Summary of 2014 Coliseum lease agreement


July 3, 2014


6a. Resolution Approving and Authorizing the Execution of a Stadium License Agreement between the Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Authority and Athletics Investment Group LLC

Background. The Oakland Athletics (“A’s”) have been operating at the Coliseum under the current License Agreement (the “License”) since October 31, 1995. It has been amended and extended a number of times. The last extension, in November 2013, extended the License through December 31, 2015. After the 2013 extension to the license was approved, the A’s requested that the Authority work with them to come up with a longer term License Agreement For a number of months, representatives of the A’s and the Authority have been negotiating terms of that License. In light of the desires of both parties to reach a longer term agreement and to begin to work on the possible replacement of as the home of the A’s, the negotiators are proposing to the Authority a Stadium License Agreement (the “2014 License”) which is attached to this report. The A’s have expressed willingness to sign this form of 2014 License.

Proposed Terms of the Amendment. The following is a brief summary of some of the proposed terms of the Amendment. The full form of the proposed form of the Amendment is attached for review.

Term. The term of the License would commence on the date the last approval is obtained and terminate on December 31, 2024.

License Fees. The A’s agree to pay license fees for use of the stadium of $1.75 million in 2014; $1.25 million in 2015, $1.5 million from 2016 through 2019, and $1.25 million from 2020 through 2024. The 2014 License explicitly prohibits the A’s from withholding license fees as a method for resolving disputes and provides strong protection against such withholding in the future.

Early Termination. The 2014 License provides for certain early termination rights.

  • Construction of new Raiders’ stadium. The Authority is permitted to terminate the 2014 License if certain criteria are met with respect to a plan to build a new stadium for use by the Raiders on the Coliseum site. This termination would take place 60 days after the end of the second baseball (sic) from the date the Authority give notice of an intent to terminate.. The clause permitting early termination by the Authority to accommodate a new Raiders’ stadium contemplates that the A’s would not have to leave the Coliseum Complex site, but could build their own new stadium on the site at a different location than the new Raiders’ stadium.
  • The A’s move from Coliseum site. The 2014 License also provides that, beginning in 2016, the A’s may give notice of an intent to terminate. Termination by the A’s would be effective December 31 of the second year following notice. At the earliest, any termination by the A’s could not take place until December 31, 2018. If the A’s terminate in order to relocate to any permanent stadium site outside of the City of Oakland, the A’s are required to pay in a lump sum the remaining license fees through the end of the term. This lump sum early termination payment by the A’s would not be required if the A’s were to move to a new stadium anywhere within the City of Oakland.

Improvements to Stadium. The A’s agree to spend not less than $10 million to install a new scoreboard system in the stadium by the 2015 baseball season. The Authority agrees to pay for any structural work that may be required to support the scoreboard installation. The A’s would pay to maintain and operate the scoreboard and retain all advertising generated from the scoreboard for A’s games and events. The Authority will control the revenues from advertising on the scoreboard for all other events in the Stadium, including Raider’s games. The Authority agrees to spend not more than $1.5 million to provide enhanced lighting to the parking lot and certain areas of the Stadium.

Stadium Maintenance and Repair. In connection with the Authority’s obligation to maintain and repair the Stadium, the Authority agrees to fund a Stadium Maintenance Fund by setting aside $1 million each year, increasing by 5% each year, to fund its ongoing maintenance and repair obligations. The A’s may designate $150,000 of this fund each year for a particular project. The Authority is required to maintain the stadium even if the amount required exceeds the amount available in this fund. The 2014 License provides for an expedited dispute resolution should the A’s and the Authority disagree on the necessity and cost of the maintenance and repair obligation.

Scoreboard caps. The Authority will pay $200,000 per year for the use of the scoreboard caps where the am name is currently displayed. The 2014 License contains provisions that delineate the rights of the parties should the caps be removed in connection with the installation of a new scoreboard.

Continued Stadium Discussions. The 2014 License provides that the A’s and the Authority will continue to engage in good faith discussions regarding the construction of a new permanent home for the A’s on or adjacent to the Coliseum property.

General Release of Claims. As a condition to entering into the 2014 License, the A’s and the Authority agree to release all claims against the other party, including the claims that are the subject of an arbitration proceeding.

Financial Impact to the Authority: The A’s have provided a financial analysis showing that, compared to the last 10 years of the 1995 License Agreement, the proposed 2014 License Agreement has the potential to return total cash value to the Authority of more than triple that provided by the 1995 License Agreement (and more than double the cash value on a present value basis).

Further Approvals. The Management Agreement, between the Authority, the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda, requires that each of the City and the County approve the 2014 License. In addition, Major League Baseball must approve the 2014 License before it becomes effective.

Recommendation. Staff recommends that the Board of Commissioners adopt the resolution approving and authorizing the execution of the 2014 License and requesting that the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda approve the 2014 License..

Deena P. McClain
Acting Executive Director

P.S. – This agreement, which is supported by Alameda County and the A’s, is to have a vote on July 3. If it passes, the matter would go to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and the Oakland City Council, who each would have to approve separately. Oakland has indicated that it will vote against the lease and provide a counteroffer. The A’s have indicated that they will not entertain any such counteroffer.

