For Davis it’s all about #1

Mark Davis explained where he stands vis-à-vis the A’s now and into the future during an interview with Tim Kawakami.

As I’ve said, I’m not against the A’s, I’m not for the A’s, I (sic) just for whatever’s best for our organization.

I don’t think anything else needs to be added here.

39 thoughts on “For Davis it’s all about #1

  1. He claimed G-4 is available for anywhere. I want some confirmation if that being true specifically for Oakland.

  2. There’s no Green Bay without the Packers, no Pittsburgh without the Steelers and no Oakland without the Raiders.

    Lets just face the facts, A’s belong in San Jose, thanks to the Giants and MLB.

    • There’s once a campaign that read “There’s no Oakland without the A’s….nor Oakland wasn’t discovered until the Raiders won the super bowl and the A’s won the world series in the 1970’s.

      Face the facts….Al Davis made an mistake moving the Raiders to L.A. in 1982. Now, the same mistake is going to be made by his son, Mark Davis.

      Its a shame.

    • The facts are that the Raiders made a choice to abandon Oakland once before and their return resulted in massive debt for the city and county and ruined the Coliseum. It is only because of that fiasco that the A’s even considered moving — It is now time for the A’s to get preferential treatment with an updated baseball-only stadium like every other MLB team.

      • WRONG! The A’s have (are) considered moving because there’s no money in Oakland: public or corporate. It’s NOT because of the Raiders. See the Warriors moving to San Francisco if you have any questions…

      • No, Tony, you are ignoring reality. Why not read what ML has written on this very blog instead of ignoring history? See his “Timeline” and his interview with the Swingin’ A’s blogger. The Raiders return without the city consulting the A’s and costly public spending for changes to the stadium that accommodated football spurred Haas in thinking that he had to protect the A’s interests and consider leaving. That attitude has persisted, and it has been aided by the stupidity of Oakland politicians. Sure Oakland has money issues — but they pale in comparison to a city like Detroit that somehow manages to field a team.

      • You can’t compare Detroit and Oakland (or more generally Michigan and California) when it comes to public stadium funding/subsidies. Detroit and the surrounding metro areas are home to the only pro sports teams in the state. They are much more likely to see benefits from state level taxes and funding. That’s pretty much an impossibility in California, where you have 3 NFL teams, 5 MLB teams, 4 NBA teams, 3 NHL teams, and 2 MLS teams (with 1 more coming soon). Compare that to Michigan’s 1 NFL team, 1 MLB team, 1 NBA team, and 1 NHL team.

      • Not ignoring reality, just responding to what you wrote in your first comment Jerry. Your second comment made much more sense in that the A’s first considered moving out of Oakland in the mid 1990’s because of how the city of went all in with the Raiders. Yes, I can agree with that. In the present however the A’s leaving Oakland has much more to do with corporate support and disposable incomes than anything else.

      • Tony, the A’s considered a move to San Jose because ownership preferred it to available options in Oakland. It’s not that it is 100% impossible to build in Oakland. It’s not as black & white as you’re characterizing it. If the A’s build in San Jose, it’s not because it’s impossible to build in Oakland. It’s because San Jose was deemed a better option.

      • At Briggs,

        How many years have we been at this now? Available options in Oakland? I suppose…if you want to loose money hand over fist! Sure nothings impossible in Oakland…if you’re willing to be charitable with hundreds of millions of dollars! C’mon man, your acting as if you’re new to all this stuff.

      • @Tony D
        I think you’re right if we’re talking about stand alone stadiums in both Oakland and San Jose.

        Remember though Wolff isn’t considering a stand alone stadium in Oakland. He also wants the additional land for development. Also, in Oakland, there’s still a chance that the A’s can stay on revenue sharing.

        Maybe not for the A’s as a stand alone entity but for Wolff and Fisher combined, I don’t think the following is out of the realm of possibility:

        New Oakland stadium + development rights + revenue sharing > Stand alone San Jose stadium

      • Slacker,
        Not really. Those “fabulous” development rights in East Oakland would barely put a dent in stadium financing (perhaps at most $50 million; see istar development and Quakes SSS) and continued revenue sharing only ensures “small market status” for the A’s in corporate poor Oakland. So: development rights + revenue sharing + massive debt in corporate poor region WAY < than stand alone yard in $an

  3. OT RM: What the hell’s up with Baer and Wolff (Giants/Quakes) teaming up to bid for the Rugby World Cup in 2018? Baer’s the last person I’d expect Wolff to work along with. Hmmm…

    @AW, I again agree: Raiders in Oakland, A’s in San Jose.

    • I have the same question as Tony D, Grants and Quakes? What’s that about.

    • I’d say it’s “Don’t take business personally.”

      If it’s mutually advantageous for the Rugby 7’s to take place in the Quakes stadium and AT&T Park, and remember those two stadiums are mostly privately financed so they got a mortgage to pay which means it is probably mutually advantageous… Don’t let something unrelated get in the way.

      • Yeah, I’m sure you’re correct.

      • But that “something unrelated” is HUGE to Wolff and his San Jose business/political partners. Besides, AT&T Park’s debt should be retired by 2018. Also, Wolff/Quakes could have easily teamed up with the Niners to bid on the Rugby World Cup; why join those who are thwarting your ballpark dreams? At any rate, it’s an interesting union to say the least.

