Hat tip to Zennie Abraham, who posted this first and did a quick video blog about it.
MAYOR LIBBY SCHAAF, OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT LYNETTE GIBSON MCELHANEY, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEMPS LARRY REID and SUPERVISOR NATE MILEY SUPPORT THE CITY AND COUNTY JOINTLY EXTENDING AGREEMENT WITH NEW CITY AND ADDING RAIDERS AND A’S TO NEGOTIATIONS
OAKLAND, CA – January 19, 2015 – Mayor Libby Schaaf, Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney and Council President Pro Temps Larry Reid today announced their support for extending the negotiating agreement with New City, as well as bringing the A’s and Raiders to the table to discuss developing the coliseum land themselves. Mayor Schaaf has also secured a commitment from the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to consider formally joining the City of Oakland in this new approach at their next meeting January 27th. The Oakland City Council will vote in a closed session next Tuesday, January 20th, to extend the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) for up to 90 days, with an express condition that the City may negotiate simultaneously with its sports teams about developing the entire coliseum site.
“I’m excited that, for the first time, both the Oakland Athletics and Oakland Raiders have expressed interest in coming to the table to join these serious discussions and that the City and County are poised to move forward together. This new approach represents real progress in crafting a project that protects the public dollar, retains our sports teams, and increases the economic vitality of the coliseum area,” said Mayor Libby Schaaf.
“Keeping our sports teams in Oakland with a world-class development is a top priority of these discussions,” said Oakland City Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney. “As joint owners of the land in question, Alameda County will be a critical partner in the collaborative effort to retain our teams and determine the best way to build a state of the art complex that will be a beacon of civic pride for many years to come.”
“I appreciate Mayor Schaaf’s hard work to develop an approach that gets the city and county on the same page. I support the idea of signing onto the ENA with New City now that we will also start negotiating directly with our sports teams,” stated Supervisor and Coliseum Powers Authority Chair Nate Miley. “We’ll be doing our due diligence, but I’m optimistic that the City and County will start moving forward as a unified team after our January 27th action.”
—
More Tuesday, of course.
newballpark.org 
Get er done Floyd and/or Mark! and GO RAIDERS!
Yeah, lets get something done.
This is great news for the A’s, Raiders, and for the City of Oakland. Libby has sure move on this fast and is showing great leadership.
Credit to the mayor for finally moving forward Finally (how long has JQ dicked around with this) yet nothing changes in that there will be only 1 team that can remain when this is done- should be an interesting 90 days- assuming the A’s proposal is successful will the Raiders be able to remain as a new ballpark is developed and a new stadium built in LA before they officially move to LA.
Wow, leadership. Didnt think I’d ever see it in Oakland.
Unfortunately, leadership doesn’t change the economic realities of poor corporate base, low disposable incomes and need for massive residential/commercial developments (see RM’s comments from yesterday re no one building in Oakland…)
Tony – Now you’re misreading my comments in a completely different way. Stop before you embarrass yourself.
I think you are reading it wrong. Lew Wolff is going to show what he wants and how it can be done. I expect the A’s to be in Oakland for a long time now, the Raiders… Not so much (doesn’t mean I expect them to leave, just doing math it’s harder to see them staying than the A’s).
Jeffrey,
Respectfully disagree; I think the opposite is true re who will be in Oakland for the long haul. That is all..
Based on what? Your desire?
We ALL have desires and opinions here my long time blog friend. That is all…
So you are saying it is just your opinion?
It’ll Never woorrrk! Go ahead it’s ok, it’s in our East Bay blood.
It’s fantastic! Proactive leadership hasn’t been in the Mayor’s office of Oakland for at least 8 years.
I know we all bag on Jerry, but no one can argue that what he chose to do when he was handcuffed by disinterested owners hasn’t gone swimmingly well.
A true lesson of Silicon Valley is that “done is better than perfect.” Another is “not doing anything costs more than doing the wrong thing.” This is exactly what should have been going on for the last 20 years.
“Show us what you’d like to do.”
Oakland will get a development proposal from the A’s. Now it remains to be seen whether they do the sensible thing and sign up the A’s and tell the Raiders to go to Santa Clara.
I know it’s tough pjk, but you need patience when it comes to the A’s future: San Jose WILL eventually happen.
Sensible thing for Oakland to do is go with the team that TRULY wants to stay at the Coli, and that’s the Raiders. The investment from Oakland/Alameda Co. is half there with Mt. Davis; time to finish the rest.
A team will show it wants to stay when it takes positive action toward staying. As in, here’s the plan and the money… All the rest is just press conferences.
Jeffrey,
Agree..
By that measure, how can you say the Raiders have proven they want to stay?
I’d say the “measure” goes both ways Jeffrey. Neither the Raiders or A’s have presented squat.
Thing is Oakland already has a track record of $upporting the Raiders, games are sold out (even with a loosing record), and Davis has stated he wants to make it work in The Town. Not much really, but a lot more than what Wolff has put out re potential future in Oakland.
BTW, interesting that Raiders games employ 2,000 folks while A’s games employ 800. Another angle to this story to consider..
That’s not true. The A’s have presented plenty. In three different cities and they have one ready to go for this. One that has been seen by Nate Miley. He has been pushing for open proposals on this for more than a year.
