Bruce spends 3+ hours talking Oakland, A’s stadium issues (Update: Quan backtracks)

Update 5:00 PM – Mayor Quan backtracks on the Crown Prince of Dubai claim. Oops.

Say what you will about Damon Bruce’s radio persona or his supposed allegiances. When he wants to drill down on a topic, he drills down. Other than the scheduled weekly segment with Warriors power forward David Lee, Bruce spent the entire time yesterday from 3:30 to 7 talking about the stadium situation in Oakland, specifically related to the A’s. Bruce said that he wanted to get past the blame game and cut through all of blah blah blah, as he described it. That he most certainly did, though the reveal mostly left more questions in its wake.

At 3:30 Bruce interviewed Andy Dolich, who maintained that the Coliseum is still the best place to build new venues for both the Raiders and A’s. Dolich spent the bulk of his extended segment throwing cold water on everything else: San Jose, Howard Terminal, A’s ownership. Dolich even took some credit for the 49ers stadium in Santa Clara, which is bizarre considering that he was against the move at many points and not involved in its planning.

Dolich ended up being the warmup act for what followed. At 5, Bruce interviewed Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, who was clearly not prepared for the grilling that Bruce gave her. He asked about the lack of progress on the two stadium plans and asked the mayor to make a choice between the two. Throughout it all Quan dodged and hemmed, and finally got rather defensive about her record on the subject. Then, when discussing Coliseum City, name dropped the crown prince of Dubai as an investor in the plan, which for Bruce was as exciting as a little girl hearing the word “pony” or a dog seeing a squirrel. There’s plenty of money represented here, from Colony Capital and its inherent ties to Qatar to Rashid Al Malik and his Dubai ties. That’s a distraction though, since Qatar and Dubai would provide the silent money. The true face of the money is Colony’s Tom Barrack, who really wants a piece of a team, and a controlling piece if possible. Barrack drove the attempt to buy AEG last year, before Phil Anschutz decided that the various competing bids weren’t high enough and took the company off the market. Colony is also involved in the Chargers’ stadium plans, which are quite similar in scope to what the JPA is trying to do with Coliseum City. In all three cases, Barrack wanted controlling interest in a team (40%) in exchange for the stadium being built. That has me thinking, What if Barrack gets a stadium deal done in San Diego? Does that mean his goal of getting a team and stadium built is completed, making Coliseum City and the Raiders unnecessary? The reverse could easily be asked as well. Fortunately for Raiders fans, San Diego is the one major city in California with an even more dysfunctional government and leadership than Oakland, so no immediate worries there. Still, it’s worth wondering if these opportunities are finite, at least from Colony’s perspective.

After Quan’s interview, Oakland Council Member Larry Reid called into the show to clarify some things the mayor said about Coliseum City. Reid, who also acts as the Vice Chair of the Coliseum Authority (JPA), suggested to Bruce that he speak to JPA Chair (and Alameda County Supervisor) Nate Miley for the real scoop on the project. Reid also dropped a bit of a bombshell:

REID: (The JPA’s) conversation (with MLB) has been much different from what the mayor has said on the radio. Look, the mayor knows that MLB has clearly said that they do not like the Howard Street Terminal (sic). Lew Wolff has said he does not like the Howard Street Terminal. His preference…it would be in the Coliseum. Our focus with the A’s is trying to figure out a way, how to do that deal.

BRUCE: Why do you think the mayor came on as an advocate for the Howard Street Terminal if she already knows that it’s dead in the water?

REID: Well, that’s a question that you have to raise with her. She knows what MLB has said to us, has said to me, and has said to Supervisor Miley in a meeting we had most recently less than two weeks ago. MLB’s preference as well as Mr. Wolff’s preference is the Coliseum area.

Clearly, additional context is needed here. First of all, has MLB’s preference been the Coliseum only recently, or has it been this way for some time? For nearly a year proponents of Howard Terminal have claimed that MLB prefers their waterfront locale. Reid represents the JPA, so he has a vested interest in the choice the same way Oakland Waterfront Ballpark and Doug Boxer would. So who’s right? What was the process in getting to this point?

