Wolff wants surface parking over garages and development at Coliseum

Here we go again with that nasty word: infrastructure.

Lew Wolff told Matthew Artz today that not only was he not interested in Coliseum City, he felt there isn’t enough space at the 120-acre Coliseum for development the City desires and the surface parking the team needs. That’s a major revelation because Wolff’s vision not only precludes other development in what’s considered a potentially high-density transit hub area, it goes against the City’s goals for the Coliseum.

There’s a lot that’s being unsaid by Wolff, who demurred on questions about financing and multiple venues. Let’s focus on what he said.

The only way it could work, Wolff said, would be to build multilevel parking garages, but that would leave fans waiting in long lines to exit the garages and begin their drives home.

‘Parking is a key issue for us,’ Wolff said. ‘We want surface parking surrounding the ballpark wherever we build it unless we’re in the heart of a downtown.’
‘We said it before he even came on the scene that we are going to 100 percent control our own destiny, period,’ Wolff said. ‘We don’t need a third party involved.’

First off, let’s be clear about how much land is available: 141 publicly owned acres in the area bounded by 66th Ave, Hegenberger Rd, 880, and Damon Slough. Take away 18 for the existing Coliseum or its replacement, and 8 for the arena if it stays. There’s other stuff like the sewer interceptor and power lines, but we’ll leave that out for now. The remaining land totals 115 acres.

As Andy Dolich notes in the same article, garages are ill-suited because they’re expensive and don’t get utilized well. Parking garages cost around $20,000 per space to build. ROI can be difficult to achieve unless those garages can be filled nearly everyday. But the City is supposed to fund infrastructure like garages at Coliseum City, so why is this such a big deal? The surface parking requirement, which Raiders owner Mark Davis has also communicated at times, stands in the way of the City’s plans for Coliseum City, whether you’re talking 120, 200, or 800 acres. The Coliseum City plan has 13,000 event parking spaces in it, only 4,200 of which are surface spaces mostly in the south lots out to Hegenberger.

Blue and dark gray are garages, medium gray is surface parking

From the Coliseum City Specific Plan: Blue and dark gray are garages, medium gray is surface parking

Shouldn’t 4,200 (or maybe 5-6,000) spaces be enough for most A’s games when taken with a few thousand new garage spots?  Especially if the TPMP (Transportation & Parking Management Plan) were conceived in a way to manage traffic from these various lots and garages? Especially if it’s only a single venue such as a ballpark? Let’s say that the A’s average 30,000 in attendance at a new ballpark. According to BART, 15-20% of fans take the service. Let’s make it 20%. That means 24,000 will come in cars. At 3 per car, the A’s would need 8,000 spaces. So they’d need some 2-3,000 additional spaces, maybe half of those in garages, the rest in a remote lot on the other side of the complex where people would have to walk through the retail/commercial area to get to the game. That way you have everyone covered:

  1. Fans who want direct access to the ballpark and the quickest in-out (4,200 surface spaces adjacent to ballpark, south)
  2. Fans who want to have dinner/drinks at a restaurant nearby (3,000 garage spaces, perhaps with validation, center)
  3. Fans who want cheap parking and don’t mind walking through the business district (3,000 remote surface spaces, north)

If you look at the parking depiction above, it’s not hard to see how that would come together. Put the ballpark where the football stadium is and the remote parking where the ballpark is and you have the basic concept. The idea presupposes that the arena is no longer there either.

The problem, as ever, is that no one wants to pay for any infrastructure like parking. A 2,000-space garage is bad enough, and it’s merely a piece of the $300 million of infrastructure. Wolff has suggested that he’d take care of the Mt. Davis debt, but if he has to pay for infrastructure too it starts to become too much. The City has suggested a slew of taxes that would pay for it through huge Mello-Roos and infrastructure financing districts, but that isn’t certain. Some of those taxes would eat into A’s revenues, so again it becomes a question of cost-benefit for the A’s.

In the end, if the A’s and the City/County are going to make this work they’ll have to come to a compromise. Whether the A’s claim a large piece of the land for ballpark and parking and leave the rest for the development, or the A’s control development rights to the whole thing, they’ll have to come half way. That also means the City will have to dial down its pie-in-the-sky dreams of a bustling second downtown anchored by multiple sports venues for something a little less ambitious. There probably is a way to accommodate both Wolff’s and Oakland’s goals. It’ll take a lengthy negotiation, which I should remind you, hasn’t happened yet. In fact, we’re not even close to negotiating yet.

P.S. – Would you believe that until last year, there were no major pro sports venues in the Bay Area with adjacent or nearby garages? It’s true. The Coliseum, which houses three teams, obviously has no garages. Neither does AT&T Park, which has surface parking across Mission Creek from the ballpark. SAP Center has multiple surface lots, including an elevated lot next to the arena that some might mistake for a garage. Candlestick Park had a small peninsula of parking next to it.

