Rams owner Kroenke buys SoCal land, sparking relocation talk

Sam Farmer of the LA Times reported late today that Rams owner Stan Kroenke has purchased a 60-acre parking lot situated between The Forum and Hollywood Park in Inglewood.

Farmer lays out the myriad complications that could arise if Kroenke tried to move the Rams back to Los Angeles. While 60 acres in hand is always good to have, there’s still the question of who would pick up the tab for the $1 billion or more in construction cost. The NFL has had a tepid response to two other NFL stadium initiatives by AEG (Farmers Field) and Majestic Realty (City of Industry), mainly because both developers have wanted stakes in prospective relocating franchises. In the Rams’ case, Kroenke could build it himself with the NFL’s help, though public funding in Inglewood is a nonstarter. It would take an enormous amount of corporate and upfront support to make it work, a recipe that yielded great results for the 49ers. That shouldn’t be an issue in a market the size of LA, but the market is a notoriously fickle place when it comes to pro football. Kroenke could even run into interference from the likes of USC and UCLA, who have the local football landscape to themselves with no pro team as competition.

Speculation about Kroenke’s intentions with the Inglewood land could amount to nothing, as he has substantial holdings throughout SoCal and these 60 acres could by ripe for a shopping center, housing, or other non-sports uses. More plausible is the idea that Kroenke could use the land as leverage to extract the maximum amount of concessions from the State of Missouri and the City of St. Louis, the latter party having already lost an arbitration case over planned improvements to Edward Jones Dome.

The Raiders and Chargers will look at Kroenke’s moves with some interest, as LA remains a potential relocation target for them. Both teams’ owners have prioritized staying in Oakland and San Diego, respectively, but interest from LA remains a phone call or meeting away. It might make the most sense for two relocated teams to share one stadium from a financial standpoint. Such a plan is problematic in execution, as exhibited in the sterile environment at MetLife Stadium. If Kroenke were to declare a move and get sign off from the NFL’s owners, he’d have to play at the LA Coliseum or Rose Bowl for at least a few years while the EIR process and construction were completed.

Land acquisition should put more pressure on Missouri/St. Louis to act. The benchmark there is $375 million provided by Jackson County for improvements to Arrowhead Stadium. That’s well short of the $700 million in improvements the Rams are entitled to as part of their arbitration win. Any team that wishes to relocate has a league-imposed deadline of mid-February each year to declare their intentions. Last year, all three relocation candidates chose to stay. With land in hand, the Rams are for now the best positioned to move.

112 thoughts on “Rams owner Kroenke buys SoCal land, sparking relocation talk

  1. Arrowhead Stadium is the one in KC.

    • @Lev – Right, that’s why it’s the closest benchmark for the Rams. I don’t expect the Rams to get more money for Edward Jones Dome than the Chiefs did Arrowhead, even though they are entitled to more.

  2. The Rams lease says they have to have one of the top venues in the league. They do not and it would cost $700 million to get it there. But Missouri is not going to give them that kind of money…I wonder if this puts pressure on Mark Davis – if he thinks Oakland is just stalling stalling stalling because it can’t get a stadium done, Davis may try to beat the Rams to the punch and move the Raiders back to LA after next season.

  3. Much to do about nothing! LA is and will continue to be nothing more nothing less than just leverage not only for Rams, Chargers or Raiders but for any other teams with the NFL that have the need of a new Stadium. In the meantime the natives will continue to get restless and continue to get their hopes up high only to drag it out for possibly another 20 years of no NFL in LA.

  4. pjk, not sure how Mark Davis beats them back. Farmers Field is all but dead, and while Roski’s isn’t, all it takes is the NFL denying the move request and Davis would likely cave. I don’t think he has his father’s stones. Meanwhile Kroenke wouldn’t require the sale of ownership stakes to get a team into LA since he owns it already.

  5. Hey! The NFL doesn’t have an Anti-Trust Exemption like MLB. Can’t any team (especially the ones mentioned previously) just up and move to LA if they felt like it?…

  6. @Toney D. No they dont, but as you know not to many people want to go all “Al Davis” as they do have to get a leauge vote, plus Mark Davis knows the NFL would rather he be in Northern California, eather at CC, or Levi as the NFL would like two teams up north and two down south, one in each place in the NFC and AFC,

  7. Spot on – Tony D: Look at the Niner’s move to Santa Clara for example – a quick, no fuss, no controversy approval from the NFL. Also, the Raiders didn’t object that the Niners were intruding into “Raider territory” and take the Niners to court. (not quite the b.s. that Selig, MLB, and the giants provide)

  8. Let’s not forget that any team that moves to LA will have to pay an estimated $100 Million – $275 Million relocation fee. We still might see 1 team move to LA, but 2 will be a stretch.

  9. @Mike2 Thanks good info, looks like the 100-275 mill alone is reason to beleive Mark Davis will be at CC or Levi.

