Coliseum City EIR Final Draft now available, JPA postpones lease extension vote, Saperstein comments

The Coliseum City EIR Final Draft was made available around lunchtime today. It’s 17 MB in size and worth looking through. As I run through it I’ll post my observations on Twitter with the hashtag #ColiseumCityEIR.

(Update: As pointed out by Floyd Kephart, the vote was over the lease. The JPA isn’t a party to the ENA, only the City and County can be among public entities.)

Over at the East Bay Express, Steven Tavares reports that the Coliseum JPA postponed a vote (again) to approve the Raiders’ lease extension. Tavares got comments from various JPA Board members, including outgoing and incoming Board Presidents Nate Miley and Larry Reid. While neither said why the postponement occurred, both indicated that certain aspects of the deal don’t look favorable to the county. Miley went on to talk about some of the Coliseum City issues we have talked about on this blog many times: hundreds of millions in infrastructure costs, the Coliseum’s outstanding debt, and the value of the land. Miley even indicated that some public contribution may be required for a Raiders stadium, which should raise some eyebrows in the East Bay.

Larry Reid characterized New City as “90% there” in terms of getting a team commitment, that team being the Raiders. Yet the Raiders’ joint announcement with the Chargers about a shared stadium in Carson took everyone by surprise. Reid still believes Mark Davis wants to keep the team in Oakland, and really, what choice does he have? The only shocker at this point would be if the JPA, City, and County kicked the Raiders to the curb after spending so much time, money, and energy on Coliseum City.

About that time, money, and energy:

Meanwhile, local officials met with NFL officials in January, said Reid. Their assessment was the city and county had made no progress in efforts to build a new stadium since a similar discussion between all the parties a year and a half ago. ‘They made it clear that the city and the county wasted the last eighteen months,’ said Reid.

Again, don’t pay attention to what people are telling you about how Coliseum City is progressing. When teams commit, when real actions happen to advance the ball, then you’ll know. As a wizard once said,


Last item today comes from a commenter on the blog named “Let’s Go Oakland,” who snipped a piece of a Facebook thread and dropped it in the comments.


Guy Saperstein is a minority partner in the A’s ownership group

Assuming this is the real Guy Saperstein speaking, it sure sounds like the ownership group is still in lockstep in their position on San Jose, despite San Jose being off limits for the foreseeable future. Saperstein has long been based out of Oakland/Piedmont. Regardless, the only group the A’s can actually make a stadium deal with at this point is the Oakland/Alameda County/JPA triumvirate. As the fog enshrouding the Raiders and Mark Davis recedes, maybe they’ll actually make a decision on their future. Hopefully it doesn’t hurt the A’s in the process. If Davis can make a deal with Kephart, there will be a Raiders stadium at the Coliseum and the A’s can slide down to San Jose. If the Raiders can’t work something out, they’ll jet to LA while the A’s work out a new ballpark deal at the Coliseum complex. Those are the two most realistic scenarios that can be sussed out at this point. Anything else is wishful thinking.


86 thoughts on “Coliseum City EIR Final Draft now available, JPA postpones lease extension vote, Saperstein comments

  1. I think you meant that they postponed the lease extension. The ENA was approved a couple weeks ago, right?

    • @Steve – It was only approved at the City level. It also needs to be approved at the County level and by the JPA separately. The JPA meeting was held earlier this morning.

  2. I am not positive that Oakland can do anything this point. We are seeing the same faces and voices coming out of Oakland. The new mayor has to take control. If the new mayor does not have time or energy. tell both the raiders and A’s they are free to move to wherever they want. It is out of control. It is a big freaking mess.

  3. One thing I think is clear, is Davis has no problem sharing a stadium in LA, but has no intention sharing with niners. Which means, the only way for oakland to work, is he has to take the lead. The reason 18 months has past, is he can’t take the lead. I really believe things are moving in the direction of the raiders backing either chargers or rams. One of those teams will get something done in their city. Davis wants a stadium where he doesn’t have to give up his team, or take the lead. It just so happens that there are now two willing participants in LA that didn’t exist before. He just doesn’t want to get left standing when the music stops. That’s the worst case scenario if you want the A’s at the coliseum.

    Lastly, with earthquakes and be spring training facility getting rave reviews, I have no doubt a new stadium for the A’s would be awesome

    • Davis was foolish not to sign on with the Rams and Kroenke. That would have made so much more sense than this current clusterfuck.

      • Do we know if Kroenke would’ve been cool with that?

      • No. You’re right that we don’t know for sure. But in theory it absolutely would be better.

      • It would: Better location, more advanced project, clearer path to financing, no need for a conference switch. I think we can assume from the fact that didn’t happen that Kroenke didn’t want or need the Raiders and the baggage they bring (and probably not the Chargers, either).

