A’s renew land lease option with San Jose for 7 years

With Oakland’s Coliseum City dominating the news over the last few weeks, it’s a shock to see San Jose come out of nowhere with news of its own. According to the Merc’s Mike Rosenberg, the A’s and San Jose have agreed to a seven-year option on the Diridon ballpark site next to the main train station. The new deal is essentially an extension of the previous land option, which was due to expire next month. The A’s will pay $25,000 per year to retain the option, the same terms as in the previous agreement.

The other big reveal in the article was that last month, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed met with baseball’s Commissioner-elect (and current COO) Rob Manfred in New York. While Reed didn’t make any headway in getting Manfred to loosen the Giants’ grip on territorial rights, it’s a positive sign for San Jose that the two had a meeting, which could lead to more discussions. Reed’s mayoral successor – either County Supervisor Dave Cortese or SJ Councilman Sam Liccardo – would be the new point person, both willing to take Reed’s baton. Retiring commission Bud Selig created a 3-man panel to act as a buffer so that he wouldn’t have to be directly involved. The panel (BRC) was apparently disbanded earlier this year, leaving Manfred to handle any new talks. It’s no guarantee of future talks for sure, but it does have some weight.

More meaningful is the impact of the land option deal. Though the A’s couldn’t build there tomorrow or even next year, the very presence of the land option keeps San Jose in the game and gives MLB a card to play against Oakland in case they turn future ballpark talks with the A’s into yet another circus. After all, it was Manfred who purportedly threatened Oakland with the immediate approval of a move to San Jose if Oakland killed the A’s lease extension. At the time many called it a mere negotiating ploy, which it was. Oakland folded quickly then, so there’s little reason to think it wouldn’t work on some level again.

Complicating things for MLB is that other tenant in the Coliseum, the Raiders. Since Coliseum City is ostensibly a Raiders project, everyone has to wait for the Raiders’ eventual approval or rejection of the project before knowing what to do next. The list of outcomes is short and clear.

  • Oakland and Raiders sign Coliseum City deal, triggering clause for A’s to escape lease and look to San Jose
  • Coliseum City talks break down, allowing A’s to start up talks with the JPA and Oakland while the Raiders look elsewhere
  • Mark Davis becomes indecisive and signs a short-term lease at the Coliseum, status quo

Lew Wolff has been clear about his disinterest in Coliseum City, so his becoming a signatory over the next three months is just wishful thinking. The terms of the lease extension have kept Howard Terminal out of the discussion, with the focus on the Coliseum only. The Oakland crowd will consider this cagey and deceitful, whereas San Jose (or pan-Bay Area) partisans will call Wolff’s moves prudent and in the best interest of getting a ballpark built ASAP. There’s some truth to both views, and they’re inextricably linked. For some time Wolff’s priorities have been simply to build a ballpark and figure out a way to pay for it. If the Raiders’ fate can be determined, the A’s will be the next domino.

Timing is also interesting. For a while I’ve been of the opinion that San Jose could never be completely ruled out as a ballpark option as long as so many things in Oakland remained uncertain. MLB’s tacit approval – twice – of the A’s-San Jose land option affirms that. If MLB truly wanted to affirm T-rights as iron-clad and non-negotiable, they wouldn’t allow the land option. They know the value there. To be certain, MLB does not want to break that glass if an emergency occurs, but it’s there and it allows MLB and Wolff to maintain focus on the Bay Area, instead of playing the usual stalking horse game with another market outside NorCal. All this comes out just after the 90-day countdown on Coliseum City begins and the Raiders accelerate towards the NFL’s February relocation window. MLB and NFL have been careful to enter in the A’s and Raiders discussions only when they had to, and to let the process in Oakland work itself out. The JPA is readying itself by hiring Robert Bobb to work with either New City Development or Lew Wolff.

Is this the winter when resolution occurs? Well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The winter will arrive soon enough.

P.S. – As usual, much of the initial Oakland reaction is, Why doesn’t Wolff (and Fisher) sell the team? Because they have no interest, and no one can force them to sell. Next question.

P.P.S. – How long will it take for Oakland Mayor Jean Quan’s office to call up Rob Manfred, asking for a meeting?

P.P.P.S. – My initial draft didn’t include that third “Indecisive Mark Davis” option. It’s a distinct possibility, though it comes with its own permutations. Davis wants maximum flexibility in whatever he does over the next couple years. He has looked at various non-Coliseum stadia to temporarily host his team. You might think the leading candidate would be Santa Clara, but the terms don’t work for him because he’d have to sign a longer-term lease to cover the additional construction required at Levi’s Stadium. The leading candidate is, would you believe… AT&T Park? The Oakland Raiders at AT&T Park. You can always count on Larry Baer to always have Oakland sports’ best interests in mind.

P.P.P.P.S. – Wasn’t San Jose’s lawsuit vs. MLB supposed to make the city persona non grata in baseball’s eyes? Yet they have a meeting. Funny, that.

133 thoughts on “A’s renew land lease option with San Jose for 7 years

  1. can’t wait until the oakland only crowd says “see, SEE, SEE!” wolff never truthfully wanted to stay in oakland.

    • @ letsgoas

      I certainly would not mean it, in the same vain as the Oakland Only folks, because I think Wolff is willing to build in Oakland, but to the word.

      ” never wanted to truthfully stay in Oakland”

      Is probably correct.

      • I think Wolff has just always wanted to get a deal done somewhere in the Bay Area that is to his financial liking. It may be at the Coliseum, and it definitely is in San Jose. The latter is currently denied to him, but it definitely behooves him to keep it an open option. To both keep pressure on Oakland to make THAT plan happen for him, and in case Oakland continues to muck themselves around into oblivion (either through inaction or choosing the Raiders as they often do).

    • San Jose A’s. Santa Clara Raiders. San Francisco Warriors.

  2. Wolff is trying to keep the A’s in the Bay Area and he is hated for even considering any place but Oakland. MLB may find out once and for all that getting the A’s a new stadium and keeping the A’s in Oakland are simply incompatible goals.

  3. Lew Wolff is a snake and Rebecca Kaplan has just got bitten. Kaplan really needs to withdraw from the Oakland Mayors race because of her complete lack of judgement. Wolff has just made of fool of Oakland even as he extorted 5 million in taxpayer money from parking fees at the Coliseum. This is the “good faith effort” Wolff was talking about when he put a gun to Oakland’s head.

    The City of Oakland needs to realize that this is a low character ownership which will scheme, extort and do anything to leave Oakland. If I were Oakland I’d sue in order to void the contract and put the snakes bags at the Coliseum gate.

    How can any of you support this dishonest man?

    • If Oakland voided the lease, MLB would immediately give the A’s San Jose. So advocating for the lease to be voided is advocating for the A’s to leave Oakland. Get your narrative straight.

      • Hey here’s hoping they do follow through on Elmano’s threat. It’ll speed this whole process along and we’ll get a new ballpark very soon. It just won’t be in Oakland.

  4. This land option extension will undoubtedly give Wolff much needed negotiating leverage on a new Bay Area ballpark for his A’s, regardless of the eventual outcome of the current ongoing negotiations between the Raiders and the Coliseum City developers.

  5. MLB may be losing their patience with the Giants. First, Selig directed that the A’s would play at phonebooth park if Oakland officials didn’t approve a lease with the A’s ( the giants owners were likely not too thrilled by that). Then Manfred suggested (and implied that the A’s could move to San Jose) if Oakland didn’t approve the 10 year lease. MLB also questions the giant’s contention that they lose lose their fanbase (800,000 in attendance per year according to Baer) if the A’s move 40 miles further away from Frisco.

    The giants (and Bochey) could be compared to the Darryl Sutter/ Calgary Flames of MLB. There are very similar comparisons between Sutter’s NHL success and Bochey with the Giants. Both manage not so great teams (clearly not the most talented in their leagues – not even close ) yet somehow manage to become clutch in the post season.
    And both accomplish it in a similar way.

