JPA approves revised Coliseum lease

MLB will formally review and approve the lease terms. Although owners meetings are scheduled for next week (during which they may vote on a new commissioner), approving a lease extension is really a matter for MLB’s legal and operations teams to review. No owner votes needed for that.

72 thoughts on “JPA approves revised Coliseum lease

  1. Mark Davis must be thrilled. Lew Wolff is looking at not only privately building a ballpark on the Coliseum site but also retiring the existing debt. The Raiders just want a handout that they won’t get.

  2. …meaning, that the next step for the A’s after the 10-year lease is to look at a ballpark development project that almost certainly has no room for the Raiders.

    • Don’t be sure about that, It’s not putting the Raiders V.S the A’s like a lot of people on here like to do. If you think Lew is going to get all the property your reaching as that property is worth a lot more. Like I have said before it can/ will be split up for Lew and his private group, and if MD can get these developers on board or he finds the remaining gap in funding. The EIR will be out very soon and will give a better picture, and if Lew is serious as he says he is it will/should be smooth sailing from here on out. Sorry SJ

      • Including a gigantic football stadium and the parking spaces it requires would probably deep-six any opportunity for Wolff to make a return on his investment with a so-called ballpark village on the site. Oakland is probably going to have to make a choice: Retire the existing debt, get new development and a new ballpark filled 80+days a year, or spend hundreds of millions more and keep paying the existing debt just so they can keep the Raiders in town for 10 days a year.

      • What PJK said. If Levis Stadium is teaching us anything, it’s that you need a lot of space for a football stadium when it comes to parking and the like. They wouldn’t have that if Wolff decides to build a ballpark village on part or all of the existing property (which he ideally will need to help fund his private ballpark). The city is going to have to make a choice, A’s or Raiders. The former have a real shot at happening given their ownership’s land management skills and financial resources. The latter has almost no chance of happening due to the projects ridiculously large scope, lack of funds, and lack of any kind of experience with a development like this.

      • I still don’t see any way for them to take the existing site and have both a football and baseball stadium on it, let alone keep the arena, without it leaving almost zero parking whatsoever onsite.

        I briefly touched on this in another post here but the only dual-stadium lot I found that really compares to the Coliseum is the Truman Sports Complex in Kansas City, but that’s a larger lot than the Coliseum and has both baseball and football side by side.

        To build both facilities at the Coliseum, assuming teardowns of both existing ones, even then it’d probably require parking garages and/or more use of parking across 880.

      • Your always throwing out he wont get a return on investment but there are no facts to back that up, the reason why hes looking now is because he can get some of the land by paying off the debt at 180 million instead of at market price which can be between 500 million and 1 billion for certain pieces of land, so he is already a step ahead of making money. It all depends of MD $ like it always has been can/will city give some, will developers give some, will he sell part of the team. Lew has said he doesn’t object to the Raiders staying or and is not trying to push them out, but I take his word with a grain of salt. His only objection has been not working with or planning with this development team as he has his own people which is fine. That is why the city will divide the land if MD gets his shit together, and that we will know very soon

      • Levis problem is the roads to the freeway, Oakland has the freeway right there. Also across 880 there is a good amount of land the city owns. In addition to that parallel to the Coli along 880 there are many industrial buildings for sale that can be bought up and torn town that lead up to the coli swap meet, between that land and relocating a couple of business, that whole area can be flattened which it should be anyway.

      • @ K
        You may be correct about Oakland/AC, wanting to divide the land and give half of it to Wolff and the other half to Davis, but if Wolff is serious (I have no real reason to believe otherwise), it would be really difficult for Oakland to tell him no, he has the money (without need for a big tax handout), the experience and even the political connections (Sacramento, DC. more so, then Davis), Davis has none of these things, all he really has is his team, and the need for help, if he ever builds anything.
        Oakland may decide to go all in with Wolff, and tell Davis if want to build something, “Go talk to Wolff about it”.
        If this infrastructure/transportation ½ cent sales tax for Alameda County passes this fall, which may help cover the infrastructure cost for the project, then it may be all Wolff needs to get going with the project, Davis on the other hand seems to need so much more, I share your hope that both teams can be accommodated, but if Wolff wants all the land it’s probably his.

      • @Lakeshore/Neil 100% agreed but to get all of that land is going to cost a little more than just the city getting let off the hook for the remaining debt. He has the money and resources, and I think I said it before I talked to someone on the council and its pretty much first come first serve, in which then i raised the question would Lew help MD out with the project while he can be the main developer and get a % of the Raiders, if and when this ENA expires or falls through with CC

      • @ K
        Did you get an answer to your question (person on the council), as to whether Wolff would allow Davis in on the project?

