A’s lease extension comes up again

Update: Oakland Mayor Jean Quan has a response.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

Matier and Ross are reporting that Lew Wolff has requested a lease extension at the Coliseum of up to 10 years.

That would be news, except that we heard it last week. And last month. And back in December.

There is literally nothing new to report here. More importantly, what’s not being reported is that this follows a pattern. The previous lease ended after the 2013 season, but Wolff asked for an extension as early as 2011, knowing that a new ballpark was not forthcoming. The JPA was in the tough spot of negotiating new leases for both the Raiders and A’s because both leases ended in 2013. The stalemate between the A’s and the JPA forced MLB to broker a new, two year deal that solved little. It merely kicked the can down the road. Meanwhile, the Raiders secured an even shorter one-year lease, with the idea that the Coliseum City project would at least be accelerated. While that process moves on its own, Wolff continues to call for the lease.

The difference between Wolff’s requests now and from 2011-12 are that they are being reported. Headlines show as A’s willing to stay in Oakland for 10 years look good at a glance, but as long as the JPA is reluctant to work out any deal that would jeopardize its future with the Raiders, that lease will go nowhere. Yet you should expect reports like this to surface on occasion throughout this year and next, since it looks good for the A’s from a PR standpoint.

Another thing that’s being ignored is the fact that Wolff has included an escape clause if the Raiders build a stadium at the Coliseum. I haven’t seen the language, so I can’t say if the clause would be triggered by the Raiders coming to a deal with the JPA or if groundbreaking would trigger it. Either way, Wolff has been consistent in that he’s only looking out for the franchise – he wants a place for the A’s to play locally, even if that means a temporary facility. While updated plans for Coliseum City show separate stadia for the A’s and Raiders being ready by 2018, we’re not nearly at the point of determining how that would happen. Numerous questions would have to be answered, such as:

  • As the two new stadium sites are prepped and stadia constructed, how does the JPA replace all of the lost parking?
  • Will the Warriors object to the lost parking?
  • What if the numbers pencil out only for the Raiders? Or only for the A’s? Or not at all?
  • What if neither team is interested in Coliseum City as it’s being presented?

Wolff and Mark Davis are going at this stadium business in different ways. Wolff wants a lease extension, while taking that time to figure out the future either in San Jose or in Oakland. Davis is taking an opposite tack, declaring last year that it was time to stop delaying and get the stadium deal in place before any new lease. That puts the JPA in a very delicate spot. They’re already working with the Davis, though he hasn’t been satisfied with the pace or the information he’s getting. Both owners, whether in league or not, are forcing Oakland to make a difficult decision between the two franchises. Both know that it’s incredibly hard to build one stadium, let alone two right next to each other. Public resources are increasingly scarce. Fred Blackwell’s leaving before he can get any blame for this. Smart move on his part.

On a related note, two public workshops will be held next week for Oakland citizens to discuss Coliseum City. Here’s part of the flyer:

Schedule for upcoming Coliseum City workshops

Schedule for upcoming Coliseum City workshops

At some point in the next 2-3 months, the Coliseum City Specific Plan (which will cover the Coliseum complex area or Area 1) and the draft environmental impact report will be released. Review and comments for both will dovetail nicely with the ongoing lease discussions and could shape the future of the Coliseum, and pro sports in Oakland.

168 thoughts on “A’s lease extension comes up again

  1. @Sid
    Nice commentary and I agree with you on most of it.
    Re: The last thing the Giants want is a new ballpark 12 miles away in Oakland. That hurts them more than a San Jose ballpark that would be 50 miles away.
    Respectfully disagree, the last thing the Giants want is the A’s, 50 miles away in San Jose, I think the Giants will be hurt much more by a ballpark in San Jose and their actions show it, they certainly are not blocking the A’s from building anywhere in their current territory, you stated that “It is painfully obvious the East Bay is not viable”, but turned right around and said it would hurt the Giants more if the A’s where to build in this “ painfully obvious none viable area” your statement contradicts itself somewhat. Anyway I think we can all agree on the first thing the Giants want and that is, for the A’s to be out of the Bay Area altogether.
    I do agree with, just pointing out (to pjk specifically and everyone in general), that there are two sides to this (or three, or four, or five), and as much as Oakland plays the victim role, Lew does as well, perhaps not as much but he does (to me).

  2. I’m an A’s and Raiders fan. But really I would rather the Raiders go elsewhere and leave Oakland to the A’s than vice versa. 8-10 games a year vs. 81? Isn’t it a non-issue in terms of what works better?

    But then again, football ALWAYS gets what it wants. Look at the stadium in Minnesota, billion dollars just because the Vikes threatened to leave town. More cities need to just say NO to the nfl and let them follow up on their empty threats to move to Los Angeles.

  3. The Giants know this: There is no public funding for a ballpark in the East Bay and, privately funding one there would require several miracles from above. So when the Giants box the A’s into their current, limited territory, it is essentially the same as keeping them from getting a new stadium.

  4. You know the thing that really hurts the Coliseum City project is how 880 slices the development in two. They’re going to need a trolley car or shuttle system to keep Coliseum City a walkable community, which is what home buyers are wanting more these days.

  5. For fun, if I were considering buying a unit at Coliseum, I’d rather have the stadia on the other side of 880 and have the residential buildings closer to BART. It’d be a drag if you have to walk/trolley from BART to the other side of 880 twice daily for your work-commute.

  6. @ye ye
    dude public funding is not going away anytime soon. ..its better for cities to find for hard leases when they provide public funding for venues. ..

  7. I was under the impression that there is not enough space on the current site to build simultaneously a NFL sized football stadium and a MLB ballpark without disturbing the existing Coliseum and Arena structures. I’m not even taking into account the loss of parking, or the added costs with such a massive simultaneous project, especially as it relates to the costs of uprooting the surrounding infrastructure(i.e. utilities, BART connection, etc.)

  8. @llpec- I think it is doable for the right price- meaning Oakland will need to pay all 3 tenants for loss of parking revenues and also establish additional parking locations to offset lost spaces at somewhere reasonably close- given the grading that has to occur at both proposed stadium spots to avoid the below sea level issue makes it even that much more challenging.

  9. Update: Mayor Quan has a response.

    Mayor Jean Quan tells ABC7 News she won't support longer lease for A's unless team commits to staying in Oakland. pic.twitter.com/yI5Usblu5X— Laura Anthony (@LauraAnthony7) April 16, 2014

  10. So quan won’t support a longer lease unless team commits to staying in Oakland….did I miss the part as to what Oakland is committing to the A’s so they can evaluate whether or not to stay?

  11. That should endear Oakland to MLB. The city has neglected the team for years, expects a free ballpark and has only proposed inadequate sites. This is going to make it easier for MLB to move the team somewhere else. Is Oakland going to help the A’s pay for a stadium if the team commits to Oakland? Nope.

  12. Likely next step for Oakland: Announce it has investors (the so-called Clorox group) interested in committing to Oakland if Wolff won’t. Likely step afterward: Wolff will be pressured to sell the team at a fraction of what it is actually worth (thereby bringing down franchise values league-wide. How can the Cubs be worth $! billion if the A’s only sold for $250 million?). And the new ownership group will not be prepared to set up an escrow account to ensure a stadium is built but will want to “study” the issue for another 5 to 7 years. At the conclusion of that time period, the A’s will still be stuck in the Coliseum with no new home in sight, unless the place has already been demolished for the Raiders.

  13. @Briggs – But in that that twice-daily walk from BART to your home, you’d be likely to drop a few bucks on coffee and a bagel, or drinks and dinner!

  14. Wolff’s response should be “Well, sure. We’ll considered, but only after Oakland actually proves it’s made the same commitment.”

  15. Well that’s what she says publicly. It’s no doubt a negotiating tactic.

  16. It looks like Quan and Oakland have chose sides. The Raiders can stay at the Coliseum, the A’s build a temp ballpark (preferably in San Jose) This way Davis doesn’t have to up with the annoying baseball diamond/football field – and the A’s can speed up the move to SJ.

  17. Wonder how Coliseum employees – food vendors and the like – would feel about having their work year reduced from 90 days (A’s + Raiders) down to just 10 because Oakland loves the Raiders more than the A’s.

  18. ML must have good sources (evidently better than Tim Kawakami’s) ML predicted the concept of a temporary A’s ballpark way before anyone else did. It seemed bizarre at the time – now there is a good chance of it occurring.

    • @duffer – It’s not really sources. It’s me thinking everything through, all the possibilities.

  19. Well after learning of Quan response on wanting a longer commitment which really means build a ballpark in Oakland or no long lease in fact she or Oakland will offer Davis the Coliseum and do as he pleases while force the A’s homeless…then Oakland will offer some of the Coliseum land and tell wolff to build that temp ballpark. …

  20. This hardball approach to the A’s by Mayor Quan is nothing more than political grandstanding. This lease issue could all be moot if the Raiders get their stadium deal done on the Coliseum footprint. On the other hand, if a Raiders stadium at CC can’t be worked out, then Oakland will look very foolish leaving the Coliseum vacant for at least eighty-one guaranteed event dates each year. Finally, this hardball tactic by Oakland will only serve to force MLB’s hand to give approval for the A’s to move to San Jose.

  21. It’s a good thing JQ doesn’t sit on the JPA.

  22. All these years of Selig burying his head in the sand and refusing to put the A’s on the agenda at owners meetings have led to this – the A’s may not have a place to pay in two years. Nice leadership, Bud. Just do nothing – that’s always a solution.

  23. RM, a little off topic, but would you go on the Damon Bruce show on 95.7? He has this “get a stadium built in Oakland” mission and has no clue of what’s up. I feel he hasn’t done any research and is speaking to the wrong people who say that all of these Oakland sites are viable and are in the “Lew lied” crowd. I think talking to you (someone who knows the factual history & actually goes to the city meetings) will give him a clear understanding of what can work (in Oakland or anywhere else), the true cost of building & why ownership prefers the south bay. I have no affiliations or connections w/ 95.7 so I couldn’t get you on. I’m just tired of hearing idiots who don’t know anything factual call in.

