid choices, by MLB but none of them where a favor to Oakland, I stand by my point, MLB has not done Oakland any favors in over 45 years.

  88. Harry, you completely missed the point. Splitting the coliseum land is not likely enough. There is only so much development that can happen in a time frame that makes sense. There’s only so much money that development can generate for the purpose of building a stadium. The Raiders are $500M short with the current projections. That doesn’t even account for the A’s. If anything will work at Coliseum City, it’s baseball and ancilkary development. It’s not both football and baseball. Certainly not both of those plus basketball.

  89. 6-9 months fellas and we will see who right. There is enough Coliseum land to develop for a new Raiders and A’s venue.

  90. Having enough land =/= making practical or even theoretical economic sense.

  91. @Jeffrey,

    The problem is (and I’ve stated this before) is that the Raiders want to stay/build at the Coli and the A’s (like the Warriors) don’t want to stay. Unfortunately for the City of Oakland they have to work within this “football stadium” reality or they’ll be left with NO major sports teams.

  92. Perhaps they can split the CC land, or if the A’s build at CC Oakland can grant them the land at HT, to devlop (not that the A’s want to build in Oakland), hell give Lew Lake Marritt, I dont know?

  93. So it’s starting to seem like having both the A’s and Raiders build new venues at the CC complex is at least a remote possibility, as opposed to a year ago when it seemed like there was no shot for the A’s and barely any shot for the Raiders.

    But if the Warriors get their arena in SF, would Oracle be demolished? Seems pretty absurd to not just find a way to build around the new stadiums.

  94. @pjk
    I thought about it last night, and I came up with one thing I do think MLB has done, in the last 45 years as a slight favor to Oakland, and that is (drum roll please), they let the A’s host (I think it was), the 1987All-Star game in Oakland.
    You know I give you, your prop’s, when I think your correct, and there have been times when you and others have brought things to my attention, I did not previously know, but in the future please don’t confuse Oakland’s past inaction, or inability to make a decent decision, as a favor from MLB toward keeping the team located in Oakland, when that choice on the part of MLB has more to do, with their own, past inaction or inability to make a decent decision.
    Oakland has certainly benefited, by MLB past inaction or inability to make a decent decision, but that fact is by no means an intended favor towards Oakland, as you or anyone, who fallows this crazy situation knows, the only city, or group MLB is doing any favors for is the San Francisco Giants.

  95. @ML–any thoughts of trying to get another interview with LW to see what his thoughts are…is SJ out of the question unless the lawsuit is successful (doesn’t mean he can’t move to SJ; doesn’t make business sense to move to SJ); is CC truly an option and is it dependent upon the Raiders leaving…etc—I realize that these are sensitive questions that he may not have answers to or be willing to share at this point but you never know–

  96. I would get in on this but Harry is doing such an awesome job. Harry, when you need a break, tag me in!

  97. Awesome is apparently a relative term.

  98. @pjk
    Yes (I looked it up), it was the 1987 All-Star game the NL won 2-0, over the AL Tim Raines was the MVP and attendance was 49,671. No tarps back then, anyway this is the one and only, ever so slight favor, I would consider MLB has done for Oakland in the last 45 years, anyway point made, I will leave it alone.
    BTW, 2+2=4.
    There are times, when you can be funny, as hell.

  99. Just posted a response to Lakeshore but it didnt show up

  100. The new Sacramento Kings arena looks great.Cant wait for it to be done. It will change that boring downtown mall to a hot spot. This should get GAS Warriors management to look closer at Howard Terminal would be good for Downtown Oakland and basketball