That changed when Levi’s Stadium opened last year. As part of the deal, an 1800-space garage was built directly opposite the stadium on Tasman Drive in Santa Clara. That garage has been notorious for excruciatingly long waits to leave, thanks to its single point of entry/exit. Wolff knows this because his Earthquakes opened Levi’s last summer, Quakes fans as guinea pigs. As we saw with the Sharks-Kings Stadium Series game over the weekend, parking and transportation is still a puzzle that hasn’t been figured out by the 49ers, Santa Clara, and VTA.

Other ballparks in suburban locales (Dodger Stadium, Angels Stadium) also don’t have garages. PETCO Park, Chase Field are downtown ballparks with attached garages that work well in concert with other nearby parking options. Coors Field has practically all surface lots available as parking. Downtown ballparks not only have garages or plenty of nearby parking infrastructure, they have the proper street grids and built-in traffic management needed to support large events. The Coliseum City plan is not set up like a new downtown with many ways in and out. It’s essentially the same plan as before, which has led to poor level of traffic service (LOS) grades in the Coliseum City EIR. It’s natural for Wolff to want to avoid the Levi’s situation.

122 thoughts on “Wolff wants surface parking over garages and development at Coliseum

  1. @ML- is it correct to assume 120 parking places per acre? If so, assuming 7200 surface spaces, that’s 60 acres of just parking- add in 20 acres for the ballpark and your down to less than 40 acres of developable property- not taking into consideration land requirements for streets etc- if the arena a stays this shrinks even more. Makes me wonder how New City is proposing any development for the raiders given that they would have at least twice as much need for parking as the A’s-

  2. Thanks, ML. You answered many of my questions, regarding Wolff’s statements.

  3. I love what Wolff said.

    I’ve always felt that the A’s best chance at success in Oakland was to provide a convenient and affordable alternative to AT&T Park, which (to me) means plenty surface parking.

    • Pudgie,

      Respectfully recommend you read the article again and consider the following: overall costs (ballpark, current debt, infrastructure, demolition costs) and lack of development opportunities with what Wolff proposed. Don’t think you’ll be loving what Wolff said to much after..

      • Tony,

        I understand that the A’s would potentially be losing out on development profits by sticking with surface lots, but it may take decades to break even after investing in a large scale development.

        Keep the parking lots! Let Oakland redevelop elsewhere in The 100 Blocks.

  4. If either a Raiders or A’s venue is built at the coli site with ancillary development footing the bill, the arena is history. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. And anyone who thinks a Raiders stadium and an A’s ballpark can be privately financed at that site while coexisting with the arena is named Elmano.

  5. @Pudgie AT&T park has plentiful parking and is extremely easy to get to. There’s no way the Coli site is going to beat AT&T park on convenience for drivers (nor for anyone coming from the Peninsula or South Bay, regardless of transportation mode).

    Competing on affordability is pretty much a long shot also given the A’s would have a massive note to service and the Giants will have pretty well paid their park off.

    • That parking won’t be so plentiful or accessible once Mission Rock starts construction.

      • Last year they started (with signage) directing Giants parking to the UCSF garage at 3rd and South streets, as well as the surface lot just south of that (which won’t be around much longer.) They also added that garage to their official parking map. Parking there used to be an unofficial option, but they weren’t open after (IIRC) 9p -10p. Presumably, this is in anticipation of the shrinking of their current A/C/D/Pier 48 options.

    • Once the BART extension to downtown SJ gets built, getting to the Coliseum site vs AT&T will be pretty much a wash in terms of public transit from the South Bay.

      • The BART extension to downtown San Jose is a long, long way off. Also, if you check the routing, that’s going to be a very long ride relative to distance traveled. It might be a wash to get to the Coli via a theoretical downtown BART station from south San Jose or Morgan Hill versus AT&T via CalTrain; it won’t be from the rest of the South Bay or any part of the Peninsula. (If CalTrain ever gets electrified, even less so).

        And again, for drivers, I don’t see any scenario where its quicker or easier to get to the Coli from the South Bay. On weekdays it will continue to be a traffic nightmare. On weekends it’s currently slower and more hassle to park at the Coli, and I don’t see any scenario where that gets much better (and as outlined in ML’s post, it has the potential to get significantly worse).

    • Wolff et al have apparently learned how to build stadia for cheap: Avaya Stadium cost $100 million (which is a minor miracle in the Bay Area). Of course, a new ballpark would cost way more than that, but Wolff’s team seems to know what they’re doing.

      A parking lot could generate close to $13 million per year without much outlay.

  6. @ML Agreed, but the fact that project is moving forward is evidence of how plentiful parking is currently and has been since AT&T Park opened. Notwithstanding a lot of Elmano-like hysteria about what a traffic and parking nightmare it was going to be before it opened. They are able to sacrifice parking because so much of it goes unused on game day.