  24. These media folks are very high on ego and very short on business acumen and actual facts. Sounds like this Bruce guy will believe what he wants to believe – that Oakland is as viable as San Jose, the A’s owners are evil greedy meanies, Oakland is a blameless victim, blah blah blah. Business as usual from the East Bay-Frisco media. We have a private organization – the Giants – denying the city of San Jose the right of self determination on this particular issue and none of these so-called “journalists” even cares. Actually, they take the Giants side in this. A real journalist would have investigated this years ago and done an award-winning series of reports on it. Instead, we have cheerleaders looking to keep MLB out of San Jose.

  25. Re: Quan statement


  26. @LSN- You missed my point and here is why:

    When the Giants/A’s were on equal footing the A’s got better attendance than the Giants for a number of years. In other years it was pretty close.

    When Scott got Oakland to agree to a renovated baseball only Coliseum it hit Magowan hard.

    Magowan did not want the A’s to get an upper hand 14 miles away so he did the “logical” thing and was negotiating with Schott the Santa Clara site so the A’s could move 50 miles away.

    This point makes sense as if the A’s had a renovated Coliseum vs. Candlestick the A’s would start killing them attendance wise….look at Pac Bell vs. Coliseum today.

    The moment the Raiders came back Magowan realized the Coliseum was going to be ruined for baseball and backed away from negotiations. Leverage had flipped from Schott to Magowan.

    Once Magowan saw the A’s were bottled up in Oakland in a dump and he got his stadium on China Basin….Why negotiate any further? He knew the Giants would beat the A’s in attendance forever going forward.

    San Jose is 50 miles away and if you ask 90% of South Bay baseball fans they will tell you SF AND Oakland are too far to go to games consistently. That 10% are “hardcore” and are the big minority.

    I went to the Dodgers-Giants last night for work and I did not get home until midnight and I was dead tired. Would I go back today or tomorrow? No, it is too much to spend 2 hours total commuting from SJ.

    The Giants get 90% of their season ticket holders from North Bay, East Bay, SF proper, and Peninsula. The South Bay is a small piece of the pie….The Giants lump the Peninsula/South Bay together as their argument but that is not valid.

    Traffic is horrible going into San Jose from the Peninsula at night on 280 and 101. Fans would still go to ATT park over Cisco Field in San Jose because of this.

    As you can see the Giants argument of San Jose being so important is BS in every way. San Jose would not take away fans from them being so far, it is Oakland who would.

  27. @Sid
    Respectfully- I did not miss your point, I find you to be insightful and your comments to be well thought-out, I just don’t agree with you on what the “last thing the Giants would want”, portion of what you said on the prior post. I did however tell you that I agreed with most everything you said.
    You said the last thing the Giants want is the A’s building a new ballpark in Oakland (12 miles away)
    I said the last thing the Giants want is the A’s to move to San Jose and build a new ballpark (50 miles away)) I think its actually closer, but it does not matter.
    You gave your reasons why you thought that was the case, and I gave my reasons as to why I thought it was not the case, we can agree to disagree, it’s cool, but I did not miss your point.
    As I said in my response to you , one thing I think we all can agree on is what is the first thing the Giants would like to see concerning the A’s (if not the last), and that is the A’s being out of the Bay Area all together.

  28. I don’t think the Giants worry too much about a new ballpark in Oakland because nearly 20 years of efforts to get one have failed. The Giants know there is no public money and insufficient private money for such a project, never mind no ideal sites.

  29. @pjk
    If you were responding to the comments (conversation), between Sid and I (I apologize if not), the point is not how long it’s been since nothing has happened in Oakland, or how likely it is that something will, the point is which place (Oakland or San Jose), is the ‘last place the Giants want a new ballpark”
    I was responding to what Sid said:
    “The last thing the Giants want is a new ballpark 12 miles away in Oakland. That hurts them more than a San Jose ballpark that would be 50 miles away.”
    Sid thinks it’s Oakland, I Think its San Jose
    The Giants not having to worry, or Oakland’s efforts such as they have been, private money (we know it’s less then San Jose), or ideal sites, does not speak to which place the Giants would fill is ‘The last thing the Giants want a new ballpark 12 miles away in Oakland”, the issues you sited certainly elude to the idea that a ballpark, in Oakland is not the last thing the Giants would want to see, but I think we all know what the challenges are, again I apologize if you were not responding to Sid or myself.

  30. Personally I don’t see the gints impacted negatively in either scenario. ML published a post one time that showed the majority of baseball fans (those willing to buy season tix) come from a 30 mile radius around a ballpark. Assuming this is true then it supports the notion that SCCo territory has a significant of additional potential.

    So why are the gints so opposed then to a move by the A’s to SJ- they realize it’s the A’s best/only chance of staying in the Bay Area. Recognize all of these sites in Oakland the gints have access to the economics no different than LW. If the gints are successful in keeping the A’s out of SJ they will win the ultimate prize and have the Bay Area all to themselves. LW is a hero not a villain for putting up with this bs and trying to secure a new home for the A’s in the Bay Area.

  31. @Lakeshore/Neil I’m pretty sure the Giants would not care if the A’s Built in Oakland. I actually spoke to Larry Baer as we were leaving the Warriors game about two weeks ago and he said he doesn’t mind the A’s in Oakland and they are staying “Right here” in Oakland, Warriors on the other hand if a deal can be made between him and Lacob there def gone. My reasoning is yes I believe the A’s will and can succeed in Oakland even more so at HT but I do know that corporate money in Silicon Valley is a lot more than the East Bay/Sac etc so why would the Giants give up that money. Yes they both can succeed in the Bay Area but staying in Oakland and not moving to SJ will not affect the mass income that the Giants are getting, so yes SJ is farther away in “miles” but the Giants get to keep Silicon Valley dollars.

  32. The Giants are getting that Silicon Valley money now. They only get a few dollars from Silicon Valley companies. And why would they when the stadium is an hour away? The A’s, meanwhile, are subsidized by MLB, a money loser requiring league welfare.

  33. correction: are NOT getting

  34. Wow, K’s post looks like Tim Kawakami himself wrote it.

  35. @pjk You may be right, but we don’t know the long term vision of the Giants or future plans you don’t know, they are holding on for it for a reason and it must be a money maker for them to do so, they only have access to there books and what comes from where and there stance proves that Silicon Valley is a very high priority in business strategy. It’s all a business so no one can be mad at them, I wish we could all look at these leagues as sports and fun for us to enjoy but the fact is all of these leagues are ran as a huge billion dollar business now, not a exhibition game anymore for our enjoyment.

  36. @pjk and just because you don’t like something someone wrote how about you come with more logic than responses like raising your voice and pushing your chest out gets a point across. IT’s cute for others but how about having a debate about the issue, it discredits your self and what you want to get across when you do.

  37. Quick: name 5 major SV corporate sponsors for the Giants (I can think of only 1 for the Giants). Conversely, name major EB corporate sponsors for the A’s (I can think of maybe 2).

  38. @K
    Thanks-agree 100%
    I realize San Jose and Silicon Valley is the best place in the Bay Area for the A’s from an economic standpoint (my opinion), but the narrative that people lay out, that it can’t work in Oakland is ridicules (also my opinion), the revenue sharing system, or as its referred to many times as welfare, is often cited as to why it can’t work in Oakland, and as I have said many times (seems like on deaf ears), every major North American sport has revenue sharing (NFL, NBA, NHL), and a hard salary cap, other than MLB, not that MLB does not have one, they do ( its soft), and apparently it’s getting a little stricter over time.
    I have also brought up the fact that unless MLB wants 4-6 teams each in the American and National league, they will have to have some form of revenue sharing, if all a person read was the comment section of most blogs or newspapers they would think the Oakland A’s don’t make money but they do just not nearly as much as the New York’s and Los Angeles’s of the world, I believe the A’s can do really well in Oakland/East Bay, if it’s done right, does that mean they can’t be done better in San Jose (economically), of course not.
    I believe Oakland/East Bay, which is still surrounded by the rest of the Bay Area is better (economically), then 8-10 other MLB markets, so while San Jose may be the best place on planet earth (maybe not but its damn good), Oakland/East Bay certainly is not the worst, as some would have a person believe.

  39. Lakeshore: If the East Bay market is so great, why do the A’s need revenue-sharng to survive? Why are the Raiders the lowest-valued team in the NFL and the lowest revenue-generator, I think?

  40. @Lakeshore/Neil exactly, lets say they get a new stadium in one of these places CC or HT get off revenue sharing say 20-30 mil, everyone acts like they wont make up that money plus more with a new state of the art baseball park. More fans and more casual fans wanting to enjoy the experience of the waterfront park/development or the would be biggest urban development in California history. So the point doesn’t add up especially when Forbes had the 7th highest operating income right now. The A’s will never be a top 5 Income team unless they go on a crazy run of championships again, SJ or Oak. But top 15 or top 10 is perfect for the A’s and with a new stadium and continued winning that will happen in SJ or Oakland. I believe its not about the cities its about a new stadium period, A’s play in a football stadium you build a baseball stadium and its not hard to get sell outs at 39k with the way the A’s win year in and year out

  41. K: Who pays for the stadium? Oakland won’t pay. There’s not enough corporate support in the East Bay to fund it, either. Do you expect the owners to build on their own dime?

  42. @pjk you act like a new ballpark doesn’t add to a teams value, we all know that both teams need stadiums and if they have development around it, it adds to there valuation as a team, that’s a fact. for the raiders they are also the only team that the football team is there primary source of $, bad mgmt to go along with not having a state of the art stadium and not winning in over a decade all add to this. It’s not the EastBay/Oakland vs SJ. It seems like everyone on here points to if the A’s move to SJ there gonna be number 1 in revenue, there gonna spend with the Yanks, LA, Bos and all the other big spending teams. Fact is there not.