The mayor’s hands-off approach has created the appearance of two competing factions. On one hand there’s the JPA and the now-departed Fred Blackwell running Coliseum City. On the other hand there’s OWB, Let’s Go Oakland, and the Port having their own discussions. Usually the city manager/administrator would moderate both discussions by being involved, but Blackwell’s focus was much greater on Coliseum City than Howard Terminal. And with both “tenured” city managers gone in Blackwell and Deanna Santana, that would leave the Mayor to make decisions. Except that she hasn’t made decisions. It’s not her vision, and she’s been to content to get to this point with the understanding that MLB would make the decisions for her or force the A’s to make a decision between the two sites.

Well, now the A’s are making a choice, though it’s not exactly how Oakland and the JPA wants it. Wolff and Fisher seem to want the Coliseum without the City, so that they can mold the project in their own way. It’s only possible if Oakland lets go of the Raiders, or if the Raiders give up on Oakland. Oakland’s trying to keep both teams in place, so they’re offering these solutions that neither league nor franchise fully endorses. Truth be told, neither team wants to share a complex – let alone a stadium – as long as precious land is in play to help fund new stadia. The NFL is waiting for the A’s to leave the Coliseum, and MLB is waiting for the Raiders to do the same.

While the A’s and Raiders come into this with somewhat similar goals, their prospects away without the existing Coliseum are much different. The Raiders a have much better short-term future because of Santa Clara. However, their long-term prospects are shaky because the financing aspect of a new Raiders stadium is so difficult and daunting. The A’s have poor short-term prospects because they have no temporary home other than the Giants’ offer of AT&T Park for a short time. Long-term is much better, mostly because the cost of a ballpark is more manageable and they could have other sites in Howard Terminal and San Jose. Alternate sites for the Raiders, such as Concord or Dublin, are so far off that they’re not worth considering.

I’ve been saying for sometime that anyone who claims to know how this is going to play out is clearly trying to sell something. Better to let the process continue, and let the chips fall where they may.

73 thoughts on “Bruce spends 3+ hours talking Oakland, A’s stadium issues (Update: Quan backtracks)

  1. re: The NFL is waiting for the A’s to leave the Coliseum, and MLB is waiting for the Raiders to do the same.

    …This is flat-out hilarious. I’m not disputing it, but it is a funny situation “You leave!” “No, YOU leave!” Almost as funny as two cities (San Jose and Oakland) both fighting tooth and nail for the A’s but both offering a grand total of $0.00 for ballpark construction. Which means there is no bidding war between the cities for MLB to play off of. “$0.00! Do I hear 25 cents? Anybody? Anybody?”

  2. I love how Quan says one thing and Larry Reid says another. It is pretty comical stuff. Quan is such a moron it is impossible to defend her.

    ML is right that the Raiders/A’s are waiting for the other to leave. Only in that scenario can they construct on the Coliseum site without massive complaints.

    Even if Wolff got the Coliseum to himself he would have to be given rights for the ancillary development around the ballpark for this to work. Plus MLB would have to approve the A’s stay on revenue sharing forever. This plus the Warriors could throw a wrench into this if they decide to stay at Oracle until 2027 or beyond.

    Too many moving parts….

  3. What’s going on is Oakland really really really wants the A’s to choose the Howard Terminal site so the city can concoct a way to keep both teams, without spending any public money, of course. But the HT site is a nonstarter, for all the already-mentioned reasons. Which leaves both teams fighting over the same site and neither team wanting the other there. If the city chooses the Raiders and the A’s are left with zero options in Oakland, then it will be easier for the other MLB owners to give them San Jose. But Giants are not going to yield either way. Meanwhile, MLB risks its precious, undeserved antitrust exemption just to keep the Giants happy. I guess that makes sense, right?

  4. Say what you will about Bud Selig, but he was certainly correct when he said this is a very complex issue

  5. Jed York fired Dolich because he was not getting shit done in SC and Frisco.

  6. @ pjk
    Love your first comment, but seriously I am just glad someone (Bruce in this case), dedicated as much time to the issue as was dedicated.
    Unfortunately we come out of it with more questions than answers, as ML already said we were told for I don’t know how long that MLB preferred the H.T. site but Reid says they prefer the coliseum really. Since when, and what does that even mean? Do they prefer it for Lew’s 5-10 year lease and nothing more? (We know Lew does), or do they prefer the A’s build the new park there because they will not let them do it in San Jose?