    • The Giants and A’s don’t have a blood-fued. It’s a business disagreement that’s up to MLB to resolve. Samsung makes Apple’s chips but they’re involved in a few heavy-duty lawsuits against each other. It’s just business.

      • So Briggs,
        Your making a blanket statement about the supposed relationship between the A’s and Giants based on what apparently exists between Apple and Samsung? Talk about major apples and oranges (no pun intended).

    • @Tony D: what else is interesting is the Manfred is already duking it out with Baer (Manfred isn’t even officially the new commish yet ) this could spell trouble for the giants.

      • @duffer- what issue was manfred dukimg it out with Baer? Baer was one of his primary supporters while LW was part of the holdouts that didn’t initially support manfred for commish

      • GoA’s,

        Just for the record, it wasn’t Wolff who was responsible for the A’s holding out on Manfred, but John Fisher himself. The reason: the ballpark issue and the lack of a resolution. The A’s finally came around on Manfred; I wonder why?
        BTW Duffer, love your info re Manfred and Baer, but I must ask…where are you getting it from?

  4. Maybe I am reading this wrong but it looks like LA is a no go for the Raiders, and we may be asking when and where the Raiders and A’s will be this time NEXT year. Why? If I was the new Mayor why not wait until I see how many people will actually support building a new Stadium for EITHER team? Basically if she can keep both the Raiders and A’s at the Coliseum Site, because they have no other options, and because the Raiders do not want to go to San Antonio, and since apparently Billy Beane has turned into an SF Giant Mole and gutted the team, that strategy (if successful), becomes a win win for her.

    • Was Billy Beane a Giants mole when he traded Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder? Can that idiotic meme, one that is completely the antithesis of how the A’s have managed to be the only bottom half revenue team to make the playoffs every other year on average, be put to rest? My fellow A’s fans are besmirching my reputation by sounding like idiots.

    • PS- I wasn’t calling David Brown an idiot, if it seemed like I was. I didn’t mean to besmirch your reputation 🙂 I don’t even know you and that would be pretty unfair.

  5. What happens if the Raiders can’t go to San Jose, can’t go to LA and can’t get a new stadium in Oakland?

    • excuse me, San Antonio, not Santa Clara. Under the circumstances I just noted, the league might have to force them to go to Santa Clara.

      • Wow. Lots of typos here. Let me try again: What happens if Raiders can’t go to San Antonio or LA and then can’t get a new stadium in Oakland? Santa Clara, here comes the Raiders.

      • They rot in the Coliseum or Davis sells the team.

      • Perhaps the NFL can prevent them from going to LA, but they cannot force them to go to Santa Clara. If theoretically speaking the only three options were Santa Clara, San Antonio, or sell, I suspect San Antonio would be chosen. However, at least right now, Oakland is still an option. Of course if Mayor Schaff, kicks them out (in favor of the A’s), that changes everything. Do I think she will? No. Why should she use political capital when she does not have to? I suspect Davis knows he will not be allowed to move to LA, so maybe the strategy is to remain @ The Coliseum (maybe on a year to year basis), and eventually get to build a New Stadium on the Coliseum Site, and hope that MLB gets tired of the situation, and allows the A’s move to Sam Jose, before his mom passes away and he has to sell because of the Capital Gains Tax issue.

      • @ David Brown, I agree with your scenario regarding the future respective locations for both the A’s and Raiders. At this time, it appears that neither team will be leaving their current venue, at least for the near term. Sooner or later, MLB will be sick and tired of the A’s trading away their established player talent. In addition, MLB would also very much want for the A’s to no longer require receiving revenue sharing handouts. At some point, hopefully within the next few years, MLB will come to its senses and allow the A’s to move to San Jose. This scenario could then open the way for the Raiders to get something long-term done at the Coliseum site, even if it takes the form of a renovated or partially rebuilt Coliseum.

  6. My natural assumption had the Raiders packing for Santa Clara. That was before the constant rumor drumbeat by the blogs and that Kawasaki guy from the Trib.
    BTW, anyone following the Islamic hostage seige in Sydney? Up to 40 in a coffee shop held hostage.

  7. Two months to the day before a team can officially file to relocate to LA or parts unknown.

  8. One item which has been overlooked is that Magic Johnson endorsed the Raiders move to L.A. (that guy has considerable clout down there) The Rams appear to be the front runners for move. They are drawing poor fan support and taxpayer funding for a new NFL stadium is not going well for that team also

    • The Rams at least have a shot at squeezing public money out of St Louis and the state of Missouri. The Raiders have near-as-makes-no-difference zero shot at getting any public stadium funding from Oakland, Alameda County, and/or the state of California.

      • The problem with St Louis is that any public (taxpayer) funding for projects over there – needs a state referendum vote for approval. Feb 15 is two months away, there’s no way Missouri officials could organize a statewide referendum vote in such a short time.

  9. @ duffer
    That’s interesting.

  10. football is the number one sport I feel Oakland should worry about the Oakland Raiders new football stadium until the Oakland Athletics build a ballpark in stoP trading away super star players

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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