132 thoughts on “Summary of 2014 Coliseum lease agreement

  1. Amazing! How is this not fair?

  2. I haven’t read the larger doc, but I agree with Nate Miley that the City is playing a very dangerous game here. The lease has plenty of flexibility in it for a variety of future options, but at the very least, will keep the A’s in town likely through 2018. For a city with a high likelihood of loosing the two other teams they host at around that time or sooner, their “power play” here is just dumb.

    The stipulation that the A’s rent increases over the 10-year term, rather than decreases or if holds constant, goes beyond logic from my end as well. That’s akin to paying increasing monthly payments for a car that already has 200,000 miles on it.

    I’m wondering why Kaplan is so mum on this: I thought she was the pragmatic one who reached the first deal directly with Wolff? Is she just going along with parliamentary procedure, or does she now honestly think that the lease is no good anymore?

  3. How is this controversial at all? All the city is doing is further proving that it is unworthy of having professional sports team call it home.

  4. Wow, the A’s don’t get the advertisement revenue for the scoreboard they purchase except for their own games?

  5. @Zonis I think the A’s should just tarp the scoreboards for all non-baseball activities, this includes Raiders games. Could you imagine the reaction to that? Haha…

  6. Any requirement to use Oakland in the name? Would be awesome to change the name while playing in Oakland just to fuck with Quan-

  7. Well since the Angels stopped using it in 1996, I say call them the California A’s.

  8. Wow, you guys really don’t like Oakland. All six of you. Scary.

    That’s cool, you don’t like sports, either. Stay away.

  9. regarding the scoreboard, i see it’s singular so that means they’ll only install one new scoreboard? so that means they’ll leave the other one in?

    brought it up months ago but i still wonder what happens to old these scoreboards that get replaced over the years?

    pretty sad to know that both oracle and hp have change their scoreboard 2-3 times over the past decade while the coliseum as the two crappy out of date a decade ago scoreboards from the coliseum renovation in the mid 90s.

    • @letsgoas – 2 replacement scoreboards, 1 on each side. New ribbon board would also be added.

      @freddy – Try to stay relevant in this thread instead of attacking or going OT.

  10. So what time is the vote supposed to happen?

  11. The City is basically playing “Chicken” with the A’s (As well as with the Raiders for that matter), figuring Selig is leaving office, and neither team (especially the A’s) will leave ever Oakland. Of course, they forgot about these little facts. 1: The Warriors found a landing spot and are not staying. 2: Selig bent over backwards for the Giants and the next Commissioner might not be so “Giant Friendly” 3: Santa Clara is there for the Raiders and maybe even LA after this Season. 4: AT&T or out of the Bay Area may happen after 2015 for the A’s.
    One big point is this: Oakland already has an inferiority complex when it comes to San Francisco. I wonder what the SAN FRANCISCO Warriors and the A’s playing in SAN FRANCISCO (on the way to San Jose or out of the Bay area) just might do to it? Finally, if all three teams leave (which I suspect will happen (Raiders eventually in LA)), I wonder if Elmano Gonsalves, will man up and admit to being wrong about how the City handled the Lease Negotiations? Probably the same odds as Jean Quan doing that. 0.000000000000001%

  12. Not to be overlooked, this lease deal has the potential to be helpful to the Raiders with their own new stadium objectives. As it stands now, the Raiders do not appear to be any closer to getting their own new CC stadium deal anytime soon. This A’s new lease allows for contingency planning for an eventual return of the Raiders to a new stadium at the Coliseum site. Since Mark Davis has publicly stated he does not want for his Raiders to be playing on a dirt field after this coming 2014 NFL season, the Raiders appear to be heading for Santa Clara starting in 2015. With Lew Wolff remaining hopeful for an eventual approval of the A’s move to San Jose sometime within the duration of the new lease, a vacant Coliseum would give the Raiders more leverage for an eventual return to a new stadium at the Coliseum site. At least for the medium term, the Raiders will be playing at a new state of the art football facility within their current Bay Area market. A win-win for the Raiders.

  13. Who knows, it could be over this afternoon. If they do reject it I hope Wolff and MLB issue a swift response basically saying they’re done wasting time with Oakland and the A’s will be playing 2016 in a new location. Don’t really care where at this point.

  14. Someone on the last thread (comment section), mentioned that sense Kaplan worked directly with Wolff on this proposal, that there may be a good likelihood after the elections in November (if Kaplan were to win), that Wolff would probable get this same deal approved.
    We tend to overreact to any news we receive regarding this situation, I am guessing that is probably what will happen, but if MLB were to finally get tired of the crap coming out of Oakland’s city hall, at least tired enough to give San Jose to the A’s, I would be fine with that, as long as we can get a new ballpark in the Bay Area.

  15. I hope Wolff isn’t banking on Kaplan winning. he tried that four years ago and it didn’t work then either thanks to Oakland’s asinine ranked choice voting.