I don’t think Santa Clara would be a good fit for the Raiders and their fan base.
Of course you don’t.
This just in: Libby Schaaf is better at kicking cans down the road than was Jean Quan. Film at 11.
Finally, this two stadium Coliseum site fantasy appears to be over, and serious negotiations with all involved parties will now begin. It is hoped that the end result would allow for both the A’s and Raiders to remain somewhere within the Bay Area. Disregarding the provincial attitudes of some Bay Area sports fans, this undoubtedly should be a win-win for Bay Area fans of both the A’s and Raiders.
I expect Wolff to submit a realistic, well-thought plan. I expect the Raiders to do nothing but ask for money. If the city and county do the right thing, the A’s will get a new stadium and the Raiders will pound sand. That works for me.
The A’s will submit a comprehensive development plan that probably pays off the existing debt. The Raiders will say they “need help” paying for a stadium. will not pay off the existing debt and will continue to meet with people in San Antonio and LA about moving to one of those cities, in a doomed-to-fail effort to pressure somebody to pay for a $1 billion stadium for them in Oakland.
I disagree. Let’s get something straight here: it was again the Raiders/NFL that proposed in a meeting last week with Oakland pols bringing in their own developer independent of Kephart. This wasn’t all Schaaf ‘ s doing and now all of a sudden Mark Davis has to act.
In my view, go with a reconstructed Coli (roughly same price tag as new ballpark), a less grandiose entertainment district and get it done for the Raiders. Wolff/A’s? You know the deal 😉
I still don’t believe the NFL cares about getting anything done in Oakland. Nor should they considering they just oversaw the construction of a new Bay Area stadium which was designed specifically to host 2 home teams. To me, they’re just treading water until the LA stadium situation clears up over the next year.
And Wolff/A’s are just treading water until…
Let’s hope both teams are sincere about making this work. After all, we are talking about 120 acres of public land being offered to private interests. That’s quite a public gift to squander away by being petty or greedy.
Let’s hope we see a new spirit of cooperation between the two teams, the city and the County so that we can build a new sports complex with ancillary development which will be good for Oakland and for the entire Bay Area. Let’s get this done
Let’s hope you discover what “reality” is… Too much to ask for?
You don’t seem to understand that the two teams are now pitted directly against each other, and that it’s extremely unlikely that the Raiders’ plan will accommodate the A’s or that the A’s plan will accommodate the Raiders. The Kephart group is the only of the 3 parties saying it wants to accommodate both teams, and neither team is on board with them. This makes it clearer than ever than one team is going to “win” and the other is going to “lose”.
A) It wouldn’t be a gift. Especially if they’re going to be accounting for the debt service.
B) No one’s working together. And neither team is going to offer a proposition that will include the other.
C) Both teams’ ideas will be built on making as much money as they possibly can off the land. That’s how these things work. They aren’t going to be altruistic, they’re going to out for themselves.
This is totally counter-intuitive. So the city extends the (now non-exclusive) Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Kephart, whose group relies on a team signing on to their plan. At the same time, they allow the teams to pitch their own plans, which presumably will either not involve Kephart or will otherwise sideline his group. So really, their playing 3 groups off of each other.
It’s counterintuitive and pretty sage. It’s a lot better than the “wait and hope someone else makes something happen someday.”
Or as ML suggested- 2 of the groups partner- new city and raiders, against the A’s- I would expect we will soon be hearing more about HT being a viable site to rationalize keeping the Raiders at the Coli site
Trying to bring HT back into the conversation on the part of the government powers-that-be would be pathetic, but not surprising in the slightest.
Pretty sure they can’t. It’s part of the lease agreement that they drop HT.
“Yes, Bud Selig shot down the meme we got the local papers to carry, but it’s not a rejection.”
Politically this move is genius. It gives Schaaf the ability for the A’s to make their pitch while minimizing blowback from CC and Raiders supporters.
If Schaaf let the ENA expire and then let the A’s come in, folks would view her as selling out CC and the Raiders.
In reality CC and the Raiders have had their chances and can’t make it work. I think this is just a way for Schaaf to work with the A’s while still giving her the ability to say that every option was in play but the A’s were the only team willing to commit to Oakland.
I think that if the ENA with the Kephart group had not have been extended and each team still had the opportunity to present a plan, it would have had the same effect. At this point, it seems like the Kephart group has just become a pointless middle man, although I guess including it provides political cover since it is as of yet the only one of the 3 parties that has expressed some interest in having both teams. at the complex.
Slacker,
Again, Davis/NFL were the ones who got the ball rolling with Schaaf ‘ s idea re competing development proposals (read the BANG article!). It probably only makes sense for her to include the A’s as well. Let’s stop making this story out to be what it isnt.
And also, as has been reported by Mark Purdy and acknowledged by Lew Wolff, he has been working on a proposal for this kind of move.
OK Jeffrey, I’ll give you that Wolff has been working on a Coliseum proposal (?) and that he’s been itching to present it to Oak/AlCo (?). My take: he won’t act upon it until San Jose is 100% dead, off the table. And guess what…San Jose is not 100% dead or off the table.
