Alameda County approves A’s lease unanimously 5-0

After a relatively brief, much less heated discussion over the A’s lease extension than was had by the City two weeks ago, Alameda County’s Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to approve the extension. The deal keeps the A’s in the Coliseum until at least 2018, and up to 2024 if the team chooses to stay there. Though the deal is characterized as a 10-year lease, the 2014 season runs concurrent with the new deal.

Supervisor Keith Carson asked the most pointed questions of JPA negotiator Jon Streeter, mostly about the debt and the characterization of the new lease as a better deal for the County (and City) than previous leases. Streeter noted that the more money comes in upfront, plus the A’s have to pay off the lease even if they leave the Coliseum early. Miley noted that the original A’s escape provision calls for no payoff if the team pursued a new ballpark elsewhere in Alameda County. The language was changed to Oakland only, meaning the A’s would pay full termination even if they made a stadium deal in Fremont or even San Leandro. Streeter also repeated the notion that the upcoming scoreboard project, which the A’s are paying for, means that the JPA no longer has a potentially big liability item to worry about, since the JPA has been to date responsible for the outdated, frequently failing scoreboard.

To recap the major deal points:

  • A’s stay until at least 2018, up to 2024. A’s must give at least 2 calendar years’ notice if they plan to leave early.
  • The JPA must also give the A’s 2 years’ notice if a Raiders stadium deal comes to fruition and forces the A’s to vacate.
  • Lease payments are $1.75 for this year, $1.5 MM in 2015, $1.5 MM in 2016-19, and $1.25 from 2020-24.
  • A’s will spend at least $10 million on new scoreboard system. A’s retain all revenue from A’s games, Raiders/JPA can split non-A’s game revenue as they see fit.
  • JPA sets aside $1 million per year (increasing 5% annually) to establish a stadium maintenance fund (presumably for fixing plumbing, leaks, etc.)
  • JPA will pay $200,000/year for the signage caps above the scoreboards. A’s may end up replacing those caps as part of the scoreboard project.
  • A’s and JPA will continue stadium discussions on land at or adjacent to the Coliseum (nowhere else like Howard Terminal).
  • The parking arbitration matter is resolved, all claims dismissed.

The JPA and County clarified that there is $191.4 million in outstanding debt at the Coliseum complex: $106.5 million for the stadium, $84.9 for the Arena. Bonds will be retired in 2025 and 2026, respectively.

Next up is MLB’s expected approval of the lease, and the City of Oakland’s next steps in negotiating with the Raiders and BayIG over Coliseum City.

31 thoughts on “Alameda County approves A’s lease unanimously 5-0

  1. So here we are. I’m curious, what does this mean in terms of paths forward? HT officially being out is a somewhat big development in my mind… am I inferring correctly that this means it’s dead? If so, I wonder if there is a hidden win here for Oakland, in that it forces pro-Oakland constituents to focus on one site (a site that it seems A’s ownership is warming to, slightly?). No more distractions.

  2. Otter–the other “distraction” that needs to be taken care of is Oakland agreeing to focus on the A’s only and let the Raiders head off to other pastures (note ML’s tweek on Davis meeting with San Antonio officials–btw–does that make Mark Davis the new villian?). If/when they focus on the A’s only we might see some progress but if they continue to try and retain both the next 10 years wont be any different than the past 10 years…which were no different than the 10 years before that!

  3. Time for Oakland to dismiss this Coliseum City-Raiders stadium nonsense and let the A’s take charge of the Coliseum property.

  4. so HT is done. Tommy Boy wants to move to San Antonio, give him a kick in the butt on his way out of here! Oakland belongs to the A’s! They’ll be able to celebrate their 50 year anniversary at the Coliseum in 2018, with Marine Layer stadium to be ready to go in 2020! woo!

  5. This is good news, about the lease approval, I am hopeful it will lead to Oakland /AC, giving the coliseum site to Lew Wolff for him to develop.
    That’s interesting, Davis openly talking to San Antonio, wow I sure would like to hear from all those that accused Lew Wolff of being dishonest, for benign honest about his desire to move to San Jose.