  10. The NFL would like for two teams to ultimately share the LA market, preferably at the same stadium. Of all the NFL teams considering a move to LA, the Rams will be the only one that will be facing a timed urgency to make a decision. For that reason, I believe that the NFL will likely give the Rams first priority for a move to LA. As for the Raiders, they have the benefit of having temporary Bay Area options before finally making a more long-term decision on a new home. We do know that the Raiders would prefer to remain in Oakland, and would most certainly do so if they get a mutually agreeable stadium deal at CC. Another Bay Area option for the Raiders, if CC can’t be worked out, is to share Levi’s Stadium with the 49ers. While this option does not seem desirable, in the worst case scenario the Raiders could ultimately have to decide on whether they would prefer to share a stadium with the 49ers in the Bay Area, or to share a stadium in LA with some other NFL team.

  11. I think its leverage. Hollywood Park would be difficult to build at. I know there has been talk of a major real estate development, probably could do something commercial there. I think NFL would want something a bit closer to public transpo on top of being off 405/105. However, if MTA does build an extension of the Greenline or a connector off the Crenshaw Line to the airport, it could make it closer. Inglewood has already been gentrifying as more people are looking south of Venice/Culver City to buy homes in a cheaper area. Couple that with the Forum redevelopment could make this interesting. But I think its more likely that this is leverage.

  12. City of St. Louis is in a interesting spot. This could be the Rams (or Raiders) last year in their stadium if a stadium deal is not reached. The Rams stadium should be closer to their fan base toward the suburbs of St Louis then in the urban area. So St. Louis better pay up

  13. Correct my memory, but wasn’t Hollywood Park one of the several stadium deals/locations that Al Davis walked away from back in the day?

  14. After reading this in detail on a few websites it is obvious to me at least the Rams will be playing in LA starting in 2015 or 2016.

    Kroenke understands real estate development and this is actually a good location where parking and infrastructure exist to support this kind of endeavor.

    If you have ever been to Hollywood Park there is so much excess parking it is ridiculous. Not to mention Hollywood Park Race track shut down last year and the track will be demolished 100% for new developments…..An NFL stadium makes perfect sense at this time.

    Remember, this is the same location where the NFL approved for Al Davis to move to in the 1990s but Al refused to share with another NFL team so the deal died and he moved back to Oakland.

    The relocation fee is peanuts because the value of the franchise will go up from 875M to 1.1B-1.2B immediately therefore the relocation fee is not an issue. Kroenke can sell a piece to a minority investor to cover the fee but why would he? He has the money himself.

    Nor does Kroenke have to sell a majority stake to get the stadium done. He can easily privately finance the stadium along with real estate development around it to fund a big piece of it…A la what Lew Wolff tried doing in Fremont.

    He can then fund the rest with PSLs, luxury box sales to corporations, and minority investors. LA is a big enough market to pull this off and he has some kind of fan base left from the old days, albeit not a lot but it is a start.

    Also, the newly renovated Rose Bowl just passed hurdles to temporarily host an NFL team. The Rams can tarp 30,000 seats and bring down the sellout number to 60,000 or so, perhaps less if need be to avoid blackouts.

    This is a slam dunk for the Rams. I believe Kroenke has lost faith in St. Louis and Missouri and is preparing to move the team in 2015 or 2016 once he negotiates a deal with Inglewood and the NFL.

    I am stunned, LA is getting back the Rams, the question now is if the Chargers jump in on this so they can get some say on how this is built.

  15. Sid, I don’t think it’ll be the Chargers that jump on this. They’re still working on two different sites in San Diego. And they really have shown little interest in LA to date unlike the Raiders. I suspect if anyone will move it’ll be the Raiders. They’re not a NorCal team and haven’t been since the early 80’s. Even today they still have far more fans in LA than they do in the Bay Area. I suspect we’ll see the Rams come in and re-establish themselves, and then see the Raiders follow a year or two later.

  16. @Dan- Your wrong the Raiders have more fans in LA than NorCal. I do not understand where you think that is even possible. The Raiders dominate the Central Valley and Sacramento areas along with the core of the East Bay. LA never supported them even when they were good, at least Oakland sells out with bad teams.

    The NFL will not let the Raiders leave the Bay Area unless they prove sharing the 49ers does not work and that would be a 5 year experiment at the least. 3 teams in the Southland makes zero sense and the NFL would not allow it.

    Therefore the Chargers are the logical bet to share with the Rams in LA. Because they have tons of fans in LA because that is their current primary TV market. It is the Chargers not Raiders who get first rights on their games being televised in the LA market.

    Plus, the Chargers and Rams are the two original LA teams and their return together at Hollywood Park would be quite the spectacle.

  17. “I suspect we’ll see the Rams come in and re-establish themselves, and then see the Raiders follow a year or two later.”

    I believe that the NFL plan is to consider a second team for LA sometime after the new football stadium is completed. Also, there is no way that the Rose Bowl would approve the housing of two NFL teams at the same time. It was difficult enough for the Rose Bowl to allow temporarily one NFL team. As for the possibility of using the LA Coliseum, I believe that their stadium authority will not allow the NFL to use its facility.