        At least not as equity partners. Maybe Kroenke would take one of them in as a tenant if they’re out of other options. Maybe that might make sense for the Chargers at some point; can’t see how its better for the Raiders than renting from the Niners.

        Raiders should have partnered with the Niners on Levis Stadium at the outset. One of Al’s many big mistakes.

      • It’s too early to call these partnerships concrete. There’s no MOU or binding agreement between Carson and the two teams. Davis could choose to play the Carson and Inglewood plans off each other – and Oakland. There’s every reason to expect fluidity until hard decisions are made, DDAs are signed, and checks written.

  4. The NFL holds the cards to make the final decisions as to which teams go where. The site of the new LA stadium appears to be narrowed down to two locations, Inglewood and Carson. Since both the Rams and Charges have the wherewithal to get a new stadium privately funded, the NFL could advise both teams to go in as partners in a shared new stadium at one of those sites. As for the Raiders, the NFL could tell Mark Davis that if you are willing to share a stadium with another team in LA, there is no reason why you can’t share with the 49ers at Levi’s Stadium. By doing so, the Raiders would not have to abandon their loyal Bay Area fan base, even if a Coliseum site deal doesn’t get done. We shall see what transpires within the year. It’s going to be very interesting, to say the least.

    • The NFL is still going to want to push for publicly financed stadiums. They know this isn’t going to happen in Oakland, but there’s still a chance in St. Louis or San Diego. Nothing will happen until that plays out.

      If only one of the two gets a deal, the Raiders have a chance in LA because the NFL could marry them up with the loser.

      If neither gets a deal I think the Raiders are screwed for exactly the reason you called out. Why would the NFL let the Raiders share in LA, shutting out one of the Rams or Chargers, when the Raiders have an option at Levi’s.

  5. The JPA has never been asked for and will no be asked to issue to New City an ENA. The JPA does not have any ownership in the land. New City has an ENA with the City until April 21. New City does not have pending and does not anticipate a vote on anything related to it at the current time from any governmental agency. Not sure what deal is being referred to since a formal deal has not been proposed as both the Raiders and New City are waiting on a joint decision making structure between the City and County on the land being established. Those negotiations are underway but not done.

  6. It’s sad to sea the situation with the A’s and Raiders ballpark/football field, but Oakland gets what it deserves. The Warriors were smart and bounced from Oakland.

  7. I like Guy Saperstein ;). Get er done Floyd and Marky D!!

  8. This whole thing is sickening.

    Wolff, Fisher, Saperstein = Artificially created and endless utter chaos to get what they want. $$ Put it all together. pc

    Oakland has no chance. Period. #sabotage from within

    Oakland should put all resources behind the
    Raiders. Let the A’s go. I wouldn’t trust this ownership in Oakland anyway. Give them their wet dream in SJ.

    • And yet you’re fine with the Raiders actively pursuing multiple options outside the Bay Area. You’re what science refers to as a hypocrite.

    • You don’t trust the A’s ownership, but you do trust the Raiders? The family that has already moved the team once, fleeced Irwindale, screwed over the El Segundo school district, saddled Oakland with a bunch of debt, flirts with any city with a pulse and today issues a press release about moving 400 miles away.

      I don’t get it.

  9. yep you knew some oakland only folks would turn this story into lets blame wolff/a’s franchise for this mess and not blame a ownership group in the raiders that has screwed the city of oakland twice.

    once by moving the team and secondly ruining the coliseum for baseball and creating this debt the east bay will be feeling for years to come.

    and what has it gotten the city of oakland on the field in particular? from 1995-2014 the raiders have had only 3 winning seasons in 20 years?

  10. @SMG

    Oh, ok techbro. As far as I know, the Raiders are the only team to verbally express a preference to stay in Oakland with the exploration of options outside the Bay Area as a plan B. Do I really have to compare this with Wolff’s continued active pursuance of SJ with no plan B?

    This Saperstein comment simply confirms what we all knew for years. Oakland should pursue the Raiders and let the A’s go.

    Science? Hypocrite? That was really, really clever.

    • You’re making it exceedingly easy for nobody to take you seriously. Then again, you’re obviously the “Lew lied! He never tried!” type, so there was never any point in taking you seriously in the first place. Enjoy your delusions and feel free to join everyone else here in reality when you sober up.

    • techbro? that’s the new way of saying “I am a dipshit”

  11. @SMG

    Re: LLHNT, when did he try? In 2005? Even if I believed he did try, that was a decade ago.

    All I have heard lately is Davis saying he wants to be in Oakland and wants exploration options as a backup.