I know we’ve all wanted a new yard for the A’s since yesterday, but I’m willing to continue to be patient on this saga. I’m sure Wolff and Co. are willing to be patient as well. This has now become a marathon, not a sprint (unfortunately). Until the next thread my brother…
If the A’s offer the best pitch, they should be the team that stays. Of course, the A’s will be blamed for the departure of the Raiders, even though the A’s have stayed out of the way during 3 or 4 fruitless years of stadium negotiations between the Raiders and Oakland.
The Raiders deserve to get the boot. Ruining a baseball stadium like they did should be considered treason.
The city of Oakland ruined the baseball stadium against the A’s will, but I digress..
The Coliseum is not a baseball stadium – it is a multi-purpose stadium, very obsolete when compared with newer, baseball only or football only stadiums. The A’s are one of the few (if any other) MLB teams that have had success with a multi-purpose stadium (back in the 80’s-90s when they were averaging nearly 3 mil. attendance per season)
The A’s attendance really isn’t that bad considering that they play in such an old, outdated dump.
It functioned as a baseball-only stadium for over a decade and still had a low outfield structure (i.e. was not enclosed) until the Raiders came back from LA and in conjunction with the city of Oakland built that botched abortion known as Mt. Davis.
The A’s being blamed is another angle to this.
While many folks will blame the A’s regardless of the outcome, I’m also wondering if the move to extend and open up the ENA as opposed to just letting it expire was done to help the A’s a bit on the PR side.
If Schaaf let the ENA expire and immediately starts talking to Wolff, folks will argue that Wolff forced Schaaf’s hand. In this case, all options are on the table:
1. CC deal with two stadiums
2. Raiders only deal
3. A’s only deal
Everyone knows the Raiders can’t do anything on their own.
The CC deal still has not had a team sign-on so to ML’s point this might force a partnership between New City and the Raiders, but I think it would have to be binding to hold any weight. The binding agreement would probably limit the Raiders options in regards to LA and San Antonio and I don’t Davis is willing to commit like that.
In other words, it helps to set the stage where the A’s are the only team willing to commit to Oakland and it’s the Raiders choice to jump ship.
Selig names Saint Louis Best Baseball City. Which city would he name as the worst? I’ll bet one that refuses to build its team a new ballpark after ruining its existing facility for football, and continually bashes the owners, would be a good candidate for Bud’s Worst List (if he had one). http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/bud-selig-proclaims-st–louis–the-best-baseball-city-193010313.html
This is good stuff.
Having the County unify with the City quells some of the dysfunction.
By allowing competing proposals it brings the old adage of “competition breeds improvement”.
It will force all proposals to step their game from all parties involved.
If the JPA is smart, they should build the baseball park first. Sharing a stadium for 81 dates for the A’s would be tough with the Giants at ATT Park. Only because of the sheer # of dates over the course of the season.
There maybe days where the one team plays in the afternoon and then another plays at night and vice versa. It would be traffic and logistics nightmare.
But the Raiders sharing with the 49ers would be far more palatable and since there are so few games it make sense.
The Raiders are in far better position to share for a longer period of time than the A’s are because the NFL plays on Sunday’s and sheer # of games.
This is the most progress we have seen in years from Oakland/JPA/Alameda County.
Let’s see if they can parlay this into an agreement.
Why would mark davis move to Levi’s and significantly increase his expenses associated with a lease when he is basically paid to play in oakland? There is not a significant amount of upside revenue at Levi’s compared to the Coli as Raiders still lack corporate support. I don’t ever see the ‘Raiders playing at Levi’s unless it is temporary while a new stadium is being built on the site of the existing one at the Coli.
This is beating a dead horse, but it’s incredible the lack of progress made during Quan’s time in office. It’s 2015 and Oakland barely has the beginings of a plan.
PR solutions to real problems result in PR solutions only.
Oakland can’t build stadiums without cooperative ownerships.
Ownerships can’t build stadiums while being obstructed by the other team and government ineptitude.
@Elmano: Likewise, teams can’t build stadiums without cooperative cities. It’s a two-way street.
Cities certainly can build stadiums without cooperative ownerships. Exhibit A: Tampa Bay.
The City and County have to sit down, look over the two proposals, and determine which one is inclusive while giving the City the best ancillary development.
The team which is sincere, values the location, and truly wants to stay, will provide an inclusive proposal. The team that wants to play games and force the other team out, or wants an excuse to leave, will present an unacceptable proposal.
Also, Howard Terminal was taken off the table by MLB as a political favor to Lew Wolff.
Neither team’s proposal is going to include a stadium for the other. You’re going to be eating crow when that inevitably comes to light.
Then neither team gets the land. Libby Shaaf has made it perfectly clear that she values both franchises and wants both to stay.
That says nothing of any substance. ‘Wants’ and desires more often than not do NOT reflect practical realities. There’s no downside for her to say she wants both. But she’s smart enough to know a choice may very well need to be made. That’s why she went on record as saying that if it comes time to choose, siding with the A’s makes more sense for the city.
And if neither team’s plan for itself is accepted, then we’re back where we are now with a vague plan that neither team wants to sign on to.
http://www.athleticsnation.com/2014/10/28/7073815/keeping-the-as-in-oakland-an-interview-with-oakland-mayoral-candidate
Do you see keeping the A’s and Raiders as mutually exclusive? What are some of the challenges that go along with keeping both teams in the city?