  18. Oakland is in a tough spot re: Raiders because it knows whatever it commits to the Raiders (if anything), MLB will have its hand out screaming for at least the same amount for the A’s. So far, Oakland has played it safe and committed no money to new facilities for either franchise, holding out hope for the pipe dream that private developers will pay the whole freight. We do have to wonder what kind of negotiations Mark Davis has had with LA. And we really don’t know.

  19. Until I see Goodell and owner X at some press conference in LA than these LA speculation rumours are just rumours. For all we know the Dolphins could be LA bound in 2015. I just don’t see LA welcoming the Rams or the Raiders back with open arms. If one of those two teams do move back they better be winners out of the gate, or the sparse stadium crowds from fickle LA fans will make Nascar races look like sellouts in comparison.

  20. Sid the Chargers are not an “original LA team”. They played one season in LA then moved away. They’ve no ties to LA beyond their games being broadcast there since the Rams and Raiders left. And I base my statements on the Raiders by those poll that have been run recently detailing by county who the majority of fans root for. Alameda County didn’t even majority root for the Raiders, it’s Niners country as is Sacramento. On the other hand the bulk of the LA area is still Raider Nation to this day all the way out into the Inland Empire. The only part of “LA” that is Chargers favoring is Orange County.

  21. Also why would they not allow 3 teams in the south land? They did for almost 2 decades not too long ago.

  22. I believe Dan is referring to Facebook likes, which have the 49ers #1 in Alameda County and the Raiders #1 in LA. I know somebody who lives probably 2 minutes from the Coliseum and is a huge 49ers fan.

  23. You can’t spell leverage without ‘LA’.

  24. One of the requirements for an NFL team to relocate is they must be in the bottom 4 with attendance for six years. St Louis and Jacksonville qualify for that. The Chargers do not, also the 2011 Raiders acheived sellouts for the whole season, so the Chargers and Raiders are not candidates. Also, St Louis city officials have rejected the Rams plans of renovating that stadium, Oakland city officials have not rejected the Raiders to this point. Jacksonville is a mess and doen’t need require explaining their motives for relocating.

  25. Oakland city officials also have been negotiating with Davis for a couple years at least and there’s no deal. What’s the difference between flat out rejection or stalling stalling stalling because you can’t afford to deal?

  26. The Chargers are non-interested in LA since it would only be bandwagoners to go to their games, Spanos still relies on getting the San Antonio Chargers as the Alamodome seems more likely since it would make them more of a target since it would just need the facelift it needed. Plus most in Texas that rooted for the Cowboys and the Texans can have the Bolts to root on for too. It would be more logical to move the Bolts to San Antonio if San Diego didn’t provide funding for their stadium.

  27. I hope the Rams move back home to LA. I never bought into the claim that LA is not a “football town.”. The Rams had stadium issues for years, and then tried to solve them with an ill advised move to Orange County. The Raiders had no roots in LA and their gang banger image alienated most normal people, making it impossible to sell out their 100k seats.

    A properly run NFL team in the right stadium will be a gold mine. Even more so if it’s LA’s historic team instead of the Jaguars or some expansion franchise.

  28. Pat, don’t know where you keep getting this San Antonio thing for the Chargers, but there has been no talk about the Chargers moving to the Alamodome.

    Also duffer, not sure the Raiders would be blocked from moving on attendance grounds. Yes they sold out most of 2011, but the Coliseum still had the lowest capacity of any NFL stadium (just not as low as it is today). They were still 29th in the league in attendance that year. They’ve been in the bottom 3rd for well over a decade now.

  29. @Dan: by their own doing though. The Raiders attendance is actually good considering the team’s front office has been a comedy of errors since 2002. Several of their high draft choices have been complete busts, firing Tom Cable? (the only Raider’s coach in recent years who made progress with the team)The NFL does want the Raiders moving to LA, and continue their bad front office moves, and averaging 35K attendance (as they were doing in LA before – even with better teams than post Gruden Raider teams have performed)

  30. Listen u idiots.

    This whole speculation that the NFL wont let the Raiders move to L.A if Oakland does not provide the private and public funding support for thr new stadium is laughable. This is al davis son…even tho he is playing nice with Oakland he wont let anyone stop him from moving to L.A…even if it means moving to LA Coliseum. And trust me he has fans both in the bay area and LA market to sell out games. Yes Raiders have not sign household name players. Butthat that will change especially the talent comin out of thr draft. Also Raiders have a very good report with USC. I can see thr LA Raiders using USC players as a farm team for talent likr they did back in the day with Marcus Allen.

    Listen California. ..Kings, Raiders, Chargers and A’s need new homes. Im for public and private funding. The sports leagues at end of day win out. Lets stop this fieldofschemes bullcrap

  31. @ harry Yeah, and the Warriors may not need one, but they sure as hell want one.