    @ Daniel
    You are so right, how do these people keep finding work? If we preformed like this we would be out on our ass

  7. Andy Dolich has said for years that the best spot for the A’s is the Coliseum site. Many pro-SJ fans dismissed his professional credibility because of that one estimation, which is absurd. As anyone following this saga should know by now, decisions are made from available options. If you’re buying a home, you choose from available options. Your first choice might fall through, so you go to your 2nd option and so on. Wolff knows better than anyone that you can’t stand still and it’s his duty to move forward with other options as long as Plan A is frozen.

  8. @ Briggs
    I agree with you on that Dolich has a point, if option A (San Jose) is not available because of the San Francisco Giants territorial rights, and option B (Fremont), is too complicated (NIMBY/available site) for a variety of reasons, and options D (Portland), or E (San Antonio), are not as attractive or as easy to pull off (perversely disused potential fillings of Seattle, Texas, and Houston clubs), as C (the Oakland Coliseum), you may have to fall back to option C, that is unless you refuse to commit to the project, and your committer (Raiders), does and you out in the cold.
    One thing the Oakland Coliseum site has, that no other site can claim it is and always has been the path of lest resistance.

  9. Dolich brought up the fact that Wally Haas had given up the A’s shared territorial claims to the South Bay for the exclusivity of the Giants. However, was this done at the time on condition that the Giants would move to Santa Clara County? As it turned out the voters of Santa Clara County/San Jose voted against public funding for the ballpark, and the Giants ultimately built their new ballpark in San Francisco. The fact that the Giants did remain in San Francisco should have nullified and voided the original offer from Mr. Haas.

  10. @LSN- The Coliseum actually is the most complex of all the sites because of 3 teams sitting on top of each other.

    When Wolff proposed his Coliseum North plan he was looking at land away from the parking lots so he could build a stadium without disruption to the Raiders/Warriors.

    You cannot have a stadium being built in the parking lot because of the parking issues. This is why the A’s have not built at the Coliseum. If the Raiders leave only then does the Coliseum become the path “of least resistance.”

    As long as the A’s/Raiders share with the Warriors next door that site is not feasible. Nothing is going to change unless the Raiders get a deal on the site therefore forcing the A’s out or they move to Santa Clara.

    My bet is the Raiders are at the Coliseum for next 5 years rotting on top of the A’s.

    We all should be pulling hard for San Jose’s lawsuit to succeed. That is the path of least resistance because the land is there and the city is willing to deal.

  11. @ llpec
    That’s fare to logical, for a situation that seems to be everything but logical.
    Even if it’s true that the prince of Dubai is somehow involved in all this, which considering Quans inconsistences in the past may not be true, but if it is what in the hell is wrong with you, for publically stating that?

  12. @ Sid
    Re: The Coliseum actually is the most complex of all the sites because of 3 teams sitting on top of each other
    I agree that it’s more complex then it appears, but I don’t agree with you that it’s the “most complex”, compared to all the other (supposed), options it’s the lest complex, but we can agree to disagree its cool.

  13. @ Sid

    I also agree that we should all be pulling for San Jose, whether it’s the lewisite, or MLB coming to their senses, because San Jose may be the only thing standing between our team being in the Bay Area and options D, and E, I say this as someone that would love to see it work in Oakland, I don’t know why more Pro/Only Oakland people don’t fill this way, if you are an Oakland A’s fan (to me), you should be a real big San Jose fan at the moment.

  14. This is #%&$! hilarious! And not for reasons folks have already stated. Wolff/A’s fighting for the Coliseum?! Are you kidding me?! I have yet to read any quotes from Wolff himself stating he has abandoned the San Jose effort and is now focused on the Coli site. Why are Quan and Reid saying opposite things re HT and Coli? Because they’re all full of $hit! There’s unfortunately no other way to put it.