    Sutter’s succeeded by introducing the clutch and grab style of hockey (Sutter did that with the Sharks when he coached the Sharks also) it was an effective strategy at winning, however made for very boring viewing – NHL teams frequently won 1-0 games – where the winning goal mistakenly was kicked in the goal. The NHL nearly went defunct because of that boring clutch-and-grab style of hockey. They solved that by strongly enforcing hooking and grabbing penalities – the NHL quality of play become much more viewable – and the NHL is now on an upswing.

    The Giants receive terrible post season tv ratings ( possibly because fans are turned off by the boring Bochey ball) – each year they play the WS, the giants set new record lows with viewer ratings. 2014 may be the worst yet. MLB may aware of this and may not want to side with the giants so much – believing the giants in the post season is not promoting MLB well. ( similarly how the NHL got rid of the Darryl Sutter clutch-and-grab hockey and saved the sport.) MLB may not be too inclined to do any favors to the giants because of the giants bad post season viewership:


    • That has nothing to do with the Giants and everything to do with overall trends in baseball. Unless the Yankees, Red Sox, or Dodgers (maybe throw in the Angles too) were going to the WS, ratings were going to go down. It’s a marketing problem on the League’s part.

    • But yet they are a Billion dollar team and grossed over fifty million last year and expect to gross even more this year. Furthermore, they have sold out their home games for the past five years or more. T V ratings have nothing to do with anything. The WS ratings are because KC is the 30 th largest TV market in the Country and all teams share TV revenue throughout the season.

      • @Michael James – Giants fans may not care about tv ratings – MLB (and the TV networks) definitely do though. The 2010 WS was the lowest rated ever (technically it tied the 2008 Tampa Bay/Phillies WS – however, one of 2008 WS games was played after a 5 hour rain delay – which lowered that WS overall ratings substantially) In 2012, the giants broke their previous record low with the lowest WS ratings ever recorded. The Giants NLDS and NLCS ratings typically tank also. In 2013, there was a 29% jump in the WS ratings (even though that was only a 5 game series) – with the giants absent – likely no coincidence.

  6. So nothing publicly happens until this 3 month window is up for CC financing.

    A’s-to-SJ, for all their jockeying, is still blocked by the Giants. Other owners have had years of Oakland political intransigence/dysfunction to come to the conclusion that it’s impossible to work with the city, yet here we are a decade later and no movement on T-rights. SJ is nothing more than a stalking horse that is part of the league’s SOP – could always be proven wrong, but no reason to be optimistic.

    If SJ’s lawsuit loses a second time, I doubt the SC will bother to take it up – they rarely accept cases when the lower courts have been unanimous.

    By the way, does Wolff have a plan for the coliseum site yet? He’s had renderings posted pretty quickly in the past for the village, fremont, and diridon.

    • @RU155 – The lawsuit and MLB’s “enmity” towards San Jose can vanish like a fart in the wind. Look at Stand for San Jose. Settled. Part of that lawsuit challenged the legality of the land option. Why didn’t they see it through? We may never know.

      • @ML – i considered S4SJ a smokescreen for Baer to have the breathing room to win key allies in the lodge. Once he got his position solidified, there wasn’t really a need to follow through. It also served as a message that the Giants were will to fight a protracted legal battle, and without a dedicated opposition, Wolff was left -as you say- twisting in “the wind.”
        I just want a ballpark to break ground in the Bay, but I also don’t want to wait another decade while Wolff tries to win over the T-rights with weak tea land options.

      • @RU155 – I think you’re missing the realpolitik. Arguments are only as good as options that are available. As long as Oakland has some chance to happen under Wolff’s watch, San Jose is the distant second option. If Oakland gets Coliseum City going, not only are they rejecting the A’s, they’re also rejecting MLB in favor of the NFL. What possible resources would be available for a second stadium effort in Oakland? Then it comes down to San Jose being the only realistic Bay Area option. Baer’s argument gets cut off at the knees, the Lodge sees the writing on the wall, deal gets made rather quietly. No lobbying required. Thing is, the Lodge knows this. It’s just that no one will talk about it.

      • @ML – hey, i’m just going off you guys re: CC is a pipe-dream to which several contractors have pulled out, and the raiders are several hundred million dollars short. It’s a holding pattern – for the elevendy-billionth time.
        If CC happened, then SJ would have new legs, but Jessica Rabbit isn’t likely to happen upon Wolff’s doorstep.

      • @RU155 – Thankfully we have less than 90 days to suss much of this out. If CC dies, the A’s can stay in Oakland on their own terms, and the drama stops.

    • According to Mark Purdy, Wolff has shared a plan for the Coliseum site and it requires the Raiders move on. He also said that this is why Kaplan voted no on the extension of the ENA.

      • Do you have a link to that?

        Because if Wolff is showing his plans for the Coliseum to people like Purdy it’s probably pretty likely that he’s showing it to folks like Kaplan too, possible everyone on the council. Might explain Reid’s change of heart on Coliseum City. No one seems to want to let the Raiders go other than Kaplan even if it means saving the A’s. They all still believe in Quan and Elmano’s delusion that all 3 teams can still be saved.

      • @athletics

        And yet at the recent press conference with JQ, there was no sign for the Warriors, just the A’s and Raiders. All while they still talk up retaining all 3 teams. The inconsistency on their part is mind-boggling.

      • @Jeffrey, thanks – I hadn’t seen that update.

    • RU155: If you recall, Judge Whyte believes that the MLB ATE is nonsense and disagrees with it, however said that the ATE issue is up to the higher courts to decide – not his.(hardly a ringing endorsement for the MLB ATE)

      Also the SC can do what they damned well please – and are not influenced by the Court of Appeals opinions or judgements that much. For example, during the 2010 American Needle vs NFL case – the 7th Circuit Court of appeals ruled in favor of the NFL. The SC reversed the 7th Circuit Court decision by a 9-0 margin. Obviously, the 7th Circuit Court’s judgement didn’t effect the SCOTUS with that case.

  7. The option in San Jose gives Wolff control of what is supposed to be very valuable land in San Jose for a mere $2,000 per month.

    The extension of this lease is sufficient reason to dissolve the lease agreement with Oakland based on Wolff’s refusal to work in “good faith” on a new ballpark in Oakland.

    Wolff has once again proven that he can’t be trusted and speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Oakland needs to void the lease agreement with Wolff and instead focus on keeping the Raiders along with the ancillary development. Wolff doesn’t want to be in Oakland, has extorted money from Oakland tax coffers, has not dealt in good faith with Oakland, has mucked up Coliseum City and continues to play extortionist.

    Wolff refuses to sell the team to someone who will keep the team in Oakland and will take his ball to San Jose despite the loyal support of the best fans in MLB. There is nothing Oakland can do but revoke the lease and send Wolff and his other low character co-owners on their way. Oakland should know by now that there is no dealing with this man.

    We all remember how Selig came out and put a gun to Oakland’s head in order to secure the Coliseum lease. Selig even stated “this is the first step to secure a ballpark in Oakland.” Kaplan, Reid ,Miley and Haggerty, all supported the extortionists. Were these officials paid off for their support of this horrible lease?

    Oakland’s only option now is to cease talks with the Oakland A’s and concentrate on the Raiders.

    • But the Raiders negotiating Coliseum City while Davis takes meetings in San Antonio is totally on the up-and-up, right Elmano?

      • Wolff just signed a lease which forgave the 5 million dollars he owed Oakland from parking taxes at the Coliseum based on his willingness to work with Oakland on a “good faith effort” to build a ballpark.

        Signing this extension in San Jose is reason enough to dissolved the fraudulent lease Wolff was able to obtain with Oakland through coercion and threats.

        Also, 2,000 per month to lock up a valuable piece of property in San Jose for 7 years is a complete give away to Wolff. That’s like renting a 1bd room apartment in certain parts of San Jose.