  32. re: Several of their high draft choices have been complete busts,

    …Robert Gallery, Michael Huff, Darius Heyward-Bey (taken over Crabtree), JaMarcus Russell (epic bust), Darren McFadden (injured too much). Yikes…I don’t think Mark Davis wants to be in a position where Oakland keeps on singing a song and dance and can’t make a deal, while the LA market closes up for him. Same for the Chargers. It could be a race to LA first, with the Rams just waving the starting flag with Kroenke’s land buy.

  33. @pjk

    U know ur stuff on the Raiders. ..sigh…dang Al…I love u but all those wasted draft picks. Its like a person from a senior center ruining the team…sigh Mark Davis is younger and I hope he is a little more “hip” to the game to get the Raiders out of this hole.

    was at the Warriors Clippers game. I have to say Oracle Arena is a fine venue. It can use a exterior job. But its a fine venue. Again I champion a downtown Oakland or S.F site. But Warriors in my opinion should be phase 3 of Coliseum City

  34. Ultimately, It will be the NFL to decide on which team or teams will be approved to move to LA. I believe the team facing the most urgent situation in their current market will be given first priority, provided that they can get an agreement on a new stadium funding deal in LA. As of now, it looks like the Rams will be that team. What hurts the Raiders from being seriously considered is the fact that they already have a new stadium option in their current market available to them. I would think that the NFL would want for the Raiders to at least first test out the sharing of Levi’s Stadium with the 49ers, before they would be considered for a future move to LA.

  35. @pjk the sad truth – the post-Gruden (also Bruce Allen)era has been a bad farce comedy act.

  36. @IIpec I agree, with you on that last one

  37. Let’s not forget: Fabian Washington, Rolondo McClain, Philip Buchanon

  38. @pjk – Oh, the agony. Both Gruden and Bruce Allen are interested at a 2nd term with the Raiders – hopefully sooner rather than later.

  39. @pjk Yeah, real bad picks.

  40. @llpec Didn’t Davis himself rule out SC? Its Oakland or bust and we all know what the bust means. It would make better sense for the Raiders to play their games in AT&T than to share a stadium with the Niners.

  41. @Mike2
    You were being funny, right?

  42. Congratulations, to Ray Guy it’s about damn time.

  43. Thank u Mike2

    MARK DAVIS AIN’T LEW WOLFF. he wont play buddy buddy with the let league especially if he wants to move to a l.A as leverage to get Oakland and or private funding for the next stadium.

    One thing to consider. ..im guessing A’s could move to Sacramento while a new ballpark in San Jose or Oakland is being worked out and New Raiders stadium under construction

  44. @harry
    Come on harry, hell the SF Giants don’t want to share their baseball only park with the A’s (another baseball team), why would they share it with a football team, especially when the NFL and MLB schedules overlap.
    Mark Davis could be ten times the maverick that his daddy was; he can’t make the SF Giants allow him to play at AT&T, and it would be the stupidest thing they ever did.

  45. @Lakeshore

    AT&T does hold 37K for football, it would make sense until a more permanent solution is found in Oakland. Plus the Raiders could in theory build their fanbase by playing games in SF while a new stadium is being built in Oakland. It’s not like they would have to worry about territory rights.

    I just feel moving into Levi stadium is not good for the team psyche nor it’s fans even if its just for a couple of seasons. Its like admitting to the 49ers that we are you b*tch and will accept your sloppy seconds.

  46. @ Mike2 Make sence? in that a football game can be played AT&T sure, a hole season?, thats crazy. If your going to try somthing like that atlest come up with Stanford, or Cal although I dont think they could do it at Cal, because they had an agreement in place , with people in the area that they would not do that.

  47. Holy Toledo…never in their worst alcoholic nightmares would the Raiders play at ATT park. Maybe back to Kezar as they did for a season or two before going to Frank Youll Field.

    Apologies to Bill King.

    They are back to SoCal, unfortunately.

  48. @ IIpec / LakeshoreNeil

    Here is what Mark Davis had to say about the possibility of sharing a stadium with the 49ers. This interview was from the start of the 2013 season, conducted by ESPN:

    MD: Yeah, it’s out of the picture, and again I’ve used this analogy of the Jets and the Giants in the old Meadowlands. The Niners, I can’t say good enough things on what they’ve done. They’ve got a stadium, they’re building it in California. They got it done. They’re doing a 68,000-seat stadium that’s going to be red and gold. They’re going to have the Joe Montana hotel across the street. They’re going to have their bricks and all that stuff. That’s not a Raider stadium. And for us, for me, I want the Raiders to have something that’s a legacy to my father and to the Raider brand. If in fact we’re able to get a stadium built, it will probably be the last one of my lifetime … so I want it to be great and I want it to be the Raiders’.