  43. @pjk I do not expect the owners to pay on there own dime, I expect there will be some tax dollars used to get some things done. It should be public/ private investment but fair. And I mentioned before at one of the meetings the developer have hinted at some laws to help with infrastructure funding. So lets say tax payer money/ private investors take care of that, give lew some acres to develop his own condo’s/ Hotel in center field, would you find it ok for Lew to spend 400-to 500 million?

  44. K: Which banks are going to issue a $500 million in loans for a ballpark being built with no public support and very weak corporate support? Which banks are going to take a huge risk like this? None. Does a new ballpark really add value to a franchise when that franchise is saddled with hundreds of millions of dollars in debt and a questionable ability to pay it back? I know, get the billionaire owners to pay for the ballpark out of their own personal fortunes, right, without regard to making their money back?

  45. @pjk
    I did not say it was grate, I said if it was done right they could out do 8-10 other MLB markets.
    The A’s need revenue sharing for a variety of reasons, most of which is the ridicules business model of MLB.
    Let’s take other successful franchises for an example the San Antonio Spurs need revenue sharing, but they have 5 championships in, what 18 years, the Pacers top seed in the east this year they need revenue sharing, so do the Jazz really successful for 20 years. Look at the NFL New Orleans, Indianapolis, and Green Bay all won the supper bowl in recent years all need revenue sharing, I could go on, and on there are so many examples.
    We have talked about this before (and we don’t agree), but the Raiders (Al Davis bless his heart), and the A’s don’t market their product well at all, and as I have said before (not that you would remember), but this would help, and no Oakland and their politicians have not helped, and neither has the fan base, but hay when your under a constant threat of losing your teams that can happen, I guess my only point to you would be that there are a lot of factors, not just the standard “ Oakland is crap”, so can move on.

  46. re: I expect there will be some tax dollars used to get some things done

    …Hasn’t Oakland made it clear it expects the ballpark to be privately funded? It has not offered $0.00 for ballpark construction (neither has San Jose, but the South Bay has the corporate support. Just ask the 49ers.) And where is this infrastructure funding going to come from? From the struggling state of California or the $17 trillion-in-debt federal government? We already know we can rule out Oakland as a source for this.

  47. re: A’s don’t market their product well at all,

    …The eternal excuse when we want to blame the owners. There is nothing more the A’s can do to “market” their product. What more should the A’s do? Send the players door to door to sell tickets?

  48. Top 10 reasons the A’s aren’t doing well in Oakland:

    10. Not enough media presence
    9. No local corporate support
    8. There are no superstars on the team
    7. Prices are too expensive
    6. A’s don’t spend enough
    5. A’s don’t win enough
    4. A’s don’t market enough
    3. Owners don’t want to win
    2. Lew lied, he never tried
    1. They have a craptastic facility

  49. @pjk No excuse, I don’t think the A’s market their product well, that’s just one of the problems, I am not even saying it’s the biggest problem, but as I told you before I think you can be a bit of a Lew apologist, if it’s only 3-5% of the problem, it’s part of the problem, I have also said to you we agree on 85-90% of this stuff, so it’s cool you hold on to your 10-15% and I will hold on to my 10-15%

  50. @ Anon The corporate support would be a lot higher on my list.

  51. @LSN – it was a facetious list similar to Letterman’s with #1 being the most unlikely…fyi

  52. Just like Lakeshore said its a big variety of reasons but marketing the team is another peace to the issue, Im in the east bay and have seen more SJ earthquakes commercials on CSN and various channels this year then the A’s that says something. Not saying they have to advertise and promote like the giants but damn your own market there is nothing. there is more than enough blame to go around with all parties. Also Oakland has not made it clear they have mentioned no new tax dollars but also said that for infrastructure they can and might use, whatever that means well see, we all know its Oak pols comments are different day by day. Sac raided other forms of tax dollars to give there piece of the pie why can’t Oakland. As for public support are you sure there is no public support for a new stadium, or are you basing it in part that the A’s are playing in this old age stadium that is shared with a football team?

  53. “There is nothing more the A’s can do to ‘market’ their product.”

    I’m glad you don’t work in marketing. You’d get fired for saying something so dumb.

  54. @ML Fred Blackwells departure will not affect his ability to continue negotiating for Coliseum City until the end of the project according to Mayor Jean Quan FYI

  55. So what do you suggest outside of sending players to sell tickets door to door? The A’s have great colors, uniforms, players, giveaways, marketing slogans, etc. The team wins. Yet they are pretty much always at the bottom of attendance. The team has drawn poorly in the East Bay even when winning. There is no better “marketing” than winning and even that hasn’t been enough.

  56. @freddy- you sound like a marketing genius- tell me what the gints do that is so superior to the A’s in terms of marketing- or better yet tell me what the A’s should be doing differently- they have the young players with great chemistry, best commercials going, one of the best teams in all of baseball- pretty much give away free tickets during the week- so tell us marketing genius- what you would do…

  57. Actually, the team with bad PR is the Giants. Unfortunately, and thanks to the local media, the negative role that the Giants are playing by blocking the A’s from building their new Bay Area ballpark on the site of their choice is being kept under the radar screen. In fact, the local media is trying to portray Lew Wolff as the bad guy for his refusal to build his A’s ballpark in a much less desirable Oakland site. The local Bay Area should be ashamed of themselves for their failure to cover the A’s ballpark issue in a truthful, objective, and unbiased manner.

  58. @pjk yes you said all the good things they do have I agree but compared to the Giants/ Warriors and Lew putting his foot in his month every chance he gets they can market more. They do have great commercials but the frequency that they hare shown are few and far between what I see from the Sharks, Earthquakes, Warriors, Giants, Niners, hell even the Raiders I see more often from Tv/Radio/Billboard ad’s. Its one thing to say hey they have a great commercial but its another when its only played once every few days compared to a marketing machine like the giants where your damn near brain washed cause its played so often. Also you say door to door but how about reaching back into the community, the warriors make a lot of appearances, the giants do as well and the niners. Capitalize on the winning we saw the influx of fan interest at fan fest they could be pushing harder, hell the giants fan fest was free, and they had banners and sent flyers to business to promote it and buy season tix etc. The A’s ? not so much. I give it to the marketing team with there concepts and pushing to sell ticket packages because its really hard when you have a run down stadium and continued threats from Lew to leave and the only thing you can market is the players. But a budget is provided and I bet its the bare minimum. Lew Wolff went off on his own flagship station 95.7 before how does that sit well with the A’s listeners? There are many factors not all ownership’s fault and some are out of ownership’s hand, but Lew Wolff has cried Wolf so many times its to the point where not just the east bay media has shifted from his side but others have as well. We all know this 10 year lease is a joke and P.R move, you wanna stay for 10 years and you want a stadium, add that to a agreement, if you cant get a stadium built in 5 years with a commitment/funding from both the city and Ownership, he can opt out and explore other options and get MLB on board with it.

  59. @K- what specific proposal has Oakland given to the A’s for either HT or CC. This thing would be done if Oakland would step up, agree to the 10 year lease, get rid of the raiders, provide development rights to LW and comity to paying the $400M in infrastructure improvements to make this happen. Why is that so difficult for Oakland to do when they know that it would end this saga and have the A’s stay in Oakland?

  60. Regarding the media- agree with you llpec- even after Larry Reid basically called JQ a liar on the radio regarding the likelihood of HT have you heard any of its big media proponents like Tavares step up and do some investigative reporting to establish that it’s nothing more than a pipe dream. As much as we fault bs for this debacle he local media is also at fault for failing to really expose the gints motivations to a broader audience-

  61. @GoA’s you are right but will it really end it? if Wolff is so willing why did he come out so strong against that report that he met with the developers? Hell why not hear what they have to say that group supposedly are the ones with the money to help make it happen. So to say it would be done if they do this and that is inaccurate because this was the time to talk about what you prefer and didn’t prefer on this project but Lew supposedly hasn’t done or wants to do that. We know his end game is SJ, and making Oakland put the A’s vs the Raiders, Im just shocked that the city was smart and didn’t fall for it so far like they always do

  62. over 45 years, the A’s have not drawn very well in Oakland. They have more playoff appearances than top-half attendance years, and more AL pennants than top-1/3 attendance finishes. Their AL rank in attendance has only been higher than their AL rank in wins 4 times in 45 years.

    Oakland is a bad place for a modern MLB team, period.

  63. @GoA’s it has been reported by media outlets by Quans dumb statements and it was mentioned that if the A’s want to build in Oakland CC is the preferred site so MLB will support what the A’s would pick. Thats not saying HT is not doable so lets wait and see, let Clorox and co spend that money for the studies and see what we find out we all know we probably have another 5 years before we get anything anyway. Damon Bruce should have kept reid on to clarify more, but for whatever reason they cut him off,leaving more questions.

  64. K: HT is a toxic waste site surrounded by land uses that are completely incompatible land uses (heavy industry, metal recycling, port, gigantic railroad obstructions). It is not going to work no matter how much you want to believe it will…

  65. add: completely incompatible with a baseball stadium.

  66. @K- MLB has all the reports on HT- thus no interest- second- for CC to work LW becomes the developed not colony capital- that’s the main point here- Oakland has colony capital involved to save the raiders – once you get rid of the raiders then LW takes over as developer and Colony Capital exits- it’s simple- but Oakland has never prioritized the A’s over the Raiders- Larry Reid gets this which is why he is pushing for the 10 year lease extension- he realizes baseball is a better economic fit than football- so f’ing tired of Oakland’s incompetence

  67. @pjk your right at the moment in its current condition yea, but that’s why money is being spent to see. the are building a new recycling center on the Army Base as part of the 1.2 billion dollar redevelopment, so that is 1 issue down. Just a quick question (have you been down there? you say gigantic railroad etc heavy industry but most things around there will be pretty empty as the army base construction concludes, rail roads yes a obstacle but there are hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions for this development group so to think that they wont get money or funds for clean up and have all the questions answered that need be is not true

  68. @K- ever hear of hunter point clean up and the ‘9ers proposed stadium there- toxic clean up doesn’t happen overnight and funds to do it is not passed outline candy- and sure – let’s move more businesses to make this happen- and how much will that cost? If $400M sounds like a lot for infrastructure for CC it will sound like pocket change for what HT requires. Bottom line we are back to where we started pre-1995 with Schott and where LW started when he bought the A’s- a baseball only park with development rights to LW would be just fine- see Art Moreno and Angels doing the same thing- cut the bs and make it happen- the Oakland only crowd should be all over their politicians to make this happen now- we don’t need to wait another 20 years-

  69. @GoA’s Mlb has Lew Wolff old reports that wouldn’t you think would be swayed if he didn’t want to stay? Anyone can make numbers work or push a position. Hell look at the feasibility of the Raiders working, two different study’s two different outcomes in regards to building a stadium and it being supported. Also what about the M&R report in 2012 about the “secret meeting” where the conversation revolved around Howard Terminal… MLB checking on the progress of HT and gaining site control control? Also if the site is gifted to the city that is more savings that can go towards cleanup etc as it was estimated years ago that the city would have to pay at the least 40 million for the propriety.