    • bartleby,

      I live in Morgan Hill, you can’t get to AT&T for a Giants game on Caltrain, unless it’s a weekday day game and you’re willing to get there before 10AM. Same for any stop south of Tamien. You have to drive or local bus to Tamien/Diridon, much like we’d do to Fremont/Warm Springs(soon.)

      • @Mark P. Understood, but SMG’s comparison was CalTrain vs. a theoretical downtown SJ BART station. In both cases you’d need to drive to downtown SJ.

  7. So here’s my question: where’s the development potential for Wolff at the Coli, and how would he pay for a hypothetical $600 million “massive note”?.. especially since he now wants massive surface parking, would only have 40 acres to develop (from above) and doesn’t see the rest of the 800 acres being developed “in our lifetime.” I was slammed last week for questioning a “study” over Coli City and its $300 million revenue potential. Well…where is it! (Not trying to start a flame war, simply asking a serious question)

    • Have you read the study yet? Good place to start.

      • Have I read the study yet, good place to start..uhh, OK. Based on this latest development, this “study” claiming $300 million in revenue potential appears to now be irrelevant. Please read my comment again Jeffrey and feel free to address. Again, no flame wars necessary; just addressing the facts at hand.

  8. So what does this all mean? How does Wolff pay for a ballpark if there’s no ancillary development or not much of it? Anybody see room for an A’s ballpark, big A’s parking and a 70,000-seat football stadium? Not me.

  9. Oakland must choose now : A’s or Raiders.

    • @ daniel
      We really don’t have enough information to know what Oakland should choose (such as it is), but if Wolff’s ideas don’t include some form of development, even if not nearly on the scale Oakland would like, and again assuming that the Raiders and New City can actually put something together, then that’s what Oakland should go with.
      I think most of us think that Wolff’s strategy is most likely are to wait out Davis. (For a verity of reasons) Oakland’s “choice “, for all intensive porpoises will be the Raiders by default, and we will see if they can get something accomplished first.

    • Lew needs to choose Oakland too.

      But I agree. The Raiders want to leave…let them leave. If they want to stay the best solution is share Levi’s, allow the A’s to build what they are building and in the meantime work out a plan for a football stadium. there’s a lot more land around that Coliseum complex and other parts of the Bay Area.

      • @ Vivek
        I agree with you, Wolff needs to make a choice, but that probably won’t happen until Davis makes a choice. The idea that Oakland has to make a choice is a little misleading, because Oakland’s choices are predicated on the choices Davis and presumably Wolff make after him, but there are a lot of choices by a lot of people that need to be made.

      • Isn’t kinda hard to choose oakland when oakland hasn’t said it will get rid of the other tenant? When oakland does this, which they won’t, so when the raiders say goodbye then LW can get serious about oakland- kinda like asking someone to marry you when she is still dating someone else-

      • @GoA’s

        Not that Oakland doesn’t have to make a choice, but if I had two girlfriends in Wolf and Davis (to use your analogy), and neither wanted to get married, I would keep seeing both until one got tired and left, or one wanted to get serious and get married.
        If it really went my way (Oakland), I might get a chance at polygamy. Ok, not that funny but Wolff and Davis, as well as Oakland have choices to make.

    • Oakland needs to do what is best for Oakland. I certainly think that it is not keeping the Raiders in town (fiscally it will never pencil out to be a net positive). But that doesn’t mean picking anyone until they have to.

      • @jeffreyaugust
        “Oakland needs to do what’s best for Oakland.” Amen I hear you on that!

  10. I was hoping some of that land on the other side of 880 could be developed, perhaps even for the need of extra parking, but Wolff saying that it may take a lifetime to build on is something I wasn’t aware of. I’m sorry ML you may have covered the possible difficulty involved in getting that land from the port of Oakland and EBMUD. I was under the impression that wouldn’t be too difficult, but obviously having “control”, or “site control” of the land and actually owning it are two different things.

  11. If the economics of building in Oakland were tough before, this revelation just makes them that much tougher. Still think continued revenue sharing is going to be a card LW plays to make it pencil out in Oakland. If MLB rejects that notion in 2016 then LW can say my hands are tied with no way to privately build a ballpark in the limited territory you give me- unless Oakland steps up with a public subsidy-

    • @ GoA’s
      Yes, the plot thickens.

    • I think that will be part of the equation. If MLB is insistent on staying in Oakland, despite a lack of public funds, a dearth of private funds and a BRC report that found no acceptable sites, then MLB should be prepared to assist the A’s however it can (ie, perpetual revenue-sharing).

      • Not just that, but if MLB continues to restrict the A’s to just Alameda and Contra Costa County, they should look at the population of these counties and not the entire Bay Area when determining where the A’s fall in the revenue sharing pecking order.