      • @Lakeshore/Neil he said they would support/steer towards that but if Lew purchased the whole 200 acres it would be up to him and his development team. Buying the land will make everything easier as that will eliminate both the JPA and the city from having to negotiated leases etc and will just allow the city to collect the taxes

      • @ K
        Thanks, for the response.

      • There are several facts that back up the “it’s only going to work for one team” line of thinking. There are already financial models that exist, two in fact. They show exactly what we can expect as far as revenue sources at the site.

    • @pjk: Is there room to keep the arena, and build the ballpark and village, or does the arena have to go as well?

    • Cue up Howard Terminal supporters again talking about what a great site it would be the A’s (as in, steer the A’s over to dead-on-arrival Howard Terminal so the Raiders can have the Coliseum site.) Lew looks ready to give Oakland everything they’ve wanted from him. But is Oakland ready to cut ties with the Raiders to make this happen? Probably not.

      • Don’t think you’ll see that. Wolff has been very clear HT is not happening. And several of the city leaders seemed to agree (and we know the county agrees as well). HT will quickly fade into a history of bad ideas just like VC did. Hell all it will take is one rendering by this architect and HT will likely never be mentioned again except by Don Knauss (assuming Quan is still around to urge him to mention it at all which we all know she won’t be).

      • It would make sense if all along Don Knauss was a sleeper agent for the Raiders to keep gumming up the A’s progress by bringing up HT constantly. Do I think that’s the case? No. But it would be brilliantly diabolical and would actually give an understandable reason for Knauss constantly promoting a site that seems all but unfeasible.

        Oakland needs to make a choice. There are two team owners who want to stay in Oakland: One doesn’t want any public money to build a stadium, has been generally honest (even to his detriment) and has a proven record of development success. And the other is Mark Davis. The choice is clear. Oakland needs to commit to working with the A’s and if the Raiders ever get their act together, then revisit that relationship. But as of right now, all Davis is offering are empty words.

  3. Guy on SFGate got me thinking. How hard would it be for San Jose to leave Santa Clara County? With the territorial rights being dependent on County lines, would San Jose leaving SCCo to form it’s own political unit not unlike SF is its own county, override the territorial rights.

    (Obviously it’s never going to happen but it’s an interesting thought none the less).

  4. I thought of that idea years ago: Carve out the ballpark acreage and declare it not part of Santa Clara County. I don’t see that happening.

  5. Bottom line if A’s build on CC site (nothing in Oakland is smooth sailing as K suggests) then the gints will fail on their quest to drive the A’s out of the Bay Area. But they will commit the A’s to being a small market team that has to accept periods of losing while they refresh their prospects. As to the raiders and a’s sharing the land- not gonna happen. Negotiations with the A’s on how much land they will need to offset a $500M stadium and payoff $100+M of outstanding debt will not include the Raiders. While LW has said that technically the site could house both the A’s and Raiders what he didn’t say is that economically it doesn’t pan out unless significant tax dollars are thrown into the mix by Oakland- and btw- if it takes 15 months to negotiate a lease extension of a distressed structure imagine how long it is going to take to negotiate this deal- any wonder why he wanted a 10 year deal?

  6. I do not want to see BS coming to Oakland. You know he will credit himself for helping the As staying in Oakland. Ahole

  7. @ daniel
    Your right, he will list it alongside, all his other accomplishments.

  8. Lew Wolff is offering an olive branch to Oakland.

    Wolff, after all these years of being so called “Anti-Oakland” is willing to consider the Coliseum.

    With the Warriors out, an improved Bay Area economy and housing markets, Wolff sees he can get this done….In his assigned territory.

    But he needs the Raiders to leave period. No sharing the site, no collaboration, no threesomes. He wants the land and to be the master developer.

    He is even willing to help pay off the debt the Raiders created. Is he for real?

    San Jose granted has a better site in a downtown area but Wolff doesn’t get any development rights. His vision in Fremont and Oakland (Coliseum North) were hinged on this.

    He would rather kick the Raiders out, buy the land for cheap, build his village and ballpark on the Coli lot and be done.

    Sounds simple but Oakland won’t let the Raiders walk. Another issue is the San Jose is about to hit the 9th Circuit next week and a decision on their appeal will be out in September.

