Rangers Ballpark to be renamed ‘Globe Life Park in Arlington’

The Texas Rangers announced that insurance company Globe Life will be their home ballpark’s naming rights sponsor today. The deal, at 10 years for an undisclosed amount, runs concurrently with the remaining lease years. Globe Life, a subsidiary of Torchmark based out of Oklahoma City, is not among the largest insurance companies in America, but the deal will give the company a fairly high profile.

Doesn't get much more generic than this.

Doesn’t get much more generic than this.

The originally monikered “The Ballpark in Arlington” was so named when the stadium opened in 1994. A decade later, sub-prime mortgage lender Ameriquest bought naming rights. Those rights were relinquished as Ameriquest collapsed at the outset of the financial crisis. Since 2007, the park has been known as “Rangers Ballpark in Arlington.” As the second company to secure naming rights, Globe Life probably didn’t have to pay anywhere near the amount a brand new, untainted stadium would fetch.

Looking down the road, the rights deal is an early sign that the Rangers see the end of the road at TBiA. With the naming rights deal ending with the lease, the Rangers will have the freedom to start their own discussions about a successor to their current digs, which the Braves are doing with similarly-aged Turner Field. Ameriquest’s deal was to run 10 years beyond the current lease. Rangers ownership knows what they want, and with discussions about improvements (such as a rolling roof) as done as Nolan Ryan’s tenure as an executive, don’t be surprised if talks about a new ballpark somewhere in the metro start in a few years.

UPDATE 7:00 PM – The name may be generic, but at least it’s not the Smoothie King Center.

171 thoughts on “Rangers Ballpark to be renamed ‘Globe Life Park in Arlington’

  1. It blows my mind that teams with dramatically better stadiums than the A’s have better succession plans with their current 20-30 year old digs than the A’s have with their 40+ yr old, multi-purpose stadium.

    By the time the A’s eventually fix their mess there will be multiple teams that have entered TWO new stadiums in the time it took the A’s to build one.

  2. Who was it who said we’d see teams replacing their modern-era, baseball-only parks while the A’s remain stuck at the Coliseum endlessly? Oh that’s right – it was me…At what point does MLB say enough is enough and suspend A’s franchise operations until there is a new stadium for them somewhere in North America? MLB can decree that the Coliseum does not meet MLB standards and can no longer host MLB games.

  3. The Coliseum is a great place to see a game. Some of the best, most knowledgeable and passionate fans in all sports. Ample space to tailgate. If you are a season ticket holder, you can get to your seats and your favorite beer stand real quick. They’ve made the playoffs 7 times in the last 14 years, been there for all of them, absolutely electric. Awesome weather. And affordable, to boot.

    You should check it out some time. Or if you want a fancy stadium with inflated prices, fans who don’t have a clue or concern for what’s happening on the field, go root for the Giants. Why you rag so hard? You work for the A’s marketing department? If architecture gives you a hard on, screw baseball, get a job in real estate.

    Nope, enough ain’t enough – and the joke’s on you – we’re getting plenty more of it. Nice!

  4. freddy: You should address your message to: Bud Selig, Major League Baseball, New York City, NY. He has called the Coliseum “a pit,” said the A’s move to Oakland was a “horrible mistake” and insisted in 2009 the A’s “cannot and will not” remain indefinitely in their current situation.

  5. GLPiA Replacement talk? Jacob was right, we’re getting lapped!

  6. Good for you Freddy! Good for you…(again, enjoy it while you can)

  7. @RM,
    Respectfully, I believe it was Mark Davis who equated future stadium talks with a lease extension; I.e. no new stadium, no lease extension. Not Wolff (don’t ever recall him saying such).

  8. When I first saw headlines for this name change in my Feedly, I totally thought it was for a new Rangers ballpark. Sentiment aside, The Rangers certainly have enough revenue to consider putting a rolling roof up or even replacing their ballpark. That Arlington heat/sun is brutal.

  9. This whole thing is getting ridiculous. To have metros like Atlanta and potentially Dallas/Arlington willing to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars for new stadiums to replace stadiums that are barely two decades old is completely unjustifiable. You have babies that were born when Turner Field opened who haven’t even reached adulthood yet. There is really no real reason for the Braves (and now potentially the Rangers) to be looking for replacements to their ballparks at this early point.

    I think what we’re going to start seeing is more and more cities that previously had no teams, get teams. Municipalities that have historically had teams are going to have to really consider where their priorities lay, as most cash strapped cities (Oakland, for example) won’t be able to find anywhere in their budget to aid professional sports teams in getting new stadiums. 10 years ago if you would have told me Oklahoma City and Santa Clara would be home to professional sports, I would’ve laughed in your face. Time changes things.

  10. A few thoughts as a lifelong Ranger fan:

    1) I’m fine with naming rights as a necessary evil, and particularly was ok with the dumb Ameriquest name 10 years ago as the team was terrible, and could use every dime they could get out of it. Now we’re good, attendance has boomed for four years, and the new TV deal with FSSW has solidified this as a money-making operation for years to come. Given the otherwise obscure/generic name doesn’t exactly inspire in and of itself, this just feels like a greedy attempt by guys already making a profit to squeeze every dime out of it possible, which is far from the biggest problem in the world today, but nevertheless distateful and disappointing.

    2) As to a new stadium within 15 years, my opinion until lately has been that ownership has put too much into recent renovations to be planning on anything but staying at the Ballpark for the long haul. But I also think that was more because of Nolan. The team is primarily owned by two billionaires, Ray Davis (from Dallas) and Bob Simpson (from Ft Worth) and Davis in particular forced Nolan out, literally took his office at the Ballpark and will be taking his place at MLB meetings as managing partner. As proven by the naming deal, they’re out for every buck they can find, and around here right now, that money is in Collin County, north of Dallas. The suburb of Frisco just agreed, along with the Frisco ISD, to publicly fund a ____ domed high school stadium that will double as an indoor practice facility for the Cowboys, and additionally are turning over 90 acres to Jerry Jones to move the rest of the Cowboys offices and operations to town. If there’s one county in America (outside of Cobb County, GA apparently) that I could see throwing a billion dollars at a baseball team in 10 years become “major league” it would be Collin, or one of several cities within Collin – Frisco, Allen, Plano, or McKinney.

  11. Couldn’t find how much Frisco is giving the Cowboys, but between the city and the ISD, it seems like it was at least $200 million of public funds, for a practice facility that the school can use one day out of the week.

  12. So much for the repeated claims of the Conservative-Republican South stressing the limited role of Government. From their point of view, it looks more likely that the main purpose of Government is to provide financially related assistance to private enterprises. I wouldn’t be surprised in the not too distant future that Charlotte NC, Oklahoma City, and San Antonio TX, come up with significantly publicly funded MLB caliber ballparks to attract existing MLB franchises to relocate. This better be a wake-up call to MLB, to State of California elected officials, and to the Greater Bay Area civic/corporate leadership regarding the future of the A’s franchise within the Bay Area.

  13. @RM,

    Reading between the lines, I don’t agree that that is his stance. Our interpretations of what was implied obviously differ. Again, respectfully…

  14. This situation is a national disgrace, the idea that the A’s are getting laped has already taken place. Look at the Minnesota Twins, they have opened two new stadiums, in the same time frame that the A’s have been at the coliseum, look at the Atlanta Braves they will soon break ground on their second stadium since they left Atlanta Fulton county stadium, the Toronto Blue Jays, have been talking about a new stadium (although that may have changed, since they no longer have to share with a CFL team), but the point is they have talked about replacing Rogers Center.
    The only teams in MLB, that have older complexes then the A’s, are organizations that are pleased with their situation, like in Boston, or the Cubs (classic older stadiums), even teams that have complex’s that are as old, or older have done a marvels job of refurbishing, like in KC, or in Anaheim, which will probable building a new stadium on their existing parking lot, the Dodgers are looking to do something, but up to this point, they have been relatively happy with their stadium.
    Most people that talk, or report on this situation, often say “The A’s and the Rays situation”, the truth of the matter is the A’s are in a situation all of their own, because if both franchises, got brand new venues tomorrow, it would be the Rays second in the same time frame the A’s have been stuck at the coliseum. There is no MLB team that comes close to the A’s situation, again a national disgrace.

  15. @IIpec
    Not to get to political, but that stance from the conserve party, seems to only apply to poor people, and I agree with you it won’t be too long before one of these red stats, or city’s, cone up with a tax heave plan that will blow MLB out of the water, and they will say this is too good to pass up, A’s out of the Bay Area, sorry San Jose, sorry Oakland (well not to sorry there), sorry San Francisco Bay you’re a one team market, because you did not want to play the tax the people to build a new baseball park game.