        You can’t say on one hand that the A’s can draw revenue from the entire region, but then at the same time say the A’s moving within the region hurts the Giants revenue. Both can’t be true. If the A’s can legitimately pull revenue from the South Bay in Oakland than moving to the South Bay doesn’t impact the Giants.

        Of course logic and MLB don’t necessarily go together 🙂

      • It comes down to the idea that the Bay Area should have been a single shared territory all along. That’s the simplest way to put it.

      • @pjk

        I agree! However why should the other owners subsidize the A’s because of the Giants claim? This issue needs to come to a vote but if a vote is not allowed then perhaps the Gaints should pay the A’s to stay in Oakland as opposed to the A’s paying for the TR rights to SJ!

        Go A’s!!!


  12. Good detailed writing as usual. All I can say is Lew should stop whining, and either take real steps towards building or just sell the damn team. It seems the fans are always the last concern with this guy.

    • And joe is LW whining by stating that he wants surface parking around his stadium- just like all other stadiums in the Bay Area as ML pointed out. He is merely pointing out the fact that at 120 acre site he doesn’t want to create traffic and parking nightmares for A’s fans attending the games- and btw- the mayor of Oakland says she is fully awaref what he is proposing.

    • Wanting to preserve parking is all about the fans. What it isn’t about is the city’s development goals.

  13. I read his comments and thought “bullshit, this is a leverage play for something that I am not quite clear about.” I still feel like that.

    • Definitely possibly. Leverage to force Oakland to pay for infrastructure which includes garages and better access points.

      • LW doesn’t want garages- have you been to an event at Levi’s?

      • It’s unclear access can be improved. Coliseum is hemmed in by two creeks, a freeway, and railroad tracks. They also want to create a gateway at Baldwin (the back entrance), and even that’s problematic.

    • @Jeffrey- even Andy D agrees with LW in terms of parking garages- not a good idea- leverage play or just reality of challenges of building in Oakland at this site? And btw- figure mark davis will be no different in his vision- downtowns give you many inlets and exits- Coli site not so much

      • It’s as clear as day the challenges of building at the Coli site, not “leverage” IMHO. Heck, part of me thinks it’s Wolff actually nudging Oakland closer to the Raiders re choosing one over the other; just my opinion of course (don’t slam me!). 😉

      • Didn’t Davis say he also wants surface lots?

      • @Slacker
        Yes, Davis did say he wants surface parking, so it’s going to be a challenge regardless.

      • Yes he did say that! Us Raider fans do need to tailgate after all ;).

        My (subtle) point is that this story goes well beyond simply surface parking: ancillary development, revenues to pay for a $600 million stadium, the true viability of the Coli site just to name a few. Again, just my opinion.

      • Agreed Tony D, but that’s arguably a bigger issue for the Raiders as a football stadium will cost more and take up more space.

  14. I believe if that so called “Blue Ribbon” committee by MLB would have been allowed to make an official finding, they would have found no acceptable sites for the A’s to build their new ballpark within their designated East Bay territory. By disbanding the committee without having them make any official findings known, MLB did not have to face publicly the fact that there were no acceptable proposed sites for a new A’s ballpark anywhere within the A’s designated territory. Since the Coliseum location was the best of all the bad proposed options, MLB was yet hopeful that they could still convince the A’s to work out a deal with Oakland to build their new ballpark at the Coliseum site, despite the team’s own misgivings. MLB also reinforced this approach by letting the A’s know that any consideration towards any prospective ballpark site within the Giants designated territory would be off the table, a non-starter. Lew Wolff thus far has refused to cave in to the pressure. He will not enter a ballpark deal that he thinks would put his franchise at a financial disadvantage.

  15. re: “Just sell the damn team.” I think what MLB will also find is a dearth of potential owners willing to buy and build in Oakland and prepared to lose Big $$ doing so. Charitable people like the Haas’s, who lost Big $$ in Oakland, are in short supply. Any new owner will take the same view as Wolff – a new ballpark has to pencil out financially. Hence, calls for Wolff to “sell the damn team” won’t accomplish anything. It would just put another owner in the same situation, except this new owner may not be as committed to keeping the team in the Bay Area as Wolff/Fisher. We need to be thankful for this current ownership.

    • Amen… Fighting against the gints to keep the A’s in the Bay Area should be commended. We could keep all of our teams if Oakland wasn’t so foolish- and pretending they can keep all teams when they can at best afford to keep 1

  16. I still hold firmly to my belief that the only way Oakland keeps a team is to remodel the coli for the Raiders. Come on, only $400 mil for Miami to do it and the coli already has Mt Davis to anchor the renovation around.