  70. @K- first of all- it wasn’t LW’s report- it was commissioned by Oakland to identify sites and HT came in near the bottom of viable sites. amazing how you guys take unsubstantiated snippets from the press and run with them. There are developers who would make millions if other people paid for cleanup, moving of businesses and a new ballpark at HT- who wouldn’t put out positive things about it.

    How you can dismiss what LR said about mlb’s interest is beyond me- you are an Oakland apologist for a city that has floundered for 20 years trying to get a ballpark done and in your mind another 20 years is no big deal- are you even an A’s fan or is this just about Oakland for you?

  71. And btw- your conversation with LB- when he said they are staying right here- he was standing on the CC site- take his comment literally- u should have told him to hurry up and get the W’s in SF so oracle can be knocked down- while the W’s are in Oakland this thing only will drag out longer

  72. @GoA’s Not dismissing what LR said but there is more what he said, your pulling from a vague comment before he got cut off. like I already stated if the A’s want to build in there so called territory MLB will back them, why? because MLB doesn’t have to do any work to find a fix. what did he said, Lew Wolf prefers CC than HT and MLB does also, what does that say it says MLB is backing there team nothing more nothing less. Im far from a Oakland apologist just giving my view and been a A’s fan forever, and I see it can work in Oakland you all want to claim the last 20 years but what about ownership, what about the times changing in sports, where its a event everyone likes to go to so revenue is a all time high. Lets say uptown stadium was built do you really think the A’s would not be averaging 35-40 k right now? you blame attendance on the region but the stadium is a big part as well, you have your hard core fans and your casual fans. would you go to at&t with friends, family, business people in town to enjoy the sites and scenes or go to the concrete toilet bowel. If uptown was built the A’s would be having the same success as the Giants are right now. So to say it cant be supported is wrong, a stadium built in 1966 that’s what you are comparing and then wanna compare attendance of the past to now teams really didn’t really consistently start drawing 2+ million fans until the 2000’s now the stadium is 34 year old, what do you expect. And for the developers if others paid then why are they paying for studies? because they have lots of property in the surrounding area including the in progress Brooklyn Basin that they are spending 1.5 billion dollars on

  73. @GoA’s lol I feel you on that one, but its Lacob ego still fighting reality about 30/32. But even if they moved I don’t think they will tear down the Area asap, as they have various concerts and income for it. Also Its been repeated time and time again that the blueprint can be change as long as the power lines are rerouted it can stay while the stadium is built.

  74. @K- your wrong that MLB will blindly support LW building in his current territory. MLB will support it provided it makes financial sense…which in Oakland’s case is a much different equation than if it’s SF or SJ. In order for it to make financial sense Oakland, absent voter approval to provide a significant stadium subsidy, has to provide the “equivalent” with development rights – that’s all they have. This is what LW asked for why back when and was turned down and this is what he is asking for again- nearly 15 years later. In order for the development rights value to pencil out the raiders and oracle need to go- there isn’t enough margin/value to the A’s in having 2 additional venues taking up space and having to coordinate revenue agreements for parking etc. the bottom line question for Oakland is which franchise do you want- Raiders should have already been in SC with the ‘9ers and the W’s will be gone ASAP (amazing that it’s ok for Lacob to want out of Oakland but you guys trash LW)- if Oakland wants to keep the A’s you and your Oakland buddies should be writing to quan and the JPA telling them to sign a 10 year lease and send the raiders packing- as LW said- it’s up to Oakland to make a decision-

  75. Ok- and how late does practice go?

  76. Ignore my last comment- texting on iPad can be an adventure 🙂

  77. It’s easy to say it won’t work in Oakland because of attendance figures, but that does not look at the underlying reasons. The A’s have had four owners (ownership groups), since they moved to Oakland in 1968, three of those ownerships kept the team in perpetual uncertainty about their commitment to Oakland and the East Bay during their ownership tenures, it’s no surprise that the only time they did well (attendance wise), was when they had the one ownership group that was supportive of Oakland and the East Bay, those numbers also overlook the fact that the A’s, drew well comparable against the Giants while the Giants were at candlestick, many years out drawing them.
    No one is suggesting that Oakland Eastbay, as a sports market does not have its challenges and I am no Oakland apologist, as I agree with many of you (have said many times), that San Jose is the best place in the Bay Area for the A’s from an economic standpoint, but that does not mean it can’t work in Oakland/East Bay, simply because Lew Wolff says it can’t (couldn’t be an ulterior motive there could it?), it’s not all on Oakland, just like it’s not all on Lew Wolff.
    Lew Wolff and the Oakland A’s deserve more than Oakland and its politicians have given over the years, but rest assured Oakland also deserves better then, what Lew Wolff and the current A’s ownership have given them as well.
    I am sure most of my good friends that comment here won’t have a problem with that last comment, at least the first part of it (sarcasm)… See you next post (- :

  78. @lsn- I’ve never mentioned attendance- and jeffrey has done an exhaustive review of this in the past so to me it’s ridiculous to debate his analysis which is incredibly thorough. This discussion is where you come up with the capital dollars to privately build a ballpark which is a challenge in Oakland as compared to SF or SJ or how does Oakland cover their contribution to make it pencil out- no different than what 26 or so MLB teams have done with taxpayer subsidized ballparks- most recent being the $600M marlins park- all taxpayer funded.

    Oakland’s trump card is land- they need to give the land to a developer, like LW, pay the 400M in infrastructure improvements and we can all move forward and watch baseball in the same location it is today- problem solved. Now if your suggesting that Oakland is no different than SF or SJ and LW should pay for his own ballpark and take the risk of finding corporate support to build that then what I would tell you is that if Oakland is so confident that they have the necessary corporate support then they should assume that risk, build the ballpark with taxpayer money, and pay it off with the proceeds from the corporate support….and yes… That’s what they did to get the Raiders to return and remind me how that worked for them…

  79. And finally LSN- given that Oakland still has no economically viable spot and a plan to make a spot economically viable remind me again what LW has done to Oakland besides proved incredibly exciting young teams, 7 playoff appearances since 2000, back to back AL West titles while having to operate with low revenues associated with a team playing in a near 50 year old duel purpose stadium. 20 years and counting and still no plan on the table by Oakland- took Lacob all of 1 year before he decided he wanted out- but for you Oakland apologists- that’s ok…riddle me that

  80. @GoA’s that’s what I meant my bad didn’t really clarify that. Yes if Lew feels it is the best option between the two and it pencils out financially MLB supports it, not like there gonna say no we want u at HT if Wolff wanted to build a CC. Whatever the A’s would choose in Oakland MLB will back it and be done with this saga. The Beef I have with Lew is is actions and reactions, we all have know before he bought the A’s he was looking at SJ to move them, Ok being a Oakland fan i’m upset, he becomes owner states he knows the territory rights and wouldn’t push them, Lie. Hes the owner he can do what he wants im ok with that, but to “act” like you tired in Oakland so you can say you tried to and ultimately get to SJ is in my opinion wrong. He made a half ass’ed effort truthfully. Not meeting with city officials, making/sabotaging designs where eminent domain will be needed and admitting at the same time it wont work because eminent domain would be needed. Also When Wolff was trying Fremont and it failed he made sure to tell all media etc that he spent “$80 million to the city of Fremont” with “$25 million to $30 million absolutely non-recoverable.” due to environmental impact reports and hundreds of architectural costs according to him. Can I dare to ask if anything close to that, or half of that, or a quarter of that, or even 1% of that was spent in his effort to supposedly keep the A’s in Oakland? I have that answer NO. One last part is they way he continues to degrade and suppress the city and eastbay as a whole, with his comments to the national media, local media whatever it is, his main objective is to keep the fans away to prove to MLB that it doesn’t work, while he collects that nice check. He consistently puts his foot in his month with comments and interviews on radio, newspaper etc to degrade Oakland, and if you noticed its always at the “wrong time” when the A’s are doing good, going to the playoffs, making a run, before the season starts, it all takes away from the team and puts a dark cloud over there performance. But we can say its the “right time” for Lew. Hell he can be like Chris Cohan and stay away from the media, not say a thing work behind the scenes and that would be better. Joe Lacob was honest from the get go hasent really been caught up in lies from the media, hasn’t backtrack or anything. He said he approached the City and Quan wasn’t prepared to with the CC project just yet he said they couldn’t wait and Ed Lee jumped at it. Weather its true or not it sounds better than what Lew has ever said about the City. Also Lacob has put over 20 million dollars in upgrades into the area in the last few years to enhance the fan experience, from the VIP and court side bars, to the theater seating, to new sound system, TV’s and scoreboards, Lacob has only owned the Warriors for 4 years now Lew has had the A’s about 10 years and what has he added to the coliseum? yes I know the A’s are tenets but all the teams are tenets and the A’s have the best deal of them all as they were paying almost nothing in previous deal while receiving almost all the concessions including a lot from the Raiders as well. The list can go on forever why Eastbay/Oakland fans have this beef with Lew and most of it is brought on by himself.