  16. re: sorry San Francisco Bay you’re a one team market, because you did not want to play the tax the people to build a new baseball park game.

    …It’s starting to look that way.

  17. You are cordially invited to attend The Save Oakland Sports Organization East Bay Business Summit, To support keeping Our Teams ( Raiders, A’s & Warriors) in Oakland. Today Thursday, February 6, 2014
    5:30 to 7:30 p.m. @ The Oakland Airport Hilton Hotel, One Hegenberger Road, Oakland CA,
    Help Keep the Oakland Raiders in Oakland as well as the A’s and Warriors & Learn about Coliseum City and how and you and your business can help the Oakland Raiders stay in Oakland.
    Business Mixer/ Social Time, Heavy Appetizers, no host bar from 5:30-6:20pm,
    Presentations from 6:30-7:30
    Hosted by Rick Tittle of 95.7 The Game/ Save Oakland Sports & The Green Stampede
    -“Godfather” Griz Jones from M.O.B. Charities, 66 M.O.B. Making Oakland Better,
    -Oakland Raiders front office and sales and marketing team. The Raiders will be presenting a power point presentation to the audience about the Raiders and partnership opportunities.
    – Bay Area Radio and media personality Rich Lieberman
    -JRDV, The Chief developers of Coliseum City will give a presentation on the latest with Coliseum City and show some conceptual drawings.
    – Mayor Of Oakland, Mayor Jean Quan, she will update the audience on what is going on with Coliseum City and what she thinks that local business can do to help our teams.
    -Reps from the Oakland Athletics and Golden State Warriors will also be in the house

  18. Yet another pep rally, it looks like. Will Oakland be offering taxpayer money for a new ballpark? If not, this event won’t amount to much. We’ll see. Will be interesting to hear what the A’s reps have to say, if anything…Ironic that the Bay Area, recognized as one of the wealthiest areas of the country with the priciest real estate, could lose an MLB team because the two cities vying for the team are too broke to pay for a ballpark. MLB probably looks at San Jose and says, “The 10th largest city in the country with the highest per-capita income and they won’t spend any money on a ballpark? Seeya, San Jose.”

  19. @pjk: This is a perfect event for you to attend and raise these issues.

  20. Briggs: Not a chance I can make it to Oakland tonight.

  21. Briggs it’s nice to see you back, you had not commented for a while.

  22. @Joe
    I always though the Rangers ballpark was one of the more underrated ones, does not get the national attention, I thought it would (granted I have not been), but it looks real nice.

  23. “Reps from the Oakland Athletics and Golden State Warriors will also be in the house”: Yeah right!! FWIW, the city of SF taxpayers did not pay to build AT&T Park (Pac Bell). This is all about MLB (currently) not allowing A’s ownership to privately finance a ballpark in $J/$V.

  24. Tony D is correct.

  25. This is why I hate this anti development fieldofschemes ass bay area tax payers that bitch over everything. “Its not always about you nimbys”!!!

    Damn we really need a Kevin Johnson type pols to tell them to stfu and this arena is getting built.

    Sigh but to llpec point. ..if u look at facebook and instagram (watch bay area youth trends) 49ers, Giants and now Warriors have cornered this bay area market since 2010 of this social media world. The young ladies are wearing Kapernick, Linncecum and Stephen Curry jerseys.

    For my Raiders and A’s (with some fault going toward them) they have not marketed well and have not won enough yet to capitalize on it and they are being forgotten.

    Do the Raiders and A’s need a fresh start in a different market?? Should they give up on the bay area if they are not getting equal love??? Its all legitimate questions. Raiders and A’s have to change their fortunes around quickly if they want enough PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SUPPORT to get Coliseum City off the ground

  26. @Tony D.
    Even the San Francisco Giants could not stop the move, if San Jose taxpayers came up with 250 million, it’s not about whether it can been done in JS privately, it can Wolf himself would gladly pay for it, it’s about the Cobb counties of the world, other parts of the country can’t get this crazy idea that MLB teams should finance their own stadiums, the let it happen with the Giants and they were mad as hell about that, they are not going to let it happen again.

  27. Maybe thr bay area is a
    2 Team Football market (Raiders and 49ers) and a 1 team basketball and baseball market? ??

  28. @harry
    If it was done right it’s a two team market, if not defiantly one team.

  29. @harry
    If you think about, it sort of already has two basketball teams, with the Kings in Sacramento, I know plenty of people in the Northeastern portion of the Bay that root for, and go to Kings Games.

  30. @lakeshore

    Me too. I been to Arco a few times. Especially during the Mike Bibby/Chris Weber era in early 2001 …I have to admit they are booming when the team wins similar to Oakland bay area.

    Sacramento is a funny city it has elements of San Jose with a splash of Oakland and S.F to it. The suburbs are quite nice just too far for me. I would have to have a local high paying job if I were to move out there.

    Anyway once the pro arena ppl win after this long drag out fight the Kings downtown arena would be great for the local businesses. Also if u can get tax money out of California capital..it could give pro sports advocates the juice to tackle other needs like Raiders, Chargers and A’s….

  31. @harry
    Man I sure hope your right, about those tax dollars.

  32. Come 2014, the A’s will be a much richer team, a team capable of fielding a $100 million payroll. And they won’t have to build a ballpark, negotiate any new local media deals, or raise ticket prices to do it. That’s because new national television deals will be in place for the 2014 season, and they promise to make every team a good deal richer.-Marine Layer

  33. @ Jackson,

    So what’s your point rehashing a previous RM quote on new revenues? (hopefully you’re simply not being a smart ass by implying the A’s don’t need a new ballpark…)

  34. @JACKSON I think they are at 92mill already, or will be at the start of the season, whatever amount of money the A’s get, its not like every other team wont be getting their share of that money, so its a wash the players get more money, good for them, but thats not going to help the A’s as it relates to the other teams, so what was the point again?

  35. 100 mill, thats wonderful, if it was the mid 90’s again.

  36. OT: Someone on Twitter needs to explain to SF’s Blanca Torres that San Jose/Silicon Valley have been experiencing a “tech boom” for decades now (hence the name of our region). SF is a relative newcomer to the boom; it’s not the other way around!

  37. @Tony D @Lakeshore/Neil I was just curious to know what my Oakland Athletics nation television deal would be for this upcoming season that’s all. The new television deal for Texas will be taking effect after 2014 and I remembered reading about that RM.I was not trying to be a smart ass or downplay the fact that this team needs a new venue more than any other team. LETS GO OAKLAND

  38. @ Tony D. ML said that Lew Wolff essentially had the same stance, as Mark Davis (correct me, if I am wrong), and I agee with him, but two people can have the same stance, and not have the same motive. I think Mark Davis really would like to build in Oakland, and he needs to take this stance so Oakland will get off its ass and do somthing. I think Lew Wolff does not want to build in Oakland, and only wants a long turm lease (ten years is long in this case), so he can gain time, in hopes to get San Jose, and will not build in Oakland inless he has no choice, which is why I said last week, Oakland would be stupid to give Lew Wolff a 5-10 lease, without an understanding that at some point in that 10 year period (3-5 years), perhaps whenever BAY IG, would like to build on the spot the A’s are playing on, Lew would have to make a choice, build at CC or leave. Like I said then, Oakland may not have done right by the A’s to this point, but no one is doing any favors for Oakland eather.

  39. @JACKSON Sorry, my bad.

  40. @Tony D. Again, as I said last week, if the Raiders and BAY IG are for reall (still dont know), Oakland needs to get it togather, put someting reasonable on the table, not only for the Raiders, but for the A’s as well (if they can do that), eather the A’s are in or out, if they are out its cool, it may be what needs to happen for them to get to San Jose (which I fill is the best place in the Bay Area for them ), but it would be stupid not to get a commitment, somewhere along the line in that 5-10 year lease, thats just good business, which Lew Wolff understands, same stance not the same motive.

  41. @ Jackson,
    My bad as well..
    Key word in the “5-10 year lease at the Coli” thread…IF. Until we hear actual words from Wolff that mirror Mark Davis’, I stand by my interpretation. That is all…

  42. @Tony D I here you man, but its not about the words, Lew could say the vary same words and it would not matter, he could say anything to get the lease, without making a commitment, thats the point.