        Wolff wants to play one city against another and it’s time Oakland challenge the lease and send Wolff, Fisher and Beane on their merry way to San Jose or Timbuktu. Oakland A’s fans and the city of Oakland deserve better than constantly being extorted by Lew Wolff and Co.

      • @Elmano – As dysfunctional as Oakland often is, at least they’re not as hotheaded as you. With your attitude, all three teams would be already be long gone.

      • And to add, the Oakland politicos are sure on the up-and-up, right? /s

        Isn’t it obvious that they have dragged their feet through at least one election, and this upcoming one as well. If only they would think of the community instead of their own political careers, maybe the decision would have been made years ago and we could be enjoying both football and baseball in new stadiums.

    • There are 2 owners you complete fool.

    • One things certain, if they didn’t support the lease the A’s would already be gone.

      It’s really interesting how you have absolutely zero problem calling anyone and everyone out for their lack of integrity and yet you write a piece glorifying a mayor with about as much integrity as a flea.

      I’d like to recommend you read a book called the The Four Agreements. When you do, you will read a section about how what you say reflects more on you than on other people.

  8. As for your option #3, the Raiders agreeing to a short term lease and continuing the status quo – this to me would be the worst of the three scenarios, because the A’s and MLB really need the Raiders to make a clear decision before they can.

    I think it would be foolish of the Raiders to roll over the status quo for an additional year or two. They lose some leverage in Oakland once 1-2 other teams go to LA.

    However, I do think Southern California can absolutely support three NFL teams. What I would be curious about is if anybody has penciled out a scenario where all 3 are in the same brand-new, 90,000 seat $2 billion dollar facility, with the NFL using it as the future Pro Bowl site, Super Bowl every 3-4 years, and the league kicking in more G-4 funding than usual, because it solves the stadium issue for three franchises and can be used for league events.

    With two of those three teams in the same division playing each other twice per year, Thursday night games, Monday night games, bye weeks, and end-of-the-regular season Saturday games, you can carefully create a master schedule where there are 3 teams sharing the same facility and no sharing the stadium on the same game day. It’s a headache, but it’s doable.

    It would have to be built in a Southern California location where traffic flow in and out of the park is functional and there’s tons of parking.

    • There will never be 3 teams in 1 venue. As mentioned in previous threads, there’s the possibility of 2 teams in a new LA venue and the Chargers getting a higher percentage of the relocation fees in order to help pay for a new stadium in SD.

  9. I have always suspected that there is some slow-going and under-the-table dealing going on with regards to negotiating dropping the lawsuit and lining up votes in the Lodge for approving a move to SJ. I realize that’s total conjecture, but it’s just the feeling I get. We’ve seen before that t-rights aren’t ironclad, and I don’t see why this situation would be.

    • It’s never been about not having enough votes. Lew Wolff asked for a vote to be added to the Owner’s Meeting Agenda and Bud Selig refused.

      • We really don’t know whether or not the votes are there (for approval of a move). That might be more unclear that anything throughout this entire saga.

  10. Marine Layer,

    You may turn a blind eye as Wolff extorts tax payer money from Oakland through coercion and threats of relocation, but I won’t. You don’t mind seeing Oakland used as a convenient low priced pawn for Wolff as he schemes his way towards San Jose, but I do.

    It’s not being “hot headed” but instead protecting the good citizens of Oakland from an extortionist who is just using the city for convenience until he can get his San Jose deal.

    Unlike Rebecca Kaplan, Larry Reid, Miley and Haggerty, I would have seized talks with Wolff and Selig as soon as they pointed that gun at Oakland’s head. I would have called the extortionists out and I would’ve called Wolff’s bluff. It’s time Oakland shed this Wolff albatross which keeps Oakland from moving forward.

    Oakland needs to sue Wolff for breech of contract and demand the 5 million dollars from the parking taxes at the Coliseum. Wolff can ask the Giants for AT&T Park next year, or maybe play in San Jose Municipal Stadium. Enough is enough.

    • There’s a reason you’re not in charge of anything.

      And yet again, you can’t keep your narrative consistent. One minute you demand that Oakland keep all its teams, and the next you advocate for evicting one. The Warriors are moving to SF; why not punish them by evicting them and forcing them to play in SAP Center until the SF arena is done? It’s being overly generous to even call your position non-sensical.

    • What extortion? Wolff presented a plan to the JPA that would privately finance a new ballpark AND take care of the outstanding Coliseum debt. The City could’ve chosen to ditch Coliseum City this week and move forward with Wolff. Instead they stuck with the program hoping someone would save it. They can’t even speak to Wolff about the plan in any official capacity because they’re bound by the ENA. That’s THEIR choice.

      You want to protect the good citizens of Oakland? Stop focusing on the parking taxes, which are water under the bridge, and figure out how Oakland/Alameda County can get out of the Mt. Davis debt debacle. That’s a crisis waiting to happen.

      • Wow, Wolff stealing 5 million from Oakland taxpayers is “water under the bridge.” How cavalier of you.

        What plan for Coliseum City have the good citizens of Oakland seen from this dishonest extortionist?

        So Oakland fans and taxpayers are supposed to believe that Wolff, “has a plan” for Coliseum City which the public hasn’t seen, simply because Mark Purdy, the Lew Wolff shill at the San Jose Mercury News, says it exists.

        Come on Mr. Wolff, show is that “Plan.” After all, you had no problem trumpeting your “announcement of an architect for a ballpark in Oakland” for PR reasons, but your “plan” is top secret.

      • @Nav – Wolff could hand deliver the plan to you and offer a private presentation and you still wouldn’t believe him. You’ve made up your mind. Though that doesn’t matter since you’re not an Oakland voter anyway. He’s starting with the people he intends to work with, let the election circus run its course, then next steps.

        Again, explain how the Coliseum debt will be handled. I answered your questions, now answer mine.

      • When you start (hypocritically) using the word “shill”, you’ve proven you don’t have a valid point.

  11. Meanwhile, Mark Davis needs Oakland to close a $600 million funding gap…

  12. Elmano lives in this fantasy land where the warriors should stay and change the name to Oakland Warriors. The Raiders will pay for a stadium with money they don’t have, and Lew will build a stadium with his money because Davis says they can be buddies at the coliseum.
    Of course the real world is the warrior want to be in SF because they can make more money. Davis doesn’t really get a say because he has no money. He pretends like he’s trying, but he really wants someone to call him and give him a check for a new stadium while keeping majority ownership. All the while doing absolutely no work. The A’s want to be in San Jose of course, but would settle for oak if they would give him some land and get out of his way. Sports are ugly business for municipalities. Oakland is changing for the better. Noone hates Oakland. It also doesn’t mean sports teams love Oakland. Oakland may be better off taking coliseum land and building something without any stadiums. It may be the best return for the city. The hopeful new mayor should come out and be truthful and say: ” We are waiting 90 days for the raiders. When that time passes, without a deal, we will go into full negotiations with the A’s”. If that fails, move on. By the way, how’s the OWB group working out with HT. Haven’t heard a peep on the VIABILITY of that great site. Where is Knauss?
    At some point Elmano, if all 3 teams want to leave, with multiple owners its not just Lews fauly

  13. ML, these Twitter fools saying “fuck LW and SJ” you keep retweeting both amuse me and make me weep for humanity.

  14. The good citizens of Oakland and Oakland A’s fans deserve to see Lew Wolff’s “plan” for Coliseum City.

    I realize this little $2,000 dollar San Jose extension is just a give away to Wolff by his well connected political friends in San Jose. The small amount Wolff pays to control that plot of land, is peanuts and is basically a free option to control a valuable parcel. Why wouldn’t Wolff take that freebie from San Jose even as he extorts 5 million in taxpayer money from the citizens of Oakland?

    Why would Oakland, give up on Coliseum City, kick out the Raiders, just to put their trust in a man like Lew Wolff who has proven time after time that he can’t be trusted and talks out of both sides of his mouth?