  101. @jeffrey – remember how “awesome” vc was? 😉

  102. LSN, at least I am trying to be funny when I am (and sometimes, even when I’m not)

  103. @Jeffrey
    I was thinking about what you said (I think it was yesterday), in regards to ML’s wonderful work on the land in and around the proposed CC project, and how that it may be a lot of land, but there could be a potential problem, in that it’s not enough land for both the A’s (assuming Lew can be convinced to join the project), and Raiders/Bay IG (assuming they are serious about the project), to both build enough ancillary development, to support both new venues.
    Well, I have no idea and you/ML and others, probable know a lot more about this then me, but a few commenters have thrown out the idea of Bay IG, being grated shares, or a percentage of each team, as part of the overall compensation package for the project.
    I know that’s a little bit of a problem for the Raiders, they don’t own own a lot of their team over the fifty percent threshold, but Mark Davis has been buying out minor partners, as has been reported. It would not be difficult for the A’s of course, but in both teams cases each is at the bottom, or near the bottom in there leagues interims of team value.
    Part of the reason each team is at the lower end of franchise value (in its league), is of course the fact that they both need new venues, and it’s safe to assume each teams vale would go up, perhaps twenty-five percent or so, if they got new venues, anyway say the Raiders are worth 800 million, 10% of that is 80 million, say the A’s are worth 525 million 10% of that is a little over 50 million.
    We have a total of 130 million, 20% of each team would be 260milion, not a whole lot when you have a huge project like CC, but after naming rights, and other sponsorships (of cores they would, fare less than in San Jose), but it’s part of the way we could bridge a huge gap. In theory each team would gain that percentage back and more if they had new venues.
    As I said I don’t know a lot about this, so my numbers could be off, but you get the idea.

  104. @Lev,
    Nothings changed, other than the East Bay media and pols getting louder with their cheerleading. A’s won’t happen in Oakland, and Raiders still barely hanging on by a thread (see JPA asking for Oakland to take this on solo).
    You know, some folks in this world probably think swimming in sewage is “awesome” as well…Aloha!

  105. I don’t think the A’s would be willing to give shares of the team to BayIG. I don’t think they are interested in Coliseum City, presently. I am being way speculative in this post… To be clear, the A’s would need to be convinced to build anything in Oakland. Outside of subsidies for stadium construction, the only convincing I can think of that is possible is development of the parking lot and without other teams/venues to build.
    I don’t think I’d want that if I was Oakland. I’d rather they didn’t build a second downtown to draw people away from the existing downtown. There’s a lot going on in Uptown. It’d be great for Oakland to enhance that with a ballpark nearby. But if the only way to keep the team in town is to do something at the Coliseum site and without the Raiders…

  106. Sorry Jeffery. Raiders have Oakland by the balls with the mount davis debt. As a football fan Oakland will have to appease the Raiders (the only one that wants to stay) and yes its going to be expensive. But Raiders arent blocked by TR rights and have L.A or the York Family to give them refuge while they figure things out. City of Oakland knows this very well…so at end of day Raiders get first dibs on Coliseum City. ..A’s are secondary.

    A’s need to get more power hitters..been kinda disappointed this offeseason with some of their player personel.

  107. @ Jeffrey,

    Been thinking: if CC were completely built out as currently envisioned (or fantasized), who would set up shop there in what is basically East Oakland? Tech firm, social network, biotech, up and coming startup, professional/law firms? All the aforementioned want to be in SOMA/SF and Silicon Valley/North San Jose. And with the billions $ in commercial/office construction currently going on in SF and SV/SJ, would there be a need for more in less desirable East O? Just asking…

  108. As of right now, the A’s do not fit in with any of the near-term plans at CC. If the Raiders can work s new stadium deal at CC within the next year or two, then the A’s will have to vacate the Coliseum when their current two year lease expires. If that likely scenario comes to be, MLB will then be facing a very problematic situation with one of its franchises essentially becoming homeless. At that point, MLB will have only themselves to blame for getting into this predicament. The good news is that sometimes it takes a desperate situation before a problem gets resolved. Hopefully, MLB will finally realize that they have on choice other than to accommodate the A’s on their own terms in getting a new Bay Area ballpark.

  109. Well llpec.
    looks like mark davis and lew wolff have a secret conversation.

    Mark davis: hey lew…I need the Coliseum to myself for a new stadium…I think I have a plan

    LEW wolff: what the plan… this san jose situation sucks.

    Mark Davis: I got Oakland by the balls with the mount davis debt. Once I get the new stadium deal…u A’s re going to be homeless. This will get bud selig. To either grant u san jose in addition by moving u u guys to SF giants home. So u wont have to pay the sf giants TR rights.

    Lew wolff: good idea mark. We both get what we want

    Joe Lacob: hey!! What about me fellas???

    Mark and Lew: go to ur room Joe!!!

    Joe lacob: awww u guys never let me have fun (storms upstairs to this room)

  110. @harry, A very good example of bringing forth the truthful reality through humor. Nice going!

  111. Lol I know llpec. I like to have fun.but with all this back n forth and fighting. I feel (even thi I hate the San Jose crowd) is that this is the ending result. If Oakland is seriously about City then Raiders is the only team to be saved. Save Oakland Sports have been talking big about holding A’s hostage but they never explained what happens to the teams while things are “under construction”.