    If San Jose wins, then Wolff now has all kinds of leverage and it puts Oakland behind the 8-ball…….I would love to be a fly on the wall at the JPA or City Council meeting once this occurs.

    • If Lew Wolff is willing to pay off the remaining debt (that the Raiders caused), and build baseball only stadium, on the coliseum site and Oakland still goes with the Raiders (who have not even shown a plan), then Oakland will get what it deserves.

      • I don’t think Oakland will give up on the notion that it can still keep all 3 teams. There is not going to be a declaration that any of the teams has to go. That’s why this baseball village thing sounds great but is still a long shot. Oakland will cling to the Raiders and even the Warriors, who already bought property in Frisco. Instead of pursuing the A’s and their idea – easily the best option for Oakland – the notion will continue that all 3 teams can stay.

    • @Sid come on now don’t make Lew out to be the Oakland savoir, OMG he is willing to payoff the debit the raiders created, hell yeah he is because paying 180 million is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying market value for the property, that’s a no brainier.

  9. MLB definitely could win here if it loses the lawsuit. Finally, at long last, San Jose and Oakland trying to outbid each other instead of San Jose being shut out and Oakland maintaining a “You’re stuck here so we’ll do nothing for you” attitude.

    • @ GoA’s

      Yeah, I agree with you (concerning the SF Giants desire to see the A’s out of the Bay Area), I have said several times that the number one priority for the SF Giants, concerning the A’s, is that they leave the Bay Area. The second priority for the SF Giants concerning the A’s, (if they can’t accomplish priority number one), is that they don’t get San Jose, which leads us to priority number three (if the SF Giants don’t get priority one, but accomplish priority two), which is to make sure if the A’s have to stay in the Bay Area, they stay confined to their current territory (preferably Oakland, in the SF Giants eyes), in the past I was criticized a bit for having that point of view.
      Oakland is not the best location in the Bay Area for the A’s from an economic standpoint (IMHO), as a mater of fact Oakland may not be the best place from an economic standpoint, even in the A’s currently defined territory (Fremont is probably better), so if the SF Giants can’t accomplish priority one, but can accomplish priority two, then they will probably be happy to accomplish priority three.
      It’s up to the A’s to make the SF Giants third priority work (if they don’t opt. for SF Giants priority one), regardless of the SF Giants being underhanded and unfair.
      Will the A’s be in the best position? ( from an economic standpoint), No but building a new venue at the coliseum site, with ancillary development, with control will put the A’s in a position economically, that is better then any open MLB market (presumably Portland and San Antonio), it also removes a lot of the A’s complaints, if they own and run the site no more Oakland city council or JPA to blame, if they can’t make things work.
      Yes the SF Giants may get there third option concerning the A’s, but if the A’s do things the correct way, they can make that option, anywhere between the 12-15 best market in MLB (IMHO )

  10. The timing of all of this seems particularly odd given what’s coming up soon….

  11. Just IMO. Wolff received so much blowback from his first time “trying to build in Oakland,” nobody in the East Bay trusts him. He’s all San Jose. Clearly.

    Methinks he knows something. Whether it’s the court decision, the new MLB head, or that he has the votes, he’s preparing from a PR standpoint.

    Caveat – just a guess only. Assume LW knows he’s got SJ for whatever reason. Is he going to announce it now or after the playoffs?

    Think about 2 things. 1) Assume HT had legs. LW would have 2 obstacles to prove that Oakland is not viable. By demanding HT be stricken from the lease, his case just became easier. And, 2) Do you honestly think he just all of a sudden embraced Oakland as the place to build? This was part of the plan all along. He is San Jose. I think I even read somewhere that he is considered the savior of downtown SJ because of his developments.

    Do you honestly believe he’ll give up on his legacy? A new SJ major league park? I think not.

    My prediction. Warriors – gone to SF. A’s – gone to SJ. Raiders – gone to LW.

    I am an A’s fan first. I would normally say see-ya to the Raiders…. if LW was sincere. I really believe he is lying and will ultimately get SJ. Therefore, I believe Oakland should do whatever to retain the Raiders to at least salvage one pro team.

    Because Warriors are gone for sure and, IMO, LW is full of it. He knows he will get SJ and will use Oakland to extract the best deal. It’s no longer a sport. $$$$$$$$$$

    • The Raiders are done in Oakland unless MD can come up with 500mils or more. The only feasible option for them is Levis Stadium. The NFL knows it. Roger Goodell knows it. The math does not work . I don’t know MD can remain a majority owner and build his own stadium.