  16. Dan, ranked choice is a very good system. The problem is when the voters make asinine choices.

  17. re: “As for Mr. Wolff,” he added, “he needs to quit ‘Wolffing around’ and get down to business and make Oakland the A’s permanent home.”

    …This shows us Oakland’s asinine demeanor and tremendous sense of entitlement to the same free stadium deal that Frisco go. Is Oakland going to help pay for the stadium? Nope. Does Oakiand care if the owners go broke building under these conditions? Nope.

  18. @ Dan
    Yes, but the last time Lew was banking on an outcome in the mayor’s race in Oakland, it was for someone to do nothing at all (Perata), this time it’s for someone that he already has an agreement with (Kaplan), I could be incorrect, but everything I have read has her being a clear favorite, and unlike Perata she understood the rank choice voting going in.
    The only question is will Lew donate $25,000.00 to her campaign, as he did for Perata last time, or was it 50,000.00?

  19. Point being that it doesn’t matter what Wolff’s ultimate goal is, if he’s depending on the outcome of an election in Oakland it’s a very dangerous game to be playing. Perata was the clear frontrunner last time too, and look what happened to him due to ranked choice. Kaplan could just as easily end up on the losing end of the system if she doesn’t win outright.

    And to top it off if you read the comments from the masses on any of the articles about this Oakland debacle, Kaplan is being lumped in with Quan or outright blamed just as often as Quan is at this point. Which may have been Quan’s game all along. This whole thing makes Kaplan look bad and many of the uninformed in the electorate seem to be buying it.

  20. How long does it take to build a temporary site? I am sure LW (the developer) can do it quickly. Oakland ? LOL

  21. re: trying any means to get to San Jose,

    …Does spending years and losing millions in Fremont count as “trying any means to get to San Jose”? Was losing Big $$ in Fremont Wolff’s plan all along? Bring Selig out for a press conference in Fremont in Fall 2006 to announce the Fremont project when Wolff all along knew he was only going to consider San Jose? OK? Whatever you say..

  22. Dan, Peralta never clear 50% of the vote in any scenario. So while he may have been a “front runner” he clearly wasn’t a true favorite. People didn’t like him, he reeked of a corporate mentality of rich entitlement. The fact that the majority of people didn’t see him as their first, second, or third choice as mayor is very telling of just how unpopular he really was. And given that it’s *OAKLAND’s* mayor they have every right to choose who they see fit to lead their city whether it’s in anyone outside the city’s best interest or not. So it’s no use complaining about the electorate’s ignorance or willingness to believe in a particular person.

  23. daniel, a temporary stadium could be built in theory in about 3 months time. It took roughly that much time to build 27,500 seat Empire Field in Vancouver. A baseball park of 30,000+ could likely be built in comparable time. All Wolff would need is a big enough field with decent enough access. However I still find the possibility an outside one at best. If the Coliseum is abandoned then I find AT&T a far more likely possibility.

  24. Dan, yup. Odds are it’s either the Coli or ATandT. The unfortunate thing, is that if it is ATandT, it likely means the A’s out of the bay area will be part of the deal.

  25. Oakland’s bluff has been called and they appear to have blinked. And in the process it appears the Raiders are finally getting the same treatment the A’s have endured for over 2 decades.

  26. If the lease gets approved, Oakland will then be expected to “partner” with the A’s on a new ballpark. Since Oakland has no money for stadiums, this will mean turning over the Coliseum property for Wolff to develop so he can get a return on his investment. If Oakland is not amenable to this, then it’s bye bye A’s. Hopefully just to San Jose. But more likely, it will be to some place like Portland or San Antonio.

  27. Selig is bluffing, he won’t let the A’s into San Jose and there is no where to but ATT Park.

    Oakland should hold steadfast if they are smart, allow the JPA vote but then re-negotiate when it comes to the Council for a vote to buy time.

    Selig is a grade A asshole…..It is his fault this mess is even occurring and he refuses to accept responsibility.

  28. ATT Park is still outside of Oakland. And the chances of the A’s returning to Oakland after being “banished” to ATT Park are about the same as the Raiders winning the Super Bowl anytime soon.

  29. Amen on the Selig as Grade A Asshole.
    His complete lack of leadership on this issue is why it is what it is.

  30. Sid, they’ve already blinked. Reportedly the city are going to approve whatever the JPA comes back with. Oakland realized they had no leverage. Despite what some Oakland partisans may think, the A’s have other options. The Coliseum is hardly the end all of stadiums for the A’s at this point.

    And at the same time the A’s will likely get the Coliseum development they want because this longer lease is going to put a huge crimp in the Raiders style and will likely drive them out of town. No loss there.

  31. “Haaziq Madyun ‏@KRON4HMadyun-#JPA lead negotiator says Bud Selig could change his mind about allowing the A’s to leave Oakland. Open session continues…”

    Are you kidding me? They still want to play this game?