    Oakland would be foolish to entrust this man with anything in Oakland. Placing Wolff in charge of developing the Coliseum area would guarantee the loss of the Raiders, the loss of the Coliseum development, along with the loss of the Oakland A’s to San Jose.

    • Still can’t even bother to answer my question? Repeating the same old shit? This is why people don’t take you seriously, Nav.

    • Ever hear of John Fisher? Apparently fucking not.

    • Why would Oakland give up on Coliseum City?

      It’s simple, pushing for CC is Oakland entrusting Mark Davis and the Raiders.

      Would you entrust a large part of the city’s future to Mark Davis?

  15. Winter is coming

  16. Oakland and the A’s/MLB are just playing a game of chicken.

    If Quan and the other officials up for election didn’t extend the ENA, they would get blamed for pushing the Raiders out. They needed to push the decision past Nov to avoid the blame.

    The cost of this is that this could piss off the A’s/MLB as the ENA is anti-A’s. Quan and the council are just banking on the fact that a 90 day delay won’t be viewed as a big deal by the A’s.

    San Jose is the only real leverage the A’s and MLB have at this time so they have to keep this option open to get Oakland to do anything. $25K a year is pretty cheap to maintain this leverage.

    Honestly I think both the CC extension and the San Jose extension are just noise at this point but in reality they don’t change anything.

    End of the day, the ball is still in Oakland’s court. They have two choices:

    1. Eliminate their debt burden, guarantee one major sports team and help to grow one of the under developed areas of the city by supporting the A’s

    2. Side with the Raiders in the hopes that a million things fall into place and somehow CC gets pulled off

    • I don’t think development of the CC area is dependent on any teams remaining. In fact, it would almost certainly be more profitable to develop the area with all 3 teams gone. For the time being the focus is on centering the project around sports venues, but if a scenario came to pass in which there were no teams left, the land wouldn’t simply sit unused.

      • Agreed, that is a third option. The problem is that I don’t think any Oakland official or anyone running for office can say it’s a viable option. They have to be forced into it.

        You’re right though that ultimately no sports teams may be the best for everyone.

  17. As usual, the regular Joe A’s fans get the shaft. Not only do we have to suffer the team falling apart in what seemed for sure was going to be our year, knowing that Fisher/Wolff will never spend the money it takes to win as long as the team is playing at o.co and having to watch the giants in the ws AGAIN, we have no clue where our team will even be playing in three years. We are kept in the dark like children, trying to figure out if their parents are getting divorced or going on a second honeymoon.

    The Oakland politicians come across as incompetents and political hacks, unable to do a deal, unable to figure out how to fit two teams on an 800-acre site and even unable to figure out which team it wants to stay. At least until it figures out which position would give them more votes. Wolff comes across as a manipulating carpet bagger who is out only for himself and is happy to use the fans as a political football, not caring that we have stepped up and supported his team despite this crap going on for years.

    No other fans get totally put down when attendance lags, despite the fact that it happens cyclically in every ball park in the country. No other fans in any sport have to put up with the indignity we do.

    I do appreciate ML in sticking with this for all of these years, giving us the best information and informed opinions out there and giving us a place to vent.

  18. Based on all this stuff that’s going on, Oakland is being given every chance known to man by MLB, and Wolff to some degree, to put something together that works for the A’s. If San Jose were to ever happen, does the StAy side have any idea how many chances Oakland had to screw up to get to that point?
    It’s truly amazing how many people feel that it’s Wolff’s responsibility to do what’s best for Oakland, damn the numbers. A baseball team doesn’t make a city. A city makes a city.

    • Then Wolff needs to stop using Oakland for a cheap convenient lease, negotiated with a gun to the head, and get the hell out.

      • You do realize the “cheap convenient lease” Wolff signed is far more money coming from the A’s than had been coming from them under the previous lease right? And that said lease is also penalizes the A’s far more than the Raiders lease does (the Raiders are actually being paid by Oakland to play there thanks to the annual subsidy). Where’s your outrage over how the Raiders have been fleecing Oakland all these years via their lease (nevermind the ultimate fleecing the Raiders perpetrated on Oakland by bilking them into renovating the Coliseum unnecessarily in the first place).

  19. There are some here that would love to see all the sports teams leave Oakland.

    The Oakland Coliseum is the best spot in the Bay Area for a sports complex. It’s a far better location than the inaccessible Great America area where the 49rs decided to build.

    I think Mark Davis is sincere in his desire to remain in Oakland. From day one Davis has said that he wants to remain in Oakland while Lew Wolff has been scheming to get to San Jose for the last 11 years.

    Oakland can not afford to put it’s trust in a person like Lew Wolff. What happens when and if Oakland gives control to the Coliseum land to Wolff and Mr.Wolff kiks out the Raiders and then decides that he’s going to need much more money from Oakland to continue with the development? Wolff will say either you give me this amount in public money for the project or I’m leaving for my San Jose Dirodon land option.

    As long as Wolff has that San Jose land option in his back pocket, Oakland needs to cease negotiations with Lew Wolff on the Coliseum project as well as sue for revocation of the extorted Coliseum lease.

    • If it’s the best place and Oakland deserves to keep all its current teams, then why the fuck are you simultaneously advocating for Oakland keeping all teams, for evicting the A’s, and totally ignoring that the Warriors are definitively committed to leaving?

      You stance is so inconsistent that anything you say can basically be thrown out.

    • On top of which you accuse Wolff (while still ignoring Fisher) of being uncommitted to Oakland (which is true) but claim that Davis is definitely committed to Oakland, which is FACTUALLY FALSE. Davis has actively negotiated with 2 cities outside the Bay Area. Wolff/Fisher have ONLY talked with San Jose outside of Oakland.

      Someone needs to smack you in the face with a meat tenderizer to knock some sense into that empty head of yours.

    • “I think Mark Davis is sincere in his desire to remain in Oakland. From day one Davis has said that he wants to remain in Oakland while Lew Wolff has been scheming to get to San Jose for the last 11 years.”

      The man has been having open discussions with Los Angeles and San Antonio interests about moving to both of those cities as soon as next year and you believe him but not Wolff? You do realize when you say things like this it totally undermines anything else you say right? Wolff may not have always been committed to Oakland during his Fremont and San Jose flirtations, but he’s never threatened to leave the Bay Area. Davis has done nothing BUT threaten to leave the Bay Area while he waits for Oakland to pay his way. Wolff is offering to pay for a stadium in Oakland and they’re balking. That despite the fact he’s worked with them before on a possible stadium plan along with other locations in the East Bay and Greater Bay Area.

      • Not only is Wolff offering to pay for a stadium, he’s offering to take over the debt related to Mt Davis and the arena. Never mind the fact that a lot of this debt was the result of a deal that directly harmed the A’s.

    • “What happens when and if Oakland gives control to the Coliseum land to Wolff and Mr.Wolff kiks out the Raiders and then decides that he’s going to need much more money from Oakland to continue with the development?”

      Simple– the city enters into a Development Agreement with Wolff, agreeing to give him his 50 acres or whatever he needs to make a profit, plus the necessary infrastructure, in exchange for building a ballpark and retiring the Coliseum debt. It has real timelines, with major penalties and legal action if he tries to walk. But first the City needs to decide what the hell it wants, get a negotiator who knows what he/she is doing (Robert Bobb may be just the guy) and stick to it.

  20. Wolff has San Jose as a possible option so Oakland needs to “cease negotiations” with him Did I just read the correctly? I guess it needs to cease negotiations if it wants to lose the A’s. By having San Jose as a possible relocation option, Oakland cannot play the “A’s have nowhere else to go gand must cave to our demands” game. Sorry about that, Elmano. These are the breaks. The A’s are not going to be forced to build a ballpark in Oakland if the numbers don’t add up. And selling to another ownership group so it can spend another 7 years reconfirming Wolff’s conclusions isn’t going to fly, either…MLB has bent over backwards to keep the A’s in Oakland. Now it’s time for Oakland to work with A’s ownership and cut the silly “It’s an evil conspiracy against poor victim Oakand’ garbage.