    One thing I worry is what happens to the A’s if or when homeless. We know Raiders Can play at Santa Clara. .but wouldn’t warriors be in theway during construction. Also Marine layer says the Warriors arena is across the street. ..by the Lexus dealership???? Im confused. So Oakland better be ready in 6-9

  112. @harry, You are correct about the fact that the Raiders should not have any problem playing temporarily at Santa Clara while the new Coliseum is being built. Unlike Wolff’s A’s and the Giants’ ownership, Mark Davis has a very good relationship with the York family. As far as the Oracle Arena is concerned, I believe that the facility is far enough from the football stadium construction site so that its structure will not be disturbed at any time.

  113. Ok llpec. The more I think about it…I do hope Howard Terminal is environment safe for construction after the EIR is done. I beileve Joe Lacob and Lew Wolff could actually make profit from a un tapped Downtown Oakland extension. It will also save the Coliseum city vision of being too big. With just a Raider stadium with office, retail space it does seem a lot easier .

    Too tony d point. Oakland might as well try to get their tech companies to Oakland

  114. I say the conversation between Wolff and Davis goes more like this:

    Davis: Hey Lewie, we both are stuck in this dump together and we need to get out

    Wolff: What up Marky Mark! Your right about this dump and needing to get out but Oakland is sleeping with you already and Bud Selig is sleeping with the Giants. I feel like I am the dirty mistress who just gets used and abused.

    Davis: You are the dirty mistress but I got a way out that works for the both of us!

    Wolff: I am all ears

    Davis: I will tell Oakland (Who I have by the balls) that I want to build on the current site therefore forcing you guys to move. It will make MLB approve your move to SJ a whole faster.

    Wolff: Hmmmm……then I have to share with those orange and black a-holes who keep claiming SJ is theirs when it is further way from them than me!???

    Davis: Only temporarily, think about it! It would be the Giants worst nightmare to share ATT Park with the “San Francisco Athletics!”….Imagine if you guys are winning and selling out while they are in last place! You would stick it hard to MLB and the Giants!

    Wolff: Wow Marky Mark, that is diabolical! The Giants would want to get us out to San Jose ASAP. Wow Marky Mark, I didn’t know you had it in you.

    Davis: Just “stunting like my daddy”!

  115. re: At that point, MLB will have only themselves to blame for getting into this predicament.

    …Yes, it will become a nice case study of what happens when you have a CEO (Selig) who is too much of a coward to make a decision, so he does nothing for years. Selig has had on his desk the blue ribbon committee’s findings that there are no sites and no $$ in the East Bay but Selig hides under his desk waiting for a miracle. One has not arrived.

  116. Raiders don’t have Oakland by the balls any more than the reverse. Raiders want a $200-300 million subsidy from the city but they’re starting out at -$120 million. They get a $120 million subsidy from the city just to get back to zero. Until they have some other city offering $300 million, they’re just as stuck as the city is.

  117. @Sid, Wow! Al Davis will be smiling down from heaven with this plan. Al Davis always loved to stick it to the so called “establishment”. That it does!

  118. anyone know when SJ will hear whether or not it gets its request for an expedited hearing with the 9th circuit?

  119. Tim u are wrong. Raiders have advantage because they could leave and give Oakland thr bill for decades. Oakland is all ready in sports debt. Be in sports debt with a new stadium then a old empty one

  120. @harry
    I am with you on that one, Oakland will be hampered with, the mount Davis, and area re-do debt, long after the Warriors are in San Francisco at piers 30/32, or HT (if they can’t make it work in SF), the Raiders could be in nearing the end of their first decade in Los Angles, or in Levi stadium, before Oakland is finished paying off the debt.
    It does become a problem for the Raiders, if they are serious about making something happen at the coliseum, since in that case they would be partnering up with the city/county again, and that old debt has to be dealt with, I do believe mark Davis is serious about making it happen, attest I hope he is.

  121. Sorry: should be Mark Davis, but you got it.

  122. @IIpec
    You are so right; the ghost of Al Davis would be dancing. You must have a good sense of how the man was, I think you said you were from back east, and of course, Al being from, NY.