    Wolff’s narrative hasn’t changed. He doesn’t have a plan B. Saperstein’s comment confirmed that ownership’s priority is San Jose. Not much different from Wolff’s stance for many years now.

    So why am I hypocritical when I simply expressed my opinion that Oakland should stop wasting their time with Wolff & co. because they don’t want to be in Oakland? How is that being delusional too?

    You should be happy that the owners want and always have wanted this team in your city and all I am doing is suggesting Oakland stop spinning their wheels.

    I’m not about to argue with and get attacked by 75 SJ folks about all of this so-called “delusional, non-realistic, pie-in-the-sky,” or whatever the new buzzword is this month “Oakland-only” talk.

    It’s not hard to understand. Some of us grew up with this team. Especially during the LA Raider years. You figure out the rest, ownership, lawsuits, Twitter comments, etc. etc. etc., which gets extremely old. I’m not fortunate enough to have ownership on my side in this saga. In fact, they are the precise antithesis of the beliefs many of us have. Therefore, I say take the team. Sooner than later is better. I have personally lost all faith and respect for these people and so have many of the “delusional” people. But I’m positive they care one iota because they want new blood down in tech land. I say good riddance.

    Oakland has no chance with the current A’s ownership so why not put all effort into the Raiders? Seems logical to me.

    If you don’t understand this, I can’t help you. If you can’t handle this, I would suggest you open your mind.

    • While I would argue the city blocked Wolf, that’s not even the point.. Why would you trust the Raiders?.

      The city has given the Raiders first dibs now for years (arguably forever) and the Raiders still haven’t gotten anything done. Over this time they have moved and threatened to move tons of times. They have left the city and county holding a ton of debt. On top of that they have never provided a legitimate plan for building a stadium in any of these locations. Why do you trust them?

    • Funny that you call someone a “techbro” and then encourage them to open their mind.

      What concrete step has Mark Davis taken towards staying in the Bay Area besides flapping his gums? What benefit is their to the City of Oakland to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for Mark Davis to have a new stadium?

      Which team has publicly announced the hiring of an architect to create a site plan for a new stadium in Oakland?

  12. @Djhip
    I know Davis says he wants to be in oakland. What the he’ll does that mean? All he has to do is say it, and your good? He also said yesterday he wants to be in Carson. This isn’t about Lew. Are you blinded by the fact that he is trying to leverage Oakland when there is nothing to leverage? Just because he says he wants to be in oakland, doesn’t mean he is trying in Oakland. There is a huge difference. All he ever says is he wants to be there. The fact that has part of his fan base believing that, is a miracle unto itself. Even if Lew didn’t exist, does not mean it would be any easier for him to build there. Remember, Lew would be happy to be kicked out, or have it all to himself. So, in essence Davis just has to present a plan. Yet, Davis has fooled his fan base into thinking somehow Oakland will figure it out for him, and if they don’t, it’s Oakland’s fault. In California cities don’t build football stadiums for teams. Why do you think we’re in this position? No city will build a stadium for a team. So, ask your self, what steps has Davis taken to get a stadium built in oakland. Only thing Davis wants to do is be the guy with the gold shovel at the ceremony. Until then enjoy the infield dirt, because Davis has done as much as you or me to get a stadium built.

  13. Good article in the Mercury News today about Oakland remaining steadfast: No stadium construction subsidies. What we have here is the notion that the way to keep your status as an NFL city is to pay Big $$ for a new stadium every 30-40 years. That bill has come due and Oakland cannot pay it. We’re probably looking at Oakland’s last days as an NFL city as a result. Mark Purdy’s column today repeats his stance that the city will have to choose between the A’s or Raiders, that the Coliseum site won’t support two privately developed stadiums and that the Raiders could have gotten in on the ground floor of Levi’s Stadium but chose not to.

    • But wait! If the ancillary development of the Coli equates to $300 million for a stadium and Mark Davis has $500 million to contribute…that’s a whopping $800 million!! My Raiders are almost there! and the public contribution (most likely for infrastructure) should be minuscule, relatively speaking.

      Oh wait, all the happy talk of the financial potential of the Coli is meant just for the A’s/Wolff, not the Raiders…my bad!

  14. Yes, I’ll bet that $500 million presumes $200 million from the league and $300 million from naming rights, suite sales and PSLs. Good luck with all that. Good chance the NFL says “we’re not spending another $200 million on a stadium 25 miles from the one we just built.”

    • Whatever you say pjk..

      • @Tony D.