  21. Marine Layer,

    You’ve been such a huge shill for Lew Wolff for so long that you’ll excuse any dishonest and unethical maneuver by Lew Wolff.

    Marine Layer, Wolff showed you his “binder of attempts to build in Oakland” why not get him to show you his “plan” for Coliseum City so that you can post it here for all to see?

    You know darn well that if Oakland gives Wolff control of the Coliseum development and loses the Raiders, Wolff will be able to extort public money out of Oakland by threatening to move to his $2,000 per month Diridon land option.

    Answer THIS question. Why are you always linking yourself to unethical Lew Wolff? Agreeing with Jerry, and attempting to muck things up by assigning false and equal blame to both sides, is a way for you to hide behind the fact that Wolff has been a manipulative, lying, dishonest scoundrel who has ripped off Oakland taxpayers for 5 million dollars while you have supported his scheming efforts every step of the way for the last ten years.

    Where are your ethics? Have you no shame casting your lot with these manipulative, wealthy scoundrels?

    • ML, why do you let this guy continue to post? He’s got his own part time gig at one of the east bay papers he can utilize to spout his nonsense at. He’s mucked up these boards for far too long with his inconsistent double speak and personal attacks.

      • doesn’t matter, he’ll just make up a new account and will continue to post garbage as a member named “lew wolff is a liar”.

        i mean he’s said multiple times he’s going to stop posting and comes back and has yet to answer the questions from others who’ve asked time after time why he continues to stay and post when he’s said he’s going to leaving.

        frankly he’s becoming a character of the oakland only movement. facts be damn, he’ll post what he believes is true in his oakland only bubble. lets just blame wolff time after time and let the city of oakland and also the other two sports teams skate right by with themselves looking to move out of the city of oakland or even bay area entirely. if you are not believing in oakland here and you have info in why sj is the better option and or the city of oakland looks as they don’t have the numbers to get this thing done, it’s just a conspiracy of lies fed to us by the evil wolff.

        say what you want about ML or most of the members here who are seen as anti oakland but are truly pro bay area in wanting to a’s to stay in the bay area regardless of where they play, the majority who do post here who’d want to see the a’s to move to sj don’t come here spouting lies or untruths just because if fits their narrative.

      • correction he’s becoming a caricature of the oakland only movement.

    • You are literally lying about Mark Davis and you’re lecturing about ethics? That’s fucking rich. Seriously consider taking a walk in a mine field.

    • And stop using “shill”. It seriously makes you sound like you want to call Wolff a “dirty Jew” or something to that effect.

    • @Nav – My work speaks for itself. So do your rants. You have failed time and time again to engage in rational discussions. These are business and political deals. It gets messy, ugly. There are issues to work out, challenges to overcome. I present ways to do that, I try to channel what ownership and others are thinking. You don’t have to like it. You must acknowledge it as a first step to actually solving the problems that Oakland faces in keeping its teams. To do otherwise is to deflect and manipulate. If that’s what you care about most, that’s fine. But it only shows how shallow your arguments are. I keep answering your questions, you never answer mine. Therefore, I consider this debate over. You lack the debate finesse or knowledge to carry it further. Your fallback position is always character assassination, and yet you complain when people call you out on it. That’s garbage. You’re a hypocrite of the highest order. I will give you one more chance. Explain how Oakland and Alameda County can get out of the Coliseum debt problem and I’ll let you stay. If not, your trolling here is over.

  22. Marine Layer,

    I know I make you uncomfortable here since I’m the only pro Oakland person here who believes the Oakland A’s belong in Oakland.

    You’re already cleansed this site of all opposition. Oakland A’s fans don’t post here for a reason. You know that Oakland A’s fans can’t stand Lew Wolff for very good reason and yet you refuse to acknowledge what Wolff has done to this franchise by alienating Oakland fans at every turn with his off and on field decisions.

    You want to censore me again, then go ahead and cement yourself as the biased Lew Wolff mouthpiece most Oakland A’s fans already believe you are.

    As far as who pays off the bonds? Wolff hasn’t presented a damn thing to the public. Nothing, nada, zilch. Rumors and hear say mean nothing. What happens if Wolff gains control of the development, kicks the Raiders out, and then decides that he really still wants San Jose and asks Oakland for additional private funding for the Coliseum project? All of a sudden Oakland has Wolff’s and MLB’s gun to its head once again. Wolff then decides he’s no longer interested in the project and moves to San Jose.

    We then have no Raiders, no A’s and no Coliseum City in Oakland.

    What’s your answer to that? Censoreship?

    • @Elmano – I’m perfectly comfortable with you posting here. It’s to show how unhinged you are. The best part is that you have no self-awareness about it. You’re the one who continually looks foolish.

      I’ve banned one guy who keeps coming back under different aliases, calling me “small duck bastard” and such. Have you ever scolded that guy to cool it? No? Then your whining falls on deaf ears. You’re painfully transparent.

      Again, I asked an open-ended question. You could’ve presented a way for any project, including Coliseum City to pay off the bonds. Instead you go attack Wolff AGAIN. It shows who you are. You don’t actually care about these teams. All you care about is demonizing others. That’s weak. It’s a copout. If you want to keep doing that, go ahead. I’ll be here.

    • Elmano, I don’t post on this site frequently but I believe that I have been doing so long before you. I am a pro-Oakland person who believes the A’s belong in Oakland, but I also see that much of the blame for this situation rests on Oakland’s elected representatives. As much as I think that Wolff has not acted in good faith and would clearly prefer moving to SJ, Oakland’s City government has proven itself incompetent and/or purely political when it comes to this issue.

      As much as I want the A’s to stay in Oakland, I would definitely rather have them move to SJ than out of the Bay Area completely — that’s a no brainer for any true A’s fan IMHO!

      • Jerry,

        Anyone who takes the “anywhere in the Bay Area is OK by me,”. Has to be considered pro Wolff and anti-Oakland.

        If you give Wolff the “Bay Area” option, by definition that means anywhere but Oakland. So when people start talking about “Bay Area” they are going along with what Wolff wants to do as far as abandoning Oakland.

        You can’t have it both ways. One is either a fan of the Oakland A’s or they’re a fan of the “Anywhere in the Bay Area, insert city name here ——- A’s.

        “Bay Area” is code for outside Oakland.

      • I wasn’t aware that Oakland had seceded from the Bay Area.

      • Your even handed view of things as a pro-Oaklander helps lead me to believe there’s more than just Oakland love driving Elmano. Perhaps he’s the real shill on here for Jean Quan and her interests. He’s been accused of being so before on his own articles in the EB Express.

      • Nav that is bullshit and you know it. Being pro-Bay Area does not make one anti-Oakland. Unless you’re suggesting Oakland has somehow left the Bay Area. I for one don’t give a rats ass if Wolff builds at the Coliseum, San Jose or on top of Mount Diablo just so long as the A’s are in a new Bay Area ballpark. Suggesting anywhere in our collective region would work as the home for the A’s does not in any way discount Oakland from that discussion as long as there is a way to make it work somewhere in the region financially for the team in a fiscally responsible way for the cities/counties as well. Right now Wolff has presented plans publicly in San Jose and privately in Oakland to do just that (the private necessitated by Oakland’s current ENA with the never gonna happen Coliseum City development plan).

        Meanwhile the Raiders have yet to present a similar plan for anywhere in the Bay Area (or elsewhere either since their plans in San Antonio require a major public outlay and their plans in LA rely on someone else (either Kroneke or AEG) to do all the heavy lifting). I’d like to see you criticize the Raiders as hard as you do the A’s. Until you do, you’re an obvious shill for someone, probably Jean Quan, who is simply bashing the A’s because they won’t get on board with the mayor’s financially ruinous plan.