    As far as Oakland choosing a team… if it were only that simple. Oakland can choose the A’s, watch the Raiders leave for LA or Levi’s, and STILL not offer what the A’s need to make it feasible. Then they are stuck with a dilapidated stadium, a nice arena and no tenants.

    • Or they can choose the Raiders, watch the A’s be granted access to SJ, and the Raiders still end up in LA, St Louis, San Antonio, Levis, etc because the Raiders can’t come up with the $400+M, plus cover the outstanding debt.

      • Yeah, pretty much. People don’t seem to understand that even choosing to go exclusively with one team in Oakland is no reasonable guarantee of anything getting done there. It simply increases the chances above the ~0% they’re at now.

      • @Slacker
        I don’t think the A’s will be granted San Jose, just because Oakland makes a choice to go with a Raiders inspired plan. I don’t think they will be granted San Jose (if at all), until whatever plan the Raiders come up with is actually implemented. Oakland losses nothing by going with a Raiders plan first (if there is one), as a matter of fact it’s looking like they have very little choice, but to see if they can work something out with the Raiders first, because the choice is.
        “Drum roll please”
        A. Work with the Raiders and something may happen.
        B. Kick the Raiders out and Wolff promises he might think about it. (Really, really heard)
        The choice (such as it is), is clear, Oakland needs to start by trying to work with the Raiders, even if it doesn’t work with the Raiders, what exactly will Oakland lose concerning the A’s? It’s not as if Wolff can move to the only place he wants to in the meantime. Right?

      • “A. Work with the Raiders and something may happen.”

        You’re assuming the Raiders have a plan or are in a better position to make something happen, neither of which seems to be true.

      • @Lakeshore – You’re right, there are no guarantees on San Jose for the A’s. You’re assuming though that if Oakland focuses on the A’s, the Raiders move to LA. Keep in mind though that the Raiders need just as much help as the A’s do in San Jose.

        The Raiders can’t do anything on their own. They have to have the support of the NFL and in the case of LA the Chargers and/or the Rams. There’s a lot of if’s thrown in there. It’s also likely the NFL marries up the Rams and the Chargers and tells the Raiders to go to Levi’s.

        We’re all guessing here. I think the key point though is that no one has clear leverage. Oakland should decide what is doable and in it’s best interests and focus on that, regardless of whether it’s the Raiders or the A’s.

      • @ Slacker
        I don’t disagree with you, but I’m really not assuming that if Oakland focuses on the A’s “the Raiders move to LA” My point is that with Wolff’s strategy, presumably of waiting Davis out will force Oakland to focus on the Raiders first.
        To your point about Davis needing help, yes he does but he has more options then Wolff even in need of that help. He literally has the potential to partner with two different teams in LA (Chargers, Rams), or become the tenet of the 49ers in the Bay Area, not to mention the help of his league (NFL), to build in LA, and perhaps in Oakland.
        Wolff has all the money, developmental expertise, and political juice to get things done. Davis has none of those things, but he still has much more leverage then Wolff because, unlike Wolff he not only has a league that isn’t restricting his team movement in his local area (or out), his league will actually help him build in whatever pace he does decide to play in.
        The vary fact that Wolff is employing a strategy of waiting Davis out, which I think most of us assume is the case, should tell us all we need to know about who has the most leverage, in a situation where the city, and both teams have very little.
        Finally, when you say “Oakland should decide what is doable and in its best interests and focus on that, regardless of whether it’s the Raiders or the A’s.”
        I agree with you 100%, but if Wolff is in fact employing the wait Dais out strategy, and Davis wants and needs to get things done sooner, rather than later those variables suggest that it isn’t as simple as Oakland doable and best, its Oakland deciding what’s doable and best right now, or by what proposal is truly in front of them. (Assuming the Raiders have one)

    • @ SMG

      I know I’m assuming, that’s pretty much all we can do, because we don’t have much information. I always try preference my statements, I said “if there is one” referring to the Raiders plan before I listened options A. and B. That accounts for the assumption.
      BTW: Didn’t we go through the same thing yesterday?

      • “BTW: Didn’t we go through the same thing yesterday?”

        I don’t know. Maybe. It’s easy to lose track.

  17. Have to wonder if this will end up with the owners putting pressure on the Giants to forge a reasonable deal on San Jose, instead of the years’ long “no way, no how, not ever” stance the Giants have maintained. We could be looking at Wolff making a rock-solid, fact-based presentation to the owners that says: “Here’s how it gets done in Oakland, and it will require you other owners to continue subsidies until the Second Coming of Christ. Does this work for you? I’m doing what you want here and staying within my designated territory.” Keeping the A’s out of San Jose benefits a single franchise – the Giants. And letting the A’s go to San Jose is not going to make for wholesale moves of franchises into other team’s “territories.” There is not going to be a New Jersey Rays anytime soon.