  43. The fact that Wolff is even discussing the CC site as possible is definitely progress though(that is for A’s fans who prefer Oakland over SJ) – considering Wolfe’s stance concerning Oakland a few years ago (at that time the A’s had a 0% chance of staying put) The CC site definitely has gained momentum.

  44. Who’s going to fanfest? It’s sold out. I’m not, but we bought some cheap tickets for my pals and their kids on our season tickets account. Every A’s fan should go to fanfest at least once. If you’ve never been to fanfest, you’re missiing out.

    I’m all about the action, boss.

  45. PS: Ask Bill King? Fuck Texas.

  46. @lakeshore,
    I hear yah.
    Momentum? Really? ( Got $?…and lot’s of it?)

  47. I’m hitting up FanFest for the Clubhouse Tour.

  48. To be fair, no one is talking about replacing the Ballpark in Arlington yet except ML. It’s not a huge leap to make to assume the Rangers will want improvements or a new park in 10 years when the lease is up, but it’s also not something the team is talking about yet.

    So far it’s only the Braves looking to dump their Camden park.

  49. Dan, I wouldn’t say that, exactly. There are people talking about replacing it, just not publicly.

  50. New for ’14 green alternates are ok. Just ok. I was hoping they’d go with a super-sized elephant patch for the left breast.

  51. The new green alternates are a big downgrade from the previous ones. Very sad to see them make a mistake like that.

  52. Jeff if they’re not talking about it publicly… then how do you know they’re talking about it?

  53. @ Dan:

    For years, Dallas folks have grumbled about having to go to Arlington, and moreso, that the Ballpark lacks a roof. I personally think that’s silly; if you’re going to live in Texas you can’t whine about it being hot to watch a ballgame. At any rate, the grumbling has been there, kind of on the fringes, and largely ignored, but Ray Davis, the owner whose taken charge of the team in the last few months is a Dallas guy. That’s not to say he’s said anything in public, but in general Dallas people like the things they go to to be in Dallas, or in the northern suburbs, as opposed to Ft Worth or even Arlington. And being fair, most of us on the Ft Worth side don’t care for Dallas. The Cowboys (I personally have hated them since I was a kid) are the exception in that everyone from all over around here is raised a Cowboys fan. When Nolan ran the team, and the initial setup was to be just that, Nolan running the show and Davis & Simpson hanging around quietly in the background like John Fisher, there were more reasons to think that anything other than Arlinton for another 20 years at least were silly. Nolan lived in Ft Worth, and had some of his greatest moments at old Arlington Stadium in the Ballpark’s parking lot; while he never played there it isn’t much of a stretch to say he’s responsible for the people of Arlington building that stadium. With him gone, that’s a lot of loyalty out the window, long term.

  54. So what you’re saying is that putting the ballpark in the suburban location that it is in (which is the most suburban and remote of all the Camden era parks) was probably a mistake made only out loyalty to Nolan Ryan?

  55. @CFL/ALL
    Does anyone know, how the save Oakland sports organization (SOS), thing went last night? I was surprised they got representatives from the Raiders, Warriors, and A’s all to commit to coming (not the Raiders as much), did they all show up? What did Mayor Jean Quan, have to say?
    Was there any new ideas discussed? Any old ideas that grew legs? Any new information, that we may not have previously herd? What local business showed up? How many local businesses showed up? Harry, Freddy, or Ivan did any of you guys go? If so what’s up?

  56. No, there’s a couple of issues there. Arlington is still a great, central location, but there’s a Dallas-centric thought that the world stops at the county line. Even still, the team has historically drawn well when its been run well, and even usually when it hasn’t been, so it isn’t necessary to move at all, it just has the feeling to me that that’s the direction we’re headed in long-term. But there’s no groundswell or anything, the park is good, and the team has history there.

    There were talks in the early 90s about moving to Dallas proper that didn’t get very far. Dallas has always been chaotic politically, and this was several years before the American Airlines Center (barely) passed. Dallas had also let the Cowboys get away to the suburbs in the early 70s, and would pass up a chance to build what became Cowboys Stadium about 10 years ago. Public money would’ve been a tough sell, and the ownership group liked Arlington anyway. The fact that the city was willing with very little opposition to fund the park itself helped obviously. If they move within 15-20 years, it will be a Braves situation where it isn’t remotely needed and they have somebody else on the line in a more affluent location.

    Arlington got the stadium because of a forward thinking Mayor named Tom Vandergriff, who pushed for an expandable minor league park in the 60s, then as Tarrant County Judge (not a judicial position in most Texas counties; the title is a relic from history and belongs to the chief executive of a county) pushed for a team for years before getting the Senators. Arlington at that point made sense because it was centrally located but also because it was the only existing stadium in the area, and it was a countywide effort to get the team. For 20 years, the Rangers were usually not just terrible, but boring, and it’s hard to imagine anyone building them a stadium, which is when Nolan got to town. We still weren’t very good, but he gave the fans something to be proud of, and it was in his next to last year that the vote happened. By then, there was just general goodwill and a positive atmosphere.

  57. @lakeshore,

    These SOS pep rallies are like clock work now, happening every so often (seems like maybe 2-3 per year now?). The silence you hear is the silence that always follows these rallies BECAUSE NOTHING HAPPENED NOR IS ANYTHING HAPPENING. Until the next rally…

  58. @Lakeshore/Neil Edward McFarlan the head person of the development for JRDV showed a Virtual presentation of CC said everything is going a scheduled, said BART was on board about redoing/complete tear down of the station, he also said that where the CC site is at, and Oakland being in the center of the Bay Area, there’s a state Bill to help finance things, I believe it was AB-338 Transit village developments: infrastructure financing. Rep from the A’s was Senior Director, Corporate Partnerships I believe. Quan hinted at Mark Davis selling a portion of the team to the Dubai peeps, reason why he has been buying out other partners to probably keep control of team while selling portion for stadium. Quan said by summer Raiders deal should be done. Still working with/ on A’s and it looks like the Warriors would be last on board the way things are going. She compared it to a game of chess and said she didn’t wanna call it checkmate but they are a lot closer than ever before and said that all teams will at least be here by the end of the decade. Developer also said they have plans for all aspects/ configurations such as warriors wanting to keep oracle and/ or if they want to have a new stadium. EIR is almost complete.


  59. @Tony D.
    It would seem like it’s a good opportunity, to try and get something constructive done, wow they have been having these SOS meeting that long (I recall them having two or three others), I did not know they had that many. Well if anyone has any good information (if there was any to be had), it would be nice to know.

  60. @lakeshore
    ninjas I didn’t go. I been to a couple when they do it at Ricks in san leandro. Didn’t want to get yelled at for my pro Stance on “some public funding” whether its used for infurscture at Coliseum City or more needed Howard Terminal. .. (should lew wolff and or joe lacob have to pay for the pedestrian bridges too????)

    But I hope some business support is there. Still if ur Oakland. ..” the teams have no where to go but the Raiders” and they dont want to leave either”…so no rush to action just yet.

  61. @K/harry
    Thanks, for the update really appreciate it, the pushing of that bill AB-338 Transit village (if that’s what it is), sounds interesting hopefully it will gain some traction up in Sacramento.
    Governor Jerry Brown did not help us much (when it came to sports), back when he was the Mayer of Oakland, hopefully he can help with the passage of any bill, to help this project along.

  62. @lakeshoreneil that bill is already passed and the available for the city to use. it pretty much allows the city to not have to go to voters for such things like this project if they meet the criteria which they are.

    • @K – Am I missing something? AB 338 (2009-10 session) was vetoed by the Guvanatah.

      The bill (which was followed up by several like it) allowed for the creation of an larger infrastructure finance district than previously allowed (1/2 vs. 1/4 mile radius), and the potential to raise bonds without requiring a vote. That’s great, but that will only cover the rebuild of the Coliseum BART station ($100-200 million) and the needed sewers, roads, and other utilities needed to get the transit village built. The immediate issue there is that it can only be built if 20% of the tax increment is used for affordable housing, which is a good idea but will eat into funds to get the venues ready. It doesn’t address the funding gap for any of the venues. IFDs are already in place and have been for years. There’s a reason why there are numerous other bills in the current legislative session that are being considered to supplement the current IFD system – because few municipalities are really using IFDs at the moment.

  63. Well, if “k” is to be believed (?), sounds just like all the other past meetings: presentations, plans presented, happy talk about others paying for stuff (i.e. State), Quan speaking out the wrong end with BS (playing chess with the A’s?!), etc etc. Was it mentioned that Alameda County wanted Oakland to buy them out because the CC venture was just too awesome for them to handle?