  81. @K- You have a lot of faith in people who have shown not to be honorable and forthcoming. I am referring to MLB and Oakland when it comes to the A’s.

    It was Oakland who backstabbed Schott in 1995 pulling back from a signed contract to renovate the Coliseum for baseball only to bring the Raiders back. The A’s sued Oakland hard and won 16M and massive lease concessions….There is major distrust between these two entities.

    Oakland has never put a public subsidy for the A’s but has for the Warriors and Raiders….more distrust.

    You assume a Oakland ballpark can be a reality. When in reality it is not. The HOK study in 2001 showed every site in the East Bay and feasibility. It has been 13 years and has anything happened since then? Not a damn thing.

    It is not because of Wolff at all. Wolff is a real estate genius and knows what he is doing.

    He knows HT is not feasible in the least bit and has gone on record stating a ballpark on “Treasure Island” would be easier. If Wolff could build in Oakland he would.

    Why deal with the Giants, MLB, and the lawsuit otherwise?

    The Giants and MLB are OK with an Oakland ballpark because they know it is not possible.

    The BRC has not issued a report in 5 years because they fear the results of San Jose being the most “logical” choice can be used against them in court by SJ in a rule of reason analysis.

    Oakland and the East Bay are not feasible. Wolff paid 24M for the Fremont land and that shows he was serious about staying in the East Bay but he was shot down and the BRC never made him go back.

    Why? Because the BRC like MLB know the East Bay is dead in the water…..or that report would have been issued and they would have forced Wolff to look again.

  82. @GoA’s also you say what has Oakland provided, they have spent over 5 million dollars so far on CC to get/force results and finally have a answer and the EIR will be soon, SJ has there EIR pretty soon Oakland will have there’s, and with no end in site, time is on Oakland as people are finally pushing the issue in Oakland. I’m hoping to go to the public review and see if there’s any new news and give input, also I have wrote Quan talked to her the developer a few times and have a letter lined up to give to all members on JPA.

  83. @k- sid’s reply covers most of the points I would have made. LW invested in Fremont because he had a site…something that continues to be elusive in Oakland. You tell LW today that you have CC, Oakland will get rid of W’s and R’s and spend $400M on infrastructure improvements and you will see lots of money spent by LW to move forward. The fact is 20 years later and there still is no viable site!! 20 f’ing years and you guys are ok with that…makes no sense.

    Finally, you put a halo around Lacob which I find fascinating. LW has been at this for 15 years dealing with Oakland… And it’s ok in your mind that Lacob after 1 year said I want out- that’s a hell of an effort on his part and just fine according to you. Finally, why hasn’t anyone in the east bay media or any of you Oakland only folks pushed Lacob on why he won’t invest in HT? He says it’s a fine spot for baseball- imagine an arena there with 150 dates booked- why aren’t you guys all over him to commit today to building his arena at HT? The double standard is fascinating-

  84. @k- your still missing the point on CC- Oakland is trying to do a project that involves both the A’s and Raiders. Remember Fred Blackwell saying there is a 500-600M funding gap and then hitting the road for greener pastures….that’s for the Raiders only! Add in the A’s and you’ve got a 1B funding gap!! The site is not “economically” viable for 2 teams. Nor is it viable for the A’s if Colony Capital is involved. Step 1- write to JPA and Oakland and tell them you want them to focus on A’s only with LW as developer for CC and you support them investing $400M in infrastructure improvements to make CC happen with the A’s as the sole tenant- that’s the deal that needs to happen- and if your an A’s fan that wants to see them stay in Oakland that’s the deal you should be pushing

  85. @GoA’s Im not ok with them not having a new stadium to compete with the rest of the teams, I’ve been stating that it doesn’t matter if its SJ or Oakland the A’s can succeed with a new stadium, and you all claim 20 years this 20 years that now SJ deserves the A’s Oakland has had its turn. Maybe true maybe not but unless the Giants give in the A’s aren’t going and BS has already been on record saying the Giants and A’s need to work it out which we know wont happen. As for Lacob I can’t speak for the media I would wonder why TK hasn’t followed up on this since he has direct contact with Lacob, maybe Lacob said don’t bring it up idk, but I for one have been waiting to see Lacob at the game so I can throw that out to him and see a response lol. and for the bias the A’s are considered a stamp of the Oakland/eastbay community the warriors are the only hoop team in the bay so truthfully they are the bay’s team, the passion runs alot deeper with the history etc

  86. @k- we agree on 1 thing- bs is a horrible leader and absent a successful SJ lawsuit there is no way the gints and A’s can close the financial gap for sharing SCCo. My hope for you Oakland only folks who claim you are A’s fans is that Oakland does figure it out and gets rid of the R’s and W’s setting the stage for the A’s to develop CC. As much as you guys want to believe that larry Baer is your friend he is a snake in the grass with one focus- A’s out of the Bay Area. He has always maintained that as long as the 4th and 5th media markets (philly and Dallas) don’t have 2 teams why should the sixth (SF Bay Area) have 2 teams. Next time you run into lb ask him about that-

  87. @GoA’s I understand and hear what you are saying, but you cant do that math like that, the more teams you bring on the cheaper it would be you can just double the cost because another team hops it, so if its all three teams gonna be a gap of 1.5 bil… no there is one time and certain cost for infrastructure and other things weather its 0, 1, 2, or 3 teams. I have mentioned that to Quan but she stated the Raiders are the only one talking stadium so there rolling with that, she said the only uncertain is the warriors past 2020 but we all know its Quan talking, I’d rather have that convo with the Developer, JPA, Knauss etc.

  88. @GoA’s
    I was not referring to your comments; I was referring to Jeopardydd comments earlier (specifically), and to everyone genially
    “Over 45 years, the A’s have not drawn very well in Oakland. They have more playoff appearances than top-half attendance years, and more AL pennants than top-1/3 attendance finishes. Their AL rank in attendance has only been higher than their AL rank in wins 4 times in 45 years. “
    “Oakland is a bad place for a modern MLB team, period.”
    I guess it bothers me when people speak in such absolute terms about a complex situation, of which every player’s hands are dirty, even the saintly Lew Wolff, which it appears to me, to be the way some wish to view him, not to say that some of the Pro/Only Oakland camp have it exactly right either.
    GoA’s- I happen to think it can work in Oakland, and I have stated my reasoning over and over, not that it would be enough for some people, you don’t think it can work in Oakland (apparently), and that’s cool I don’t have a problem with that.
    I actually would prefer the A’s in San Jose, simply because it’s the best place in the Bay Area for them, but we talk on here a lot about the Pro/Only Oakland folks and their talking points, such as “site control” to name one, but there are talking points from the Pro/Only San Jose folks as well, its less likely for those talking points to be called out by most of the commenters here, one of them being “it can’t work in Oakland”, it fits the narrative that Lew should be granted San Jose, because it “can’t work in Oakland”, can it work better in San Jose, sure can and the A’s should be allowed to move there, but that does not mean it “can’t work in Oakland”, as I said I believe if done right, and no I don’t think it’s been done right, but if done right Oakland East Bay can out do 8-10 other MLB markets.
    And as to your other question:
    “remind me again what LW has done to Oakland”
    If I have to remind you of the countless missteps Lew has made, then you would problem forget again?
    I am out… again (this time I mean it), see you next post.

  89. @GoA’s def agree with you on that and it sucks for us fans, instead of being competitive and creative to outmatch one another in the name of rivals across the bay, he’d rather suppress the A’s into another market, which would bad business for baseball as a whole considering the market size of the Bay Area compared to possible city’s looking for a team to acquire in a much smaller market. Very sad for MLB as a whole in my opinion as the value will go down for all teams, if the moved out the Bay and failed.

  90. @lsn- I am not debating that it can’t work in Oakland- there is a way to make it work- LW said that himself just recently- Oakland pols need pressure put on them to make it happen- you want to see it happen- step up and put some pressure in them- start by signing the 10 year lease- then move to getting rid of R’s /W’s and identify how they will pay for the infrastructure improvements- let’s go- no need to complain that LW doesn’t like Oakland- and yes, I would like to be reminded of what LW has done because all I see are 7 playoff appearances, back to back AL West championships, fun young, exciting team and doing it while playing in a 50 year old dual purpose shit fest of a stadium….while standing by patiently as Larry b works to get rid of the A’s behind the scenes with the Oakland only crowd unwittingly supporting him-

  91. @ Lakeshore

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

    The A’s drew poorly even with a fantastic owner and a fantastic ballpark and a Giants team that sucked and had a worse ballpark.

    Did you know that the team has actually had higher attendance under Fisher/Wolff than under Hass? That’s because they did not draw well for the first 1/2 of Haas’s time as owner (again, while still having a good ballpark, better than the Giants).

    The only time the A’s drew well were when all 3 of the following things happened at once:
    1) Better ballpark than the Giant
    2) Total Dominance on the field with 3 consecutive AL Champs with the biggest stars int he game (Bash Bros, Rickey) and two future HoF’ers.
    3) Fantastic owership

    Take away any one of those things, and the A’s have drawn poorly.

    -They drew poorly during the 70’s dynasty without the fantastic owner but with the other 2 things.
    -They drew poorly for much of the 1980’s with a fantastic owner (Haas) and a better stadium than the Giants, but without the one-the field success (bad-.500 records) and again right at the end of Haas’s time.
    -They’ve drawn poorly ever since the stadium got worse and the Giants got a great one.

    Bottom line, if you only draw well when the stars line up perfectly, that’s pathetic support.

  92. I envision CC having only a single stadium/ballpark anchor. If the Raiders do work out a CC stadium deal with Colony Capital, the A’s will most certainly be permanently leaving Oakland. However, if the Raiders cannot come to an agreement on a CC stadium, then, and only then, the A’s will look to consider the Coliseum property as a possible plan B future new ballpark site. I still believe that San Jose is still very much Plan A. That’s why Lew Wolff is hoping for a ten year Coliseum lease extension. Wolff believes that time will be in the A’s favor to ultimately get their new Bay Area ballpark in San Jose.