  32. If the end result of all of this is something resembling the old Coliseum North plan in the Coliseum parking lot (regardless of the Raiders landing spot) it’s a win for everyone. A’s, Oakland, JPA, ALCO. Me, you… I don’t know if that is what is coming, but hopefully it is

  33. Lew and MLB put down the hammer.
    “I was informed tonight that Commissioner Selig, due to the possibility of not having the hearing and vote that we were purported to receive from the JPA, that we will immediately be allowed to seek a temporary or permanent location outside the city of Oakland.
    It is interesting, that nowhere in Lew’s e-mail dose it mention that the A’s can move to San Jose, as a matter of fact they already had permission to move outside of Oakland, when they were trying to build in Fremont, but it’s good that MLB put the smack down anyway.

  34. welp… if that’s the stance JPA takes, they deserve the result.

  35. So in the end Kaplan voted no and Reid voted yes. Ok.

  36. Guess next move is Raiders- Coli won’t be torn down at the end of 2015. Can’t wait to hear how Quan and company spin this as a win with the local media eating it up-

  37. @ Jeffrey
    Right on the money, I hope.

  38. Wait what? Kaplan voted against a lease she was one of the primaries on?

  39. Wtf- Kaplan voted against deal she helped construct- riddle me that-

  40. Wow Monday is going to be interesting to say the least when the city of Oakland votes on this. I presume that the 2 no votes were both city representatives. And they could of course still vote this down and put it all back to square one.

    The twisted side of me really does hope that’s what they do and we get to see the A’s playing in a new temp venue somewhere in 2016 or even AT&T Park.

  41. @ GoA’s I here you, talk about WTF.

  42. Your move, Raiders.

  43. Nope. It’s Oakland City Council’s move. They can still reject it and try to open up more negotiations. They’d be stupid to do that, but…

  44. PS- Kaplan just played a political game of cover your ass. She now can claim both sides of the argument. If it is hugely unpopular, she can say “I voted no.” If it is wildly successful, she can say “I kept the A’s in town.” It’s actually quite brilliant and it’s the antidote for Quan’s poison pill.

  45. Jeffrey: There won’t be more negotiations if the city council rejects it. It’ll just mean the A’s are gone.

  46. Or it makes Kaplan look kind of whacky is the risk. I mean she did just vote against her own lease proposal.

    In another funny twist. I just open the article on SF Gate talking about the approval and possible move of the A’s if Oakland turns the lease down next week and right below the headline the ad says “Find Flights to Vegas” as its headline. Made me laugh.

    Next will be an article about the Raiders angry response with ads for flights to LA.

  47. I’m sorry, but how does this really hurt the Raiders? They can still make their deal and within two years have the A’s out of there at any point of the lease. At worse, it may delay some things, but at this point they have nothing going on anyway and would need to go through various planning hurdles before they could even possibly begin to worry about pushing the A’s out.

  48. The Raiders just need to fill that $500 million financing gap. If they are waiting for the City of Oakland to write them a check to cover that, they will wait a long, long, long time.

  49. I think it’s the point that Oakland will have now just locked the A’s into a long term lease at the exact site the Raiders want to build. It’s undoubtedly part of why the city was so reluctant to sign a long term lease with the A’s, while the move happy Raiders were waiting in the wings with a lease that expires in 6 months. The Raiders have already stated they want to level the Coliseum after the 2015 season. That’s not happening if the lease is approved. They’ll be moved back at least a year if not longer at this point because of it. And honestly there isn’t much keeping the Raiders in Oakland at this point other than Mark Davis’ good will.

  50. Wolff had the possible Oakland rejection of the lease mapped out 1.5 years ago and that the A’s had other options if the lease was rejected at that time. The A’s must have plans for a temporary stadium somewhere locally. Wolff also has frequently insisted that the A’s are focused on staying in the bay area – moving San Antonio, Portland, Montreal, etc. temporarily wouldn’t make sense either.

  51. Raiders should just negotiate with the 49ers for a “Game Day Raiderifcation Plan” for Levi’s, including covering as much of the red motif with silver and black as possible, and a Raiders Hall of Fame in an empty room somewhere. Go to Santa Clara and be done with it. Davis wouldn’t even have to give up any ownership of the team and his existing fan base will have no problem getting to the games. Heck, the people still traveling up from LA will save 45 minutes of driving. Ideally, Davis wants his own stadium in Oakland but how many more years of fruitless negotiations have to happen before he sees it aint happening? He can call the team Oakland, San Jose, Silicon Valley, Northern LA, whatever he wants.

  52. I just want to see the A’s become homeless. I want to watch the comedians and talk shows make fun of that azzhole Selig and MLB after one of their franchises fails to find a home

  53. What has to happen now is the BayIG group either closes the funding gap for the Raiders (not likely) or they need to be pushed aside. Reid’s yes vote is a further indictment of BayIG. If the council believes BayIG is going to put up the money, they should consider voting no. But if the money was there we’d know by now. Maybe this will change things, but I doubt it.