    • For MLB, this approach/option makes the most logical sense. In other words, there’s no way in hell it will happen 🙂

    • The Lodge is basically windowless and only has one door, so to speak. We’re not going to know what is going on behind the scenes in there unless something big happens and they pop their heads out of the door to tell everyone.

    • @pjk
      I would like to think they would, but they act as if they don’t give a sh*t if the A’s have to play in the middle of an active volcano.

    • After this many years, it’s clear Lew never did the glad-handing necessary to win over enough supporters in the lodge. Another “fact-based presentation,” which he has had since his Cisco ballpark design, didn’t win over key members then (when it should have) and it won’t now.

      Whining about parking spaces is just Lew trying to stir the pot and force the pols hand before they’ve had time to negotiate and get their best offer together.

      He’s playing the game, and I don’t hate the player. I just want a resolution to this mess.

      • Any statement of fact these days is defined as “whining.” The Sharks lost their big outdoor game 2-1. Is that “whining” or a statement of fact?

      • What’s hilarious about this comment is that no where did LW whine- he merely stated his vision for the A’s ballpark in Oakland. Where the whining is coming from are the oakland-only types who aren’t happy with the A’s Coli 2.0 vision. Kick out the Raiders and let’s get this show on the road- what you get is the big A in nor cal-

      • @pjk & @GoA’s
        yes, lew is “whining” about something he wants. yes, it’s a “fact” lew wants something, but that doesn’t make my characterization of his comment incorrect.

        I’ve never been “oakland-only” but if you two need to pull out the pitchforks to defend anything Wolff says, have at it.


      • Ru155- so help us out- where is his whining in saying I want what’s best for our fans which is surface level parking- note mayor of Oakland said she was already aware of this- no surprises there but sure- somehow it’s whining-

      • Ru,
        Wolff did say at one time (2 years ago?) He had the “majority” of owners support to relocate the A’s to San Jose. To this day I firmly believe that the actual territorial dispute has been solved, with Wolff “free” to move the A’s to SJ. Problem is the large payoff the Giants are insisting on AND the fact that (currently) San Jose is expecting a 110% FREE stadium (Wolff buying land and paying for ballpark). But that’s all another topic for another day…

      • @ Tony D.

        If Wolff had that support, there is a chance it could have decreased since that time, due to the continuing San Jose lawsuit. Of course the opposite could also be true, that the owners may be growing tied of defending the SF Giants claim to the south bay.

      • RU155’s comment is completely valid. Wolff was taking a private negotiation public to win favor with the public. There are no innocents in this entire ballpark saga. Wollf is doing what’s best for the A’s. Oakland is doing what’s best for Oakland. It’s as simple as that. As fans, all we can hope for is them meeting in the middle.

      • @briggs- what negotiations? They have yet to begin- and won’t begin until the county defines a process. Communicating your desire to maximize the fan experience, which may conflict with Oakland’s objectives, and not end up with the baseball version of Levi’s stadium, is prudent.

      • RU155 – No MLB owners have publicly supported the Giants – several have supported the A’s though. Even Selig has repeated that the Giants are the problem, not other MLB teams. MLB also disagrees with the Giants belief that the A’s will shrink the Giants fanbase if the A’s move to San Jose.

        You are also naive if you support the Giants opposing the A’s moving to San Jose. The Giants would like the A’s out of Oakland also (the A’s are no less of a threat to the paranoid giants organization in Oakland than they would be in San Jose) If the giants could somehow block the A’s from building a new stadium in Oakland – they would attempt that too.

      • heh don’t think they won’t try to do something if the a’s do want to build a park in oakland.

      • who knew calling a spade a spade would elicit such a long game of telephone that I end up as an agent for the Giants.

        re: Wolff’s parking comment –
        He is positioning himself within the larger negotiation. In taking the time to publicly voice an easily negotiable issue, he is moving to deter potential investors and create doubt about the plans feasibility.

        It’s “whining” because a compromise could easily be hashed out behind closed doors, but he wants control yet hasn’t put his balls on the table and said here’s my full proposal, take it or leave it. Not that there’s any reason for him to make that move yet – still have the april extension.

        to repeat myself, “he’s playing the game, and I don’t hate the player. I just want a resolution to this mess.”

        re: The way to San Jose & @duffer @ TonyD

        where did i say i support the Giants? where did i say I’m oakland-only? gotta clear the field of all these strawmen you guys keep finding.

        sorry if I hurt your feelings, but Wolff has, to this point, failed to get a vote in the Lodge, as @pjk says, it’s a “fact.”

        He may have a majority, he may not, DOES.NOT.MATTER. He has not won the right owners over to allow the vote to proceed. It’s straight up lobbying – logic isn’t nearly as important as strategy.

        Wolff may be able to back his way into SJ if the Raiders magically find the money to anchor CC, but we’re 7(?) years in to Wolff’s open bid for SJ and he never got a vote.