    Again, IF the San Jose effort falls through I’d fully expect Wolff, Fisher, and the Silicon Valley owners to revisit Fremont. Some of you want to portray some irrational NIMBYS as “not of this Earth” with limitless powers, that your #%&$! prerogative. Mr. Wolff, if you’re reading this and SJ does one day prove imposssible: don’t reward dysfunctional, incompetent Oakland leadership (who’ve blasted you and SJ since day 1) and the Giants obstruction by settling on the Coli site for the A’s long term. Thank you..

  15. BTW RM,

    My bad for the “tone” of my last comment. From time to time my frustration with all this crap boils up and it (unfortunately) flows in the commentary. No disrespect intended to folks like Lakeshore and those who would like to see the A’s stay in Oakland (non Oakland pols or “Oakland-only” type). Patience…”one day this war’s gonna end…”

  16. Tony: I’m sure Lew Wolff is not going to build in Oakland unless the deal is configured for him to actually make a return on his investment. As in – he gets development rights to the Coliseum property and probably continued revenue-sharing from MLB. He’s not going to go forward in Oakland – and neither will anyone else, for that matter – if a new ballpark in Oakland must be a charitable contribution by the owners. Once again, if MLB is so terrified of the Giants it would rather stay in Oakland and subsidize the A’s rather than get some of that Silicon Valley Big $$, I’m OK with that. It keeps the A’s in the Bay Area. I don’t really care if MLB has to subsidize it in Oakland.

  17. The A’s fan in me agrees with you pjk. The proud San Jose citizen that I am, however, sees that as the nightmare scenario come true; dysfunctional, incompetent city government and the Giants obstructionism winning the war and being highly rewarded. At least in Fremont the A’s can still be in Silicon Valley and (perhaps) still become “SJ.” But I digress: this thing ain’t over…far from it! Not giving up the SJ dream, even with the latest “news.”

  18. @ pjk/Tony D.
    That’s part of the problem with this tired ass situation, both of you are right on the money. I think most reasonable people share most of, if not all of what both of you have said.

  19. Lakeshore/Neil summed up the whole scenario very quickly “A situation seems anything but logical” – this never-ending saga has more twists than a bad soap opera.

  20. Tony: We’ve already all chosen the path of most-resistance, probably many years ago: Rooting for the Oakland A’s instead of the Giants. If the A’s get a new ballpark in Oakland, it’s just business as usual for us – a trip up 880 or across the Dumbarton Bridge to the Union City or Fremont BART station and then to the Coliseum, until closer BART stations open. We’re not losing anything. it’s business as usual. But I don’t see the A’s staying in Oakland – except to rot in the Coliseum for another decade until Portland, San Antonio or Las Vegas is ready – unless Wolff gets the deal I suggest: development rights and eternal revenue-sharing. Hey, MLB can even argue that it’s not as greedy as people think if it shoehorns the A’s into a new ballpark at the Coliseum site and turns down all that Silicon Valley $$. We know the Giants are not maximizing that revenue source from 45 miles away; maybe some of the owners are dumb enough to believe that Giants are doing just that.

  21. “Once again, if MLB is so terrified of the Giants it would rather stay in Oakland and subsidize the A’s rather than get some of that Silicon Valley Big $$,”

    @pjk, The only answer to their strange steadfast backing of the Giants is that I believe MLB is fulfilling an obligation to the Giants from three MLB decisions that took place many years ago. During the early to mid 1970s Horace Stoneham had agreed to sell the Giants to Toronto interests, and during the early 1990s Bob Lurie had agreed to sell the Giants to Tampa Bay interests. Both times MLB blocked the impending sales which would have moved the team from San Francisco. To make up for these actions as well as allowing the A’s to move to the Bay Area in 1968, MLB gave the Giants a sweetheart deal of territorial exclusivity to the lucrative South Bay area. I believe,this was done as a way to hopefully guarantee that the Giants would remain in the Bay Area by giving them a competitive advantage over the A’s, especially as it relates to new ballpark locations. I believe the foolish offer by Mr. Haas to the Giants, and the the inclusion of the South Bay exclusivity to the Giants within the MLB constitution were all done to mollify the Giants so that they would likely never have a need to consider moving from San Francisco ever again.

  22. I don’t think Hass’ offering of Santa Clara County to the Giants was that foolish. Consider what would happen if the Giants moved to San Jose. Many SF and North Bay ticket buyers would become A’s customers, some corportate sponsorship would flop over, and so on.