  49. Mark Davis on building at Coliseum City:

    MD: Oakland is absolutely where we would prefer to get something done. And it would be on that specific site. There’s definitely issues that go along with that. We’ve been meeting with the city and the county. We just had another meeting this last week. There’s still some big, big questions that we have to get answered by both sides. Both sides are trying. Whether there’s a sense of urgency or not? I know there is on our side. We have to find out how urgent on their side. The picture that’s been drawn is there. We know what needs to get done. It’s just whether it’s going to be able to be done. It’s tough, Paul, it really is. But the fans in the Bay Area are great. They are the best. I’ve come to the conclusion that a 53,000-seat stadium, that we played in from the 60’s and all that, is basically what our market is. We’re not an 80,000-seat stadium, we’re not a 65,000-seat stadium, really, unless you’re winning every game and all that stuff. But those aren’t the hardcore fans that are there … for us the 53,000–seat stadium is good and maybe 5,000 club seats bring it up to 58,000 seats. But in all those years, I think when we moved back (to Oakland) we overbuilt the market, so to speak. Especially because of the pricing and everything else, and that’s all marketing. And that was a whole different concept, having the Oakland Football Marketing Association taking (ticket sales) out of the team’s hands might not have been one of the better things to do. Go up to Seattle. What a great stadium that is. It’s not Dallas. It’s not probably what the 49ers are building or anything of that nature, but it works. It works for that market. And that’s all the Raider fans need. It’s just going to be tough, but we’re working on it.

  50. @Ivan, I do believe that a Raiders move to LA will not be an option. Neither Mark Davis would want for that to happen, nor the NFL. The Raiders will remain as a fixture within the Bay Area, preferably in Oakland.

  51. @Lakeshore

    Think about what I typed earlier. What large market city just became available to play in after 2013? What city is more appealing to the masses, Oakland or SF? What league has no team territory rules? So if the Raiders can’t get a stadium done in Oakland or they are denied a move to LA, SF becomes another option on the table for Raider fans to worry about.

    Going back to the statement I made earlier, it would make sense for the Raiders to play some if not all their games in SF if a mythical stadium was being built in Oakland. They have a chance to acquire the few fans that are not able to travel to SC and get more corporate sponsors.

  52. Mike2 I dont have a problem with 98% of what you said, the 2% and its a huge 2%, is the idea of the Raiders playing at AT&T, I just dont think thats going to happen, it IMHO would be the stupiest thing the SF Giants could do.

  53. @Mike2 I guess the Raidrrs could play a game or two a year, at AT&T toward the end of the season, when the MLB season is well over with, but the idea of the SF Giants letting an NFL team trample there wonderful baseball only park, while the MLB season is going on is nuts, they would be in the same situation as the A’s are, I think sharing a park with an NFL team is a big part of the reason the A’s want a new park, is it not?

  54. Marcus Allen, called on to bring the Vince Lombardi Trophy to the podium, was announced as having led the “Oakland Raiders” to a Super Bowl victory. Um, no. Raiders, yes, Oakland, no. He played for the LA Raiders…

  55. Hahaha, pjk goes the extra yard with the anti-Oakland trivia.

    I’m just about the action, boss, haters gonna hate, you know.

  56. How is it anti-Oakland trivia to state that Marcus Allen never played in Oakland? Please explain.

  57. @Freddy

    I was at the last game of the year against the Broncos, and the Raiders had a 30 year celebration of the Super Bowl victory against the Redskins. I refused to stand and applaud; those were the Los Angeles Raiders, who had nothing to do with Oakland. In your world that is obviously hating on OakTown.

  58. @plrraz
    You are defiantly hard core, I have been a Raider Fan since the early 70’s, and as much as it hurt when they left for LA, I could not bring myself not to root for the, but damn I here you.

  59. @plrraz
    Sorry, I meant to say, “I could not bring myself not to root for them”, I have got to be the worst on this site, when it comes to forgetting to dot “I”, cross my “T”, and or just plain misspellings.

  60. The Raiders considering how bad their team has been the past 10+ years should be getting 35k in fans per game. They are selling out somehow and god forbid the Raiders get good again, watch out!

    The issue was in the 1990s and early 2000s was the PSL debacle that overpriced the stadium. The Raiders were super good and blacking out during those years now they stink in this post recession economy for 10+ years and sellout? It says they have re-grown their fan base in the Bay Area and would be foolish to leave again.

    A new LA stadium would have to be shared with another team for it to pencil out without a big public subsidy for the Raiders. Even then Davis does not have the pockets to not sell a big piece of his team to privately finance it….Who does? Stan Kroenke!

    Why would Mark Davis make a capital investment to share with another team? He could share with the 49ers and pay nothing upfront and pay a lease fee per year.

    Hence he is trying to build in the Bay Area and not LA for this reason. The NFL wants 2-teams in a LA stadium and that is why the Raiders will never move back. Case closed.

    Davis would rather rot in Oakland is his own place than share. If he was forced to share then he would suck it up and do it with the 49ers where the stadium is already built and has a 2nd home team locker room.

    As for the Rams, expect Kroenke to get Goodell and company involved in this LA deal real fast. I would not be surprised to see the Chargers jump in as well. San Diego is to small of a market to privately finance a 1B NFL stadium.

    The Chargers would be foolish not share with the Rams in Hollywood Park. Together they can privately finance the entire thing no problem.