        It’s not my fault that the A’s are stuck – I’m just pointing out how I see the pieces moving on the board.

      • @ru- .,.can be easily negotiated and that’s why its whining- really- and what- your going to create more land and more infrastructure magically and it will be traded like a deed in a game of monopoly. LW doesn’t need to impress investors- he needs corporate poor Oakland to provide another way of public ally financing a ballpark- Coli site will host the ballpark and surface level parking- now Oakland needs to define where else in the city they can give him development rights to help offset his investment at the Coli- it’s not monopoly RU- and it’s not whining- it’s called reality

      • @goa’s
        congrats you’ve just made my point. Parking spots are a proxy for what he’s really after. Thus he’s making a big stink or if you prefer “whining” about not having enough space for what he wants to do.

      • Ru…and you just showed what the classic only only fan calls whining- business acumen is not whining- why aren’t you calling out MD and the Rsiders for buying land in LA and “publically” negotiating? Because like the other one dimensional morons you prefer cheap shots directed towards someone who is doing their part to maintain 2 mlb franchises in nor cal- whiners like you get old-

      • @goa’s
        ha. dude it’s just hilarious that you get so spun up over a simple active verb. It’s a message board, i’m not posting the 95 Theses, but if you want to go on deconstructing every little comment, I’m happy to entertain myself with your nonsense.

        Since you didn’t land a punch on whine, you chose to expand the circle to MD and the raiders to shield yourself – all totally irrelevant to your original attack on me (which was flawed from the start because you misread the comment).

    • pjk, you’re the only one bringing up Fisher-Wolff getting subsidies AND an new ballpark in Oakland. (I was reading your mind.) F-W will present two options…one with subsidies…one without…make your choice ladies…

  18. The Raiders have one big advantage over the A’s towards getting a stadium deal done on the Coliseum site. The NFL will provide approximately $200 million towards construction of the new/rebuilt/renovated Coliseum while MLB will provide zero dollars towards construction of a new A’s ballpark.Also, MLB has let it be known that the A’s will no longer be revenue sharing recipients once the A’s move to a new ballpark, even if they remain in their current territory.

    • “The NFL will provide approximately $200 million towards construction of the new/rebuilt/renovated Coliseum”

      I still have yet to see any actual evidence of this. They just helped fund Levi’s and stipulated that it include space for second home locker room. Why would they fund a second one in the Bay Area? They won’t even fund 2 in New York (NJ) or LA.

    • @llpec: Are you sure the raiders can get 200m from the NFL if they just redo CC ?

      • G-4 plan is meant to provide $200 million for a new stadium. It’s a sliding scale based on the amount the team is putting up. Shouldn’t expect $200 MM for a renovation, maybe half that.

      • Any idea the makeup of the “$500 million” MD throws around for construction of a new Oakland stadium? G-4, PSL, naming rights, private equity, selling a stake in franchise, etc?

      • Davis has previously referred to having $400 million to put down, which actually entailed $200 million from team + matching G-4 funds.

      • It’s a little more complicated than claiming you have $200 million to match. Davis has to meet certain sales benchmarks, especially of club seats. The Raiders may actually have troubling reaching those benchmarks. If the Raiders can’t, it comes out of Davis’s pocket. And for renovations, it isn’t quite matching funds, it’s a little less. The NFL has to take those factors into consideration when approving a G-4 loan.

      • If the Raiders go along with the Carson plan, the NFL will finance both the Chargers and Raiders $200 mil. each.

  19. @ML, Thanks for the info. Even if the NFL will provide less than the full G-4 funding towards a partial rebuild/renovation, it’s still more helpful to a stadium project than the zero dollars coming from MLB.

    • Good info indeed. Perhaps some of the $4-500 million MD talks about is a sale of a stake in the team? Perhaps Kephart will get a stake if he commits a huge sum towards construction of the stadium (?). I guess we’ll find out in due time.

      Interesting that MD (at least verbally) will “commit” $4-500 million towards a new Oakland stadium, yet Wolff has not committed anything towards a new Oakland ballpark (not saying he won’t, just we haven’t heard it). Perhaps, because the NFL is once a week and more regional, MD sees all of the Bay Area (perhaps even as far as Sacramento) as his corporate base. Being 40+ miles away from the Coli, probably the same reason I once had Raiders season tix for 1 game every two weeks and have never had A’s season tickets for 81, mostly weeknight games. Just a thought.

      • @ Tony D.
        Good points, I think Davis could also offer limited public shares. (Not sure) If Davis really wants to build in Oakland, and I realize that is a big IF, because that desire by itself won’t make it happen.
        BUT, if he can here’s to hoping the A’s will get San Jose, because it would be a shame if we (A’s and Raiders fans) lost them both.

      • Or more likely Davis is just pulling a number out of ass. He hasn’t even drawn a pretty picture of what he wants his stadium to look like.