    Also, if MLB would rather pay the A’s $300 million over the next 10 years instead of having them pay into the revenue sharing system, have at it hoss…

  54. I wonder if the Oakland city council will do the unthinkable, and actually not approve the lease on Monday, after all the A’s have been free to leave Oakland the hole time, they just have not been free to move to San Jose, which they still are not free to do so.
    Unfortunately these politicians have to really believe a team is going to move, to actually attempt to do something.

  55. Dan, regardless of an A’s lease today, that wasn’t going to be happening anyway. They’re nowhere near where they need to be right now to make that work out.

  56. Gotta wonder what would have happened, or what may still happen if the lease was voted down. Was Selig’s approval limited to sites within Alameda and Contra Costa counties? If not, and if San Jose is still in play, would Selig have given his approval to relocate if he didn’t have the support of the other owners?

  57. Who says he doesn’t have the support of the other owners. The deeper down this rabbit hole Oakland goes the more likely that the owners will side with Wolff I’d think. I mean it’s not like Oakland is doing anything to endear itself to MLB as a whole by jerking around one of their chosen few.

  58. Dan, and MLB still doesn’t have to make any decisions on SJ on their way down the rabbit hole. All it means is a less formal black balling of Oakland. None of their other options are great so they’d absolutely prefer for the city to play ball, but if they don’t, they’re fully committed to the long game and if that means putting someone else out temporarily to strengthen their bargaining position (not just here, but in future cases) than they absolutely will.

  59. Political Rule #1: Cover your ass at all times

  60. @ fc
    I will tell you what would have happened, nothing because the A’s have no place to go.
    If Selig would have come out and said I’m going to allow them to move to San Jose (if you don’t approve the lease), then were talking a real threat, but he already said this back in the Fremont days, when that fell apart he said the A’s could look at “other communities”, whatever the hell that meant, it sure did not mean San Jose, at that time, or today, and to Lew Wolff the only thing that matters is approval to San Jose.
    Outside of that he has always stated he wanted to keep the team in the Bay Area, or Northern California, and sense he already got the “A’s may look at other communities”, go ahead when Fremont fell apart, we can safely assume those communities can be any place in Nether California, with the exception of the San Francisco Giants territory, and sense we already know Wolff does not want to move the team out of state that limits him to begrudgingly building in Oakland if he can’t get San Jose.
    He could sale to out of state interest, but that would take some time Selig will be long gone before that happens, so what this mounts to, is the A’s having no leverage, and Oakland having even less.

  61. Is the A’s press release regarding their agreement with the JPA really necessary? The last time they annouced an agreement, it created a mess where everyone looked bad. The classy thing would’ve been waiting until the Alameda County Board of Supes and Oakland City Council approvals. Oakland is a mess, but it’s better to step back and let their actions speak for themselves.

  62. San Jose’s chances of beating the MLB ATE are likely better than 50-50. MLB, under Selig, awarded the Tampa Bay owners group the Rays franchise only after Tampa Bay beat MLB in court. Perhaps MLB won’t approve the A’s move unless San Jose beats their ATE (that might be foolish though – a San Jose courtroom victory would further damage the MLB ATE)

  63. The A’s press release specifically says they’ll act accordingly if “private money becomes available” for a football stadium at the Coliseum. We’ve assumed for years that Oakland/Alameda County wouldn’t put up public dollars for new stadia, but this kind of makes it official.

  64. Well that explain’s Kaplan then. I had a feeling the council directed her to vote that way. What I don’t understand though is if she was under council order to vote now, how did Reid and the other council rep vote yes?

  65. The A’s may eventually move from Oakland, and if it’s San Jose I would be delighted, that they would still be in the Bay Area.
    But honestly the Oakland city council just got bluffed, by Selig, who by his own inactions, is not in the position to do anything immediately.

  66. This is the city attorney’s opinion on how Oakland reps are supposed to vote. It’s not very clear.

    “Delegates may exercise some discretion in voting when facts change or new
    information indicates that the previously authorized vote is no longer in the best interest of the City. However, such discretion presupposes that the delegate obtained authorization to vote in the first place. Further, any discretionary vote must approximate the general intent of the Council. If the delegate has not received authorization, he/she has no basis to determine the general intent of the Council on the matter and would
    simply be voting his/her individual policy preferences.”

    Click to access FINAL%20Legal%20Opinion%20re%20Delegate%20and%20Council%20Representatives%20Authority%20to%20Cast%20Votes%20at%20Coliseum%20JPA.pdf

  67. So what? If Kaplan was not running for mayor, she most likely would have voted, for the proposal that she helped put together, talk about CYA.
    Rebeca, I know you probably don’t read this blog, but if you do, I really thought you were better than that.

  68. Well we keep saying Oakland got bluffed and that Oakland caved. First I’m not sure Selig necessarily bluffed them. There’s an implied threat there that Selig could definitely follow through on and that’s a full relocation. The second thing is, I’m not sure Oakland actually caved yet. Reid seems to have voted contrary to their wishes if what Kaplan is saying is true, as did the yes vote from the council appointee. If that’s the case the full council may yet hold the line on Monday. In which case things will get VERY interesting next week.