        I agree with you, I don’t think the Raiders are that far away. Does that mean it wouldn’t be more advantageous for Mark to do it in LA? Of course not, as we already know Mark will have to want it in Oakland for it to get done. It may make more economic sense for Oakland to work something out with Wolff, but if Davis dose want to work something out (which we still don’t know), Oakland should go for it. The idea that Oakland has to chose assumes Oakland actually has a choice. What it comes down to is Oakland can work something out with Davis, if not they will have the opportunity (such as it is), to work something out with an unwilling, and unhappy partner in Wolff. Wow, now that’s what I call a real choice. Oakland needs to concentrate on the Raiders, if it costs them the A’s hopefully Wolff gets San Jose and the A’s stay in the Bay Area.
        Would I prefer Oakland work with the A’s? Of course I would, but Oakland can’t let the Raiders go, for nothing more then the “hope”that something can be work out with Wolff. I realize what I said assumes that Davis wants to be in Oakland, and Wolff doesn’t, but I think I’m pretty safe on that one.

      • Perhaps what I should have said is, Oakland can either work something out with Davis, or be left with nothing more then the hope that they may work something out with Wolff. If that’s true and of course I don’t know if it is, but it sure fills like it is then Oakland’s “choice” should be rather clear.

  15. Also the NFL appears to be endorsing the Carson plan – unlike the Kroenke plan – which the NFL frequently disputes. The NFL might even finance the Carson stadium – their plan is to 100% finance a 2 team venue (something similar to the Giants/Jets stadium) and lease it out. The Raiders/Chargers might be the NFL’s ticket.

    • That’s what we call conjecture. There’s no real evidence as of right now that they are favoring one over the other. They will get on board with whichever one reveals itself to be to their greatest advantage. What they do know is that Kroenke has more money for Inglewood than the Chargers and Raiders combined do for Carson. They also know Inglewood is further along logistically and politically.

      • Pardon me, the NFL’s plan is to do that – there is no conjecture about that. The Raiders/Chargers Carson plan appears to be too much of a coincidence – it would be a good fit with the NFL’s plans. Also, you must be out of touch about the NFL’s view about the Kroenke plan – they have not been endorsing it exactly.

      • Cite a source right fucking now where the NFL expressly endorses the Carson plan AND rejects the Kroenke plan. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. They haven’t said a damn word explicitly in favor or against either.

        Until you find that non-existent source, you are just making things up.

      • SMG,
        C’mon man! You should know better: asking someone to back up their opinion by citing a source is futile in this forum..

      • @SMG – You are attempting to apply logic to a goofy situation (following the A’s dilemma, you should know better) – the NFL’s plan appears whacky – however that is evidently what they want to do.

      • Still waiting on that evidence.

      • @SMG – you were 100% wrong about your claim that the Giants outdrew the A’s during the Tony La Russa stint (in fact the A’s kicked the Giants’ ass in attendance during that period) Also, at the time when Bob Lurie gave up on SF and sold the Giants to Tampa Bay interests – the A’s had beaten the Giants in attendance 16 out of the previous 25 years.

        Also, when Goodell was asked about the Rams plan of moving to Los Angeles, he commented that “We want all of our teams to stay at their current markets” (that is not an endorsement of the Rams moving to LA)

      • Once guys start talking Giants-vs.-A’s attendance, you’ve hit bottom. Closing thread.

  16. Ideally, and IMO, the NFL appears to want for two teams to be sharing one stadium in the Bay Area and two teams to be sharing one stadium in LA., or at the very least one team in LA with one team remaining in San Diego(Chargers). At this point, I believe that the NFL would want tor the teams that are selected to relocate to LA would then have to provide the necessary funding for the new facility. The final decision for the NFL is to designate the LA area site

    • @all
      95.7 the game just now laid the argument to rest.
      I believe the Raiders will get a renovated new stadium in Oakland the athletics will find a way to build at Howard terminal and then there will be two teams in LA the Rams and maybe San Diego Chargers

      • That’s 100% delusional. There’s just nothing to back that up at all. It’s wishful thinking and nothing more.

      • Yup- oakland has no idea how to come up with the money for even infrastructure at the Coli site and now they will find another $300M to prepare HT- MLB should be embarrassed that they have allowed one of their franchises to be ha led around by a city for so long-

      • It’s not a surprise nor is it a shock that the Port of Oakland approved a Schnitzer Steel application to make $2,000,000 worth of upgrades to their building. SS would have to be relocated to make a stadium happen. That ain’t happening now.

        Also, as we talked about before the OWB deal ended, the Power Shore System at HT is being being looked at as a revenue generator. Don’t expect HT to be unused for another 2 years.

        Everyone has moved on. Let it go.

  17. Howard Terminal is DOA. The A’s don’t want it, MLB doesn’t want it. Time to stop flogging the dead Howard Terminal horse.