There is enough room for both teams, and my clear priority is keeping both teams. But from an economic point of view, the A’s have a larger economic benefit for Oakland that should always be kept in mind. They play more than 80 games a year, compared to 10. But I just want to be clear, I’m a very proud Oakland native; my parents were season-ticket holders for both the A’s and the Raiders throughout my life.
Translation: Sure would be nice to keep two, but obviously if there’s a choice to be made it’s pretty simple.
Decisions won’t be made on what’s best for city coffers; they will be made on what makes economic/business sense for the teams. Trust me, Wolff’s (and MLB) final decision re the A’s future won’t rest on whether Oakland makes more money off of 81 games.
If both teams don’t present an acceptable plan for the free public land, then the City of Oakland and Alameda County should just put out a development bid from all developers interested in developing those 120, or possibly even more acres, in a central Bay Area location with it’s own BART station and a direct connection to Oakland International Airport.
The A’s can then go to Howard Terminal or claim they’ve been kicked out of Oakland and the Raiders can go to San Antonio or share a stadium somewhere in Southern California.
It’s as simple as that. Oakland is saying here is some prime land for your stadiums, do you want it or not?
Nav – That’s the first sensible thing you’ve said in weeks. I hope those developers can figure out a way to pay off the $200 million in Coliseum complex debt.
Still talking about HT like it’s not totally dead. You’ve truly run out of things to say, although that isn’t exactly news.
But in the interests of clarity, Nav, you’re essentially saying that if the teams don’t present plans that keep both in place at the Coliseum site, then they should both leave?
Marine Layer, I knew you’d like that scenario. Who is going to pay off the 62 million debt the Warriors still owe on the 1997 arena renovation? The Warriors will be responsible for part of the 200 million.
After a while these teams either want their new venues or they don’t. Oakland needs to tell them, here’s the free land, we want both teams to stay, take it or leave it.
This is a shrewd move by the Oakland mayor – forcing the A’s and/or Raiders into a decision. Also Davis likely has the finances to build a new stadium and is probably holding out for the best deal. The Raiders organization can probably can contribute $200 mil. for a new stadium, the NFL another $200 mil., plus additional $100 mil. for a stadium naming rights deal. – at least $500 mil. towards a new Raiders stadium is a large sum.
None of the available evidence suggests Davis has anywhere close to enough money available to get this done. If he were close, something would have gotten done in all the years that the City of Oakland has been giving the Raiders preferential treatment.
Oakland supported and financed the Raiders previously with the Coliseum redo – Davis might believe they will finance the Raiders again.
Davis may believe that, but it would be more than a mild surprise if it actually happened.
Considering Schaaf already said no public money would be spent on stadium construction, I don’t see that happening.
It’s important not to mischaracterize this situation. Oakland isn’t forcing either team into a decision. Oakland’s requesting bids from both teams. Keep in mind that the teams are composing their bids to appeal to Oakland, so it’s possible that a team’s proposal could include the other team. In other words, if Al Davis really wants Oakland to select his bid, he might try to fit the A’s into his plan somehow to make his bid more appealing to Oakland. As MLB discussed in his previous post, the issue of infrastructure cost heavily plays into the bids as well. My overall point is that it’s not about a team’s ability to pay for a stadium. It’s about making an appealing bid to Oakland.
Typo: ML, not MLB
The ability to pay for a stadium is pretty central when there won’t be public funding the help build the stadium itself. And with a reduced project area, each team will need to maximize ancillary development. There’s just no sound business case (from to perspective of either team) to accommodate the other, at least based on available facts and evidence.
I agree with Briggs. I don’t think anyone should be too surprised, it either plans the teams submit includes both teams. That doesn’t mean it will ultimately work, but I could see both of them trying to appease the city/county in that regard. (Primarily the Raiders)
It actually would be a good strategy, if either team really wants to build on the site. Of course in the A’s (Lew Wolff’s) case, it would be more about having no other real place to build (if San Jose doesn’t pan out) , then actually wanting to build there.
My point being, if Lew or Mark are really serious (particularly Lew, since he is a developer), put a real plan together that can work for all parties involved (if that’s possible), thereby forcing the other team to join your plan, or bow out (If they are not serious), you will then be in the position of having offered a reasonable plan, that did not look like you were forcing the other party out, and at the same time you get to develop that much more space when they leave.
If a proposal by either team arises where 2 venues are built, we’ll be back to square one. Neither wants to be a tenant of the other or have their build dictated by the other team. To me, such a proposal is a virtual acceptance of the status quo that either team can take back to its league as evidence of exhausting options. In other words, a 2 venue proposal coming from either team would be a veiled indication of not actually wanting to get anything done. It would be much more disingenuous than a 1 venue proposal.
This could be done a number of different ways; it may not simply be about the ancillary development. Wolff could be the main developer, and if willing to take on 10%-12% ownership stake in the Raiders (if that’s possible), which would constitute part of the payment for a new stadium for the Raiders, whiten a Wolff controlled development.
I’m not saying I have all the answers, and it may ultimately only work for one team (or no teams), but there are other creative ways to do this, then just saying there is X amount of land divided, by two teams = it’s in Oakland, so it can’t work.