  23. @ Briggs You make such a good point, one I have thought of many times, that Mr.Hass was working in the best interest of MLB, but he was also thinking about the future of his team being located in the center of the Bay Area by itself, he was not a fool, but I sure wish he demanded that the rights of the South Bay were contingent on the Giants actually building in the South Bay •○■♤>¿》$=÷×, wow two economically strong teams in the Bay Area

  24. @Briggs your insinuation on Haas makes no sense. He was a known and respected pholanthropist and if he wanted the A’s to own the SF area, he could of just as easily refused the Giants move forcing them into a predicament like ours today.

  25. @ Anon problem is while he could have been thinking of the best interest of baseball and perhaps the good situation that fell in his lap (having the center of the Bay Area),
    at the same time, he was not a ass like the ownership group across the Bay.

  26. Mr, Haas was foolish for giving away the South Bay to the Giants without having it contingent on the Giants actually moving there.

  27. @IIpec I sure would have to concede that point my man.

  28. Most of the people on this sight are really intelligent people with very clear bias…recognized or not. This whole ordeal is masked in we all are avid A’s fans. However I believe most of you are just wanting the same prestige and respect that Oakland is fighting for. You guys say Mr. Haas should have made all these contingencies when he passed on those rights. So most of you on this site should be very wealthy men…why because tell me who knew SJ/Silicon Valley would have become the economic juggernaut that it is today? Come on most of you are applying an 80’s/90’s paradigm to your arguments. Again constantly falling back on the ideal that Oakland couldn’t generate any corporate level because everything is based down south. I think most of you are feeling your chance of a glorified SJ is slipping because SF is stealing your techies from right under your nose…so in your minds you think you deserve the A’s…natural feeling. If you think corporate dollars won’t follow a nice new shinny thing known as Coliseum City…keep telling yourself that. Remember before some one had an aggressive vision to take farm land and turn it into the shinny thing it is today…SJ was what you went through to get to LA…using a outmoded thinking…you guys had Stanford to provide the kick start to evolving we have 3 major sports teams that our bundling leaders are trying to figure out how to make Oakland evolve! Last time I check the techie trend developed in your pot of gold is now mobile applications…well guys corporate dollars are mobile!
    From what I know as a fact AT&T is not on just that Giants ballpark but it’s also on Jerry’s world in Dallas!

  29. @llpec

    Apparently, Haas DID make it contingent on the Giants moving there.

  30. @ Trojan,

    For the record, the idea that SF is “stealing techies from right under your nose” is completely overblown by the media. Just read today’s Silicon Valley Biz Journal for details (SF vs Silicon Valley). Yeah, they have Twitter, Salesforce, Yelp, Pinterest…do we really need to list all the SJ/SV tech heavyweights to make the obvious point? 😉

  31. @ Trojan,

    Also, the Raiders have even stated that they reside in a corporate poor, “depressed” area (see private financing and what’s needed to make it happen). It’s just not us snobby South Bay folks that recognize that. Also, Oakland isn’t fighting for the A’s (pep rallies and drawing circles on maps anyone?). Take away those Giants TRights to SJ and the A’s were gone way yesterday. Lastly, AT&T Park was originally Pacific Bell Park, named for a SF company! Anything else you need to know?

  32. @trojan- yup – SF is stealing techies- lets see- Samsung building their new US headquarters in SJ- under construction- Apple building a new 14000 employee campus- under construction- a new mystery high tech company- just inked a deal to build a 10000 employee campus in SJ- yup- SF is stealing SV- and the highest per capita income in the US- yup- you guessed it- SJ- the reality is SF has become a bedroom community of SV- any wonder why the ‘9ers moved down here and the A’s would give their right nut to be down here?

  33. As I said your real passion is not the A’s it’s trying to give SJ a little name recognition. Notice you all responded to the SF comment. Hey guys I don’t control the narrative of the media perceiving SF as the silicon capital now. Also whoever said the comment about PacBell to AT&T I think you missed the point. There are multiple facilities around all leagues that corporations place their names on that aren’t where they are headquarter.