    They would lose their entire Orange County fan base to the Rams thus making them even more small market than they already are.

  61. Well well well

    According to Save Oakland Sports. .looks like the “Atlantis” like arena is not happening in San Francisco. ..again according to Save Oakland Sports Warriors management see too many problems to invest a billion + dealing with a cynical SF public to make this work in time.

    So now its back at Oracle Arena. ..I dont weep for Warriors management. .they make a tone of money and sell out.

    So what’s next for Golden State? ?? Is Howard Terminal back in play? How oldies it effect theRaiders A’s???

  62. Well what yall dudes think…ggeeezzz

  63. According to the Mercury News; the Frisco arena is still full speed ahead.

  64. harry, I think it’s time for you to find a more reliable source for your information.

  65. @harry
    This is what I think, it’s a repost I sent in response to a conversation that MSG, and I were having at the end of the last post, number 137.
    @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 park, 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.
    In the end the Warriors want that location, almost as much as they want an NBA championship, and who can blame the with that view of the Bay Bridge on the San Francisco waterfront, with easy access to BART and ferry service, if they can pull it off it will be amazing, hell I am sure the NBA will hold their All-Star game, there within 3-5 years if the thing ever gets built. The cost is astronomical, but if they have the money I don’t blame them, and I am a Pro-Oakland guy.

  66. Me neither. They are clearly trying to re market themselves as the exclusive San Francisco Warriors. ..trust me they will change the name once its official. It is amazing how OakSportsland pols have not done shit to Warriors but hate A’s owner ship.

    But for now Oakland still has Warriors and management is playing nice while they are here. Because unlike the A’s they sell out and make money. Geez..I have to admit La kshore dont know how this is going to end for Oakland sportsn

  67. @harry
    Of Corse I would love all three to stay, provide the Warriors would take the city’s name, but it might work out better for the Raiders, and A’s if the Warriors were in San Francisco, at least it would give Oakland one less sports team they will have to bed over for.
    I hope they can keep the Raiders and the A’s, but they need to start with the Raiders, because I think Mark Davis really wants to say in Oakland, if the A’s don’t attest they will be in San Jose (I hope), it won’t be quite the same, but I will still love them, and if that happened all three of my beloved teams will still be in the Bay Area, if not Oakland.

  68. OT: reading the NY Times article about Wolff/Beane (via Twitter sidebar) got me thinking. I believe Wolff is only playing up Oakland (Coli parking lot) as a “possibility” just to 1) shut people up that he’s anti-Oakland and 2) put the onus squarely on the pathetic Oakland pols and their inability to get anything done. Because as the Raiders are proving by wanting to be in Oakland AND wanting to build at the Coli, IT STILL ISN’T GETTING DONE! It’s still all about 35 miles south on 880 for Wolff/Beane and our A’s…(stay tuned)

  69. @harry
    Some other good news, behind all these teams needing new venues, is the San Francisco Bay Area (Northern California), should be in a good position to host a summer Olympiad, in the future.
    If the Raiders do get new digs at the coliseum, and the A’s in Oakland, or San Jose, to go with the 49ers in Santa Clara, the Warriors at piers 30/32, to go with, AT&T park, the Shark tank, a refurbished Cal, and Stanford stadiums, through in the Kings new arena, and the region has plenty of newer venues to support the Olympic games.

  70. @Tony – I was at Pacific Commons site at one of my vendors recently. While having lunch at Claim Jumpers there, my long time colleague there tells me that everyone there was stoked to have the A’s moving in and was building up in preparation for it until it just suddenly just died, inexplicably. I drove by the lot after the visit and it’s completely deserted….strange!

  71. @anon,

    I visited that Claim Jumpers about a year ago and was thinking to myself at the time “you know, Pac Commons would’ve been alright for Cisco Field.” Considering where we are today with “progress,” Pac Commons is even looking better today. While Cisco and Wolff no longer own land in the area, I’ve always been of the opinion that you don’t necessarily need to own land to build on it (see land lease). Fremont “died” because (as Rayburn put it) Selig gave Wolff the personal green light to San Jose; not because of NIMBYS or Big Box opposition. They obviously underestimate how much resistance the Giants would put up however. Perhaps Fremont is still the “in case of emergency, break glass” Plan B (Pac Commons or Tesla/WS).

    (BTW, even though off topic, feels good talking about the A’s and a potential ballpark, even if we are just making shit up…)

  72. @Tony D. /@Anon
    I guess if we make up enough shit, something might happen. It would be pretty cool if someone, who has enough power, money, and political influence, got a good idea from one of the bull shit comments we put out.

  73. Well, since crap talking is now in session, here’s an idea to consider (or ridicule): Wolff/A’s should approach Elon Musk and incorporate a ballpark with the Tesla Factory: the northwest portion of the auto factory that doesn’t (currently) have much usage. The facade of the ballpark would be similar to the plant itself: industrial, light yellow and light gray. Looking at photos of the factory, the interior offers a template of how the ballpark concourses could be designed as well: bright, open with polished concrete flooring. Heck, make some of the concourse space showcases for current/new Tesla models. A ballpark at northwest Tesla would also make for a good transition/buffer between the factory and new innovation “downtown” district planned for BART/WS. Lastly, nearly a mile from NIMBY noise of Mission SJ crowd.