    I may need to stock up on more popcorn.

  69. Oakland caved because Selig/Manfred tossed out the ATT Park option in their faces once again.

    MLB can force the Giants to take the A’s as tenant for the same reasons they are blocking San Jose from the A’s…..the irony.

    When Wolff said “permanent or temporary location”, ATT Park was what he was eluding to as it could be either or.

    Wolff knows he may end up at ATT Park but why when he does not have to? He just bought himself time for San Jose to win its appeal.

    MLB stupidly thinks they are going to beat SJ in this case….I want to see Selig’s face when SJ wins, they settle, pay SJ a boat load of money, and allow the A’s to move to SJ…..That will be the day!

  70. @ Dan
    What I’m saying is Selig bluffed, in the sense that he really can’t do anything immediately, as was the quote, long term he certainly can and still may. Innless he is going to let the A’s have San Jose, he is blowing hot air, as it relates to (IMMEDIATELY), in the short tum.
    As far as Oakland, if they want any realistic chance at keeping the team (which may already be gone), they need to vote yes on Monday.
    If they don’t, then hopefully that will put more pressure for MLB to open San Jose.

  71. I love WT tweet suggesting SJ chances are now slimmer because option is set to expire? Option expires in November after 9th district ruling- so far she is batting 000 on her predictions associated with lawsuit but she keeps them coming as if she is kniwledgable

  72. Lake, you’re forgetting. The A’s & MLB have had a year and a half under the potential threat of the Coliseum being gone after 2015 based on the Raiders’ plan. It would be absolutely foolish if they hadn’t come up with a contingency plan in that time just in case. So if you’d be dead wrong if you think there isn’t a plan in place in case the A’s have to be out of Oakland after 2015. The only real question is how much the difficulties with that plan are compared to any potential new terms wrt to the lease agreement.

  73. Lake, the Giants shared the Polo Grounds with the Yankees for 10 years while the Yankees got the original Yankee Stadium built. Teams sharing stadiums isn’t a new concept for MLB. Not that it would necessarily take 10 years, but that’s a lot of time to figure out a more permanent situation for the A’s long term, don’t you think?

  74. Selig could move all A’s home games to San Francisco in a heartbeat. He could address conflicts by having the A’s play some games in Sacramento. Oakland has navigated this whole thing horribly and their assumption that the A’s had no options (and the horseshit they have floated in the press where they imply that MLB was working with them against Lew Wolff’s wishes, that MLB preferred Howard Terminal as a ballpark site, etc.) just kicked them square in the dick.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if the Council votes it down and 15 seconds later a scenario in which the A’s play games outside of the Coliseum comes out in a press release.

  75. @ dmoas I do agree, that the only thing that can be done right now, is the A’s games could be moved to AT&T, but in that case I think the Giants would want assurance that the A’s would build in Oakland, for letting them use there park, and that is were the commissioner would have to come down on the Giants, or cut a deal with Lew for building in a place he did not want to.

  76. re: if “private money becomes available” for a football stadium at the Coliseum.

    …in other words, everyone is waiting for a miracle: an infusion of $500 million more in private capital since Oakland can’t contribute anything from the city treasury. So the stalemate persists – and this is between the Raiders and Oakland, both of whom have been willing negotiating partners.

  77. The Giants would have zero say about building location in return for the A’s sharing AT&T. That is MLB’s call all the way.

  78. “Selig could move all A’s home games to San Francisco in a heartbeat.”

    No he couldn’t. The rich NIMBY neighbors and the city of San Francisco could come up with plenty of ways to stop that cold, or at least drag it out for a few years.

  79. No, the NIMBYs have no say for an existing venue already being used for the same purpose.

  80. SMG, I think they’d have a say, but if I’m not mistaken that would only be if it were intended to be a permanent move. If it were temporary they could get around it.

  81. Tim, have fun with that “no place to go” mantra. At least two folks in the know realized it was bullshit and voted accordingly.

  82. @ SMG respectfully disagree with you on that one.

  83. @ SMG I think the Giants would have some say, they certainly have up to this point.

  84. Dan: You’re probably right. There is precedent to support that.

    Lakeshore: On what? The nimbys near AT&T live in housing built AFTER the stadium already existed. They have no say whatsoever over event scheduling at the stadium.

  85. don’t be surprised if Frisco G’s pay some nitwits like Agnos to stage some bogus protests if BS moves the A’s to ATT. Hey too much traffic and noises already , something like that.

  86. Lakeshore: As noted above, they’d have no meaningful say over temporarily housing a hypothetically homeless A’s.

  87. @ SMG sorry: I think the Giants would have some say in the A’s long term location, if they allowed the A’s to play in there park for 2-4 years, weather we like it or not the Giants have had a direct impact in where the A’s play right now and I think there position would only get stronger, if they open there park to the A’s.

  88. none of us know what is going on inside MLB. But, if I was the commissioner and this was going on… “Larry, they move to your yard temporarily or they move to San Jose permanently. If you want to sue me, go for it.”