  34. @trojan- so what’s going on in Oakland? SJ may not be SF but Oakland isn’t close to being either SJ or SF

  35. @Trojan,

    If Oakland had only given a rats ass about its Major League franchise over the past 20 years, then we aren’t even talking about SJ trying to lure them NOW ARE WE. What Oakland is doing now (pep rallies, circles on maps, spewing hot air in the media) amounts to a lot of TO LITTLE, TO LATE IMHO. Also, correction to your post: the TRADITIONAL BAY AREA media (SF, OAK) perceiving SF as the so called “silicon capital (?).” Gee, the same media that doesn’t want to see the A’s in San Jose and that champions the Giants territorial rights…I’m shocked! (A little sarcasm for yah!)

    BTW, Quan back tracking and putting the dysfunction on full display…yet we’re to believe that Wolff will fight for the Coli and stay in Oakland?

  36. Lastly, no point was missed earlier because no point was made. A San Francisco company bought the naming rights to an SF stadium, only to have said name changed because of corporate acquisitions (SBC to AT&T). You tried to imply that an out of state company had the naming rights to an SF stadium from the get go; you were wrong Trojan Man! Feel free to pull a Jean Quan and backtrack anytime…

  37. You want real heresy? Flash back to late 1992, the SF Giants are almost finished packing up the moving fan and heading to the other bay, Tampa. This time, the Giants actually take the road and head east. The A’s find themselves the sole team in the market? Anyone wanna guess what they’d have done? My money is that we’d all be cheering for the SF A’s this very night. Unless, MLB offered the expansion team to SF for their loss to Tampa the A’s would be in sole possession of the market. They wouldn’t have gone south in ’92 but I’ll bet they would’ve been talked into going west.

  38. @TonyD, dude I wasn’t implying that an out of state company bought the naming rights. I simply said corporate dollars don’t just stay where they are headquarter….Oracle Arena…..last time I checked that’s in SV North…Redwood City. Oakland reputation is not good, we do have some momentum going. We want to leverage our assets to change a lot of what most of you on this site believe about the town. Sports have changed dramatically over the last 30years…it’s a rich man thing now…we get it. The Bay as a whole is a major economic engine of the world, despite most of you who think Oakland is not deserving to be the only city in Cali that has 3 major league teams…and it’s your time now. I don’t begrudge SJ, I worked there and have friends there…but I still know you are struggling for identity ….My favorite saying is…”We all want to be relevant”.
    I guess this comes down to you think your more relevant than us because currently you are more shiny …..yeah you are right we have this one term Mayor who was elected by unintended consequences (Ranked Choice) who acts like a deer in headlights. But don’t get it twisted dude Oakland has always cared about its franchises.

  39. @ Trojan,

    Aight man, Oracle Arena. Heck, you could’ve used our very own SAP Center (Germany) to boost your argument from the get go. While actually naming rights can (and do) cross city/state lines, the corporate money to lease suites, buy premium seats AND pay off stadium debts is very local (hence the lack of suite sales at Raiders games and their own commentary on the Oakland market). This is where the South Bay has a definite advantage over the traditional East Bay (Fremont not included).

    And I apologize: meant Oakland politicians haven’t cared about the A’s, not actual citizens or fan’s from The Town.

    Look, to me it’s not really about being “relevant” for wanting the A’s in SJ. It’s about creating excitement in our downtown and having that MLB experience right here in my backyard. Most importantly…it’s about not being banned from trying. Just want the freedom for SJ to try…

  40. Looks like Quan lied about the Prince of Dubai.

  41. @tonyd …you are right SJ has a huge advantage and I don’t blame SJ for trying. Oakland is trying to keep them, I’m of the opinion if the spineless politicians would just tell the citizens (Oakland /Alameda County) who oppose any public contribution to keep them a hard simple fact…”what financial burden to the city/county coffers will still be a reality if the teams leave?” Now you have facilities unused for conceivably 15 to 20 yrs with minimum if any revenue coming in at all!
    East Oakland already has the characteristics of worn torn Iraq! Development of the area will languish as long as the navy army bases in the area. So what will that part of Oakland look like if the assets are removed, not characteristics of war torn Iraq it may become Iraq.
    You are also right the Raiders feel no corp support, why would corp support come to the area as it currently stands it only has great potential, and we all know private money in minority areas will only come if government guarantees come first! Hey I digress this anit SJ problem! To me and a lot of people who care about this understand its really bigger than the A’s & Raiders relocating somewhere else, this is a complex layered convergence of economics, cultural strength and pride. I hope the Oakland East Bay electorate realize what is at stake….and if they don’t well…Again I digress…lol!