    Look, as a Raiders fan I want the Coliseum to succeed for them and a new stadium. We Raiders fans will be real lucky if this even happens. The moment they inject the A’s and Warriors into the conversation is when all their credibility (if this even exists) as pols goes out the window…

    As stated earlier, until the next SOS pep rally…

  64. @K Wow, thats some good news.

  65. The Raiders and the A’s administrations won’t even return Quan’s phone calls.

    How can she back Howard Terminal and Coliseum City?

    Why would she disclose that Davis is selling part of the Raiders to Dubai/Colony?

    Why would she set expectations that a deal will be inked by summer?

  66. What’s the holdup until summer? Why can’t they sign a deal with the Raiders now? Why does Oakland need as much as 7 more months to negotiate?

  67. So “k”, where’s the press release from the media (particularly the East Bay cheerleaders) touting all this happy talk you’re providing us? Haven’t seen or read squat about this latest pep rally. As I suspected…

    Been thinking about what you implied earlier in the thread re Wolff wanting a lease extension at the Coli and subtly hinting of a chance of a new ballpark in Oakland. I believe you’re right: he’s only saying this to possibly get the lease extension he wants…THAT’S IT! I guess you gotta play nice with those who control the Coliseum’s near future to provide you time to get the $outh Bay squared away.

  68. @tonyd be believed lol, oh yea I guess it involves Oakland so it’s fake or conspiracy theory. I go to the meeting to provide info to everyone on here of what was said, and it’s all a lie, I randomly pulled this assembly bill out the sky that has never been mentioned on here or anywhere before that was passed in 2009 but I’m not to be believed. If you read the bill word for word it is exactly what CC is trying to be built out to.

  69. @pjk and tony d
    lol u guys for years want san jose A’s….but to quote Richard Sherman “that’s a joke right”???

    Coliseum City or Howard terminal will happen or the ungrateful A’s can move to Portland or San Antonio (whichever comes first)…because the city of Oakland and thr Raiders have leverage. ..not Lew Wolff

    To conclude. .. build it they will come.
    maybe u guys can use didiron as a recreational park or something

  70. I for one believe K.

    It makes sense Mark Davis is trying to negotiate a deal with the Dubai group to sell a piece to get the last 300M to get the stadium done.

    Or perhaps the Dubai group buys a piece of the team and then funds a piece themselves and revenue shares with Davis once the stadium opens. That probably is what is going to happen. Oakland simply helps with the transportation bill to renovate the existing BART station. That for once actually makes sense to me.

    As for the A’s and Warriors, I believe they showed up just to keep their options open as that is the smart business move.

    The issue with the A’s is if they build in Oakland (HT or CC) will they be allowed to stay on revenue sharing despite playing in a 2-team market?

    Also would MLB allow Wolff to even build privately in Oakland if they think he wouldn’t make money building privately in San Jose where the market is far more lucrative? Let’s face it, Oakland will not pay a dime for the A’s, never have and never will.

    Those two questions are the big elephants in the room MLB refuses to come out with a solution with.

    As for the Warriors, if SF falls through they will look to move to San Jose and renovate the SAP Center with the Sharks first before going back to Oakland.

    The reason why I say that is because the general area where Oracle Arena sits now is not conducive to a basketball arena nor a baseball stadium period. Football, yes, because it has the sea of parking lots to tailgate before games.

    While with baseball, basketball, and hockey you want ancillary development in a core downtown area for pre-game activities. Hence why the A’s want to move to San Jose and Warriors to San Francisco.

    The Coliseum site is only fit for football for this reason. Even with the CC development it still would not work as the neighboring areas are filled with crime and not family friendly.

    Looks like the Raiders are staying put while the A’s and Warriors continue to plot their escape from the East Bay.

  71. @K Thanks, one more question, you said the EIR was almost complete, did they say when they thought it would be complete, or give an idea? (two three months out), again thanks.

  72. @Sid I agee with most of what you said, but I think the Warriors would try to build at HT, befor they go to SJ, not that they would not want to go to SJ, I just think they would try HT if they cant make it work in SF first. @Tony D. Re: Lew Wolff and lease talks, at the Coli. your correct thats what I was trying to say.

  73. @Sid I agree with most of what you said, but I think the Warriors would try to build at HT, befor they go to SJ, not that they would not want to go to SJ, I just think they would try HT if they cant make it work in SF first. @Tony D. Re: Lew Wolff and lease talks, at the Coli. your correct thats what I was trying to say.

  74. @rexfranklin remember Lew said he is only prepared to talk with the city so he has come around and there have been talks, and the Quan comment we all know shes not the sharpest tool, maybe she let it slip maybe not idk. hell she showed up a hour late and we still had to wait for her to eat before we began lol.

    @pjk negotiation is the key this is a big project with a lot of hands on it and if Mark is indeed giving up some of the team to close the gap you better believe he has his dad in him when negotiating majority ownership. so summer seems reasonable time for that if you ask me.

    @Tonyd here ya go lol perfect timing

    @Lakshore/Neil no they did not, after the meeting I went and approached the JRDV guy with questions and he tried to be polite but pretty much his demeanor was kinda ass like why should I be talking to you, rich people stuff lol.

    • @K – Great info. Thanks for posting that here. I’m gonna sound like a broken record, but unless the principals are talking publicly about how to divvy up the costs, they’re not talking about anything really important.

  75. @K

    I know what u mean. Some local pols in the bay area act really uppity. ..now im a loud in ur face person and IF I felt any disrespect I would have said something like…”Excuse ME JRDV rep Im TALKING TO U”…sometimes u got to go “Stephen A Smith when u want to be heard.

    But read the link and I have to give Mayor Quan credit. Yes she is not the sharpest tool..she has done better as a community activist…but the Raiders/Dubai teaming up makes sense…not like Mark Davis will go broke..and it will save the NFL team to go to L.A (San Diego amd St.Louis better be nervous

  76. @”k”
    Great: a piece by Steven Tavares AND ONLY Steven Tavares. Kind of reinforces what I’ve been saying here (LOL!). Find it utterly amazing (or sad) that in a city with soo many problems/issues Quan is (apparently) hanging her reelection hopes on keeping pro sports in town (WTF?).
    Look, for your own sake just hope that the Raiders can get something done at the Coli. A’s and Warriors; yeah right!!

  77. @harry,

    As always, you have no idea what you’re talking about. (“The mind is a terrible thing to waste”)

  78. @ Tony D. You know that bill AB-338 (that K brought up), could help in San Jose, or Fremont as well as Oakland. Just saying, its good info, the A’s will need help from Sacto, weather its SJ, Fremont, or Oakland, because as you know, its looking like MLB will not let the A’s build without some tax money, from sonewhere and its not coming from SJ, or Oakland.

  79. From Merriam/Webster Dictionary:

    prog·ress noun ˈprä-grəs, -ˌgres, US also & British usually ˈprō-ˌgres

    : movement forward or toward a place

    : the process of improving or developing something over a period of time

  80. @lakeshore,
    Yes, the bill that was first mentioned would assist the Kings proposed arena. Will help out other municipalities as well. But “k” made it sound as if it was specific to Oakland only; Imagine that.
    So explain to us how regular pep rallies equate to “progress” as defined by Websters…

  81. Wow! Those commenters over at the East Bay Express “cheerleading” piece by Tavares ALL deserve a Pulitzer Prize! Always good to see facts and reality counteract utter nonsense from the likes of Tavares. Good night all!!

  82. @Lakeshore/Neil yes that bill is for all and is a very interesting one, as it mentions 10 billion in investment commitments to all of california who qualify. I was not trying to say it was for Oakland only as Tonyd mentions, I simply looked up the bill that they had in the presentation that the developer mentioned and if you go over every single requirement in 65460.2. that is exactly East Oakland, so it fits the bill. The developer also mentioned that they are making it “high density” I remember Kaplan harping on that in the ALCO meeting some while back. And in regards to the renderings, the ones that are out are not what CC Stadiums will look like, I guess the developer is keeping them a secret lol, he said they are place holders to show where the stadiums could go, so no wonder the ballpark looked like that other graphic designer that was on this site some while back and the Warriors arena looks just like the S.F arena, seems like they simple copied and pasted those.