  89. Obviously, if the City Council doesn’t mess it up next week, it doesn’t matter. There is a path to keeping the A’s in Oakland if they want it. It probably pushes the Raiders out of town.

  90. The Gnats and nearby residents of AT&T Park may have no meaningful say if MLB has the A’s playing their home games in S.F., but you can bet some pseudo-“grass-roots” group (backed by the Gnats) will pop up and raise a very loud stink about the A’s playing “their” precious ballpark.

  91. The Giants would have 1/30th of the vote for the A’s long term home, just like every other team. Not a single iota more.

  92. @ Jeffrey I agree with you, I think the commissioner uses the threat of San Jose to get the Giants to allow the A’s to play in there park, I don’t think that if the A’s move to AT&T, that makes it any more likely that they would be going to San Jose, if anything I would say that increases the chances they leave the state although. Which many of us see as the Giants ultimate goal concerning the A’s.

  93. @ SMG Well that 1/30th is doing pretty good at keeping them out of San Jose, it’s cool I here you, just don’t entirely agree with you, on that one aspect.

  94. @pjk and dmoas

    u seem to forget that city of Oakland and Raiders have nothing to worry about. Once Raiders, Bayig and Colony Capital all settle things ..Raiders can kick the A’s out the Coliseum by 2016-17 and by that time Wolff would surrender to the Coliseum City plan…fight on Rebecca Kaplan

  95. Lew Wollf’s preferred scenario:
    1. City Council votes it down
    2. Bud Selig allows temporary move out territory
    3. Temp joint. Next to Quakes.
    Not saying that happens. Just saying that is what he is hoping for.

  96. Harry, if BayIG and Colony Capital was really a thing… Why would the JPA focus on the A’s lease that had 18 months left when the Raiders has 5? Just ponder. I don’t care what you answer.

  97. Whatever the happens in this never ending saga, it will make a great novel once the A’s do get a new stadium or is forced to relocated outside of the Bay Area.

  98. “As far as Oakland, if they want any realistic chance at keeping the team (which may already be gone), they need to vote yes on Monday.
    If they don’t, then hopefully that will put more pressure for MLB to open San Jose.”

    @Lakeshore/Neil, That’s exactly right! The true test will be with the City Council vote. Even if the City Council comes to its senses and votes yes, I am still confident that the courts will ultimately rule on the side of what’s right, fair, and equitable. I believe this is looking more and more like a win/win for the A’s in their long-time quest to get a new Bay Area ballpark on their own terms.

  99. @Jeffery
    You will see soon and when I’m right u have to dress up as duck…seriously. ..

    Raiders and city of Oakland still have leverage…they can push those ungrateful A’s out of Oakland. ..Lewis Wolff better give in to the Oakland tax payers and agree to the 66th ballpark or else Oaklanders might boycott Oakland sports rules

  100. Last night Gallo was against the deal. Tonight he says it’s fair and will be good for the whole region. If Kaplan, Reid and Gallo are already yes votes, I’m willing to bet Gibson-Mcelhaney and Kalb will be too. And unless something dramatic happens with the Raiders in the next few days, that will be that.

  101. I thought A’s fans had already been boycotting games these last 5 decades?

  102. @ Dan I don’t know if that was more funny, or sad,

  103. Mike: re “Whatever the happens in this never ending saga, it will make a great novel once the A’s do get a new stadium or is forced to relocated outside of the Bay Area.”

    And ML should write the book. Think about it ML… you know you want to.

  104. @harry- Raiders are done in Oakland- clause requiring developers to out in $10M to prove they are serious about A’s ballpark should do in Bay IG- guess Larry Baer’s inside jnformation to Quan was wrong- maybe bud is finally tiring of Larry’s bs-

  105. @jeffrey- actually think Lew is getting his ideal scenario- 10 more years with easy outs- showcases the difficulty of working with Oakland to MLB and ultimately will prove that Oakland/AC doesn’t have the resources to support infrastructure improvements etc- no commish is going to force a bad business decision- they are trying to unwind those now not add to them-

  106. A weak and empty threat: “Selig gave me permission to leave” To leave where ?and when?…tomorrow? Take the baseball and go home? Ten year lease? It is not a ten year lease….it is a free ride until he finds a place and a way out of Oakland!
    The politcians just needed an excuse to justify voting for a very bad deal for Oakland taxpayers. Wolff and Selig used the same methods they’ve been using for the last 19 years throwing in theirTrojan horse at the last minute to convince weak minded politicians to bend down at the proper time. Why all the surprise…my revenge will come when San Jose (or any other sucker city) taxpayers find out they’ve been taken to the cleaners by the usual extortionists characters MLB Mafia is composed of with Selig as their Godfather. That’s when I want to see their civic pride!!!! I’m just sorry this beautiful game is in the hands of such sordid people and I feel like an enabler for loving this game so much. Too late for me to give it up though…..already survived the live ball and the steroid era….I’ll survive watching their ongoing blackmail and extortion of taxpayers….shameful!!!! I’m ashamed to be a baseball fan…cm on Quan and Kaplan fight back..