      • Elmano, you have chosen to ignore what I said and have shown that you can only see things in black and white. Wake up, Man, the world is shades of grey. I’ve argued for Oakland and criticized Wolff on this site for years, but I see that Oakland also bears much of the responsibility. Do I want the A’s to move to SJ — not really, but it would be much better than them moving to Portland, Vancouver or wherever. What about that do you not understand?

  23. This whole thing of “holding a gun to Oakland’s head” is so absolutely ridiculous it’s not even funny. Aren’t these folks supposed to work in the best interests of the city they represent? If so, then the issue is not with Wolff, it’s with the city or the JPA.
    Wolff’s assistant tried to call out ML on a post she deemed unfair to her boss. And ML didn’t back down, telling her straight up that he will continue to call him out as he sees fit. Is that being a Wolff “shill?”

    • It’s unfair because the Oakland A’s are a part of the fabric and civic pride in Oakland. Wolff takes advantage of this by threatening to relocate unless he was given a convenient lease and 5 million from parking taxes collected at the Coliseum.

      The Oakland A’s hold a civic attachment for many Oaklanders and for people with an affinity for Oakland as a city.

      • Yes, such “a part of the civic pride in Oakland” that city fathers turned their backs on a plan for baseball-only improvements to the Coliseum and turned the place into a 1970s-vintage multipurpose football/baseball monstrosity instead. OK. And Oakland elected Jerry Brown as mayor twice, who was going to do less than nothing for the A’s or any of the Oakland sports teams. While dozens of other cities have gotten stadiums done for their MLB teams, Oakland is one of the only holdouts that hasn’t made a new stadium happen despite a recognized, dire need.

      • Hey douchenozzle, Mark MOTHERFUCKING Davis is in active negotiations with 2 cities outside the Bay Area for relocation. The Warriors ownership group is already moving the team to SF. Wolff and Fisher have repeatedly stated that moving outside the Bay Area is not an option and have only looked at Oakland, Fremont (which is dead), and San Jose as options.

        Instead, you continue to spread your outright lies because you literally aren’t intelligent enough to make a factual point. You and people like you are the WORST possible kind of people to represent Oakland. You are bad PR for Oakland, and you’ll never be anything more than that.

  24. SMG, Please be respectful. Also, Let’s Go Royals!

  25. @ Elmano

    I have been highly critical of Lew Wolff, but there are no clean hand’s in this situation, not his or anyone else’s.
    You undermine your criticism of Wolff (which I find justifiable to a degree), when you say nothing about Davis, or the Raiders who have already left Oakland once and openly talk to city’s outside the Bay Area (not San Jose), about leaving again.
    You also say little to nothing about the Golden State, I mean “San Francisco” Warriors, who not only will not take the name of Oakland, they did not even pretend to listen to any idea’s about remaining in the East Bay.
    You also don’t tend to look at the fact, that of the three franchises, it’s the A’s who have continually got the short end of the stick from Oakland, when they were making decisions that could effect all three teams.
    Is Lew Wolff dishonest? I would have to agree with you, and say he probably has been, but so have Major League Baseball, the San Francisco Giants, the Oakland Raiders, the Golden State, I mean “San Francisco Warriors”(see remaining arena debt), the city’s of Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, ( some political leaders from any of the three city’s), and you can also throw in the Governor of California.
    I’m not happy with several of the things that Wolff has done, but honestly if you were going for the most dishonest of them all, I think there are people in this situation, that would rank higher then him.

  26. When I start a blog for “New raiders stadium” will Elmano rip Davis for not negotiating with the city or wanting to move to LA or San Antonio?
    What about “New toilet bowl Arena”. Will you come to that blog and rip Lacob for abandoning a great fan base? Just curious. We already know you hate Lew

  27. re: Reed meeting with Manfred…Sounds like somebody, at long last, said, “Why the hell are we so antagonistic and dismissive toward a major, prosperous city that wants a team and wants to solve a problem caused by an existing franchise that is a drain on the cash reserves of the other franchises?” At long last. Of course, Manfred has to keep San Jose at arm’s length for the time being but I’d say this meeting represents progress. Manfred knows the Giants’ whining about “territorial rights” and met with Reed, anyway. Something the coward Selig wouldn’t do.

    • @pjk – Don’t get carried away. The A’s are not a drain on any other team’s cash reserves. Revenue sharing is splitting a specific pie on an annual basis, nothing more.

  28. Lakeshore,

    I’ve criticized the “Golden State Warriors” here many times. I think what they have done, and are doing to Oakland, is despicable considering the fantastic support they’ve received in Oakland. The Golden State Warriors have used Oakland for 43 years, have never taken the city’s name, play in a beautiful refurbished arena, and have disrespected Oakland every step of the way by constantly turning their backs on the city.

    The Warrior ownership are also greedy scoundrels without an ounce of ethics or character. The Warriors will be on the hook for 62 million in bond payments used in the renovation of Oracle Arena should they in fact leave. Personally, I could care less about the Warriors since they bring nothing to the table for Oakland, except maybe humiliation.

    They could go to the Cowpalace tomorrow and I wouldn’t shed at tear. In fact, if I were the Mayor, I would ask them to do so right now. Oakland loses nothing and gets their 62 million back. Oakland improves its finances and gets a little self-respect while the wink, wink ” San Francisco” Warriors go back to the border (Daly City) of their beloved city where they played for an entire nine years.

    I’d put the Warrior ownership right there with the unscrupulous Lew Wolff and John Fisher.

    • And still not a word of criticism for Davis…

      A chimpanzee could do a better job of forming a consistent argument than you can.

    • @ Elmano

      Yes, I did not mean to leave John Fisher out.
      There is plenty of dishonesty to go around in this three city (San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose), two team (Athletics, Giants), one league (MLB), high wire soap-opera.
      Good to see you going after the Golden State, I mean ” San Francisco ” Warriors good stuff, up next the Oakland Raiders perhaps?

      • @ Elmano

        Criticism of Mark Davis, and the Raiders?
        Come on man, you did really well on the Warriors, so we are making progress.
        You know I could make a vary compiling case, that historically the Warriors and Raiders have done much more harm, to Oakland then Lew Wolff and the A’s, all while maintaining the opinion, that Lew has not been as honest as we would both have liked him to be.

  29. Marine Layer,

    Let’s face it every time Wolff utters “Bay Area” and not Oakland when he’s talking about building a ballpark, everyone knows he’s talking about San Jose.

    Why don’t we stop pretending that “the Bay Area” has ever supported anything Oakland. The “Bay Area” is trying to take Oakland’s sports franchises. The “Bay Area” business and banking community many times red line Oakland.

    Oakland owes nothing to the “Bay Area” but mostly grief and marginalization.

    So yes, this “Bay Area” talk from Wolff, means San Jose. Everyone who has been following this saga for the last decade knows this.

    • re: Let’s face it every time Wolff utters “Bay Area” and not Oakland when he’s talking about building a ballpark, everyone knows he’s talking about San Jose.

      Wow, Elmano has telepathic, mind-reading powers. Or, the other possibility is Elmano doesn’t believe any of the nonsense he posts and just posts it to see what kind of a reaction he can get out of folks who think he is serious.

      re” The “Bay Area” is trying to take Oakland’s sports franchises

      The pro sports facilities in Oakland need to be replaced and Oakland can’t pay to replace them. Is it any wonder other cities (San Antonio, LA, San Jose, Frisco) are seeing what kind of opportunity this situation provides them? Oakland has done nothing but extend an invitation to the three franchises to pay for their own facilities. The Warriors already have taken up Oakland on that invitation – except that they will build in Frisco and not Oakland. The A’s could be next, in San Jose – or maybe Oakland. The Raiders, meanwhile, just want handouts from some city, somewhere.