  93. @Jeopardydd There are a variety of issues and situations that can affect this within the City state country, MLB you cant just look at a number and say oh there attendance always sucked. Yea some of those years attendance was down but why, did the A’s suck did ownership suck and push fans away? Hell the Giants still have the best ballpark in baseball but from 2007 to 2008 there attendance went from about 40k to 35k, why because they sucked. but for most of these years the A’s were above/around the AL Average and yea all teams suffer sometimes and attendance dips. but to be around what was normal for those times in that Old stadium with no support from ownership, city, whatever you want to call it is something.

  94. @Jeopardydd
    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
    See I can say that too, it does not make me anymore right or wrong then you. I really think some of the people here spend so much time reading their own comments, they don’t take the time to (really), read what other people are saying.
    I know the A’s attendance has sucked (sucks), I was only pointing out that there are multiple reasons for that (not all having to do with Oakland), but as is the case from time to time, its difficult pointing out the things that don’t fit the Pro-San Jose narrative “Oakland cant work”, without getting nailed to the cross.
    I want a new ballpark, in the damn Bay Area for the A’s.
    BTW No need to respond.

  95. Sorry to spoil your story, Jeopardydd – the A’s outdrew the giants at the ‘Stick 17 out of the 32 years. During the La Russa tenure, the A’s dominated the giants so badly that the Lurie gave up on the bay area and sold the giants to the current Tampa Bay owners group. With a new baseball-only ballpark in Oakland, the A’s would do much better than they do with the old, obsolete Coli. Oakland supports the Dubs and Raiders well (considering that the Raiders haven’t had a over .500 year since the Gruden days) Oakland could likely support the A’s strongly also, with a new ballpark (San Jose is likely a better location for the A’s though)

  96. @ duffer

    The A’s had much more on-the-field dominance and a much better stadium that was far easier to get to during that time.

    And still, with those big disadvantages, the Giants drew roughly the same as the A’s. What does that tell you?

  97. @ Lakeshore,

    I addressed your multiple reasons why attendance sucked, and showed that that doesn’t account for it (hint: A’s drew poorly much of the time with a great owner and great stadium).

  98. @k,

    that’s why I controlled for winning (comparing the A’s rank in wins vs. their rank in attendance). Controlling for winning, the attendance has been putrid in their time in Oakland.

  99. If what you are saying is true – why did Lurie give up on the bay area? even the SF police chief at the time make jokes about the safety of attending night games at Candlestick, and suggested that fans attend A’s games instead. (That safety issue at phone booth park still exists also)In 1992, the A’s were 3rd in MLB attendance with nearly 3 mil. – the giants didn’t even come close to that, the A’s dominated the giants at attendance similarly during the whole La Russa tenure.

  100. The despite being as good as they are were the last 2 years the A’s were 23rd in attendance in 2012 and 27th in 2013.

    The lowly Chicago White Sox who lost 96 games last year were barely behind the A’s.

    The reason is the ballpark and location in the market plain and simple. The Giants and A’s compete for the same fans in the North Bay, East Bay, SF and Peninsula. The South Bay is too far from both teams.

    The Giants will never get their wish of the A’s leaving for good because of the great TV market they share together. If it was not for TV the A’s would be looking elsewhere now.

    Larry Baer is wrong about Philly and Dallas being bigger media markets and having one team. For the A’s and Giants they also televise into Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto which is 20th in the country in addition to the Bay Area.

    Meaning only LA and NY are for sure bigger and Chicago is right there as well.

    If the A’s were to move to Sacramento for example it would kill their TV revenue as the Giants would force blackouts in the Bay Area a la Warriors/Kings do now.

    Therefore the Giants are facing the reality of sharing their ballpark goes up every day this stalemate over San Jose continues.

  101. @Jeopardydd all we are saying is it can work in Oakland with a stadium, like it can work in SJ, yes there is more corporate support in SJ, but the A’s with a new stadium will get corporate support regardless even from outside areas, wait for it Silicon Valley as well if Lew chose to use those connections to ala Cisco Field. Giants have coke and there based in Atlanta, hell Safeway sponsors the Giants. the point is with new stadiums money will get thrown at the A’s especially with there winning. You can only fit some many signs in a stadium and build a bear shops lol. The A’s have been held back a great deal due to there lack of a new stadium, that is the number 1 reason. Not the city, not the east bay region, not fan support, a new state of the art baseball only stadium is why. Because with this new tv revenue money coming in, parking,etc guess what these teams in MLB can play in front of a stadium filled with 0 people and still make a killing in profit.

  102. re: the A’s with a new stadium will get corporate support regardless

    …You mean like how the Raiders received 120 state-of-the-art luxury suites in 1995 and have had trouble leasing them ever since? I was one of these people who assumed the Raiders would sell out every game, the PSLs would sell, everyone would live happily ever after. I was wrong. (The Raiders apparently are last in league revenue and the 49ers leave them in the dust when it comes to leasing suites to corporations.) I’m not going to make this same assumption about the A’s that also is likely to turn out wrong….The A’s in a new stadium in Oakland are still very inconvenient to Silicon Valley companies. None of them will lease out these suites and expect to entertain their clients after sitting in rush hour traffic for 90 minutes to get to the stadium.

  103. @ Jeopardydd
    No you did not. You sited a few other reasons which also apply, but no you did not address my multiple reasons why attendance sucks, or the many other reasons that I did not bring up.
    You did however come to a conclusion on the few reasons you cited, I am glad you fill like, you handled that.

    • @all – Come on people. You’re not bringing anything new to the discussion. Wrap it up.

  104. ML: I’m not sure there’s been anything new brought to the discussion in 5 years now. It’s like watching the same old “I Love Lucy” reruns 1,000 times

  105. @pjk and timing is everything, the raider issue was very debatable back then on if it would work or not and the city sold themselves and the A’s out. And to say state of the art really, its box seats please don’t promote it like they did some crazy full gutted top to bottom renovation to it, they added box suites that’s it nothing state of the art there still concrete add on. You are still comparing a age old stadium built in the 60’s all they did was a add on, and new locker room, does that really compare to a type of stadium the niners are building or the cowboys or any team with a brand new stadium head to toe, with all the amenities. NO. Also I believe they A’s are more beloved to the city and the east bay than the Raiders are, a lot of people are still butt hurt from them leaving but when the A’s are mentioned there is a lot of love and support for them, but the number 1 complaint is a stadium. And we can compare again now the niners have left them in the dust because everything fell right into place with winning, Superbowl etc, key thing to all the corporate support for the new stadium…. winning. I can pull up articles where the niners were giving away there tickets pretty much for free, there limited corporate support they had deals to where you buy a 12 pack of coke cola and you got free tickets to the game so again key to success and getting the area to rally is winning and new stadiums

  106. lol until next time all, great discussion, hopefully well have a new issue to chat about soon. GO A’s, Go Warriors, GO Sharks and Beat L.A

  107. K: I hsven’t read through your very long post but the actual evidence we have of how well new luxury suites would lease in Oakland is not good: The Raiders suite sales have been a flop. Why would the A’s be any different? Even the Warriors, with a monopoly on NBA basketball in the Bay Area unlike what the Raiders and A’s have to deal with in their respective leagues, have already said they are gone from Oakland.

  108. K: If I’m a banker considering issuing loans for $500 million for a new stadium in Oakland that has to be paid for largely through corporate support, what am I going to consider first? The feel-good hopes that the place will sell out or the actual decades of solid evidence of poor corporate support for pro sports in the East Bay? And poor regular fan support, too.

  109. As usual, the giants organization spreads mis-information. The bay area metropolitan fanbase is 8,469,854 (easily large enough for two MLB teams) Dallas metro’s is 6,556,000 – what would one expect from Baer though.

  110. @ Lakeshore

    Then you need to go back and read my comment. You gave reasons, such as the bad owners. I debunked those reasons, such as the A’s drawing poorly under Haas (who you admit was a great owner).

  111. @ Jeopardydd
    No I really don’t, but it’s cool we all have a deferent perceptive. GOA’s, GO SHARKS, and GO WARRIORS, wait one moment, GO DOGGERS (when playing the Giants)

  112. It’s time for Lew to officially give up on San Jose and work cooperatively with Oakland to get a ballpark built. The momentum has clearly shifted back to Oakland and away from SJ. The priority should be Howard Terminal, with Coliseum City as a last resort. And it’s time for Oakland politicians to quit crapping around and do what it takes to move the process along. Wolff needs to publicly and honestly work with the City and Port of Oakland to identify the real issues and costs to HT. Unlike Oakland city government, the Port is run by hard-headed businessmen who can get things done. And they want to move forward on the HT site.

    MLB needs to tap into its billions to create a ballpark fund that can be used to fund (or at least assist in funding) the new construction/major renovation of ballparks. The idea that local government (everywhere but the Bay Area) should fund ballparks is ridiculous in this day and age when there are very limited public funds for sports facilities and many in this country want to de-fund and shrink government. And it should not be left up to individual owners like Wolff, who has failed completely in his attempts to build a new ballpark. MLB has huge bucks, especially lately with all the TV money, and for them to rake in the huge profits while shirking their responsibility in funding new ballparks is a crime.

    Oakland always was the right place, if for no other reason than that it’s at the geographical center of the Bay Area and can draw from the largest population. I get all of the reasons that SJ would have been a good location, too (and all of the reasons that Oakland has been a major problem), but it’s time to move on and for all A’s fans to come together, for a change.

    Ok guys, bring on the insults!

  113. @jerry- way to much material so I’ll be friendly- maybe before you expect LW to get on board you might want to have your politicians on board- such. As Larry Reid who said HT is a non- starter for MLB and Quan knows it- his words not mine- and I am sure mlb can’t wait to make Oakland it’s first subsidized ballpark- a team that is already on welfare needs more of it to stay in Oakland- makes complete sense don’t you think:)

  114. @GoA’s — I believe I did comment on the Oakland politicians’ incompetency. Who’s to say Larry Reid knows what he’s talking about any more than the rest of them?? If MLB would help the A’s fund their new ballpark, they would be able to get off their other welfare assistance.