  6. Hay, Mark Davis “We just need to know, what the A’s would like to do.”
    Really, really, it’s starting to look like; We really need to know, what the Raiders would like to do…

  7. @LSN- Davis isn’t being dishonest–he was very clear on what he wanted from Oakland/JPA and they havent been able to deliver. LW has never been dishonest either–he made his requests of Oakland early on–they weren’t able to deliver and now they have another chance because of TR. We will see if Oakland can deliver but I would never equate dishonesty with either of these individuals who have grown frustrated with an inept city govt in Oakland that has produced nothing over the past 20 years that this issue has been going on-

    • GoA’s
      I don’t think Wolff or Davis, was (is), necessarily being dishonest, that was a case of me being sarcastic, toward some of the Oakland-Only crowed, that seems to worship at the feet of Davis (free pass), while vilifying Wolff at every turn. As you know I have been petty critical of Wolff at times, so it bothers me a little when some of the Oakland-only types, put me in the position of having to defend him.

      • @ GoA’s
        And yes, I agree with you, most of this is caused by bad city government (Oakland), over the years.

  8. Well as a Raider supporter their are rumors that Davis will demand a very “Raider friendly” lease extension after the season”…what better way to stop Lew from kicking the Raiders out by just stalling. Of course mayor Quan or any future mayor would not dare kick out the Raiders or give them a unfriendly lease. So nothing to worry about.

    However happy the A’s will be here for a few more years and hopefully the city of Oakland, Raiders and A’s can come together and make Coliseum City project happen

  9. While I think it would be great if HT was no longer a distraction, if the wording is specific to the JPA, would that stop the city from still trying to push for HT independent of the JPA?

    The distractions from Knauss would likely still be there either way, but it would probably carry little weight if the city couldn’t even be involved.

  10. this just in from 95.7: reports that Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis has had discussions with the city of San Antonio about potentially relocating the team there.

    • @ Dan
      Yeah I guess Davis really loves that coliseum location, as long as someone is putting plenty of money in his hands.

      • I have to say this news really picked me up today. I can’t wait for the moving vans to show up and usher those losers out of town. Thanks for destroying our stadium and being a perennial waste of space. Enjoy the humidity in Texas.

  11. Unless the Raiders can come up with another $500-$600 million, there will be no new stadium in Oakland. In San Antonio, they can own the town (no more being the second most-popular NFL team in their own zip code), the stadium is already there and probably doesn’t need a lot of improvements. LA isn’t happening either. Davis would have to give probably his majority ownership in the team to get a stadium down there. The days of reckoning – as in, Oakland can’t keep both teams – are here.

    • Yep, and being the NFL the market size is not nearly as important since all their TV deals are nationwide. And if anything this would do minimal damage to the distant Cowboys and Texans while strengthening the already hegemonic hold the Niners have on the Bay Area. And given the reality that LA is the NFL’s bargaining chip that they’ll never blow on the Raiders, this is a very realistic possibility for the Raiders.

      And it also makes it clear who the favorites are for LA, Rams and Chargers, giving the NFL even more leverage against St. Louis and San Diego lest those cities lose their teams.

  12. FWIW, all the arm-twisting in the world won’t put $500-$600 million in Oakland’s back pocket. Let Davis talk to San Antonio – Oakland still won’t have any money to spend on a stadium for him.

  13. The Raiders have already shown their loyalty to Oakland by leaving town and then sticking the city/county with a huge debt when they returned, which the city/county stupidly enabled. If the Raiders can’t dovetail their plans with the A’s (both in the and, hopefully, a new ball park on the Coliseum site or elsewhere in Oakland that will actually work) then they can take their act to San Antonio. Now it’s time for the A’s to get favorable treatment and for the city to support the A’s and actually work together for a new ball park here — let’s hope both Lew and the city have learned their lessons of the last ten years! But I doubt the Oakland politicians have — no way they will say publicly that the Raiders should go!

  14. The Raiders are not going to relocate to San Antonio. That Texas city is the 36th largest media market, housing is some of the most inexpensive in the country, and it’s not a high income region by any means.

    San Antonio has AA baseball team and a second division NASL team just to give you an idea of the market. Do you think Mark Davis is going to give up the wealth in the Bay Area, the Oakland hills and Piedmont where his family lives, for San Antonio?

