Raiders could stay at Alameda HQ through Feb 2019 even if they leave Oakland next year

Update 10:00 AM from Steven Tavares:

Original post:

When the Raiders balked at paying past due rent at the Coliseum last month, we figured it had something to do with the lease extension, but we couldn’t figure out the rationale. Now, looking at the new lease terms – set to be voted on by the Coliseum JPA Friday morning – there’s little that stands out. There are clarifications on how to handle signage and advertisements inside the stadium, along with updated parking revenue definitions. The $400,000 in back rent will be paid. Then I saw this:

7.5 Additional Payments for Use of Permanent Training Facility and Training Site. If the Raiders announce a relocation or sign a lease to play football games outside of the City of Oakland or Alameda County (a) for the 2015 season prior to March 1, 2015, then, commencing on March 1, 2015, or (b) for the 2016 season prior to March 1, 2016, then, commencing on March 1 of the year following such announcement Raiders shall have the option of continuing to use the Permanent Training Facility and Training Site for up to thirty-six (36) months, up to and including February 28, 2019 as determined in Raiders’ discretion. For the first two years, Raiders shall make an additional payment to Licensor each month for continued use of the Permanent Training Facility and Training Site in an amount equal to the fair market rental value of the Permanent Training Facility and Training Site on a monthly basis, as determined by a mutually agreeable licensed commercial real estate broker based on comparable rental space. Raiders and Licensor agree that the fair market rental value shall not exceed $525,000 per year for the first two years. For the third year, Raiders shall pay Licensor an amount of One Million Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,050,000), payable monthly in equal installments. In the event the Raiders are engaged in good faith discussions concerning an extension of the Operating License or other arrangement for the Raiders to play future Football Events in the OACC Stadium as of March 1, 2016, any obligation to make payments shall not commence while such discussions are continuing and the thirty-six (36) month period and obligation to make additional payments shall begin when Raiders agrees to play football games at a location other than OACC Stadium for the 2016 season; provided, however, that if Raiders agrees to play football at such other location, Raiders shall pay such rental payments retroactively from March 1, 2016.

Compare that to the same clause from the 2014 lease, which allowed for 24 months of training facility use and ended on February 28, 2017. Now they’ll get an extra year, giving them until early 2019 to stay. That could prove useful if the Raiders head to LA for the 2016 season, but the Carson and/or Inglewood stadium plans fall apart in the interim.

It’s a great situation for the Raiders, allowing them to stay fairly cheaply in Alameda while entertaining stadium concepts in Oakland, LA, etc. Allowing the team to be in Alameda past the 2018 effectively gives Mark Davis a three-year grace period, even if the Raiders leave Oakland starting with the 2016 season. If they stay at the Coliseum and engage in further stadium talks, rent on the facility is abated.

Can, kicked.

The grace period allows Davis to not have to look for or build a training facility in LA right away. He could continue to keep the team training in LA, fly them down for “home” games at a temporary stadium on the weekend, and fly them back up Sunday night. The stadium plan in Carson has to be modified to include a second team training facility, though chances are it wouldn’t be ready until at least spring 2018, based on what we know about the political landscape involved and construction lead times.

Let’s be clear about this: a training facility is not make-or-break item when billions of dollars of stadium speculation are the order of the day. It’s still a critical part of team operations. That’s where players will be 5 of 7 days every week during the season, and where they’ll report going back to OTAs. Now it makes more sense that the Raiders are funding improvements to the weight room and other parts of the facility, since they know they’ll be there for a few more years.

As usual, it’s Davis looking out for his team first. Maybe he’s not so different from his dad after all.

117 thoughts on “Raiders could stay at Alameda HQ through Feb 2019 even if they leave Oakland next year

  1. You ever meet Al Davis?

  2. Well, at least raider fans could still rally in Alameda. How awkward would it be for raider fan. I can just see twitter now. Its like sleeping with the beautiful girl all weekend, and then coming home Sunday night to your wife. As a raider fan, I could care less where they play. It’s such a tv sport. It’s 8 meaningful games a year. I drive by Cals refurbished stadium all the time. It’s beautiful, but it is empty almost everyday of the year. Was that money worth it?