  42. @Tony D

    Havent been on here in a while….aaawww tony d made a new friend..welcome Trojan…hiccup….I’ve gone a lil insane…my pro Oakland brethren are mad that im not supporting Quan/Coliseum City ….so I give up…why cant the Raiders and A’s share the Coliseum land and build their stadiums…yeah!!! Hiccup! !!

  43. @goA’s…sorry I just saw your respond- Oak may not be SF or SJ …but both cities want what we got…

  44. @ML what was Quan’s strategy by limiting the A’s and Raiders to two year leases? The Raiders clearly could move to Santa Clara temporarily (Mark Davis commented that Santa Clara is not a long term solution for the team – Davis didn’t say Santa Clara was not a short term solution though)Also, Wolff has suggested that the A’s could build a temporary ballpark if they don’t get a long term deal at the Coli. – Neither franchise is being backed into a corner by Oakland city officials.

  45. Yes, yes, Quan lied again:

    “OAKLAND — Despite Mayor Jean Quan’s assertion on a sports radio program, the crown prince of Dubai has not partnered with developers to build sports stadiums and an entertainment center at the Oakland Coliseum complex, city officials said Friday.

    Oakland’s mayor caused a stir Thursday during an interview on 95.7 The Game when she announced that developers working on Coliseum City “are partnered literally with the prince of Dubai, who is next in line to lead Dubai. And they have capital.”

    Quan refused to discuss her comments Friday, but acknowledged through her spokesman, Sean Maher, that the crown prince had not partnered on the deal. ”

  46. Oops, didn’t see ML’s update.

  47. Wow. And this is the city’s leader who is going to shepherd construction of $2 billion worth of modern sports facilities without using any public funds. OK…

  48. Portland’s always been on the short list of cities that could get the A’s. At least they wouldn’t be in San Jose, right?

  49. After all these years, good ole Maury is still full of crap. Force the A’s into San Jose against the Giants will, and what’s to keep the same thing from happening to other clubs elsewhere? WTF?!

    Simply amazing that some still completely close there eyes to the reality of the Bay Area market and make straw man commentary about what would happen to other clubs/markets. THE A’S AND GIANTS HAVE BEEN IN THE BAY AREA TOGETHER SINCE 1968, AND THE A’S ARE TRYING TO MOVE 35 MILES FURTHER SOUTH FROM THE GIANTS. And if (or when) MLB reverts Santa Clara County back to “shared territory” status to allow an A’s move, where else in MLB is this going to happen again? This question can’t be answered BECAUSE IT WON’T HAPPEN AGAIN. Rays hypothetically relocating to NY/NJ not the same! Will the Royals all of a sudden uproot from Kansas City and set up shop in San Bernardino County?

    See how ridiculous Maury’s statement is now. After all these years I thought Maury knew better. (at least he’s realistic about the A’s not going to Portland).

  50. BTW,
    Also love how Maury throws out the consensus of owners are not for an A’s relocation to San Jose crap…WITHOUT NO PROOF WHATSOEVER. He doesn’t know that! For all we know MLB wants to get the A’s to San Jose but are holding out until the Giants get the price they want for “their” territory. I’m sure (based on Wolff quotes) the committee has recommended SJ for the A’s. Again, the payoff…

    (FWIW, in the past I’ve tried posting commentary over at Maury’s blog but, alas, no luck with that. Guess he doesn’t like opposing viewpoints, facts. So my bad RM for blasting him here)

  51. isn’t chw’s owner reinsdorf a proponent of the a’s moving to sj and he reportedly has as much sway of any owner in the “lodge” currently due to his seniority?

    damn i hope somebody like alderson, larussa, or reinsdorf becomes the next commish of mlb.