  107. Remember one thing, folks – if the Giants voluntarily let the A’s play at the Phone Booth, then the Giants are giving up any claim they may have on their “exclusive” marketing territory as it is currently defined. Last time I checked, the Phone Booth is in San Francisco County.

    If MLB is open to having the A’s play in SF County, and the Giants allow that to happen, then there is no logical (or presumably legal) reason for the A’s to be prevented from moving down to Santa Clara County.

    Anybody know if the Camp Parks stadium idea can be resurrected?

  108. harry: If the deal is so bad, Oakland can just vote it down and send the team on its way. MLB won’t cry too much over having to move the team when its stuck in a 50-year-old sewage-spewing football stadium, can’t get a new ballpark, has poor attendance and requires league welfare to survive. What’s the big incentive for MLB to cave to the “this deal is bad for Oakland taxpayers!’ crowd?

  109. Harry, you are an intellectual giant and a prince among men. Chris Dobbins says so.

  110. @harry- remember it was Kaplan who structured the deal- she claims she voted no because she was required to- she doesn’t have to vote no when the council votes on the deal-

  111. @ SierraSpartan
    I could be totally wrong about this. But I think the San Francisco Giants can cover themselves with one simple word, in any lease agreement with the A’s “temporary, not to exceed X amount of years”, I would guess they would make that a stipulation of any agreement allowing the A’s in to their territories.

  112. So where could they go? Could they somehow slip over to Candlestick for the duration of the season? It’s the biggest facility in the region without a permanent host and will be there through the baseball season. Of course it’s far from ideal as a baseball venue but the Coliseum isn’t all that great.

  113. Baynativeguy: Realistically they could only play at AT&T temporarily. I know people talk about a standalone temporary venue, but I’m not convinced that that would necessarily be easy or preferable.

    Everyone’s collective balls are in a vice grip right now.

  114. @pjk and Jeffery

    The ultimate “tail wagging the dog” situation.
    Lew-Lew wouldn’t know what to do with himself if he couldn’t jerk around a 2-bit burg like Oak, the idiotic politicians allow this to happen by not being able to think their way out of a paper bag. They should use the Branch Rickey line “…we can finish last with or without you…”, force the A’z and MLB get their act together to end yet another nor-cal soap opera. The baseball “civic pride” is felt by few in the population, there’s larger numbers who would like badly needed police protection or better hospitals.
    Crazy Charlie’s loonie legacy continues in the “…luckiest city since Heroshima..”.
    And the sheep keep on spending, bahhh, bahhh, bahhh.

  115. Bayareanativeguy: Wolff has already suggested the A’s would build a temporary stadium if necessary – and 1 1/2 years ago suggested that the A’s had other options if Oakland didn’t agree to a lease. The A’s likely have a plan B if the lease falls through. Several months ago ML also blogged about the A’s building a temporary ballpark if needed. (One benefit of Oakland approving the lease would be that the A’s would avoid any possibility of playing at A-hole park though)

  116. @ SMG I agree with you, I think AT&T is the only rresponsible place for the A’s to play on a temporary bases. I know Wolff has talked about a temporary place in Northern California and ML has looked at it in a little detail, and I certainly could be wrong but I just don’t think that’s reasonable, I think the players union might have some issues with it. I guess if Wolff felt like it he could go to Vegas on a temporary bases, but since he wants to stay in the Bay Area long term, I could see were that would hurt the fan base to a certain degree.

  117. Raider Nation is very silent- either they accept they are now second fiddle or will show up in force for council meeting- looking like SC or LA at this point though I still question wnt ‘9ers would agree to sharing their sold out stadium-

  118. Ask Raider Nation how a new Raiders stadium can match the number of dates filled by a baseball team at a new ballpark. I read today that the 49ers have 17 dates booked at their new stadium through next April. That’s activities on 17 days out of a total of about 240 days. Not a very good ratio of days used vs. days sitting empty.

  119. They’re not co-workers, they’re council members. Even those who are allies are still independent to a large degree.

    It’ll be interesting to see what the council will do on Monday and whether they’ll still demand changes.

  120. @pjk- true about the 17 dates but their pro forma was based upon a limited number of events and by all accounts they have exceeded expectations

  121. harry = Lilian Bartholo

    come on Lilian stop cutting and pasting on two different blogs. For some one that claims to hate ML and this blog you sure are on here a lot. hahaha!

  122. Diamknd Lil! No wonder he sounds so full of shit. I been reading this since 2000 on the OAFC website (not that I look at that anymore)

  123. @ muppet151
    I have never sat on a city council, but I find it astonishing that the council members had so little knowledge of what was going on, when they not only have representation on the JPA, but one of their members was one of the main person’s in the negotiations, this seems to be some serious CYA.

  124. LSN – There is no excuse. The council doesn’t need to be involved in every last detail, they should be that involved; but Coliseum City is a regular topic of conversation for all council members, as is the future of the teams in Oakland. For there to apparently be zero updates to the council in the form of a memo or even a quick conversation until the end of the negotiations is ridiculous.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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