    • @ DJHip

      You may be correct, because none of us know and my opinion surely is no better than yours (no offense), but you sound curiously like the other side of the Oakland only coin.

  12. Unless Wolff knows how the court will rule, he cannot know that he will “get” San Jose

  13. I don’t believe that Wolff has given up on San Jose one bit. The new lease extension gives the A’s some more time to work out their new or temporary ballpark options. In the worst case scenario, the A’s will get more time to remain at the Coliseum if the Raiders get their new CC stadium deal done.

    • @IIpec

      I agree with you, I don’t think Wolff has given up on San Jose either. We certainly know it’s his preference, and how could anyone blame him, there is little debate that it is indeed the best place in the Bay Area, for the A’s from an economic standpoint, hopefully he has a more open mind towards building in Oakland, since it may be his only real choice if he wants to build in the Bay Area, actually given Wolffs past comments Oakland would have to be his only choice, in the Bay Area if he ever built there.

  14. Once you go to Levi’s you will see that it would be very difficult for the raiders to play there- the place is over the top branded ’49ers- which is a cool aspect of it-

  15. the simplest answer is always the correct one. Think back to 2006, pre Fremont… The A’s wanted to build adjacent to the Coliseum because they couldn’t build at the Coliseum site. They couldn’t build at the Coliseum site because of their co tenants. They moved on to Fremont, and the SJ because their financing model was broken by the housing crash (and nimbyism).

    The situation has changed. 1. Housing market has rebounded, 2. Warriors are gone, 3. Raiders $$$ doesn’t add up. 4. Alameda County half of JPA has been advocating for the A’s since last November. 5. LW couldn’t make the case that SJ was a slam dunk at Diridon. Take all of that and you can see why Lew Wolff wants to do his thing at the Coliseum. Add to it, SJ filed a law suit (which was a dumb move).

    The simplest answer is- 100+ acre development and a stadium site in the Bay Area.

    • @jeffreyaugust- your right on in your thinking.

      Except SJ had to sue, there is obvious collusion in MLB locking them out.

      You can’t expect anyone to wait 4 years for a report that you and I could have completed in 2 months.

      SJ is a slam dunk but Selig doesn’t want to let SJ have a free ballpark. To him a privately financed ballpark is immoral and is sin infront of the baseball gods….this won’t hold in court.

      As for Wolff, he knows SJ is going to win as the expedited appeal signals it.

      He is about to make Oakland drop their pants once it happens, he wants the entire site to himself.

      It’s the only way he stays, he has no other reason to stay otherwise.

      He isn’t building in Oakland without development rights to a ballpark village.

      Plus a new commissioner is being voted in soon…..pray for manfred to lose.

      • @ jeffreyaugust

        The simplest answer is (almost), always correct.
        I hear you, you summed it up nicely. Its sure would be nice to just get a new ballpark.
        OT: I noticed in the twitter section (responses concerning the A’s desire for a new park), fans from other baseball teams suggesting, that they would trade their new ballparks, to have a team that is consistently competitive as the A’s are.
        The grass is always greener (almost, sarcasm); I don’t think anyone would trade a wonderful new baseball only stadium with the long term security it generally offers, knowing their team will be playing in those venues for decades to come, with the agony of the very real possibility of losing your team. (Out of region, Oakland or San Jose)

      • law suit- the international sign for “we would love it if you would move to our city.”

        I understand why SJ felt they had to do it, but I understand that it hasn’t endeared the city to the league.

  16. I’m still struggling with a “ballpark village” off of 880- I do agree that LW is looking at the development opportunity and sees potential but it’s not going to be AT&T- or even Cobb county- no matter how much lipstick you on this site it still has it challenges due to surrounding areas- we’re not talking about high end housing- were not talking about cool hip bars and restaurants- it’s not going to be Santana row- their is no economic justification for this type of development-

    • @GoA’s- The development Wolff would attempt should uplift the area in a big way. May not be Santana Row but it will be closer to what Emeryville has with Bay Street.

      Not as high end but will for sure cater to the middle class and even the upper middle class quite nicely. It will have nice enough condos and apartments that will rent for a decent amount.

      The Bay Area has gotten so expensive a development like this would be welcome. Wolff did not anticipate the market recovering so fast from the recession.

      Other markets are still suffering the effects but not here. Wolff now sees his chance to get what he always wanted…..a ballpark with a village.

      He cannot have that in San Jose.

      • exactly. The “ballpark village” is about a) revenue streams to finance building a stadium. b) creating an event atmosphere.