  83. @ K I did not fill like you were saying it was for Oakland only, I just thought I would point out that it was somthing that could help the A’s, no matter where they play (in California), but I guess Tony D, and pehaps ML and others already new that. I did not, I guess I missed it so thanks. You did point out that CC was trying to build in a way, that would match up with some things in the bill, which was cool again any good info, is needed in this situation.

  84. Oops, I was thinking of the wrong bill; enhanced IFD’s, not the EIR/traffic impacts near transit lines “Kings Bill.” My bad (LOL!)

  85. Well there is a lot of work to be done, this bill AB-338 Transit village (good information), is great, but clearly it’s just a part of what it’s going to take to get anything done, whether it’s the A’s and Raiders at the coliseum, or simply just the Raiders at the coliseum, and the A’s at Dirdon, or HT, it could also help the Warriors at piers30/32, if the bill helps with the ferry stop (transportation improvement), close to the piers. Sorry for rambling, I guess the bottom line is, it’s just going to take a lot, from Oakland (or San Jose), Alameda County (or Santa Clara County), and Sacramento, because we obviously are going to need other bills proposed, and passed to get things done, we are just going to have to get really creative about this.

  86. Per Today’s Merc Biz section and interview with Scott Anderson (Bank of the West’s top economist): strong growth forecast in 2014 for jobs, commercial/real estate construction in South Bay, Peninsula and SF. East Bay will “lag” with jobs and construction activity. Who again is gonna fill up all those buildings proposed for Coliseum City? Lord help my Raiders…

  87. @lakeshore
    California is not a exception to the rule requiring public money to fund sports venues. California “field of schemes thinking” has missed on opportunities to get Raiders, Chargers, A’s, Angels,Kings, and somewhat Warriors new venues since the 1990’s. ..now chicken coming home to roost. And now its more expensive. ..with enough private and public support in California. .it is taking to long and stressful to get these thibgs done. These bills and measures need to get passed to get construction done for all these teams

    California if are so hell bent on public funding..then give up cheap land to the teams for development purposes (ex.Angels)..but enough is enough. ..if California wants sports..u have to pay for it like everyone else.

  88. @harry I agree with you, I am sure they will do everthing they can to keep the public from voting, but there is no way these projects get done, without tax money. In the A’s case its looking more, and more like MLB will not let them built without some tax money in Oakland, or San Jose. I sure hope that land at CC is worth more money. the any of us know, because at this point, am not sure how all this comes together.

  89. @Lakeshore/Neil: not so sure that public funding is the issue with the SJ situation. ML’s opinion is that the delay with San Jose is compensating the giants for the MLB TRs – not any taxpayer funding of the SJ ballpark.

  90. ML may be right but we know MLB wants publicly funded ballparks, as opposed to the $0.00 being offered by Oakland and San Jose. No bidding war between these cities.

  91. @duffer,

    I’d argue (or speculate) that Wolff having to pay off the Giants with a large chunk of change (not to his liking) might require SJ to provide him with a little extra $cratch to compensate. Just my opinion..

  92. @duffer You could be right, and that would be good news (if any amount, is ok with the Giants?), but it seems like MLB will not let Lew Wolff build in San Jose, without some public money. if that money has to get voted on?, a public vote for tax money, in San Jose? it may do better in SJ then Oakland, but I dont think, it would pass in eather place.

  93. @Tony D. You seem to have a good fill for San Jose, do you think SJ would pass a public vote on tax payer money, for a new ballpark?

  94. @Tony D. I should have said some public money, say 125-250 mill.

  95. Yeah tony d
    I would concede and tell Oakland to back off if San Jose could provide “some public funding” from 50-200 mil ( just guesstimate) to get it done…all California cities have same problems…schools cops etc. Blah blah blah…San Jose loves the A’s right??? Well tony d and pjk u guys ready to put up the money?

  96. Taxpayer funds for a ballpark in either Oakland or San Jose, unless its something like a hotel or rental car tax, is a nonstarter. Harry: If somebody could make the argument that taxpayer funds would come back to us in increased economic activity and the city making its money back, I would be inclined to vote for a small ballpark tax. But I can’t drown out the inevitable cries of “No welfare for billionaires!” and, as was just noted in here, the “Field of Schemes” mentality in California. The public employee unions would have a field day with any proposal to tax San Jose for a ballpark…MLB might find that the A’s presents an opportunity to send a message like the NBA did in Seattle and the NFL did in Cleveland, etc: Pay for new facilities or lose your team.

  97. Thx for making it easy. No more San Jose talk. Coliseum City field or gtfo the bay area. Im sssooo done

  98. @Tony D – maybe you are right. Why MLB would require municpalities and public taxpayer dollars to partially fund MLB ballparks would be a mystery. San Diego and Miami residents (for example) must be bummed about footing the bill for those two ballparks. MLB likely is not very pleased with the results of those two publicly funded ballparks right now.

  99. I have not yet been to Miami. But Petco is a beautiful ballpark. ..with beautiful scenery if u know what I mean. If im MLB they better drum up support in San Antonio or Portland to threaten the bay area with. Because lew wolff is looking at the coliseum parking lot or selling the A’s to gasp “someone who will”…maybe Dan Knauss???

  100. Don Knauss’s next official offer for the A’s will be his first. He helped build a publicly financed ballpark in Houston. Different animal than the “no taxpayer funds for stadiums” attitude that rules the day in the Bay Area.

  101. @Lakeshore,

    San Jose citizens would NEVER vote to raise their taxes (i.e. sales tax, utility tax) to fund a sports facility. However, as pjk stated earlier, they might be inclined to go with a Hotel Mello-Roos or rental car tax for a stadium; see our neighbors in Santa Clara and Levi’s Stadium as an example.

  102. @Harry,

    Will you please stop with your constant nonsense; it’s getting a little old…

  103. @Tony D. Yeah, Levis is a good starting point, I know Wolff gets a lot of carp, much of it I dont agree with, but he has kept the team in the Bay Area and I am not sure if MLB is on the same page (in the long run), with him as far as that one, if he does sale (I dont think he will) I hope its local. The only way I could see him and perhaps Fisher doing that is if they dont get San Jose.

  104. @Tony D

    You mad bro?
    Dont hate on me because of all ur chirping about San Jose A’s. ..guess what still in Oakland. ..u never going to get San Jose so ur the joke. So again ill state to Lew Wolff. .take a look at Coliseum City Field or move out the bay area. Drop the mic.

  105. @harry,

    Drop the mic?!! You know, I take back what I said earlier. KEEP IT GOING HARRY! This blog is in dire need of much needed humor/comedy. Thanks for providing it bro. I’m done on this thread…

  106. Sigh, I remember the first time I found this blog when I was deployed in Afghanistan in 2007. We are back where we all started, the A’s are still playing at the O.Com and there is no resolution in sight for the Raiders or the A’s. The politics have not changed, and cities in CA are too cash strapped and taxed out to offer public subsidies for a sports stadium.

    I feel the A’s case is different than the Raiders or Chargers. You have an ownership group that wants to build a stadium just not in Oakland. While the Raiders and Chargers want the public to help pay for their new Palaces. I have a feeling that time is running out on the A’s in the Bay Area, for those that say GTFO if the A’s dont stay and build in Oakland are not true fans of the team. I rather the team play somewhere in the Bay Area when I come to SJ/SF/Oakland for business trips during the year than watch them play in Portland or San Antonio. (God forbid I get forced to watch Giants games!!)I don’t see a team moving to Montreal with the Canadian dollar in flux, and with the fickle baseball fans in Quebec.

    Are the die hard Raider fans going to say the same thing to the Raiders if/when Coliseum Version ?.0 falls apart, and the team moves to Santa Clara/LA/Portland or god forbid San Antonio? Time is running out on professional sports in Oakland so enjoy it while you can.

  107. Mike2 I have said that Oakland would be stupid to give the A’s a lease of 5-10 years (clean), with no commitment to build at CC(or HT) at some time in that period, if the Raiders and Bay IG are for real about CC. There is enough blame to go around, and I for one have pointed it out, when its OaklandAC, MLB, the SF Giants, ect., but if CC ever gets to the point where they are ready to go (big if), but if they get to that point where the NFL, Raiders, Bay IG. OaklandAC, Sacramento, taxes, eveything is in place, and it could make sence for Wolff to build there MLB would have to do its part, because they wont let the A’s play in San Jose, but the point is, if eveything comes together, and Wolff does not build, in Oakland, and he still cant get SJ, I blame him as well, not as much as the SF Giant and MLB, but if its SJ or nothing (if MLB helps to make Oakland doable), for him, and MLB moves the team out of California, then yes at that point then they can GTFO, I am done with MLB all together. I am a true fan, you dont get to say who is a fan, and who is not, thats like telling a person they were not married, because they got a devorice. What just because a person dose not let MLB sh*t on them, for the rest of there life they are not a fan?