  52. @ let’s go A’s,

    The answer to your question is YES. I’d bet most of the owners are for the A’s moving to SJ as well. But out of fairness for the Giants loosing exclusivity to SCCO, they probably want them to be rightfully compensated for their loss…Hence the payoff.

  53. Last thought for the day: GO PACQUIAO AND GO A’S!

  54. @ Tony D. Yeah a fare price and that is even unfair to the A’s, it’s a shame MLB goes through all of this for the Giant’s

  55. Maybe they can become a barnstorming team 🙂

  56. I’ve been wondering about the “MLB prefers waterfront” argument for a while now. It doesn’t make sense in view of the evidence and seems to be a pretty self serving talking point for the people with a vested interest in more development on the waterfront.
    Anyone read the Coliseum City reports yesterday. Infra work at a minimum is over $300M. More likely $450M.
    That’s before a single stadium goes up.

  57. @jeffrey- was blown away by infrastructure costs- assume that will be the same regardless if there is 1 or 2 stadiums built. When Blackwell referred to a $500M funding gap was this it- or in addition to this?

  58. @Jeffrey- you have a link up the coli infrastructure costs?

    If that is true and it’s 300M min before construction costs it’s kills the coli site almost as bad as HT.

    You would need two teams to stay min and even then it’s tough.

    I take back what I said about the coli site being feasible if the raiders leave , Wolff gets development rights and they stay on revenue sharing for life.

    It’s now clear why the BRC won’t issue a report. It would state San Jose is the most feasible and that could be used in court against mlb by sj.

  59. If that’s what it costs just to get the Coliseum site even ready before $$ is spent on new stadiums – and we know Oakland doesn’t have any of this money – then the strategy will continue: stall, stall, stall, pep rallies, get lease extensions for the same decaying stadium, resume stalling. Oakland is not going to admit that it can’t get it done for any of the teams. The respective leagues are going to have to make that acknowledgement.

  60. $300 mil. infrustructure costs for the A’s stadium at the CC – while the Diridon Station site’s costs are estimated at only $20-$70 mil.? The $300 mil. figure must include Oaklands debt for the Mt. Davis and the W’s arena upgrades – or demolishing the Coliseum.

  61. @ duffer,
    Infrastructure usually means stuff like roads, transit, utilities, parking, etc. I wouldn’t think the $300+ million figure includes the current debt or future demolitions, but I could be wrong. Either way, not looking good for my Raiders (damnit!). Looking more like “A’s Temporary Field” at Fremont post 2015.

    From beautiful Target Field to gorgeous Safeco Field; must be nice! I guess all the A’s starting pitchers are now going with the away dark green “A’s” jerseys vs light green “Oakland”…

  62. BTW, if you all get a chance check out today’s SJ Merc Biz section and the Silicon Valley 150. If any one doubts there’s enough South Bay, Peninsula corporate support to go around for the A’s and Giants, the list of SV 150 will quickly put you in check. Very, very impressive..

  63. For those who didn’t see it yesterday:

  64. No worry, JQ just announced that the princes of Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi will invest in CC and HT. They will build new stadiums for the W’s , Raiders and A’s. The timing is not known yet but JQ will have release further info in near future.

  65. Either Daniel is being sarcastic or he didn’t bother reading the post.

  66. SMG, sarcastic. Very, very sarcastic.

  67. Everyone talking about the city not being able to pay for this, infrastructure cost will be on the tax payers from grants etc, as they are using this development to tap various sources within the state.

  68. Pingback: Bay Area Sports Guy – March ratings and some notes on Byrnes, Bruce, Barnett

  69. @K
    I was thinking about tax revenues along those lines, I recall you bringing up the fact that the money may be there for a total BART tear down and rebuild, you even provided documentation for it.
    I hope Oakland/ Alameda comes up with some creative ways to get this infrastructure paid for, weather its taping money from Sacramento or the Federal Government, and that may not even be enough 325-425 million for infrastructure cost is a lot of money.

  70. @Lakeshore Yes looks like some of the things I mentioned are finally coming to light, but damn if the infrastructure is on the high end of the estimated, that is a lot of money, but like I said the Developers know some laws/ regulations that they may be trying to exploit with out voter approval but not sure they can get that much.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.