  115. Howard Terminal fans can chime with with Oakland mayoral candidate Bryan Parker. KGMZ gave him approx 25 mins to give a pep rally promoting HT.

  116. Sorry, damn I make more spelling errors then the law should allow what I meant to say obviously was.
    “, wait one moment, GO DODERS (when playing the Giants)
    It’s not like you guys did not get it, but man I got to do better.

  117. If MLB funds an A’s ballpark, it’s lower franchise values for every team. Prospective buyers of teams know they will have to spend Big $$ paying for ballparks, thus making owning a team less profitable and less attractive to potential investors MLB wants publicly funded (ie handout) ballparks…

  118. Jerry, there is absolutely no possible way MLB helps fund a ballpark. Never in their history have they have done so. And the A’s nor Oakland will be their first. They would much more likely buy the team and find a city elsewhere willing to pony up to build a stadium for it. And if the Expos situation is any indication, hell, if the A’s own situation is any indication, they’re very patient and very willing to continue with the status quo until someone does.

  119. @ Lakeshore

    great. I correct your false statements by giving the numbers….you respond that you aren’t going to seriously read my comment and opinions differ. uhg. I thought you were a more honest and thoughtful commenter than that.

  120. @ Jeopardydd
    You corrected my false statements? (in your own mind), Wow you sure showed me a thing or two (sarcasm), the numbers you gave really had little to do with my original statement, on top of that I think it was duffer, that pointed out (told you), that the A’s had outdrawn the Giants 17-32 years while the Giants were at candlestick (further illustrating my original point), but let’s not get caught up in (ALL), the facts when you are in the middle of winning a debate (right, right).
    I am not going to seriously read your comments? In my view you did not seriously read my comments in the first place.
    You thought I was a more honest and thoughtful commentator then that? Yeah dude when the other party is being as open and honest as myself I have no problem.
    This situation is complex and has many faces to it, this is not a schoolroom debate, and I am not going to rase a white flag, because you make a point or two (which I acknowledged gracefully and said it was cool, by the way)
    I standby all my original statements (not that you ever debunked them), if you care to (really), look at them, or as you said “you need to go back and read my comment” I don’t think any of us need to do anything, at least as it relates to commenting here, other than following ML’s rules.
    As I often say this are a three city (Oakland, San Jose, and San Francisco), two team (Athletics, Giants), and one league (MLB), high wire soap-opera, no meaningless two paragraph reply, by you or me is going to justify. If I disagree with a person, I try to acknowledge their point and move on, so even if you don’t acknowledge my point (that’s right you’re busy correcting them), may we please move on.

  121. RM: “You’re not bringing anything new to the discussion. Wrap it up.”

    That’s what happens when you drive diversity off the blog. And don’t deny it, asswipe. You do.

    Can’t wait to see your post on San Jose’s final brief on the A/T appeal.

    • @xoot – Oh look, it’s the butthurt lawyer, so worried about my moderation of a stupid comments section. Oh wait, you call it censorship. I guess you don’t know how the internet works. Suck it, asshole.

  122. @Jerry well said, I do think equal share should be spread across the board for teams and city’s, but I do not know why MLB and such leagues don’t have a fund as you mentioned, the NFL seems to be doing great with there G funding. why? because a new stadium only increases the value of the team and the league as more sponsorships and corporations come in along with bigger TV contracts as the team is more attractive to advertise in the national spotlight. What is interesting is what you are stating was also stated in 2009 by then Mayor Dellums. Dellums said “any new stadium would be built with money either from Major League Baseball, the A’s or both. Land, parking and infrastructure upgrades would be the city’s responsibility and likely would be paid for with redevelopment money and, possibly, federal assistance.” Yes pro SJ people the article also talks about RD funds but the quote is to show that this has definitely been talked about. But what also is interesting is the “federal assistance” most likely for cleanup of sites. Not sure anyone on here know all the details that goes on with Laws etc and ports but there are possibly a lot of different ways to get CC or HT funding from government.


  123. Great retort #lewsshill you’re a fucking fraud.

    • @xoot – You know what, xootsuit, I’m gonna let you stay on here because you apparently have no reason to be here other than to troll on the comments. Fine, troll away. It’ll only make you look less sane.

  124. K, the NFL has to find a way to come up with over a billion dollars to fund their stadiums. MLB doesn’t. Generally, their deals end up with the same amount that NFL gets from the city with the team putting up the same as the NFL team does, if not less. Nearly every team in the league has their palace aside from two. In addition to that, the NFL makes significantly more than MLB so funding those loans through their revenue sharing isn’t too big a deal. Neither Oakland nor St Pete is special enough for the league to make any sort of investment. And MLB isn’t likely to quite see a similar ROI if they did. Oh, and Oakland isn’t actually offering to put up any significant amount of money to fund a new stadium.

  125. I don’t “stay” on here. I haven’t bothered to post here in a long time. I just stopped by to see what you and your very few followers think about San Jose’s final 9th Circuit brief. Obviously, none of you know what’s going on there. That’s fine.

    But check the facts, asswipe. I didn’t criticize the comments. I criticized your petty gripe about the comments. YOU attacked THEM. And that’s your general approach when discussion broadens on your blog. Anyone who disagrees evens slightly with your #lewsshill bent is an alleged “troll.” You’re a ridiculous martinet.

    • @xoot – As policy, I read every single comment that is posted to this blog. Have you ever done that for your site? Do you know how repetitive it gets? I didn’t strike down any particular comments from either side in this thread. If you read them, you’d know that it’s the same repetitive bullshit it over and over. If you’ve ever had to moderate a comments section, you’d know that. Well, have you ever done that? Show me where you’ve moderated any kind of debate, especially one that has gone on for years and years.

      Excuse me if I don’t feel sympathy for your alleged victimhood. You have Twitter and plenty of other places to rail about the A’s and A’s ownership. You want to attack me, call me a shill? Go ahead. Try to start a meme if you like. How’s that working out? I’ll take my credibility over a two-bit solipsistic legal hack like you. Got it?

  126. Everything’s working out fine, asswipe. You’re a shill. I’m not interested in continuing this dialogue. See how easy it is to ban a fraud.

    • @xoot – Nice retort, asshole. “See how easy it is to ban a fraud.” – So you’re calling yourself a fraud? Okay then. FRAUD. #quanshill #boxershill

  127. solid crowd out there for a friday night against a bad hou team. should be close to or be a sellout tomorrow for donaldson’s bobblehead.

  128. you’re inane. nice retort repeating my critique of you.

  129. Holy shit. ML reads all these comments? Hardcore. How has your brain not melted away by now?

    • @Briggs – It’s the best way to deal with spammers. Some comments evade the spam filter, so I have to moderate each one. It. Gets. Repetitive.

  130. @ Lakeshore
    From a previous comment of mine:

    “The A’s had much more on-the-field dominance and a much better stadium that was far easier to get to during that time.

    And still, with those big disadvantages, the Giants drew roughly the same as the A’s. What does that tell you?”

  131. @ Lakeshore

    Again, the A’s have actually averaged a higher attendance under Fisher/Wolff than under Haas.

    People only seem to remember good attendance for the period when we had a team with mega stars and Hall of Famers, but with both a great owner and a great stadium (far better than the Giants’ stadium which can’t happen anymore), we still drew poorly when the team was bad to medium, under Haas.

    In other words, those two things CAN’T be the reasons for lack of support in Oakland.

  132. @Jeporydd, K and Coot

    Hey fellas i think the San Jose crowd pjk, tony d and the rest are getting weaker..join my “Quan”s Oakland Avengers” to conquer ML and his san jose henchmen.. lets promote Coliseum City and get those teams to invest in Oakland. ..lets begin the mission. ..agent Harry out….end transmission

  133. @Jeopardydd: Not a good comparison: When the Haas ownership bought the A’s in 1980, MLB attendance was much lower. The Yankees led MLB 1980 attendance with 2,627,417. There were just 7 teams that drew over 2 mil. – no teams drew 3 mil. or more. In 2013, 8 teams drew over 3 mil., 22 teams drew over 2 million. Comparing 1980 MLB attendance figures with 2005-13 figures is not accurate.

  134. @ duffer,

    Here’s the A’s AL attendance rank in a 5-year period (1983-1987 seasons), all under Haas ownership and a nice stadium:

    11th of 14
    11th of 14
    11th of 14
    11th of 14
    11th of 14

  135. The Coliseum has never been a “nice” MLB stadium. Very few MLB teams which play at those multi-purpose venues built in the 60s and 70s – the A’s and Toronto are the only franchises that still play in them – do a dis-service to either MLB or the NFL teams that use them. Very few, if any MLB team playing at a multi-purpose stadium has enjoyed good attendance. All I know is that the A’s outdrew the Giants by huge figures for several years – to the point where the giants gave up on the bay area – the A’s have never been in that situation.

  136. I’m a long time observer of this blog and enjoy reading the comments. You won’t read mine here since I don’t really have anything intelligent to add to the discussion. Im not even a big baseball fan, but I am fully pro-SJ Ballpark and hopeful that the politics will resolve in this decade. Until then ML, thank you for helping us stay informed.