  108. …if the A’s leave the Bay Area, I, too, am done with MLB.

  109. @Mike2 I should say, I think Oakland can work if its done right (not as well as San Jose), but if Lew Wolff and the Oakland A’s take the view that its San Jose, or nothing (and will not build in Oakland), even if MLB is willing to help the A’s in Oakland (revanue sharingloan to help build), which they should, because they are the one’s that will not let them build in San Jose, and if that action in part is the reason the A’s leave the Bay Area, then Wolff becomes part of the problem, and he (and the team I love) along with the SFGiantsMLB can go to hell, I would love to watch a bunch of 7 year olds playing T-ball, but MLB never again.

  110. @ Lakeshore

    LW& Co are part of the problem, I don’t blame him for not wanting to build in Oakland. He did his homework on all the potential sights before he bought the team so is was obvious from the start he had no intention in building in Oakland. He does lack a pair of balls like Al Davis or Steinbrenner when it comes to SJ. Just build the thing and tell MLB to GTH, sell,move, or work out the mythical drug deal with the Giants and get the stadium done. Everyone has a damn price and if he has not found one by now with the Giants than he is village idiot who deserves the scorn of A’s fans. The A’s fans & players deserve better after 7+ years of this Bullsh*T by MLB, Giants, A’s ownership, Oakland, and SJ. I too will stop watching MLB if the A’s move out of the Bay Area.

    The only thing to look forward to this season is a potential division 3 peat and our first ALCS title since 89.

  111. I meant WS win 🙂

  112. @Mike2 We agree, on almost everything. I dont blame Wolff & Co, for not wanting to build in Oakland eather, but I dont think he did all of his homework. Lew knew (right or wrong), when he came in that the A’s could only build in ACCC. He should have been ready for the fact, that they may have to do that (if he is not), I do fill like many others, that Bud threw him under the bus after Fremont (letter from Bud to A’s about looking to build in other places), I think the letter was meant to put fear in AC and Oakland (did not work), but also (most of all), it gave Wolff the green light for San Jose, but the SF Giants pushed back more then Bud or Lew thought they would, so here we are, and I have a list of 100 people places and groups to bame, if the A’s leave the Bay Area, if Lew cant grow a pair and do an Al Davis and just build the damn thing in San Jose, or deal with the fact that he bought the damn team, with the right to build (only) in OaklandAC, and will not build there, then yes he is part of the problem.

  113. The Smoothie King Center has to be worst corporately named pro sports venue in the country. The name “New Orleans Arena” had a nice ring. I drove past it and the Superdome late last year. Of all the pro sports venues I’ve seen in person, the Superdome makes the biggest visual impact when you approach it. It’s like a 1970s space ship or some sort of giant exhaust vent for the Earth’s core.

  114. OT – So it appears that the new A’s cap is not just a fashion cap nor just a new alternate cap to go with the new green alt jersey, but is the official ROAD cap? Is the previous road cap officially gone? I don’t like this move at all. The new cap should be an alternate cap only…Was wondering if any of this was addressed at Fan Fest. Anybody know?

  115. @Mike2
    I don’t know man, its sounds like we pretty much fill the same way, as I often say this is a three city (Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose), two team (Giants, and A’s), one league (MLB), high wire soap-opera, and there are so many, people, places, organizations, and circumstances, that have some degree of responsibility (in my opinion), that if I listed all the people, Bud Selig, Jerry Brown, Brian Sabean, etc. I would surely not mention them all, if I listed all the places, Oakland, Alameda Co, San Francisco, and San Jose (lawsuit), etc. I would surely not mention them all (Fremont), see what I mean, if I mentioned all the organizations, MLB, SF Giants, Oakland Raiders (ruining the coliseum in their return), the Oakland Athletics themselves, etc. I would surely not mention them all. If I mention all the circumstances, downturn in the housing market (that effected Wolfs ability to build in Fremont), the abolishment of city run redevelopment agencies, as the money went back to the state of California, the Bay Area’s voting population, that would not dream of spending tax payer money (even a little), on sporting venues etc. I would surely not mention them all.
    This situation is way too complex to blame one person, one place one organization, or one set of circumstances, but if the A’s eventually leave California, there is no way on God’s green earth Lew Wolff does not deserve a measure of that blame, as well.

  116. Lakeshore: I’ve been thinking, if San Jose tries even a hotel or rental car tax for stadiums, we’ll hear cries of “Tax the hotels and cars to hire more police or firemen, not to provide welfare to billionaires!” Same deal in Oakland. If MLB insists on public money, we’ll be a one-team market as soon as some other city steps forward with a publicly funded stadium proposal. Even partially publicly funded.

  117. The one party that I hold the most responsibility tor this ongoing stalemate is MLB. The parameters for a solution for getting a new Bay Area ballpark for the A’s is out there, but MLB(Selig) refuses to allow a vote on whether the A’s could be allowed to move to San Jose. To hell with the Giants and their special status among the MLB Lodge. At this point, it’s becoming more apparent that MLB has too much to lose over the long-term, if the status quo is allowed to continue. With Selig leaving the commissioner’s office at year’s end, the possible Raiders stadium deal at CC, and the ongoing lawsuits; I definitely see light at the end of the tunnel for finally ending this ongoing impasse once and for all.

  118. @Robo: The official team store still sells the classic green cap with plain gold A’s logo, so hopefully they’re still the standard road caps. I too hope these new road caps are just alternates. They’re ugly. I’m not a fan of the new threads.

  119. @pjk/IIpec
    Pjk I agree, you have said it many times; this situation just may come down to tax money.
    IIpec I also agree with you, I hold MLB more responsible than any other party, closely followed by the San Francisco Giants.
    MLB may allow the A’s to move to San Jose, as indicated by their denial letter back in June of 2013, but allowing someone to do something, and making it possible for them to do it is two different things. If MLB on one hand is saying yeah you can move and build in San Jose, but on the other saying well you have to pay the SF Giants x amount of dollars, don’t forget you have to pay for your own stadium, also we would prefer you can’t get 100-200 million from the tax payer of San Jose, and don’t forget you know you will be losing that revenue sharing as well.
    You know come to think of it we (MLB), fill that it’s simply too much debt for you to keep on the books, so no.
    If MLB is going to let the A’s have San Jose, only to make it imposable for them to achieveive their goals there, then they need to help them achieve those goals in Oakland, since its MLB that’s holding them to two counties out of nine in their own designated area. MLB should have the A’s on permanent revenue sharing, and loan the A’s or city of Oakland 100-200 million to defray some of the cost (like the NFL), I so sick of this situation, could you tell (-:

  120. re: f MLB is (not) going to let the A’s have San Jose, only to make it imposable for them to achieve their goals there, then they need to help them achieve those goals in Oakland, since its MLB that’s holding them to two counties out of nine in their own designated area. MLB should have the A’s on permanent revenue sharing, and loan the A’s or city of Oakland 100-200 million to defray some of the cost (like the NFL), I so sick of this situation, could you tell (-:

    …Agreed. Except it shouldn’t be a loan but a flat-out grant. Oakland can’t take any money from public services and use it to pay back MLB. But does MLB love Oakland so much to do whatever it will take to keep the A’s there? I don’t believe it does. Just ask Bud “Moving the A’s to Oakland was a horrible mistake” Selig. MLB will shop the team to the highest bidder city before it lets the A’s stay on permanent revenue-sharing and helps pay for a stadium in Oakland.

  121. @pjk I could not agree more.

  122. @Lakeshore/Neil, I think you are over analyzing the situation. When MLB is ready to resolve the ballpark issue for the A’s, they will not allow these other side issues to get in the way. Wherever the A’s get their new ballpark, it will be in MLB’s self interest that the A’s will be operating most successfully at that venue. MLB would not allow the side issues, which you previously stated, to put an unnecessary added burden to the A’s in their new ballpark. The A’s in a privately funded San Jose ballpark could still face potential risks as well as obvious hopeful rewards at that site. On the other hand, if the A’s are ultimately forced to remain in their less lucrative East Bay designated territory, they should continue to be compensated with small market revenue sharing. What matters most is that the A’s franchise will be able to successfully operate within the Bay Area for many years to come. Getting a new ballpark is that first necessary step.