  18. For the folks who are viewing, Saperstein’s comment as an argument for Oakland to focus on the Raiders, you have to take emotion out of it. Of course the A’s want San Jose. They can make more money there. It’s not a secret. SJ isn’t an option right now though so it doesn’t matter.

    You have to take emotion out, and evaluate the risk/reward of each option.

    If Oakland focuses on the Raiders, they will lose the A’s. The Coliseum site is the only viable site in Oakland. MLB has already threatened Oakland with this. If SJ is opened up, there’s no question the A’s are gone.

    If Oakland focuses on the Raiders is also no guarantee the Raiders stay. They’ve given priority to the Raiders ever since the Raiders moved back, and the Raiders have done anything. Do you want to bet on Mark Davis developing the site?

    Also, because the economics of football are different than baseball, nothing stops Davis from leaving anyway.

    Even if the Raiders do build, the only benefit will be in keeping a big time sports team. I’m not sure how much of a benefit this is anyway. Raider fans don’t seem to care where the team plays and Davis doesn’t want additional development. This won’t help revitalize East Oakland or help Oakland’s image.

    If Oakland focuses on the A’s, the risk with the Raiders as a backup option is minimal. The Raiders can’t do anything on their own. The NFL might try to force the Raiders to Levi’s but even then, they likely still keep the Oakland name.

    There is a risk of the A’s not building, but that only happens if MLB grants them San Jose. MLB isn’t doing this if the A’s have a viable site in Oakland. The only way this happens is if SCOTUS agrees to hear the SJ case. This is a risk, but it will be resolved before the Raiders could move to LA anyway so they’re not losing their backup.

    The reward is that Wolf is a developer and will get things done. He will also add additional development which gives a chance to help revitalize Oakland. Plus Oakland keeps a big time sports team with better odds of being a winner.

    Focusing on the Raiders is a higher risk with a lower reward. It makes no sense. Unfortunately in Oakland, the decision that makes no sense, is typically the decision that gets made.

    • While I understand what you’re saying about Wolff, aside from the real financial pros and cons of this whole debacle, I have to say that I am in favor of the Raiders at this point because Wolff, et al, want San Jose. End of story.

      Not unlike a woman who strongly desires someone other than the man she has, let her be free to explore. The man will be fine. Even if he loses her.

      I say let Wolff go explore his greener pastures and leave Oakland out of it. Go to SJ sooner than later. We will be fine with one team whi wants to be here.

      • Oakland will be just fine without Wolff, Fisher, Saperstein, Crowley, and Beane.

        I say leave already and best wishes. Seriously.

      • @djhip228

        You make some good points. If Wolff doesn’t want to build in Oakland, Davis failure to do so is not going to change that. Oakland needs to go with Davis (if serious), and hopefully something can be worked out. The constant comparison of MLB vs NFL local economics is not relevant, because Wolff has made it clear he doesn’t want to build in Oakland. Do we know if Davis truly wants to build in Oakland? No, but we do know Wolff doesn’t. Oakland losses nothing by focusing on the Raiders first, because Wolff won’t be able to build anywhere else in the near future, if it doesn’t work with the Raiders Wolff may begrudgingly make an attempt to build at the suite if he is even willing to do that.

      • You guys are missing one important issue: MLB isn’t just going to give Wolff San Jose because he doesn’t want to build in Oakland. He has to make an effort to build at the Coliseum. If the Raiders strike a deal there that forces the A’s out, that’s a circumstance neither Wolff nor MLB can control. There is a way to build a ballpark at the Coliseum if everything shakes out right. For Oakland to ignore that or refuse because Wolff’s at the other end of the table would be supremely petty and spiteful. Ultimately it could lead to losing ALL THREE Coliseum teams if the Raiders in the end can’t work out a deal that pencils out.

        Wolff and Davis are in nearly the same position. They have a preferred option and a backup. Their difference is in how they are allowed to go about working their respective plans A & B. If you’re Oakland/Alameda County, you have to understand that and dispassionately negotiate. To do anything else would cause the city/county to either lose teams or lose money by getting suckered. This is not a time for histrionics.

      • The financial pro’s and con’s are the only things that matter. Whether or not someone likes you or how they make you feel is irrelevant.

        What makes the most sense financially for the city?

      • @ ML
        I realize that MLB is not going to just give Wolff San Jose because he doesn’t want to build in Oakland (I hope he realizes it), but I keep hearing the repetitive narrative that Oakland must chose, which I don’t believe has to be the case, but if Oakland is put in the situation where it’s forced to chose, simply because Wolff and (or) Davis refuse to work together(for whatever reason), then in that case Wolff may have overplayed his hand if he still can’t get San Jose. It would probably result in the A’s being sold and leaving the Bay Area, if Wolff takes that gamble he either gets San Jose (which is what he wants), or sales to out of town interest and makes a bundle on increased franchise value. I would call that a win/win for a man that has started he doesn’t want to build in Oakland, and may not be willing to do so even if the Raiders were gone.