        These are both possible right in the Coliseum parking lot.

    • @GoA’s Hmm sounds like your describing something very familiar I believe that is right down the road from the coli but doubters claim that isn’t feasible in Oakland because made up/ false/ out of date claims…. Never mind lets not go there lol

    • @ GoA’s
      The area around the coliseum site certainly is not a home developers deem, but if anyone can develop the area in and around the site, it’s Lew Wolff.
      I know it’s not his preference but it will be interesting and a bit ironic if he takes it as a personal challenge, to make a development effort work in that area.

  17. If San Jose wins the lawsuit and still cannot get an MLB team, MLB will be required to pay damages to the city – money that could be used for cops, libraries, etc.

  18. What if they don’t come ? What if the A’s have a new park but can’t fill the place up ?

    • @ daniel
      That’s a “What if”, for every team in baseball and no more a challenge in Oakland, then any market in over half of the league.

  19. sorry–still don’t see it—your looking for the young hipsters to move into this area–families aren’t going to do it—schools are horrible—so it needs to have a cool urban vibe that typically is not created by throwing up a few condo towers and a hotel. To make retail survey it needs to be a destination spot 365 days a year- not 81 dates when the A’s are home. I don’t doubt for a moment that LW understands development and knows how to make money on it but I would guess the retail portion of this will be small with a focus on maximizing mid-income housing in this area (thats where the money is made in development these days). I recall ML doing a post on how much development could be built on the 120 acre site that is actually owned and I dont believe it was that significant.

    • @ GoA’s

      Well if Wolff is serious about developing the area, he must see something you don’t.
      That’s great news for all off us(if true), or at least most of us.

      • @ GoA’s

        Perhaps (if he is serious), Wolff has development idea’s for the site, we have not though of.

  20. @Jeffrey- typically agree with most things you say–but the SJ lawsuit was required–gints are not willing to budge on their position and this is the only way to try and get them to at least come to the table–and as someone said–I have not doubt that a successful SJ lawsuit will be good for the A’s all the way around in terms of Oakland and SJ competing for the team.

  21. @LSN- no doubt LW knows alot more than I do about development. I am not arguing that it won’t work–absolutely he will make it work and make plenty of money. My point is that I don’t see it being the cool hipster area that will sustain attendance in down years. In reality I see it as a ballpark that will most likely be replaced in 30 years compared to AT&T which will never be replaced.

    • @ GoA’s
      I’m sure he knows a lot more than me as well, it’s a little odd (isn’t it), that Wolff whom has been vilified by some, may be the one person that can get something done on that site, if anything can get done on that site.

  22. Several critical events are happening with the next few years:
    – SJ lawsuit
    – New MLB commish
    – Raiders lease
    – W’s move
    – Giants mortgage
    – New CBA

    I think Wolff has to do everything he can to secure his precious MLB welfare checks for the coming CBA by showing an honest attempt at staying in Oakland (and not counting on the ATE lawsuit). Otherwise he can be out millions as tgere’s no guarantee of continued exemption for the A’s in the next CBA, and essentially be left with the O.co and nothing else. He reached for the moon with SJ, and got thwarted even with his frat buddy in charge, so it’s survival time now….

    • Revenue sharing could be the be wrinkle in this.

      If the A’s build a new stadium in Oakland, there’s a strong argument for them to stay on revenue sharing as long as the current territorial rights are in place. The A’s territory as defined likely puts them into small market status.

      What happens though if the San Jose lawsuit forces MLB to remove the current restrictions? Revenue sharing no longer makes sense regardless of the location of the A’s stadium.

      If Lew thinks he can make money off of the additional development at the Coliseum, he might actually prefer that, plus revenue sharing over San Jose. In other words, depending on what Selig may have been telling him, it’s possible Lew is truly rooting against the SJ lawsuit.

      • Sorry, but even the current CBA explicitly states that if the A’s build a new stadium, they will be off of revenue sharing.

        As an astute businessman, I think he’s just preparing fir the worst case scenario.

  23. Mark Davis is doing what any other owner would do. Leverage out the City of Oakland to get a better deal. San Antonio is a serious contender. I would take this seriously if I was Oakland.

    • Davis can visit all the other cities he wants. It doesn’t change the fact that Oakland has $2 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, needs more cops and has no money to spend on stadium construction for any of the three teams.