  123. Finally somebody who agrees that if Howard Terminal is safe for health reasons ….then basketball would be better for Downtown Oakland

  124. @harry
    I don’t know if I think basketball is better for downtown Oakland, then baseball, but I see your point in the sense that, Warriors ownership has showed interest in HT, we all know that there first choice is San Francisco, but piers 30/32 are proving to be a bit of a problem, and the NIMBY groups in San Francisco may push it to a city wide vote, the Warriors would have their hands full. We also know the Warriors second choice is San Francisco, with the SF Giants, but I don’t know if the Giants asked for too much, or the Warriors were unhappy at the fact that they started to develop, parts of the Giants owned property without them, but it fills like something has gone wrong in that relationship.
    Well perhaps the Warriors third choice is HT; again we know they have looked at it, after that happened they came out and said they were focused on San Francisco (piers 30/32), then we here about Warriors ownership being linked to the OWB group trying to develop HT for the A’s. I would not be surprised if the Warriors want the A’s at HT, they are probably trying to convince Lew that, hay this is going to cost a lot of money, but if we both build here we can split a good part of the cost, and (with 50 acres), still have enough space left for ancillary development, it would be perfect, sense are seasons, don’t really overlap and each of us could have the run of the place when we were in season.
    Lew has said, time and again that he does not want to build there, and he probable wont, but the Warriors have showed definite interest (IF IT CAN BE BUILT ON), it will still have plenty of challenges, but the NIMBY groups probably won’t be as hard to fight then the ones in SF, and the Warriors could still have their amazing arena (with more room for development), facing the Bay Bridge just on the other side of it.(Oakland) I hate to get this hypothetical, because we hardly know anything at all, but at this point anything could, happen or nothing at all.

  125. I don’t think anyone has anyone by the balls. The $200M in debt is what it is now. It can be rolled into a new project, or it can continue to be paid off without the Raiders.
    It’s a testament to how ridiculously short sighted the original Raiders deal was.

  126. @Jeffrey You may be correct, but the task would be much more doable with the Raiders in, then out.

  127. If the SF arena goes to a vote, it will easily win. Even the opposition leader, former Mayor Art Agnos has admitted the Warriors would very likely win the vote.

  128. @SMG Wow, I did not know that, thanks for the info looks better for the Warriors, in SF then I thought, if they dont mind paying like what 60-80 mill just to fix the piers

  129. If I remembering correctly, Warriors ownership is willing to foot at least some of the bill to fix the piers and otherwise actively participate in the process. They and the arena plan also have the advantage of being one of the most iconic venues in sports. Location, location, location.

  130. “Location, location, location. ” That’s why the A’s don’t want to build in Oakland either… (Warriors heralded for wanting to leave Oakland, yet the A’s are chastised?)

  131. @SMGTony D. That open view of the Bay Bridge, does look really nice, I hope they get it done, and if the dont they have a few back up choices HT, CC, or even San Jose with the Sharks, if plan A, B, and C dont work. Yeah Tony it sucks that the Warriors and Raiders have a few Bay Area choices (even LA for the Raiders), and the A’s are being kept out of San Jose, but if the A’s dont get San Jose (or SJ vs MLB does not go well), I hope we will get a new Bay Area baseball park for them, in Oakland, Fremont, or wherever but there is that chance that if they never get San Jose we could lose them.

  132. @lakeshore,
    My opinion has always been JUST FREE US. Put us on equal footing to get the A’s like Oakland. If we’re freed and we screw it up then (yes) I’ll support Oakland or any other locale in the Bay. As always, absolutely no reason to keep SJ hostage to the greedy ass holes who are the SF Giants. JUST FREE US and may the best municipality win..

  133. @Tony D. As you know I am a Pro Oakland guy, but I agree with you (free San Jose), and I think the best place in the Bay Area, for the A’s is San Jose, its a same what the SF Giants are getting away with. I just hope if the A’s cant get the best place for then in the Bay Area, then somthing can be work out in Oakland or Fremont.

  134. Soory: its a shame

  135. @MSG I said concerning the Warriors and there attempt to get to San Francisco “if they don’t mind paying like what 60-80 mill just to fix the piers”
    Update, that amount has gone up to 180 million, not to mention 40 million to build the 7 acre waterfront, and they can only recupe 120 million of that from the project.
    The cost to get the hell out of Oakland keeps going up; perhaps HT may get a second or third look in the end.

  136. Lew Wolff should ask for a 5-10 year extension at the Coliseum and there is nothing to wonder about it. I see this is okay

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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