  30. As far as Mark Davis, he at least has come out and said that he wants to stay in Oakland and what a great site the Coliseum Complex really is as a location for a new stadium. Mark Davis says positive things about staying in Oakland while Lew Wolff has disparaged Oakland as a location for his franchise for over a decade.

    Davis knows that Wolff is trying to make things hard for him so he’s attempting to gain some leverage by visiting other cities. Al Davis moved the Raiders out of Oakland, not Mark Davis.

    Bottom line is Davis would like to build in Oakland while Wolff wants to leave Oakland and build in San Jose.

    • Bottom line is Davis would like to build in Oakland if he can get someone else to pay for it for him. If not, it’s welcome to San San Antonio or LA.

    • @ Elmano

      I posted the last comment, before your comments on Davis. I certainly would agree with you, concerning Davis desire to stay in Oakland, while I don’t believe Wolff want s to do so.

  31. @Elmano: Also, forget about the A’s selling. Fisher basically hired Wolff as CEO of the A’s. Since Wolff/Fisher acquired the team, the A’s have quintupled in value, have also been profitable, increased attendance, and made several playoff runs. Even though BB is largely responsible for the A’s on the field success – Wolff is a factor also. What Wolff is doing would be comparable to taking over Sears as CEO (ready to file chapter 11) and getting Sears to outperform Walmart – Wolff isn’t going anywhere.

    • I’m glad to hear that Wolff has been very successful in Oakland and isn’t going anywhere. Maybe Wolff should come out and tell that to the loyal Oakland A’s fans he seems to like to alienate every other month with his San Jose announcements.

      Also, Billy Beane should be fired for what he did to the Oakland A’s. If the front office wanted to sabotage their first half success, they couldn’t have done a better job. Beane really screwed up and now won’t even admit it. Once again, low character.

      • Re: Elmano

        As Jon Stewart once said, “finally a guy who says what people who aren’t thinking are thinking.”

  32. Despite this news, keep in mind folks that if the A’s somehow get permission to move to San Jose, the move still needs approval by the voters of San Jose. Remember……this is a city that voted down a new stadium for the Giants….. twice!!!!…. (To me, (the vote) is the most critical factor in any A’s to San Jose move and has not been given much attention in the media. Any recent polling data on this subject?

    If it’s a completely privately financed operation…….then MAYBE the voters may approve the deal, but any public funds for infrastructure…..etc….. WILL NOT be approved by the voters of San Jose.

    It took a massive….. herculean effort just to get the San Jose arena built in this damn place….will be a tougher sell for A’s ballpark.

    • Actually, San Jose voted down the stadium once because it involved a tax on water. The other failed vote was in Santa Clara. The paltry investment San Jose would make would make a return many times that investment…FWIW, voters in the late 1980s APPROVED the spending of I think it was $100 million on the arena. The place ended up costing $165 million (dirt cheap compared to today’s arena construction costs) with the Sharks kicking in $35 million. The arena has been a runaway success.

  33. Saying Davis wants to be in oakland, is like me saying I want to live in Piedmont. It would be awesome, except I have no money to buy a house in Piedmont. Of course I am waiting for someone to build my house there while I sit on my couch. Someone hurry up, build me a house in Piedmont. What is taking so long. The house I am renting in is falling apart. I call my landlord again and ask them if they have started building my new house. Why is it taking so long. Look every one. I want to be in Piedmont. I am trying.

    Yeah, Davis is really trying. Ok

    • Davis loves nice cheap words without the money to back the impications they have.

    • @ jordan

      Yeah, that’s a good one. Please help me pay for a house in Piedmont, I really want to live there…
      Davis wants to be in Oakland, Wolff would prefer not to, so what what different does it make?
      Wolff may end up building in Oakland, without it being his preference, while Davis may not build in Oakland, even though it’s probably his preference, big damn deal.

      • Davis wants to be anywhere that he gets to keep his controlling interest of the team while getting a free stadium. If you think otherwise, talk to the people in San Antonio

      • @ jordan

        I don’t disagree agree with you, perhaps I should say it like this. I think, all things being equal Davis would prefer to stay in Oakland (as Elmano stated), but of course all things aren’t equal, so it probably won’t matter (as I stated), and as much as Davis may prefer to stay in Oakland (if he does), I don’t think he would ever give up control of the Raiders for that preference. (as you stated)
        Conversely, I believe Wolff would prefer not to build in Oakland, he has made that painfully obvious (as Elmano stated), however I also believe he would be willing to build in Oakland, if he can do it on his own terms, which is why his preference for San Jose may not matter (as I stated ), so in the end if Oakland is the preferred location for Davis, and San Jose is the preferred location for Wolff it may not matter… hence “big damn deal”, what either of their preferences are unless, or until either location truly comes into play.

  34. Lake shore. I agree with that 100%.

  35. How can the owner of the Oakland A’s sign a convenient and cheap ten year lease in Oakland, tell Oakland A’s fans that this is “the first step” in building a ballpark in Oakland, and then three months later sign a seven year lease with San Jose?

    I guess the “10 year contract” with Oakland regarding a “good faith” effort to build a ballpark in the city means a absolutely nothing.

    Wolff is like the punk kid who comes along and sticks something in your spokes as you’re riding your bike down the street. Every single time Oakland comes out with a new investor for Coliseum City or any sort of positive news regarding Coliseum City, slimy Wolff is right there waiting to put that slimy stick into Oakland’s spokes.

    How does this dishonest man even make it to Oakland to sit behind home plate as loyal Oakland A’s fans wave their flags and cheer at the top of their lungs “Let’s Go Oakland?”

    The best thing Oakland can do at this point is get the 5 million dollars back which Wolff took under false pretenses, and put that money towards street paving and park maintenance.

    The next thing Oakland should do is wash its hands of the deceitful Wolff as well as the cowardly John Fisher who lurks in the shadows while Wolff takes all the punches. Oakland needs new ownership for its baseball team or nothing is going to change.

    These scoundrels have been playing Oakland A’s fans for the last 11 years and we keep coming back for more of this nonsense. In fact, this year we drew over 2 million fans even though Wolff curtailed attendance with his tarps, while Beane destroyed the second half of the season. Without Beane’s unintentional sabotage, and Wolff’s tarps, we would have drawn 2.2 million fans. Still, we outdrew the Kansas City Royals who are now in the World Series as well as teams with we ballparks.

    As thanks for being the most enthusiastic and loyal fans in MLB, Lew Wolff lies to us and gets our hopes up with his request for a “ten year lease,” and then three months later, kicks us in the teeth with a 7 year lease for land in San Jose.

    For me, I’m done with these low class, low character individuals who run the Oakland A’s. Like everyone else, I fell for the lies when I should have known better. I attended more games this year than I had in the last ten years. You want to believe that this man really wanted to stay in Oakland for ten years and wanted to stabilize the franchise. You wanted to believe that he changed his ways, and THIS TIME, was really sincere. Unfortunately, a leopard doesn’t change his spots.

    Rebecca Kaplan had to learn the lesson the tough way and it cost the good citizens of Oakland five million dollars which could have gone to badly needed city services.

    • @Elmano – Read. Carefully. All other commenters – do not respond to him.