  123. They won’t be “forced” to remain in the East Bay. Selig already has said the A’s could move if the owners desire. The deal is, the A’s can stay in the East Bay or move out of the Bay Area, but they won’t be able to go to San Jose. It’s a situation that must have MLB advocates in Portland, San Antonio, Las Vegas, etc, salivating. If it’s “Stay in Oakland and require MLB welfare” or “Move out of tbe Bay Area area and make $$$ in some faraway place,” what do you think MLB will do? MLB teams are precious commodities to throw money at, like what Cobb County, Ga. is doing. MLB has little tolerance of the “No taxpayer $$ for billionaires!” business. Selig already has said if a city doesn’t want MLB, MLB won’t stay there. And refusing to spend public $$ on a ballpark = not wanting MLB. Does San Jose want the A’s bad enough to spend taxpayer $$ to get them? Nope.

  124. @IIpec
    Thanks I probable am overanalyzing it; sure would not be the first time someone said that to me.

  125. @pjk
    The A’s would still be on revenue sharing, if they were to move to any of the three places you listed, now the tax money may be enough to get them there, but none of those markets are worth half of the Bay Area (not that the A’s are getting half of the Bay Area baseball fans), but you get the point.
    That’s part of MLB dilemma, they really don’t have a viable market to move them to, as of yet and it’s going to be some time before one of these municipalities comes up with the offer that will blow MLB out of the water, but I agree with you in that that may happen, before anything can get done in the Bay Area.

  126. Lakeshore: What good is keeping the A’s in the lucrative Bay Area if they are confined to the one spot that is not lucrative but is struggling? They require league welfare to survive in the “lucrative” Bay Area now. Just wait till Portland or one of those other cities makes a nice taxpayer-funded ballpark proposal to MLB. It’ll be bye bye A’s. As I’ve said before, the expansion fees MLB collected in the ’90s, by putting teams in Colorado, Phoenix, etc, have been more than cancelled out by the league welfare now paid out to Oakland. MLB can’t get a new stadium in the A’s current territory and, as you said, has no place left to move the team. For the moment, anyway. Had, say, Denver or Arizona been left open instead of getting an expansion team, the A’s would probably already be in one of these cities.

  127. @Pjk
    Can’t, argue with that my friend. The A’s were on their way to Denver all the way back in, I think it was 78-79?

  128. @LSNeil – “The A’s would still be on revenue sharing, if they were to move to any of the three places you listed” – that is incorrect. According to the CBA, should the A’s build a new stadium ANYWHERE, they would go off of MLB welfare aka revenue sharing.

    • @Anon – Your assertion is incorrect. If the A’s build a stadium in what baseball calls the #7 market, the Bay Area, they’ll have to forego revenue sharing. There is no mention of what would happen if the A’s left the Bay Area.

  129. @Anon
    Thanks, I know what it says, at the moment, but it will be amended (in my opinion), if the A’s move to Los Vegas, Portland, or San Antonio, they will bring in less revenue than they do in Oakland, and soon will be at the bottom of the league, dead last and in need of revenue sharing.
    The CBA, says “the A’s will be on revenue sharing, till they build a new stadium”, ok so what? MLB also says the Giants own San Jose, and that could change as well. The only place I believe that will apply is in San Jose, if the A’s build in Oakland or their current territory they will be eligible for the revenue sharing program (IMHO), and if it’s in any of the three city listed outside California it will be a necessity, well that’s in less MLB is out to utterly destroy one of its charter ball clubs, which you know they just may be.

  130. Lakeshore/Neil is right. It’s impossible to predict the conditions under which the next CBA will be negotiated in 2016. However, I can say this with absolute, unwavering certainty. Lakeshore/Neil is very polite.

  131. @LSNeil – Why would the A’s move to a place that brings in even less revenue? That makes no absolute business sense at all. And while I do not know all the particulars of the CBA and the MLB Constitution, I think you’re misjudging the difficulty it would take to embed something like an agreement between MLBPA and MLB vs. a document “loosely” written by the owners, (misguided) by the commish. If you think otherwise, why would the verbiage be added in the first place then?

  132. Sigh…u do guys realize that with MLB loosing some popularity unless u in Boston, N.Y,L.A or Chicago. ..the SF Giants will easily grab all fair weather/casual fan in the entire bay area and beyond…if the thr A’S leave the bay area. (I could picture Mayor Quan wearing a SF giants cap…even ppl in Oakland in Oxbridge area or fruitvale BART wearing Sf giants gear…it’s just that sad.

    I have optimism that Mark Davis and Colony and Bay ig are going to make the newest smallest nfl stadium come to life. Especially since these guys will have ownership stake now. I do hope Lew Wolff can get some land to develop a ballpark (maybe near Edgewater rd) but at least Raiders stadium will be finalized end of year 😉

  133. @Anon Re:Why would the A’s move to a place that brings them even less revenue?, Well first of all I am not the person that said they would move to one of those three places,its was Pjk. But I will take it on, they (the A’s) wont be the ones that make the choice, it will MLB, why? 1# tax money, one of these places is going to come up with 250-350 mil or more Oakland and San Jose put together may come up with $0.00, 2# MLB may want the Bay Area to belong to the SF Giants, so they can have another maga team (like Boston), if they move the A’s to a smaller place they still bring in new fans, and create a new maga team in the Bay, if they are going to have the A’s on revenue sharing anyway, why not bring in new fans, while getting money fron the local tax base at the same time. In short at that point it wont be the A’s, it will be MLB (think Nats), and I guess we will not see eye to eye, on the CBA which is cool.

  134. How do we know Portland, San Antonio, etc would bring the A’s less revenue? They would not have to compete with a far more popular team 8 miles away anymore.

  135. @LSNeil – maybe it’s me being too optimistic or just plain naive, but i don’t think the A’s would leave the Bay Area. If they do, I would give up baseball (my favorite sport) altogether… 😦

  136. @pjk

    Also texas breeds young teenage ballplayers…so if San Antonio can be the third texas market to grab that talent the new San Antonio A’s can field a preety darn good team. Especially being in a heavily Mexican American area (those boys can ball) so the A’s can make money in San Antonio texas. But at least the bay area will get 2 new football stadiums first 49ers then Raiders

  137. @pjk I dont know, but it sounds good when I say it. Well I dont have time to give the long answer, but I do beleive ML has been over this and I think all three places have less then half the population then the Bay Area has, I said before that dose not mean the A’s have half the baseball fans in the Bay Area, but that part is up to Lew & Co, who as I have said in the past dont market their product well, and befor you start pjk (I know you so well), I know thats not the only problem, A’s fans need to take their ass’s to the games, and I know it a wining team, but the A’s are still crapy at pushing their product, and they have been that way befor Wolff even showed up.

  138. I’ve been over this before, this marketing thing. What would you have the A’s do to better “market” their product? Send Cespades to our houses to sell tickets? The A’s have an awful stadium and have to compete with a far more popular team. And the local news media favors the Giants. I don’t want to go over the rest again…

  139. @Anon I here you and I fill the same way, but a some point if Wolff does not get San Jose, and cant or wont build in OaklandAC, he is going to sale and MLB will either take over the team (see Expos), or find a new owner with big cash, and a lot of local juice. Pjk and harry may be on to somthing San Anton, is in red state, with a lot of pride, it may be them that come up with that 250-350 mill or more in tax money. I have my issues with Wolff, but he may be the only reason the A’s are even still in the Bay Area

  140. Wolff has kept the A’s in the Bay Area when he’s always had the option to leave. But that is not enough for some folks. He is expected to build privately in Oakland regardless of ROI, or find someone else to build who doesn’t care about ROI.

  141. @pjk I here you, and you and I agree on 99% of this stuff, well perhaps 95%, and when we dont agree I think we both try to see each others side, so its cool

  142. @ML – thanks for the correction. That scares me even more now…. 😦

  143. @anon, lakeshore, pjk, llpec? Tony d and Jeffery..o and ml

    As I stated before . I don’t think MLB would give 2 cents if u guys dont watch baseball. The sf giants would be making too much money from casual fans to notice. Sad but true. Oakland only victory is getting the Raiders a new stadium and hoping the GS Warriors sit at Oracle Arena

  144. re: I don’t think MLB would give 2 cents if u guys dont watch baseball. The sf giants would be making too much money from casual fans to notice.

    …I agree.

  145. The A’s are not moving to San Jose because San Jose got impatient, and decided to sue the lodge. Should had dropped the lawsuit a long time ago and requested an expansion team. Should had put down the coffee.