@ MSG
Not saying you’re incorrect, I just think there may be other ways to get this done, if everyone were willing, which I’m not so sure they are.
Sorry: SMG
Very well said. I couldn’t agree more.
They, in all likelihood, aren’t willing because they run businesses, not charities. Why would they surrender assets worth many, many millions to the other team? The “let’s make everyone happy” is an emotional/philosophical argument rather than a business/practical one. Both have already indicated in the past that they’d prefer to have the site to themselves.
And by the way, it is absolutely a zero sum game. There is only so much land up for theoretical development and only so many dollars can be realistically extracted from it via development. Ancillary development is profitable, stadium development is not. Allocating a bunch of additional space to build a second venue and its parking massively undercuts the finances of any project.
@SMG: Absolutely, this is a zero sum game. However, what’s happening right now is simply a single step within an overall process. No big issues will be resolved with either team’s bid. The immediate goal of each bid is to get chosen. The issue at hand is a matter of diplomacy, not logistics. Issues of existing debt, infrastructure costs, etc. would (At best) be addressed with a fast and loose outline at this point. No one’s saying a bid would include two stadiums, rather I’m just saying a second stadium could be included as a diplomatic maneuver to secure the bid.
But if a 2nd venue is simply a diplomatic tool to curry favor (rather than a financial calculation) and then such a plan is accepted, what then? That just seems like a short term “win” and long term loss for the proposer.
“They are businesses, not charities”
RE: They are businessman, sure. I’m not saying they are not, attest in the case of Wolff we know he is, because he has purchased a produced (the A’s), that has raised greatly in value, with him doing little to nothing to help make that happen.
He is also a businessman that purchased a team, that had a defined area of which it could build in (right or wrong), which also needs a new stadium so if he can’t get San Jose (which it’s looking more and more like he won’t IMHO), then he can bite the bullet and build in Oakland even if the stadium doesn’t (TOTALLY) pay for itself, with the continuing rise in franchise value he has enjoyed, and the continued revenue sharing he will receive (hopefully), the new ballpark has more than paid for itself. If he still doesn’t want to build in Oakland he can sale the team, walk away with a healthy profit, and let someone other than him do it.
It can be done without the A’s or Raiders being charities, but not without both (or one) making sacrifices. To this point, the A’s and the Raiders are acting more like charities, “that receive”, then give.
Bait and switches happen all the time. Securing the bid is also a leverage against LA, SJ, or whereever. I’m defintely taking a cynical stance, but I think we should prepare ourselves for stupid amounts of stupid. Considering how the lease extension negotiations went in 2013/2014, we shouldn’t be surprised with mind-numbing theatrics from any party. It’s not that I think Oakland’s proposition to the teams is useless, but I think it’s more about gestures at this point instead of grinding out logistics.
That really did nothing to address the financial concerns of building 2 venues on the site. Playing in the flip-flopping, wishy-washy middle ground is exactly why we’re in the situation we’re in.
I can agree with that Briggs. The rage that would ensue from one team’s proposal accommodating the other team (and being accepted) only to have the proposal be changed after the fact to be one venue would be hilarious in its own twisted way.
Bit of a contrary semi-cynical take here, but I’m thinking that these potential competing proposals will ultimately lead to status quo. If Schaaf knows that neither MLB nor NFL will allow the Oakland teams to move to more acceptable locales, then she can relatively cheaply keep both teams in place by extending deadlines while continuing the facade of “working” with both teams. She is already being seen as more of a leader than her predecessor; there is now little to zero incentive for her to find a concrete solution, in that any concrete solution will necessarily piss off one of the two fanbases. Keeping things as they are right now functions as both the easiest thing to do, as well as the most politically palatable thing to do.
Oakland gets to keep the teams and the current ancillary revenues, with exactly zero in additional infrastructure cost, while Mark Davis and Lew Wolff keep tossing grenades at each other via their proxies in the media. And all the while, Larry Baer and Jed York smile and do their Scrooge McDuck imitations when they think nobody’s looking.
Remember, folks – this situation will only be solved in the political arena, and a politician’s first, last and only motivation is getting re-elected.
I think Mark Davis wants to stay in Oakland because he’s an Oakland guy. Al Davis chose Chapel of the Chimes on Piedmont Avenue in Oakland as his final resting place. The family had a mansion in Piedmont. This family has roots in the Oakland area.
Davis also realizes that with a new stadium and a winning team in centrally located and transportation friendly Oakland, the Raiders will clean Jed York’s clock in Santa Clara. Davis would control 75% of the Bay Area while York would be stuck in an inaccessible, uncomfortable stadium in suburban Santa Clara.
Oakland could be a goldmine for Davis and he knows it.
That’s not how the NFL works.
Can you imagine the Riaders with a new stadium in Oakland going 11-5 while the Fort Niners go 8-8 or begin having losing seasons in Santa Clara? Where would all the corporation in San Francisco, the upper peninsula, and the tri-valley go for their luxury suites? They’d all be going to Oakland to watch the Raiders.