  24. @JM- what does Oakland have to offer if they plan on keeping the A’s- can’t give one public money without the other one getting it also- not enough land to go around for both- Jeffrey referred to 2 models that come to the same conclusion- only 1 team can go in at CC

  25. @ John Marx
    I am a huge Raider fan and would love for them to stay in Oakland (Bay Area), but if Mark Davis can get another community (Cobb County style), to give him a boat load of cash, be my guest leave. It’s not as if his father did not teach me (us), who really owns the teams we care so much about. It won’t hurt nearly as much the second time around.
    As GoA’s, points out what leverage is he looking for anyway? Oakland does not have any money, it’s not like they are withholding money from a stadium project, they don’t have any. If this infrastructure/transportation tax, that’s on the Alameda County’s ballet, this fall passes, that could help provide money for infrastructure cost, but other than that, there simply is no money.
    The only possible leverage he could be seeking against Oakland is the hope that Oakland will deal with him instead of the A’s, which as the situation stands at the moment (it could change), but If Lew Wolff is truly serious about taking care of the debt on the coliseum (which is the Raiders doing), and privately build a new venue, as well as ancillary development, in exchange for the nearly 200 acres (that the city and county own/control), and infrastructure cost provided, I would have given it to him last week and said to Mark, “Mr. Davis if you want to build in, or around that site, you need to talk to MR. Wolff”.
    Oakland needs to go with not only which team is serious; it also needs to go with the ownership group that can actually get it done, at this point that looks like Wolff, again if he is serious.

  26. @ Lakeshore/Neil

    I agree with all your points.

    However, if the Raiders haven’t learned anything of what happened to them in 1982 is going to repeat history once more.

    If the Raiders leave again, then go. Good riddance on a team that hasn’t won a Super Bowl or anything else since 1983. 31 years and counting.

  27. Just visited the 49er museum at Levi’s Stadium. The facility is exactly what I said it would be: The Cathedral of the San Francisco 49ers. It would be humiliating for the Raiders to play there. But amidst the celebration of the 49ers’ lore, I was left thinking the place really should be in Frisco. But Frisco didn’t care enough to make the investment and maybe it shouldn’t have, given how pro sports is not really a priority for most Frisco taxpayers. The 49ers get their monument – 45 miles from where the team was from; team management and the sports media will pretend the team is actually still in Frisco but we all know better. They are closer to Oakland now. Al Davis, meanwhile, might get his own statue in a few years in San Antonio. Did he ever visit that city?

    • @ pjk

      I don’t think the Raiders ever played in San Antonio.

      The USFL Oakland Invaders played the San Antonio Gunslingers in San Antonio in 1984, but not at the Alamodome.

  28. Why should LW give up on San Jose? Would you if you were him? Don’t you want leverage? Don’t you want to get the best deal for your team? He got pretty much what he wanted out of this lease and that was after he threatened to walk (and after MLB backed him on this). I know for the partisans he’s either a devil or a saint but if you look outside your bubble you might see he’s neither.

    A ten year lease is ideal for all scenarios. Let’s say when Bud leaves, he decides to decree that the way to SJ is open. Or perhaps the next commissioner does this. Maybe the litigation helps this along, or some other internal factor. If that happens, they don’t load up the moving vans in January. SJ citizens still have to approve it at the ballot box. Then they have to deal with any lawsuits the Giants get their fronts to do. Then they have to do construction documents and build it. That’s going to take some number of years.

    OTOH, if the way to San Jose is well and truly closed then that still gives him ample time to work out the details surrounding the Coliseum site, deal with the Raiders, the city, the county, and build whatever they’re going to build. That’ll also take a few years. And things in Oakland are not clear. Quan is up for reelection, Kaplan is in the running, several council seats will turn over, etc. LW might be dealing with a friendlier or more hostile bunch come January.

    None of these scenarios are going to be quick. And if circumstances change, he’d doubtless like to be able to pivot from one to the other and keep his options open. That shouldn’t be surprising.

    • @ Baynativeguy
      I agree with pretty much everything you said.
      I defiantly, don’t see Wolff (in a bubble), as neither a devil nor a saint, I think vary few commenters here do.
      I also don’t think anyone is suggesting that he give up on the idea of San Jose (if that’s what you’re implying), I think most people here, think he should hold on to the idea(weather it’s a real option or not), just to make sure that Oakland does something other than sit on its collective ass.
      Why would Wolff ever give up the option of San Jose (obtainable or not), when that’s where he truly wants to build, even if he settles on building in Oakland, both San Jose and Oakland, will remain an option until something actually gets built, that just makes good business sense.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s