    San Antonio, Portland, Montana and ant other US city is out of the question, and that includes solar systems and nebula.

    The reason why the A’s haven’t moved, and are not moving, is because Oakland is viable. It can work. The pain isn’t enough for the lodge to want to start over. Sure, the A’s get a subsidy from the lodge but my sources say that the majority of owners believe Oakland can work if it has a new ball park, with CC more viable than Howard Terminal.


  146. My sources say that the A’s will stay in Oakland with a new stadium when they finalize their move down to AAA. The stadium will be correctly sized to fit the average attendance numbers of the last 10 years which is 1,400 seats. I can’t wait to go and enjoy a nice game of baseball while scouting future talent other teams will be willing to pay. Go A’s!!

  147. Ivan: Is Oakland viable without a publicly financed ballpark? Probably not. Is a privately financed ballpark viable there? Probably not. As long as Oakland is offering $0.00 for an A’s ballpark, there will be no new ballpark there.

  148. Oh, another thing …. Lew would get an ROI in Oakland, that is why the Lodge and Lew are listening! Not committing, but listening. lol

    @Ken whoever you are, take your med’s and stay away from monkey bars without padding underneath . . .

  149. @pjk

    Yes to both your questions. Why do I feel like Daniel Bryan right now?

    A ballpark can happen with or without public money. Where there is a will there is a way.

    Have some faith bro.

  150. re: A ballpark can happen with or without public money.

    The A’s have been trying to get a new ballpark for close to 20 years now. Of course, somebody could always spend $1 billion to build at CC without regard to ROI. But realistically, nothing has been presented that is viable so far. That’s why the A’s are one of only two teams that have failed to get a new ballpark done in the past 20 years. Oakland declaring that a ballpark must be privately financed, like what the Giants got in Frisco, has gotten us nowhere.

  151. “re: I don’t think MLB would give 2 cents if u guys dont watch baseball. The sf giants would be making too much money from casual fans to notice.”
    …I agree.
    Re: Wow (pjk) and (harry) agree on something, highlights tonight s news at 11:00PM
    “Oh, another thing …. Lew would get an ROI in Oakland that is why the Lodge and Lew are listening! Not committing, but listening. Lol”
    I am not sure about the return, portion of the comment, but Ivan has a good point, I have said, which I don’t think is a very popular comment around here at times, the A’s can do well in Oakland and the East Bay, if it’s done right, all this talk about revenues sharing, well in less MLB is going to get rid of 1/3 of their teams they will always have to subsidies the teams with lower revenues. The A’s if done right can bring in more revenue than 8-12 teams in MLB (IMHO), again every major North American sport has revenue, so that reason on its own may not be what keeps the A’s from building in Oakland, or allows them to build in San Jose, or outside California all together.

  152. NFL 200
    Raiders 200 (Sell Shares)
    Bay Investments 300 -500 (Stake in Raiders)
    A’s 300
    Warriors 300 (Even without them it could get done, but it would help)

    • @Ivan – Good job! You’re only half a billion short. Either that’s the public subsidy, or try again. BTW, I’d be very suspicious of cost estimates for an NFL stadium coming in as low as $800 million.

      All this talk of “it’ll work out” and “you have to have faith” reeks a lot of the hype going into the Mt. Davis debacle. Voters don’t forget such mistakes so quickly.

  153. I have to side with pjk on this one, I just don’t see how it gets done in Oakland without some public money, hell it looks like MLB will not allow Lew Wolff to build private in San Jose, without public money, and as pjk often points out it the lack of public money, which may ultimately drive the A’s from the Bay Area.

  154. @Ivan
    NFL 200
    Raiders 200 (Sell Shares)
    Bay Investments 300 -500 (Stake in Raiders)
    A’s 300
    Warriors 300 (Even without them it could get done, but it would help
    Re: Just because something can be done, does not mean it will be done. MLB could also decide to give Lew Wolff 500 million dollars to build in Oakland, but it probably will not happen. We don’t know this for sure, but it appears one of the reasons, MLB may have turned down the A’s request for San Jose in June 2013 was because they wanted tax Money to go along, with what Wolff wanted to do, Wolff was willing to build it himself, so there is an example of something can be done (Wolff wiling to privately build), and something not getting done (MLB not allowing Wolff to build, possibly in part due to there being no tax money tied to the project)

  155. And, rather than consider spending taxpayer dollars on a ballpark to get the A’s, a proposal that would be DOA, San Jose is in court trying to ram through its original proposal: Discounted land and existing infrastructure, no $$ for construction. Even the discounted land has ruffled some feathers – there are local people who want the A’s to pay market value, even though the team proposed a $500 million privately financed construction project in downtown San Jose…

  156. Location, location, location.

    I think the ” Public money to Play ball ” argument is getting old. As more and more municipalities struggle, even the financially stable ones are skeptical to give up 10 -15% of the their general fund for a game the municipality won’t make money on. Most studies have shown a new ball park does little to nothing for increasing jobs or tax revenue in an area. but puts a hell of a strain on the general fund. Building a stadium typically has overruns the tax payer would have to cover as well.

    Owners definitely have a bargaining chip in moving a team if the host city doesn’t want to give public tax dollars (See Washington D.C. the past 20 years).

    The bargaining chip here is different because of the location. This ain’t humbuck, nowhere / this is the Bay Area. That is valuable to an investor looking to exit at sometime in the future . .even if it’s in Oakland . ..whether you personally like it or not. This is California, the most populace state.

    I’m not in favor of public funding and I think California municipalities have an edge over some other parts of the country in this matter, because of the location. We don’t have to budge, giving land at CC is enough.

  157. I remember the Mount Davis mess: I figured, like many, that there would be no trouble selling out the Coliseum for the Raiders’ return. I was wrong. The team and city ended up with unsold tickets, unsold luxury suites, unsold PSLs. Followed by big taxpayer subsidies to make up the massive shortfall.

  158. re: Most studies have shown a new ball park does little to nothing for increasing jobs or tax revenue in an area.

    …And I’ll bet this same anti-stadium argument was factored in considered strongly by Seattle before they lost their NBA team. And Houston, Cleveland, etc before they lost their NFL teams.

  159. re: he bargaining chip here is different because of the location. This ain’t re: humbuck, nowhere / this is the Bay Area. That is valuable to an investor looking to exit at sometime in the future . .even if it’s in Oakland . ..whether you personally like it or not. This is California, the most populace state.

    …if a privately funded ballpark were such a no-brainer anywhere in the Bay Area, Wolff or Schott would have already built one in Oakland. But it’s not that simple, is it? We already know Oakland does not have the corporate $$ to make a privately funded ballpark work. Putting the stadium 40 miles away from this corporate $$ is not going to work.

  160. @ PJK

    Seattle, Houston and Cleveland are not in the Bay Area. No offense to anyone from these cities.

    The one team that did move, came back to Oakland.

  161. Ivan: The Raiders came back because Oakland paid for 120-something luxury suites, which the Raiders have had trouble leasing. Al Davis was skittish about coming back, asking one of the local columnists if the Oakland area could afford the team. Had Al gotten the stadium deal he wanted in LA, he’d have stayed there…Once again, if building anywhere in the Bay Area, including Oakland, is the no-brainer you say it is, Schott or Wolff would have already done it.

  162. tax money, tax money tax, money.

  163. @ pjk

    Maybe we should give them a 1400 seat stadium, like mentioned before by that kid Ken, and call it a day after all for the A’s. They could compete with the Rivercat’s and Port’s.

    This whole thing is too much trouble.

    @ML my sources tell me that their might be available state funds for redevelopment coming back. After Californians voted for tax increases, things ended up better than expected.

    • @Ivan – The form of redevelopment being pushed by Governor Brown is extremely weak. It’s not something that should be counted on, especially for the big ticket parts of a project like Coliseum City. Additional bills going through the legislature might provide limited infrastructure funding, but that’s outside the $2.1+ billion for the venues.

  164. It would be perfect. The new Bay Series will be between the A’s and San Jose Giants.

  165. @Ivan

    I disagree with u. Tax money should be used for sports. The team represents the city and it actually does attract money into the city (if team is succesful) the ones hitching are the cities that are struggling with a struggling team. I know plenty of ppl scared to death that they could lose their job if all the Oakland teams leave. So that fieldofschemes argument is weak.

    However the redevelopment money will help keep again the Raiders the only team that wants to stay in Oakland. .

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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.