      7.2.2. By Licensor. Licensee acknowledges that a plan may develop for construction of a new football stadium for the Oakland Raiders. Licensor shall keep Licensee reasonably informed of any information related thereto. If Licensor presents Licensee with a Raiders Construction Plan, Licensor and Licensee shall, for a period of thirty (30) days thereafter, negotiate in good faith for an amendment to this License that will account for the financial, operational and other consequences that Licensee would suffer from the construction and operation of such planned football stadium. Such negotiations shall not be necessary if the Raiders Construction Plan includes substantial demolition of the Stadium. If such good faith negotiations are unsuccessful or unnecessary, Licensor may terminate this License upon written notice of intent to terminate to Licensee, such termination to take effect sixty (60) days after the conclusion of the second (2d) Baseball Season that commences after such notice. (By way of example, if Licensor provides Licensee with such termination notice on June 15, 2016, this License will terminate sixty (60) days after the conclusion of the 2018 Baseball Season.) Between the time notice of termination has been given and the date of actual termination, Licensee shall cooperate in good faith with any activities by Licensor or its designees that may be necessary to prepare the site in advance of construction, including by providing reasonable access to any areas for which Licensee has exclusive use rights, so long as no actions are taken by Licensor or its designee and nothing is required of Licensee that unreasonably interferes with Licensee’s operations. For the sole purpose of a possible termination to accommodate a Raiders Construction Plan, the Parties agree to amortize on a monthly, straight-line basis (i) Licensee’s total verified cost reported to Licensor under Paragraph 11.2 for the Display Equipment Project, plus any amount paid directly to Licensor thereunder, and (ii) all other amounts paid by Licensee during the Term for mutually agreed upon improvements to the Stadium or Complex (“Additional Licensee Improvements”) under Paragraph 5.9, provided that Licensee’s costs for Additional Licensee Improvements will be subject to amortization hereunder only if Licensor shall have acknowledged to Licensee in writing at the time of Licensor’s approval of such Additional Licensee Improvements under Paragraph 5.9 that such improvements will be subject to the provisions of this Paragraph 7.2.2. Amortization shall occur from the last day of the month in which the particular improvement is completed throughout the remainder of the planned 10-year Term. Following termination by Licensor in connection with a Raiders Construction Plan, Licensor shall pay Licensee the entire unamortized balance of such improvement costs as measured from the date of completion of installation of the improvements being amortized to October 31st of the year in which termination is to take effect. Licensor shall make such payment not later than December 31 of the year in which termination becomes effective. By way of example, if (a) the Display Equipment Project is completed during March 2015 and the total verified project cost is $11,020,000 and (b) Licensor provides proper termination notice on June 15, 2016, then (x) the $11,020,000 will be amortized on a monthly schedule from March 31, 2015 through October 31, 2024, with $95,000 amortized on the last day of each month beginning on March 31, 2015, (y) this License shall terminate effective sixty (60) days after the conclusion of the 2018 Baseball Season and (y) Licensor shall pay Licensee, no later than December 31, 2018, the lump sum of $6,840,000 ($11,020,000 minus (44 months times $95,000)), plus whatever sum may be due for the costs of Additional Licensee Improvements, utilizing the same amortization methodology. The Parties acknowledge, however, that subject to Paragraph 16, Licensor’s obligation to pay Licensee under this Paragraph 7.2.2 may, and likely would, be passed through to any third-party developer that undertakes the Raiders Construction Plan.

      44.32. “Raiders Construction Plan” means a bona fide plan for construction of a new football stadium for the Oakland Raiders on current Complex property, adjacent to the current Complex property, or otherwise located sufficiently near to the Stadium such that it will materially impact Licensee’s operations, which bona fide plan must include, as pertains to such stadium project, a fully executed development agreement with a third-party developer and the Licensor for development of a new Raiders stadium, supported by a non-refundable deposit from the developer and received by the Licensor of at least Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00).

  36. Marine Layer,

    “Good faith effort” to build a ballpark in Oakland is self-explanatory. We don’t need legalese to justify Wolff’s slimy maneuvers.

    The implication in a request for a “ten year lease” tells the fans that you want to stay in Oakland for ten years. That request was more sick gamesmanship and PR non-sense from the unethical Lew Wolff and John Fisher when in fact their true motivation was to find a cruel way to get to San Jose.

    What kind of ridiculous response is it to throw out a part of the lease as a response to the points made in the above post?

    • @Elmano – The JPA didn’t hire Robert Bobb because Wolff lacked a good faith effort. The lease has contingencies. These stadia will not be developed in a vacuum. One can easily adversely affect another if they are in the same complex. You refuse to see that. You refuse to see virtually anything beyond your myopic worldview.

  37. Is it acting in “good faith ” when you sign a ten year lease and promise to work towards an Oakland ballpark in “good faith,” to then go out three months later and sign a land lease with San Jose?

    Is this the definition of “good faith effort” to you?

    • The A’s didn’t sign a land lease in San Jose. They signed an option, which they may still need since they still don’t have a long-term solution in Oakland. Seven years would also mean that in that seventh year, they could exercise that option and move in to a SJ stadium right after the tenth year of the Coliseum lease expires.

  38. I’m sorry, I just don’t see how deceit and obstructionism constitutes “working towards a long-term solution in Oakland.”

    If Wolff and Fisher were really interested in getting something done in Oakland, they wouldn’t be undermining Oakland at every turn. This is not how you establish a working relationship with an entity you hope to do business with.

    What the Oakland A’s have done is poisoned the waters and increased the mistrust in this entire saga with their underhanded lease extension with San Jose.

    • @Elmano – If, as lnstrngr points out, you don’t understand the difference between a land option and a land lease or purchase, you’ve already lost. Anyone who views this with a reasoned perspective understands that Oakland is Plan A, San Jose Plan B. The land option preserves Plan B in case Oakland goes bust. That’s the smart way to go. If you expect the A’s to blindly stick with Oakland and trust the pols there to deliver without any contingency plans, you are smoking something. You want to talk poisoning the waters? Try 1995.

      • Marine Layer,

        The plan to “get kicked out of Oakland” is plan A. You’ve beautifully put Wolff’s plan in chronological order in a previous post.

        Who are you trying to kid here? You know that option is there in case MLB grants Wolff rights to San Jose, or so that Wolff can extort Oakland and if he doesn’t get exactly what he wants, then go to San Jose. It puts Wolff in a position to ask Oakland for unreasonable concessions on a pretense of getting “kicked out.”

        Why insult A’s fans inteligence by stating that “Oakland is plan A?”

      • @Elmano – Reading comprehension is not your forte, is it? Plan A is to see Coliseum City fade, then come in with a alternative that’s not only more feasible but also less risky for Oakland’s fiscal health. Remember that in the lease with the JPA, the new developer has to pay $10 million to develop the Coliseum complex. The plan may lose the Raiders in the process, but that’s the difficult choice that needs to be made. That’s MLB’s desire as they would prefer not to deal with San Jose except as the last possible recourse. Your hatred towards Wolff and San Jose is blinding you to this reality. I can’t help you with that.

        Oh right, you somehow believe, absent the glaring evidence against it, that Coliseum City can work out if Wolff simply signed on. You don’t deal in reality.

  39. Marine Layer,

    If Wolff and Davis would sign on to Coliseum City the plan would have the momentum needed for these new investors to proceed. Wolff’s plan is to be that little punk kid that sticks that slimy stick in your bike wheel spokes as your riding down the street.

    Your asking Oakland to give up on Coliseum City, lose the Oakland Raiders, simply, on the POSSIBILITY that Wolff and MLB will now work in “good faith” with Oakland and will be capable and willing to see this development come to fruition?

    You’re asking an awful lot out of Oakland after they had a gun put to their collective heads by Lew Wolff and MLB.

    Who in the World extorts a lease with a gun to the head out of a municipality they respect and EXPECT to do business with in the future? Of course, neither Wolff, Fisher nor MLB baseball valued any kind of future working relationship with Oakland. The gun to the head strategy only works for someone who only wants a one time agreement with the City of Oakland. The only goal Wolff had in mind at the time, was that convenient lease with the easy escape clause.

    Now Oakland is supposed to believe the punk kid with the slimy stick in the spokes has changed his ways and really, really, wants to work with Oakland on this huge project?

    • @Elmano – Wolff and Davis are the owners Oakland and Alameda County have to deal with. Nothing’s going to change that. They have no choice. Reciprocally, Wolff has no choice but to work with Oakland at the moment. They’re not whining and they have much more at stake than you do. Deal with it.

  40. This shit is just painful to watch at this point.

Comments are closed.