  137. @ Jeopardydd
    You are correct the A’s attendance was not always (only); good under the Hass family (see one of us, being me can acknowledge the others valid points, you should try It.), but there are other factors that neither one of us brought up, so your contention that it
    “CAN’T be the reasons for a lack of support in Oakland”
    I find to be totally ridicules, as I never said it was the reason, I only sited it as one of the multiple reasons, reasons that have some in the Pro-San Jose camp only looking at one side of the issue (much like the Pro/Only Oakland camp), as looking at ALL the facts does not fit into the San Jose narrative (talking point) “it can’t work in Oakland”
    As to your next point
    “And still, with those big disadvantages, the Giants drew roughly the same as the A’s. What does that tell you?”
    Again you make valid points (it’s so liberating to acknowledge someone valid points, as I said you should try it), and while it could tell you one thing, it’s only one side of the story, because what it could also tell you is the A’s “OUT “drew the Giants 17-32 year’s (love how you slipped in “Giants drew roughly the same”), in spite of the fact that the Giants had a ten year head start, and played in the major city in the Bay Area (San Francisco).
    As to one of your other points
    “Again, the A’s have actually averaged a higher attendance under Fisher/Wolf then under Hass”
    On the service this looks to be one of your better points, and it probably would be if not for the fact that MLB attendance has jumped in general in that same time span, there are many factors why the A’s attendance has been a little higher (although still to low), credit the organization; they certainly have done a lot of things on the field to make that happen.
    That being said, I could easily say the A’s attendance is very high, considering the fact that the man running the team Lew Wolff was quoted as saying (before he was partial owner) if he owned the team he would move them to San Jose, he has made no secrect that he does not want the team in Oakland, and has turned off some(comments in the media), in the fan base refuses to even talk to the city about building a new ballpark in Oakland/Alameda County, and politically backed the one person running for mayor of Oakland (25 thousand donation or was it 50?), Don Perata whom made it known he would not try to stop the A’s from moving, I will not bother with more examples of what Lew has done incorrectly (in my view), but there are more and in this situation, I could say it’s a wonder the A’s don’t average 10 thousand a game.
    So are these not facts as well? Did these things not happen? Is it not possible that some of these things, along with many others, that are out of the A’s (Lew Wolff) control that lent to the situation?
    Look man I don’t blame Lew for wanting to move the A’s to San Jose, He does not owe Oakland anything, he should have every right to move his team to the part of the Bay Area, that’s best economically for him, but like I said the situation is far too complex for any of us, to site one reason for this (or two), or one reason for that.
    My points are no less valid then yours, neither of us knows what the hell is going on, we are all reading the tealeaves… again can we move on.

  138. @ duffer,

    The Coliseum WAS “nice”, and it was certainly much better than Candlestick was, both in the stadium itself and the ease to get to. We will never again have a much better, much better-located stadium than the Giants. That advantage won’t happen again, no matter where our new stadium is built.

    And the Giants drew just about as well as us pre-AT&T, despite being inferior on the field and in a worse stadium and worse-located stadium.

  139. @ Lakeshore,

    That’s more like the discussion I was hoping to have with you. Thanks.

    I maintain that 17 – 15 in terms of seasons the A’s and Giants outdrew each other is not a good number for the A’s considering that the A’s had 4 championships to zero for the Giants during that time, a lot more Hall of Famers, a better stadium, and a stadium much easier to get to, particularly by public transportation.

    You are correct that the Giants had an advantage by having deeper roots and being in the major, iconic city in the Bay Area. However, both of those things are still true and will be forever, no matter what the A’s do. It’s a permanent disadvantage and one reason it’s difficult to have a ballpark 8 miles away from the Giants.

    There are reasons that you can come up with, many of which you have stated, for why the A’s attendance has been bad in Oakland. But that’ sreally my point – the ONLY few years out of 45 that the A’s had great attendance was when there was a perfect storm of factors – wonderful and generous philanthropic ownership; a much better stadium situation than the local competition; more on the field success than the local competition; and the biggest stars and hall of famers on the most-dominant team in the game. Take away any of those factors, and the A’s didn’t draw well. That is not ok support and you can’t expect those factors to all coincide very often. 45 years is a pretty good sample size.

  140. @Jeopardydd: so your argument is that it is not possible for the A’s to enjoy an attendance boom when they move into a new, baseball-only stadium as the Giants have after moving to phone company park? The A’s outdrew the giants when the giants played at the ‘Stick (When the A’s move into a new ballpark – they should also see a big attendance boost – possibly even better than the giants improved attendance)

  141. If one wants to use as an example the impact that a ballpark’s immediate surrounding neighborhood environment has had on attracting ballpark attendance just look at Chicago. The Cubs over their long history of sharing their city with the White Sox have consistently outdrawn their South Side neighbors despite having less productive teams over the years. This is as close a comparison as what we have between the Giants playing at AT&T Park located in the gentrified South of Market neighborhood with a breathtaking view of the bay. By comparison the A’s are playing in the middle of an industrial East Oakland neighborhood where fans will be only seen outside the Coliseum walking to/from their cars in the surrounding parking lot or walking to/from the BART connection.

  142. @llpec – the A’s outdrew the giants 17 of the 32 years when the Giants played at Candlestick. The A’s situation is not comparable to the unusual White sox/Cubs situation. Until the gnats moved into phone booth park, they were an insignificant, almost door-mat team – and even had the moving vans packed for Tampa, FL. (The giants have not been the long time bay area favorite.)

  143. @ duffer

    I would expect the A’s to get an initial new-ballpark boom. The new ballpark effect doesn’t tend to last, however. A study done a few years ago found that almost all teams go back to their “normal” attendance in around 5-10 years (the Giants have done the very best in that regard, btw).

    I don’t see it being comparable to the Giant’s boost though. Look at the local competition. The Giants were the only team with a nice ballpark when they got a new one (since the Raider and the City of Oakland destroyed ours), AND the Giants gained a lot in terms of being close to a city center and also close to public transportation. The A’s already were close to public transportation, and Coliseum city wouldn’t be a move into the heart of a city like the Giants had.

  144. @Jeopardydd: True, it’s questionable how long the Giants momentum of moving to a new ballpark will last also – if they do a few more repeats of the 2013 76-86 W-L season, and the re-occurring violent incidents there continue (especially with the Dodger or A’s games at SF) – their novelty may wear out.

  145. @ duffer,

    Indeed, the Giants’ attendance had already started going down by quite a bit around 2008-2009. until they starting winning championships.

    The new ballpark effect is pretty temporary. You need good underlying demographics. That’s why I support SJ.

  146. @Jeopardydd I think most of, if not all support San Jose and think the A’s should be there. We are simply saying (myself anyway), that Oakland can work too, even if not as well.

  147. @ lakeshore

    I suspect we differ on the threshold for “working” in Oakland.

    I think that if it ended up like 1968-1995 in terms of attendance (on-the-field success is a different issue), that’s not “working” in Oakland. Sounds like you think that that’s ok.

  148. @Jeopardydd No actually I dont, but I do believe that in Oakland the A’s can out do 8-10 other MLB markets, in San Jose I would say 10-15, so success is also measured relative to the rest of the league as well and Oakland is still a more attractive market then any other option MLB has to put them in, which is one of reason’s they are stuck where the are

  149. Sorry: don’t know what happened with that last comment, I probably jacked something up.

  150. Something I have been wondering about: one can easily find maps of areas in the S.F. Bay Area that will be affected by projected sea level rise due to climate change. AT&T Park is in an area of San Francisco that may be affected by this albeit not for a long while. If these projections come to pass then the Gnats will need a new ballpark regardless of how “in shape” AT&T is otherwise. If Silicon Valley continues to grow and flourish, then it makes sense for the Gnats to build a new park down the peninsula (since Santa Clara County is in “their” territory) sufficiently inland and close enough to major corporations whom they can get to help finance the building of the stadium. Building a new stadium in SC County may be more complicated for the Gnats if the A’s already play there. Thus, I think it is possible that the Gnats are not willing to “return” SC County to the A’s AT ANY PRICE. Please note that it makes no difference if you, the reader, “believes” in global climate change or not. What matters is whether or not Gnats management believes it. Obviously, none of us, including myself, know for sure. If Gnats management does indeed believe that their team will eventually need to move out of AT&T at some point in the 21st century because of sea level rise, then it doesn’t bode well for the A’s. They (the A’s) will need to either stay in Oakland (in an area other than where O.co is now since that will be an affected area by sea level rise as well), move elsewhere in the East Bay or out of the Bay Area entirely. Yes, everything I’ve mentioned here is speculation, but then again, everything else here (other than, of course, the events reported to us by ML) is speculation as well.

  151. Can we not get into a “climate change” argument here? (It used to be called global warming, but the warming stopped 17 years ago.) I’ve said before that San Jose will come in handy as a place for the Giants to consider a new ballpark in 40 years, but not if the A’s are already there.

  152. “I think most of, if not all support San Jose and think the A’s should be there. We are simply saying (myself anyway), that Oakland can work too, even if not as well.”

    @Lakeshore/Neil, If Oakland officials expect Wolff/Fisher to put up 100 percent of private funds under the current conditions to build a new ballpark at what the A’s deem as a less than desirable site, then Oakland is only fooling themselves. For the Coliseum area to ever become a seriously reality as a future new ballpark location for the A’s, both Oakland and MLB must offer sufficient enticements to the A’s to make up for the expected much lower profit making potential that this East Oakland site offers. Otherwise, the A’s will stand their ground and wait until either San Jose is approved, or to move to another market altogether.

  153. @ pjk

    So you a) say we shoudl get into a climate change argument here and then immediately b) spout off a long-debunked Denier talking point.

    jeeze, make up your mind.



    ‘Global warming stopped in 1998′–Only if you flagrantly cherry pick

    Objection: Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global warming is over.

    Answer: At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!)

    According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at CRU’s graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black.

  154. Now climate change is a reason for the giants to block the A’s from San Jose? (Actually it makes more sense than any other of the giants owner’s arguments)

  155. If we want to factor in “climate change,” then then MLB fans in the South Bay should not have to travel 40 miles to see a Major League Baseball game, since most are going to drive. Put a team in the South Bay itself.

  156. @ pjk

    I agree. SJ is where the A”s should be (and I say this as someone who would have a tough time getting to games down there.)

  157. @IIpec I agree with you 100%

    @pjk if we’re factoring in climate change, then that would be one more reason the A’s should not build at C.C. or H.T.

  158. The climate change theory is a perfect fit to be included with all the other goofy giants arguments. Concerning the MLB ATE, there must be some way the court system deals with obsolete laws (such as a law requiring horse hitching posts be required within city limits) there must be some procedure where courts rule that those laws are no longer relevant and consequently removed from legislation – the MLB ATE should be considered in that category.

Comments are closed.