      • @Slacker
        You’re correct it’s not relevant if a person likes you (the situation) or not, but it is relevant if the person is not truly willing to build, and I think we have to face the vary real possibility that Wolff may not be willing to build in Oakland weather the Raiders are there or not.

    • If Howard Terminal is truly dead. Then MLB better find a home for the A’s because football is king in America and Oakland. Baseball is the #3 sport but in a finicky bay area (where most casual/corporate money goes to the S.F Giants) it’s best for A’s management to get out of the Raiders way and allow themselves to be homeless which forces MLB to make a decision. Either way IT’S the only way Oakland can keep the Raiders give them the land and Davis and co. can fill in the rest.

      Case closed

      • Exactly! Wolff, please leave now because we want a team that appreciates Oakland. And that would be the Raiders. Best of luck to you.

      • BTW, feel free to use this as “proof” for MLB that East Bay fans won’t support the A’s and must move to greener pastures. Perhaps it will resonate with MLB.

      • No support for this particular ownership that is.

  19. @Marine Layer

    Great points, as always. However, from my chair I would rather put my efforts toward the team that is interested.

    Let’s be honest. Nobody, meaning not one person with the A’s, with franchise control has ever, ever expressed a desire to build in Oakland. Why, How, Who, and What are different conversations for another day. Fact is they don’t want to be in Oakland. Ever. Not going to happen. Never.

    If anything, we are currently jeopardizing our chance to retain 1 team by playing this game.

    I am not a fan of Wolff NOT because he wants to leave Oakland for greener pastures, but because his antics are a potential loss for all Oakland teams.

    Give us a break. He knows he’ll never, ever build in Oakland. The least he could do is try to assist making it more likely the Raiders could stay.

    Why would he waste his time helping an NFL franchise if there is no monetary benefit to him and his investors? Perhaps he has at least a tiny amount of morals and would quit playing this game knowing Oakland could lose all teams. If this whole deal hinges upon what the Raiders do, why not advise them so you can get what you want?

    Why not advise Davis knowing that the land of milk and honey you desire would open up to you if the Raiders can strike a deal now? Unless you are some disturbed individual who would love to see a city lose everything for your own sick, twisted desires, why not help out if you’ll get what you want so bad?

    Take some time to think about this. Warriors are gone. Wolff, Fisher will NEVER build in Oakland. The only thing Oakland has is its NFL team. You guys have plenty of dough. Let the Raiders make a deal with Oakland. Better yet, help them do so because you will get what you want. Quit with the games and leave already.

    For those who blame MLB or the Giants, note that the A’s ownership could easily put their efforts into the Raiders and helping them stay put. After all, since Oakland “can only have one team,” they should know that the Raiders staying means SJ opens up.

  20. If Wolff isn’t willing build in Oakland, and he has not given any indication that he is willing weather the Raiders are in Oakland or not, then any other factors are not relevant and Oakland should try to workout something with Davis if in fact he is willing, and most importantly capable.

  21. You guys keep saying work with Davis. Someone explain what that means. Either a developer can make the numbers work or not. You really mean, “get alameda county to agree to the land giveaway”. Even if oakland and the county gave Davis the land for free, paid of the debt tomorrow, you are assuming Davis will be able to build a stadium. There is alot of things Oakland can do, but the one thing they can’t, and no developer has done yet, is come up with a financing plan. So, saying oakland should work with Davis is just as annoying as people who say Howard Terminal is viable.

    • Dear Jordan.

      As of 2015…the Bay Area is a one team baseball market even though it has been an unequal two for the past 40 years let’s just be honest and stick with one baseball team in the Bay Area, two football team and 1 basketball and hockey.

      • Strike everything I said. I forgot that Wolff has to show a good faith effort that he tried everything with Oakland.

        Ok, I totally believe you tried everything you could. Now let the Raiders make a deal with Oakland and make your case with MLB to leave. Please. It’s really ok.

      • How can you be so sure that Davis is sincere? He’s spent more money on efforts in LA over the past year than he’s ever spent in Oakland.