None of this makes sense- oakland would own 75% of the Bay Area- right – and btw Al is dead and Mark lives in LA- go figure…
That’s still not how the NFL works Nav. Not to mention the stadium remains total vaporware and the Raiders are still an awful team on the field. Your little scenario is nothing more than a daydream at this point.
if a developer submits a plan to eat 100 million in city/county debt and pay for their own stadium and include development that will generate tax revenue for the City, Mayor Shcaaf and Alameda county would be obligated to consider it strongly.
Agree- question really will be is the land potentially more valuable without a ballpark on it- similar to what is happening in Anaheim- LW will want, and should get, full control over the site if he is taking the risk of privately financing a stadium- still not sure how revenue sharing plays in here- if he loses that then the bar just got raised a bit more to capture the $30M he is getting today that would be lost when a new ballpark is built-
Another way to look at this is that the city is selling the land in exchange for the value of the outstanding debt on Mt Davis and potentially the arena. This could be as high as $1.6M/acre.
Based on current land available in the same area, things there are selling for around $2.25M per acre but these are all much smaller plots of land.
If someone is willing to pay around $1M/acre and re-develop it, plus give the city a professional sports team and facility, it’s not a bad deal for the city.
@goA’s, If Wolff builds a jewel of a ballpark, the attendance increase, plus ticket price increase would offset the difference in revenue sharing. I trust Wolff will build a sweet yard based on every design he’s ever submitted, they’ve all been nice.
Wouldn’t it be easier to get retail and housing developed around a popular well attended baseball venue. Its an attraction other developments all over Oakland can’t deliver.
Based on watching Lew Wolff operate for the last 10 years, this is what I think is going to happen.
The Raiders will present an inclusive proposal knowing full well that Lew Wolff is still hoping for San Jose. The A’s will present a proposal offering to pay off Coliseum debt, create a larger development, and not include a stadium for the Raiders knowing that this will probably get them “kicked out of Oakland.”
I don’t believe Lew Wolff has changed his spots. Wolff’s only goal these last 10 years has been to find a way to get to San Jose. It’s been a game of “exhausting all our options” in order to convince MLB to grant him rights to San Jose.
Wolff has done everything to push every proposed site in Oakland aside. Wolff has even gone to the extent of falsely denigrating Oakland’s economy through a letter from an Oakland resident business partner. Wolff also whined that he was “being held hostage in Oakland.” Wolff worked proactively with Fremont and San Jose but never with Oakland.
Why should anyone believe that Wolff has changed his ways and all of a sudden finds Oakland and the Coliseum area a “viable” site for his franchise? No, Wolff has no incentive to build anything in Oakland when he gets to play at the Coliseum virtually rent free while also drawing 2 million fans and receiving revenue checks from MLB.
Wolff will just sit there and squat on Coliseum land and nothing will get built. Wolff knows the Coliseum isn’t nearly as bad as he attempts to portray to the media and to MLB. The “building a new ballpark” cry from Lew Wolff has always been an excuse for relocation to San Jose.
No. I’m still going with what Wolff told the former Mayor of San Jose over pancakes.
So you advocating more handouts and subsidies to the to the Raiders while absolving them of any responsibility for the financial burdens they have already put on the city/county. Glad we cleared that up.
No, I’m just saying that the A’s will continue to be the stumbling block in getting anything developed at the Coliseum
The Raiders are equally to blame.
re: drawing 2 million fans
…thus placing the A’s 24th out of 30 teams in attendance, despite fielding a winning team, having great giveaways and offering rock-bottom prices. I suppose if Wolff even let people in for $2 and gave them free parking on some nights that wouldn’t be enough for Elmano. Oh, wait a second – Wolff already does that. Elmano likes to present information that is really a negative and make us think it’s positive. The A’s drew 2 million fans? Whoop de do. 23 teams drew more.
@pjk
Not that it would matter from a revenue standpoint, since the A’s would need revenue sharing regardless, but the average attendance would be higher if the tarps were taken off.
I suppose the average attendance could be higher, but the increase in average would be comprised primarily of Yankees and Sawx fans.
Just saying. That’s one of several reasons, why it would be higher.
@Lakeshore/Neil
It’s supply and demand though. Average attendance would be higher but the avg ticket price would likely drop.
Considering the A’s have more games that draw less than 20K than they do sellouts, I don’t buy the argument that Wolff is turning away fans with the tarps. The one’s that he is are the one’s that want the $5 tickets which isn’t a great business model.
The JPA and the city also deserve some blame for the tarps since the A’s have to pay the operating costs for their games. It’s expensive to keep a massive stadium running with no one in half the sections.
Can we not turn this into yet another tarp debate? It’s way OT.
And let’s be clear too, a new standalone A’s stadium would not drastically increase capacity either. The current setup is ~35k seated and ~37k with standing room. The total capacity for a new stadium would likely be right in that same range, possibly even less.
It could have been 2.2 million without the tarps and without Billy Beane destroying the second half of the season.
@ Slacker
I was not making the augment that Wolff was turning away fans, by using the tarps. I was only stating a fact. Then I added my opinion, that the tarps were one of many reasons (not all on Wolff), why attendance could be higher.
But, of course (for many), there is nothing Wolff could do differently. Some say Oakland/Alameda County play the victim role, some say the Oakland-Only folks do. I believe that can be true at times, but some of you (not you specifically Slacker), make Wolff out to be a pretty good victim as well.