    Also, the Cowboys and Houston would fight a new team in San Antonio every step of the way. Does Mark Davis really want to be an irrelevant third banana in a small market in Texas? San Antonio is being brought up becuase it has a semi-ready football venue in the Alamo Dome. LA on the other hand, can’t be used as an immediate threat to Oakland officials.

    This is just another case of a local sports owner once again putting a gun to Oakland’s head. If these two babies can’t work together than we might as well say good riddance to both of them and put something at Coliseum City which will really bring in revenue to Oakland.

  15. ZOMG MARK DAVIS LIED HE DIDN’T TRY!!!!11!!!1!!1!

  16. Keep dreaming, Elmano. Your San Antonio Raiders arrive in a year from now. They can have the whole market to themselves, Mark gets to keep the team and there’s no need to raise $1 billion that can’t be found. The NBA Spurs do quite well in San Antonio; they aren’t looking to leave like the Warriors in Oakland. The Cowboys and Texas are hundreds of miles away from San Antonio. It would almost be like the 49ers complaining about a team moving too close to them in LA.

  17. The Chargers may not be a candidate for LA – they’ve had the option of moving to LA for several years now and have declined that, leasing from an NFL built stadium there might not be what they want either. Davis could also move to the LA Coliseum easily until the NFL builds a stadium down there. Also the Raiders have the Levis stadium as leverage. San Antonio officials may be giving Davis a very generous offer to relocate if the Raiders are seriously considering a move there.

  18. PJK, yeah, “the whole market.” The 36th largest market in the United States? PJK, it’s not going to happen.

    The Raiders problem is not dirt on the 50 yard line. The Raiders problem is a horrible team which hasn’t experienced a winning season in 12 years.

  19. Isn’t tv market less relevant to NFL because TV revenue is shared equally amongst teams? I realize that technically the nfl might be less attractive overall but the ‘9ers would have the Bay Area to themselves so our market would still FE producing and LA is expected to have a team before next TV deal is signed- seems as if they just need to make the deal sweeter than he has in oakland

  20. Elmano: Being the only NFL team within a few hundred miles will be better for the Raiders than either being 25 miles from the far-more-popular 49ers or playing second fiddle in the Cathedral of the San Francisco 49ers in Santa Clara. I think there is a real good chance the Raiders leave Oakland (again). Mark Davis has been negotiating with the Coliseum City advocates for two years but there’s no deal. Why? Because the money isn’t there to build in Oakland.

  21. Market size matters very little to the NFL. KC is the #31 media market,Cincinnati is #34, Buffalo is #51, New Orleans is #53, and Green Bay is #70.

    • @ SMG/ Elmano

      SMG, you are absolutely correct, the size of the market is not nearly as important to the NFL, as it is to MLB, as a mater of fact it’s not as important to the NBA either, why? Because (as I have tired to point out, in the past), every major North American sport’s league, has a real form of revenue sharing, as well as some sort of salary cap, but not MLB.
      This is the reason the NFL can have teams in New Orleans, Buffalo, Green Bay, and Indianapolis, it’s also a big part of the reason the NBA, can have teams in Utah, Milwaukee, Sacramento, and yes San Antonio, it’s also interesting that these small market teams in each the NFL and NBA are (shockingly), competitive, unlike MLB, where a small market team doesn’t have a real chance to get to the World Series, let alone win it.

  22. Market Size does matter to the NFL, it just doesn’t make or break a franchise in the way that MLB does because of the way that revenues are shared.

    This is good news for the A’s, and with a stadium/development deal between the JPA and thr A’s it could be a huge win for the region as a whole and the City of Oakland. Most important is securing a deal with either team that-

    a. retires the existing debt on the stadium.
    b. doesn’t involve a facility being run at a annual deficit that the JPA covers.

    That’s possible with the potential deal that Lew Wolff put forward in his letter. If the folks involved in negotiating this (Scott Haggarty and Nate Miley) are to be believed, the Raiders want the City and County to take on MORE debt. In short, fuck the Raiders if they think they are getting that. They have cost me, and other Alameda County tax payers enough already.

  23. I don’t think anyone, is suggesting that size doesn’t matter at all, but clearly it’s not as big a factor in any sport, as much as it is in MLB.

Leave a Reply to Lakeshore/Neil Cancel 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.