    • @jordan

      Not assuming anything. Fact is Wolff doesn’t want to build in Oakland.(he said so) Davis may be willing (still don’t know for sure), he may not be able to, even if he wanted to.(no assuming there) I think the only point I’m trying to make is “IF” Davis is willing, and “IF” Wolff is not, and if Oakland has to chose one owner to go with (as many say), Oakland should try to get behind Davis “IF” he is willing, since it appears Wolff is not.
      The only assumption in what I said, was Oakland has to chose one owner and that assumption is one that is shared by most people that comment here. I do have a wild assumption for you. I have stated several times that I think it could be worked out with both teams, but I’m sure the story will be slanted one way or the other. “Oakland chose the Raiders”, or “Oakland chose the A’s”, it will fit the narrative that Davis and (or) Wolff take to their perspective league’s in the effort to flee Oakland.
      I know it won’t happen, but a small part of me wishes Oakland would tell the Raiders and A’s to hell with you, we can make much more money developing the land without you. If that were to happen neither team could use the others possible development of the land as a reason they had to leave, they could say however Oakland kicked both of our asses out.

      • Again, preferring San Jose does not equal not wanting to build in Oakland. When has Wolf ever said this?

        Wolf has been going down the list of sites from the HOK study done by Oakland. Oakland blocked him (arguably Schott) from the best option and didn’t exactly support the Coli North proposal.

        Now that the actual Coli site is coming back into play (after Oakland put the A’s in 3rd place behind the Raiders and Warriors), Wolf has expressed serious interest.

        I agree with you that if Wolf is absolutely not willing to build in Oakland, Oakland shouldn’t work with him. That’s a massive if however and the fact that Wolf has stuck around for so long shows it’s not true.

      • @Slacker

        You’re correct, I don’t know for a fact that Wolff is not willing to build in Oakland (he would prefer not to). He has not publicly said that he will not under any circumstances build in Oakland. But, if Oakland works (such as it is) with Davis first, what’s the harm?
        Oakland almost has no choice but to work with Davis first, because he has more available options then Wolff dose, at this point it would be easier for Davis to go with his plan B, if it’s not truly his plan A (with Charges in LA), then to build by himself in Oakland. I think it’s a safe assumption that if Wolff had a plan B, that was available, costs less, was potentially easier to do, and by some estimates would double his franchise value, he would have already been gone. Oakland losses nothing by trying to work with Davis first, as it vary well may be what Wolff wants anyway.
        The idea that Wolff may be frozen out of any discussions, at the other end of the table (I believe that’s what ML was alluding to), is ridiculous (IMHO) as there is nothing keeping the A’s from negotiating with the Raiders, and the city right now. And please no one bring up the ENA that the city has with Kephart as proof that Wolff can’t do anything, as we all know its not binding.
        There is nothing keeping Wolff from taking an aggressive lead role, and showing the city and the Raiders what would need to be done for it to work for all three, but that won’t happen because what’s the line “it won’t pencil out”. I’m not even saying that Wolff should do this, he is under no obligation to anyone but himself and his investors. What I’m saying is Wolff would rather build in San Jose, and although he hasn’t said he is isn’t willing to build in Oakland (publicly), it vary well maybe true, as I said Oakland losses nothing by dealing with Davis first. If Davis can’t do it he leaves, then Wolff will have won the prize that neither he or Davis wanted to win in the first place a large swathe of land in the middle of east Oakland.
        What will Wolff’s excuse be to MLB at that point? Let’s see, oh I got it ” it doesn’t pencil out”, yes will go with that.

    • @jordan
      Fact is Oakland has to work, with however is willing to work with them. That may be Davis, that may not be Davis. Unfortunately it may not be Davis or Wolff.

      • @jordan

        Oh, I forgot nothing can pencil out in Oakland, because that’s right it’s Oakland. There are other creative ways to work this out, other then X amount of land divided by two teams, at that location= it cant be done.
        Perhaps Oakland should just not work with anyone.

      • Lake shore
        I guess my point was more about, it would be great to “work” with both owners. However, Davis is going to be hard to work with, because he has no money, no history of building anything, and is a total wild card. In fact, he says he has no problem sharing a stadium for this exact reason. He can not do anything in LA, and get a new place to play. Every time Davis is interviewed, he makes it clear he just wants a new stadium, he never talks about what he is willing to do for it. He doesn’t have the stomach for all this. That’s why I keep saying that to be in Oakland he is going to have to put a lot of time, money and effort into It. So far he has shown none of that. This is totally separate from Lew. Even if Lew doesn’t exist, these facts about Davis do exist. That’s why I keep harping on the fact that Oakland has to “work” with Davis is such a lazy term.

      • @jordan

        Yeah I agree with you. The said truth is Oakland may have to “work” with a man in Davis that doesn’t have the money, knowledge, or political juice to get anything done, or “work” with a man Wolff that has all these things, but would not only rather build in San Jose, he may not be willing to do it in Oakland.