Tarp removal again? I never did see how 30,000 uncovered empty seats is better than 18,000 uncovered empty seats.
@pjk
There are times when those 18 thousand seats are full (or nearly), so it stands to reason that the average attendance would be higher if some seats were not tarped.
There are a number of reasons why that really doesn’t matter much, and several of those don’t have to do with Lew Wolff, but leave it to you, to not acknowledge the simple fact that it would actually be higher, even if only slightly.
Kephart, says the earliest anything could be built at the CC site, would be 2019. Wow, we have a long time to wait for anything to be built. (if anything at all)
If I was a betting person, my money would be on the Raiders over the A’s in getting a stadium deal done at the Coliseum site. I base my thinking primarily on the belief that Mark Davis would be willing to stay on the current Coliseum footprint. With that fact in mind, I believe that Davis would be willing to accept a facility there that takes the form of either a major renovated Coliseum or a combination renovated/partially rebuilt Coliseum. As for the A’s. Lew Wolff would only want an entirely new ballpark for his team, regardless of its location. As a result, the total costs for building a new home for the Raiders at the Coliseum site should be significantly less than what it would cost for an entirely new A’s ballpark. Another factor in favor of the Raiders is that the NFL will likely provide assistance to help fund renovation/construction. Unfortunately for the A’s, MLB does not provide any financial assistance towards ballpark funding. One last point, MLB has stated that the A’s will no longer be revenue sharing recipients once the team moves into a new ballpark, even if they are forced to build their new facility in their current less desirable territory. My money for the Coliseum stadium sweepstakes is with the Raiders.
This pretty much ignores all the conversations had on this site. There is still a huge funding gap for the Raiders even if they get the site to themselves and build new on the current stadium footprint. Not to mention that there is still no evidence that the NFL wants to help fund another Bay Area stadium after just overseeing a new one that was designed specifically designed to have 2 home teams.
@IIpec
You brought up some good points. I know on the surface it would seem like the A’s are the obvious choice (if only one team can build), but that’s assuming Wolff is willing to build at the suite. In conjunction with what you said and its basically the same point, Davis seems like he is willing to do more to stay at the site, the site seems to mean more to him then Wolff. That’s not to say things will work, just because Davis (seems), wants them to, but if its true that he wants the site more then Wolff he will probably be more flexible concerning the site. If it goes that way hopefully San Jose will open up for the A’s, if not oh well.
Sorry, Davis will be more flexible.
I really don’t think a football stadium will be cheaper than baseball. At best a remodel could make it close, but I don’t see how it could be “significantly less.” And Davis has shown zero ability to plan and fund anything. He’s running all over the country looking for someone to do all the work for him because he has no idea how to get this done.
This process should expose who is serious and capable to make something happen here and I would be shocked if that included the Raiders. I’m excited about this development. For the first time in a long time I can see a probable path toward the A’s getting the home they deserve here in the Bay Area.
Serious and capable. Yes sir, capability is the operative word there.
I don’t there is any chance of a remodel. Mount Davis would likely be demolished with the rest of the place. We’re still talking a $1 billion football stadium used 10 days a year vs. a $500 million ballpark used 81 days a year.
@ pjk
If it’s that simple, sure.
The value of both franchises to Oakland depends on the ancillary development in both proposals. This isn’t just about how many home dates for each team. Since the A’s are completely against a Howard Terminal and downtown Oakland setting, it’s imperative that they create an environment which will be financily beneficial to Oakland’s econmy and tax base at the Coliseum site.
We can also say that despite fewer dates, the Raiders might actually be the more visible and prestiges franchise in order for Oakland to maximize its investment considering the A’s might not be able to recreate a multiplying economic effect with their ancillary development at the suburban Coliseum site.
Eighty one home dates at the Coliseum is not worth the same to Oakland as 81 home dates at Howard Terminal.
Um, MLB’s Blue Ribbon Committee spent years looking for a downtown site and couldn’t find one. As a matter of fact, I believe they even rejected the Coliseum site, hence finding no acceptable Oakland sites at all. But MLB is begrudgingly willing to reconsider the Coliseum site just to get a ballpark done. Howard Terminal is DOA, the fantasy site of all fantasy sites…The day is coming soon when Oakland will have to choose: A’s or Raiders. Is it going to be a $1 billion football stadium used 10 days a year, when there is already a new NFL stadium nearby, or a $500 million ballpark used 81 days a year. Oakland is not going to get both.
That’s not true. MLB told Oakland city officials that they were very impressed with the Howard Terminal site. I was informed of this via an email from an Oakland council member at the time. She also mentioned that the city would present various sites to Wolff and he never showed interest in any of the sites in Oakland.
The Blue Ribbon Comission loved the beautiful Oakland waterfront site with the fabulous bay views, Oakland skyline views, hill views, and SF skyline views. Wolff is the one who refused to consider anything near downtown Oakland because it would put him evn farther away from his business interests in San Jose.
You’re objectively wrong Nav. MLB explicitly said it was not considering HT. You, yet again, have no evidence to support your assertions. You claiming you have insider information is neither convincing nor relevant. Anyone can just arbitrarily claim they have inside information. It’s really easy to say when you have no proof. And by the way, you can’t see the Bay from the HT site. It is ~2.75 miles down the Oakland Estuary from the open bay.