    Tesla Field at Fremont? (Go easy on me fellas..)

  74. @Tony D.
    At this point, It’s all good my man. We just need to get something built, and at least you’re coming up with ideas.

  75. @Tony D


    How come Lew Wolff cant leAve the Coliseum. ..play nice with the Raiders and vacate the Coliseum allowing Raiders full control. A’s agree to Coliseum City and city of Oakland clears out the north east parking lot for the A’s to build their ballpark. Meanwhile A’s temporary play in Sacramento or S.F

  76. Harry: There’s little problem with financing a stadium in Oakland. The city and county have no money to pay for one and there’s nowhere near enough private, corporate $$ in the East Bay to make it happen. All these calls for “If Lew Wolff won’t build in Oakland, he should sell to someone who will” are oblivious to the reality that building a stadium privately in Oakland is a charitable venture. And I’m not convinced real estate developers (aka Coliseum City), who like to make money hand over fist, are going to want to get involved in building A’s (or Raiders) stadiums without assurances of massive profits – assurances they won’t get.

  77. There’s A little problem..

  78. @LSNeil – you know, I made this comment a couple of years back and look what we have now! 😉

    # 5 – Present the business ramifications for the A’s to stay. Discuss a possible joint venture with the Raiders, however feasible it may or may not be. Keeping in mind #1, entice the owners with attractive lease rates ($1 / year), guaranteed 20k seats for x number of years, or showcase a Santana Row East Bay Entertainment hub with development rights granted. Get signatures out in public supporting Oakland.

  79. @harry You made a good point, about the Warriors, if they get it done at piers 3032, we can expect a name change back to the San Fracisco Worrios, at the vary moment the final horn sounds, for the last game played in Oakland, if not 6 months to a year befor that, because we just know how much those Warriors love Oakland.

  80. @Anon You are right on the money, I agree with you 100%

  81. re: guaranteed 20k seats for x number of years,

    …20,000 seats a night for the A’s won’t do it. If the city could guarantee 30,000 tickets sold a night, that might do it. But I don’t think Oakland has the money to be buying unsold baseball tickets anyway.

  82. Oakland’s outstanding debt as of July 2013 was $1,560,427,000. That’s really high for a city with around 400k residents(not including Miami – Yay Marlins!). This fall when we actually start talking about public infrastructure contributions, it’ll be hard for Oakland to guarantee infrastructure money for one stadium project, much less three, much less guarantee minimum ticket revenue.

    But you all already knew that.

  83. @ muppet151pjk I agree with you pjk, and muppet151, yeah that is a lot of debt, but Anon was not saying he knew anything, we were just throwing around ideas.

  84. LSN – I know, I wasn’t calling anyone out. I just wanted to mention the actual debt number since it never gets mentioned. It could be the biggest hurdle of them all once one of the teams officially signs on to the project.

  85. @muppet,

    Oakland the next Detroit?..

  86. @muppet151 Yeah, I must admit that number looks like NYC or LA, thats a lot of debt, I am not sure how Oakland gets this done.

  87. If we’re looking for creative ways to get CC done, buying out Alameda County might be the best way to do it. AC are the ones pushing the debt issue as it has to be dealt with. But that’s unlikely and I have no idea how that would/could work. More importantly where that money would come from. That’s a topic best discussed in another thread in the future. Still too many financial unknowns.

  88. @Tony D – not a good comparison. Oakland’s real estate is way more valuable. Also, comparing the real estate values in SF (5 miles across the bay) owning a condo in the CC would be very tempting (much more affordable) That’s why these mega-bucks developers are interested in the CC concept.

  89. Better build a moat and a gate around that CC then….

  90. @Rayburn’s Son: ML has suggested that the CC will have that issue covered and provide it’s own security.

  91. Hope you all get a chance to come up here and watch some baseball this summer. Life is good.

  92. @duffer,
    How does the value of real estate address the massive debt issue? I don’t follow.
    Enjoy it while you can…GO A’S!

  93. @Tony D. /@duffer
    You are correct; it does not begin to answer the question of debt, but duffer has a good point, the property in and around the coliseum is worth a lot of money to privet developers, if for no other reason than its close procemity to San Francisco. Perhaps Oakland can capitalize on that, not that it answers all the remaining questions, but that’s a lot of land that’s already controlled by the city and county, that can be developed, and it probably won’t be as challenging (other sites HT piers 30/32 or Dirdon), when it comes to NIMBY groups, I am only referring to surrounding neighborhood groups, as the coliseum (and surrounding area) is somewhat of an open canvas. I included Dirdon, with HT and piers 30/32, although it seems that San Jose has already done a lot of outreach with the surrounding area groups, and it does not seem that it will be as much a challenge at that site, then others in the Bay Area, but you get my point.