  22. @ Marine Layer

    I can’t be sure about that. You’re correct about the $ spent. However, I am quite confident that the A’s will never build in Oakland no matter what the circumstances. One of their own minority owners just reaffirmed that fact.

    Therefore, I am stuck with 2 options. Hold out hope for the A’s, which is evidently clear will never happen. Or stick with an owner who declares his intent to stay in Oakland. I’m not special enough to be privy to happenings outside the general media. Perhaps Davis is pulling our chain and has no intent of staying despite his overtones. If that’s true then he is a scumbag.

    We certainly can’t blame A’s ownership for something similar to that because they are very clear about their objectives. My whole stance after these many years is to let the A’s go, which pains me, so that Oakland can attempt to salvage one franchise.

    At this point I wouldn’t believe A’s ownership even if the Raiders left because I think they would still try to find a way out. Maybe the SC will help decide all this after all.

    In other words, in light of Saperstein’s most recent comments, it appears to me that holding out for the A’s, whether the Raiders stay or go, is a ridiculously futile effort. With the Raiders at least we have verbal commitments which, if broken by Davis, would result in a massive prick-of-the-decade award. I could live with that.

    IMO, it would be harder to swallow if this whole “Oakland one team only” concept permeated and blinded loyal fans, only to discover that we chose to support the A’s over the Raiders and the A’s still found a loophole to SJ. In both scenarios we lose all the teams, yes, but I could accept the other scenario much easier.

    Caveat – I am not speaking for all Oakland A’s fans when I say that the A’s should help the Raiders stay and then move on to their preferences.

    • The A’s have never said they will never build in Oakland. They’ve said they would prefer to build in San Jose, which has been both obvious and openly stated for years. The distinction is important.

      Otherwise this would be a move OR sell situation for the A’s. And I don’t believe that to be the case. The ownership has consistently said it only wants to stay in the Bay Area and that they have no intention of selling.

      And even if the Raiders had Oakland all to themselves, I’m still not buying the idea that the NFL would support a 2nd new stadium in a market where they already just supported a new stadium (which was specifically designed to be able to house 2 home teams).

      • agreed the raiders blew it when they didn’t work as co-partners at levis form the start.

        even if the a’s left it doesn’t mean that the raiders could come up with the billion dollars it’d take to build a new football stadium in oakland.

        said it before but the most realistic “new” stadium the raiders could get in oakland is to refurbish the coliseum keeping the mt davis part of the current venue and basically building a new stadium around it. it’d probably cost half of what it’d take to build a totally brand new stadium.

        posted this link i believe last week when somebody else posted it a few months ago about how a potential renovated coliseum could look like.

      • To add on to Letsgoas’ comment, a renovated Coliseum is probably the best option Oakland can hope for with the Raiders. That’s a massive waste of 125+ acres of land that could have a huge financial benefit to the city.

        Didn’t the city learn from their mistake the last time they tried this with the Raiders?

  23. Just generally speaking of stadiums and being that Levi’s has come up in this conversation, I’ve got to say how ri-god-damn-diculous this Damon Bruce Twitter ranting is. He’s so far off base and blindly consumed by his irrational hatred of Levi’s. Jawing back has been quite entertaining and watching Mark Purdy decimate him was glorious.

  24. even if the niners stayed in SOUTH frisco the design of the stadium was basically going to be what it was down in santa clara. i was never the fan of the levis stadium design anyways as i’ve posted previously that i favored the 97 design a lot more but what’s done is done. i’m sure the niners will make some improvements on the stadium down the road but it’s still light years better as a venue than candlestick. sure most would argue the 1.2-1.3 billion cost of levis stadium, where did it go as it doesn’t get the gushing review that the cowboys stadium which also cost over a billion dollars to build. metlife in nj cost 1.6 billion and that venue also is getting crushed for being stale and featureless.

    funny about bruce hating levis when his favorite nfl team is the bears in chicago and i can tell you a lot of bears fans hate the newly designed solider field which the infamous description by many when seeing it is a ufo landing onto of the spot that once was the old solider field.

    i also remember seeing bruce taking a tour of levis stadium on youtube a few years ago and he was pretty enthusiastic about the place when getting a tour of it. can’t find it on youtube but if you do some searching you can probably find it.

    bruce isn’t the only bay area radio guy who’s giving their opinions on levis. krueger for instance on knbr has nothing to say but positive things about the venue.

    • I took the tour this past summer. The only thing I didn’t like about the design was that they didn’t put a facade on the superstructure. The bare beams look pretty bad from the outside.

      And what’s funny too is that he (and others) ignore that the 1997 stadium plan literally had a giant shopping mall attached to the facility.

Comments are closed.