      • @ Tony D.
        I meant to say either one, or both.
        @ Slacker
        That very well could be.

      • Slacker,
        You could be right OR you could be wrong re Davis’s $ claims…

  20. In your parking count, you’re leaving out people who aren’t going to a game and need parking. Which, depending on the development size, could be a little and could be a lot.

  21. Oakland could get squeezed out of LA, Kroenke’s plan is far ahead at this stage. the NFL wants another team to move in – it could be the Chargers, leaving Davis’s options: Levis, staying at the Coliseum (if Oakland officials choose the Raiders over the A’s – or moving to St Louis once the Rams vacate?

    • @duffer
      “Oakland could get squeezed out of LA”
      You should probably say the Raiders could get squeezed out of LA. The Raiders may get squeezed into Oakland (the city), by LA. Sorry, I just couldn’t resist.

    • If a team were going to pair with the Rams in Inglewood, I really think the Raiders are more likely than the Chargers to be LA-bound.

  22. @SMG,

    For some twenty years the Chargers have benefited from having the entire southern California region all to themselves. In no way will the Chargers allow for two NFL teams to relocate to LA, approximately 100 miles to the north, unless one of those teams will be the Chargers.

    • It’s not up to the Chargers. Never has been. Never will be. They have zero ability to veto anything. And they can’t even manage to keep their claims straight. The amount of season ticket holders they claim come from LA has fluctuated, seemingly arbitrarily, over the years. Not to mention that they are a distant 3rd in terms of which team or teams LA fans would want to come back to the area.

      • SMG is dead right. In no way do the Chargers have any ability to prevent two teams from relocating to LA, regardless of who those teams are.

      • You are right in the sense that it will be the NFL who will make the ultimate decision as to which teams go where. There are many factors that will be included in the NFL’s decision making process. Though, I do believe that the NFL is well aware of the concerns of the Chargers, and will take their concerns with serious consideration..

      • The NFL have already said they want two teams in LA. I think the Chargers concerns have already been considered and basically dismissed.

        Again, we’re talking about a market that’s about the same distance away as New York is from Philly and that traditionally had two teams. If New York for some reason stood vacant and the Eagles started whining they didn’t want two teams there, I’d say good luck with that.

  23. re: Oakland Raiders bay area now
    A map showing fan allegiances in the NFL, based on Facebook likes, has the 49ers as the most popular NFL team in the Bay Area, including in all of Alameda County. The Raiders are the most-popular NFL team in LA.

    • @ PJK
      Ok man, we have all seen and heard those kinds of things before. I realize a lot of factors go into these decisions, and lord knows we discuss them at a semi-disturbing rate, but I doubt Facebook likes are at the top of the list.

      • The only caveat being that I don’t really think there’s a better comprehensive measure that’s been taken, which is actually kind of sad considering the enormous role statistics plays in sports.

      • @ SMG

        Good point.

  24. The raiders and chargers are in a similar situation, they lack finances, Davis May be more financially solvent than salons, the Carson plan, as the media has suggested that the Carson plan is a big time bluff. How are these two going to finance a $1.7 Bill. Carson stadium?Kroenke (worth 13 billion.) Does not have a problem with financing the Inglewood plan

    • Davis is more financially solvent than Spanos?

      While Spanos is not one of the richest owners, last I heard he was worth a little over a billion whereas I’ve typically seen Davis as having the lowest net worth of any owner.

      Neither one of them is in the same situation as Kroenke, but I think the Chargers are better off than the Raiders. Plus Spanos builds stuff for a living as opposed to Davis who kind of just hangs out.

  25. I have an idea for keeping the raiders in Oakland : John Fisher. Now I don’t know if Fisher is interested in owing a football team or Mark Davis and his mom want to sell the team, I mean the whole team. but Fisher could buy the raiders then build 2 new stadiums at CC. Problems solved. Oakland gets to keep 2 sports teams. Raiders fans hit the roof. Crazy idea but you never know. Somebody should ask Fisher then go ask Davis if he wants to sell now. As of today, Davis can’t afford to build the stadium nor can he get a rich guy to do it for him. Davis can go back to LA and become a renter but if they don’t play well in LA, the team will crash and burn again.

  26. Here’s how Davis will finance a new Raiders stadium – $400 mil. through PSL sales – a naming rights deal for $200 mil., The Raiders organization financing $200 mil., and the NFL adding an additional $200 mil. Total financing = $1 billion – enough for a state-of-the-art domed stadium (which could be used for other purposes – NCAA hoops finals, superbowls, etc. even non sports events)

    Recall that’s how the the Niners basically financed Levi’s – $500 mil. with PSLs, a $200 mil. naming rights deal. – deal done (achieved with no public tax dollars also) The Raiders will likely stay put at the CC site.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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