You know what would be worth more to oakland at HT, finding someone to develop it, or use it for shipping. Oh, that’s right, nobody is touching that as development because you can’t. Use it for what is meant, industrial, and shipping. Another great move by Quan to throw away revenue the city needs. She knew, no one was touching that site for baseball, and she thought she could force the A’s to the site. Now it sits empty with no revenue. Maybe you should talk to Clorox to build there to support the city. Their CEO seems to like the site. Of course he would have to move his employees back from Pleasanton.
@jordan – That CEO? He gone. And since then Clorox has been on the rise. Probably a coincidence. Also probably a coincidence that OWB dropped their Howard Terminal ballpark quest shortly after Knauss stepped down. /s
re: I was informed of this via an email from an Oakland council member at the time. She also mentioned that the city would present various sites to Wolff and he never showed interest in any of the sites in Oakland.
…Sorry if I don’t put much stock in what is said by Oakland officials. Too many of these “making progress” on stadiums reports from them when there hasn’t been any progress. (An Oakland mayoral candidate recently said developers had committed $0.00 to Coliseum City after several years. Some progress.) These are the same folks who ruined the stadium for the A’s so they can bring back the Raiders, a move that hasn’t really worked out all that well, since the Raiders are at the bottom of league revenues, are also tarping seats and are looking at moving outside the Bay Area…It’s convenient to blame the rich-meanie A’s owner for everything, isn’t it? Once again, I wonder how much longer MLB is going to put up with the do-nothing-for-the-A’s, bash-the-owners policies of Oakland officials. Oakland is on the clock to work with the A’s. If it’s more “sell the team and here’s an excellent site for you – a sealed contamination tract in a heavy industry area,” then we just may get the San Jose A’s after all.
The better question should be how much longer is Oakland and Alameda County going to put up with Lew Wolff squatting on their land until something better comes along?
Nav – They have a lease. It’s not squatting. Stop lying.
Right, let’s demonize Don Knauss for wanting a waterfront ballpark for the A’s in Oakland. What doe he know, right? He was just instrumental in helping build the new ballpark in Houston. Wolff didn’t want to play so he huffed and puffed and took his ball home.
Knauss has done a lot more for Oakland then Lew Wolff has ever done. Clorox invested 25 million dollars into renovating their headquarters building at 1200 Broadway along with renovating the plazas at City Center.
As far as Jordan making uninformed comments as to the proper use of Howard Terminal, he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Howard Terminal is too shallow and too small for the new generation giant container ships. The Port of Oakland does not need to use Howard terminal for long-term shipping business. The Port of Oakland has just set an all time record for the number of containers in and out of the port in 2014. The Port is doing great, thank you.
Another thing, if a ballpark was able to be built at China Basin, which had basically the same issues as Howard Terminal, it can be built at Jack London Square.
Nav – Don Knauss sends jobs to Pleasanton. Months later, he proposes ballpark in Oakland. Last September Knauss announces he’s stepping down. By November the group he heads in ballpark effort closes up shop. It was a whitewash. If Doug Boxer wanted to keep it going it could have. He didn’t. Deal with it.
re: The Blue Ribbon Comission loved the beautiful Oakland waterfront site with the fabulous bay views,
…then why did they never recommend it? I corresponded with an inside source, someone with MLB inside access, who told me MLB simply could not find any sites in Oakland.
They didn’t recommend the site because Wolff didn’t want it? As far as “no sites in Oakland,” you must be kidding right? Is Oakland the Island of Manhattan? Do you know how many under utilized warehouses border the Oakland waterfront? Has Lew Wolff ever heard of the “bulldozer concept.” I’m sure he’s heard of such a contraption since he’s a developer. What a bunch of hogwash.
So basically you are totally ignoring property rights and zoning regulations. Not surprising.
We don’t need any more vague and unverifiable claims of insider access. Everyone needs to stop making such claims.
We know factually, from public statements, that MLB isn’t considering HT. That’s all we need.
My MLB insider is offering me a replica Jed Lowrie jersey for $79.99. Top that.
My MLB insider says I need to get a life, so I will check you guy’s out late.
Well, I did receive that information regarding Howard Terminal being very impressive to MLB as well as the fact that Lew Wolff wasn’t interested in anything that was presented to him by Oakland officials. I know what I read.
Why not just admit that Wolff didn’t want to build anything in Oakland and at least be honest? Saying that MLB didn’t like Howard Terminal, that Howard Terminal had insurmountable obstacles, or, that there are no other viable sites in Oakland, is just not true.
Why make things up when we know that MLB did Wolff a political favor for rejecting a site they once adored.
BTW, you CAN see the Bay from Howard Terminal. The water right in the estuary is part of the Bay and you can see that same body of water all the way to the San Francisco skyline. Have you ever even been to Oakland north of the Coliseum? Is this Lew Wolff?
Nav – You never had a single good response for any of the challenges I laid out for Howard Terminal. Now it’s a dead site. You can keep trying to revive it. Clutch that email to your chest like a dying man’s wish. None of that is going to resolve the myriad problems associated with the site. No one is backing it now, the guy who did has practically skipped town. It’s over. Move on.