  94. Hey debt is debt. Just have to live life and fuck the debt issue. What they gonna do…take over the whole city of Oakland? …so lets focus on how Coliseum City can help sports, development and Oakland at the same time however small or big.

    To me if I was a bay area sportsowner especially the A’s I would have just built at Coliseum City north parking lot, it would have been a lot cheaper then San Jose and Downtown Oakland.

    Also on the whole “Downtown Oakland” could get hurt. Hey Clorox is almost gone and the only area that shows growth is a couple blocks in uptown. Thats it?? The rest is full of drug addicts and homeless..no different then S.F but I mean at least push those bums to the deepest corner of downtown then Broadway/Telegraph. If Downtown Oakland really wants to be clean u have to zone off every thing from 20th to 7th for redevelopment. So if Coliseum City CNN be a “second Downtown”…GOOD

  95. @harry,
    I do agree with you on the “Down town Oakland could be hurt”, theory. The fact is Downtown Oakland If has been in “transition”, as they call it for years, going back to the mid 60”s and probably beyond.
    If we can save the Raiders, and or the A’s from moving out of the Bay Area, through CC, to the extent that it may hurt downtown Oakland (which I think would be minimal), then so be it. Downtown will have to adjust, to new markets and ideas, again to the extent that CC takes away from it. I would rather have CC, and a dying downtown, then having no CC, and still have a dying downtown. I think that argument is somewhat of a red herring.

  96. Thank you lake shore. Again only that small couple blocks of uptown Oakland is actually nice. Its like a forceful..u see very affluent ppl walking up and down to the coffee shops, restraunts, clubs, lounges and businesses. And then boom once u get to 12th street it totally changes. Downtown Oakland will have to adjust if Coliseum City is as big as planned.Im wondering..how Oaland is going to evict the lexus dealerships and trucking companies in order to put housing and office space there. It would be a great location with a shortcut access to Alameda. U can dub it “South Oakland” for a new development for business ppl and some middle class small families

  97. harry, you do understand that if the city bankrupts itself, all services go away. Police, fire, hospitals, schools, roads. None of it gets taken care of. And the debt has a major impact on what banks will load the city and at what rate. That also means land values plummet

    duffer, check with a real estate agent. They would never make comps from SF to Oakland like you are. Real estate just doesn’t work that way.

  98. @dmoas
    No one is suggesting that the condo/townhouse market is the same in Oakland as it is San Francisco; no real estate agent would pull comps that include both cities, on a residential level, two different markets.
    But if someone is purchasing a condo/townhouse in San Francisco for 750-1mill, it stands to reason that you may be able to sell them that same condo/townhouse in Oakland for anywhere between 450-650, and that can help fund CC.

  99. @lakeshore,

    It might help fund CC, but condo sales won’t necessarily address the massive civic debt problem facing Oakland.

  100. @Tony D.
    I was not addressing the debt, I agree with you “You are correct; it does not begin to answer the question of debt”, I said this earlier to you and duffer, so I agree with you 100% on that, but Oakland is going to have that debt hanging over them, weather CC works out or not.
    Condos and towns houses are just a step in a long process, at the moment the Raiders are the only team that is on board, and I am not totally sure, just how on board they are.
    I know the Oakland coliseum is not Lew’s first, second, third, perhaps even forth choice, but if MLB will not let him have SJ (which is ridicules), then he may consider it.

  101. He’ll consider CC it if he can make his investment bank. Not if he is going to lose money. He may have to tell MLB building in Oakland will require perpetual revenue-sharing (something that will have the other owners barfing) as well as financial assistance for construction, akin to the NFL’s stadium construction plan.

  102. @pjk
    Yeah it may come to that; I don’t see how it works in Oakland, without revenue sharing. If MLB wants to hold the A’s hostage (two counties, out of nine), in their own market, the MLB will have to do their part to subsidies the effort.

  103. I agree. It is stupid for MLB to classify the A’s a “large market” team and then confine them to just two counties, with struggling, midsized Oakland as the biggest city in those counties while the Giants get much, much larger Frisco and San Jose and six counties.

  104. During Bud Selig’s reign, his getting stadiums built from coast to coast has been viewed as a shining achievement of his term. But Oakland and Tampa Bay stand out as big red “F”s on a report card that has all A’s everywhere else. I’ve seen it written that Bud’s stadium-building prowess is of no consolation to fans in Oakland.

  105. re: all A’s everywhere else: No pun intended

  106. “Hey debt is debt. Just have to live life and fuck the debt issue. What they gonna do…take over the whole city of Oakland?”

    massive pic card /facepalm

  107. Anon…please try a better comeback…u been slipping lately…Tisk tisk

    Anyway slow news day. But I would spark a debate that the San Jose Sharks should consider Oracle Arena whenever the Warriors leave. Just a thought

  108. This 60 acres for a MLS soccer stadium?! (Per NFL Network)

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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