  3. Jordan I enjoy and can afford to watch and go to games. I prefer both and I don’t want the haters of the bay not to provide the Raiders what they need in order to stay and have 1st priority on the coliseum land

  4. Somehow I have to believe this is all Lew’s fault.

  5. The Raiders could tell free agent candidates that the team may move to LA next year but the players will still live near Oakland for a couple years. So free agents would not have to move to the East Bay and then relocate right after the coming season, no?

  6. If two teams are relocated to LA at the same time, it will be difficult to arrange home game temporary stadiums for both teams. However, If the Chargers do get selected, they could still stay in San Diego for both home games and training. The Chargers will be only some 100 miles from their new permanent home.

    • Yeah that won’t happen. If the Chargers are selected they’re not going to play lame duck years in San Diego. It’s a recipe for disaster. You’ll have empty stadiums when most of the San Diego fan base abandons them and potentially even violence like what has happened several times before when teams have played lame duck games in cities like Cleveland. If the team announces it’s moving… it needs to be moving immediately.

  7. Didn’t the Raiders still live and practice in the East Bay for the 1982 season even though they played their games in LA?

  8. LOL, the cute haircut is mentioning some sort of urgency…

  9. Read “urgency” as “how much money will they pony up before I can get to LA.”

    • Damn Jeffrey! You really, really, really want to see the Raiders leave Oakland…

      • For the millionth time. No, I don’t.

        If the Raiders have a private financing deal that doesn’t cost me, as an Alameda County tax payer, money… I am happy if they stay.

        I don’t let my fandom cloud my judgement. You should try it sometime.

  10. It’s not like Davis has any loyalties (not that he should), he may have a preference to say in Oakland, but if it can be worked out that preference is going to cost Oakland and Alameda County a lot of money.

    • @Lakeshore/Neil : the raiders will be a renter in Carson.. Yeah they play in a new venue but the Chargers is the boss there. I think it is LW’s fault again for sucking up all the money….

      • @ daniel
        I don’t really care if the Raiders rent or own in Carson, the outcome will be the same for all of us that would like to see them stay in Oakland.
        Not sure what you meant about it being LW fault? I guess you were referring to the hordes of Raiders fans, as well as Oakland-Only folks (A’s), that will undoubtable blame Lew Wolff if the Raiders leave. If so, I’m right with you.
        If you were referring to me, because of my sharp criticism of Lew Wolff, I assure you that I will in no way think Lew Wolff had anything to do with the Raiders leaving, if it comes to that.
        I would only hope that if that were the case, Lew Wolff make an honest effort at the coliseum site. An effort that I believe will be made a little more honest by MLB twisting his arm behind the seen. If Wolff doesn’t build at the coliseum (with the Raiders gone), and still can’t get San Jose the Bay Area my lose both the Raiders and A’s.

      • “the raiders will be a renter in Carson.. Yeah they play in a new venue but the Chargers is the boss there.”

        Where are you getting this information? I’ve read nothing of the sort, and the premise defies logic. If the Raiders were going to be a tenant then there is no advantage to moving to LA and they might as well move to Santa Clara next year. They’d get there much quicker, with less risk, and the financials would be about the same.

        I fully expect if the Raiders move to LA they will do so as equity partners.

  11. @Lakeshore/Neil: I am not referring to you specifically but you know the oakland-only-crowd will blame LW, the A’s and Fisher when the raiders leave. Davis has been sitting on his fat ass for 3 years. Why can Davis go raise the money himself? The 49ers did.

    • @ daniel
      I could not agree with you more, bravo!

      • The 49ers moved to Silicon Valley to get all the money there -that’s how they got a lot of the stadium money. And I’m betting their fans have more $$ to spend on PSLs than Raiders fans. (How’d PSLs work out the last time the Raiders tried?) The Raiders are stuck in the corporate-poor East Bay and, even if they tried PSLs again, there’s not a chance that the city/county “insure” them against shortfalls. Raiders luxury suites, which are NOT antiquated, lease for much less than 49er suites, no? The long and short of it is the 49ers have far more access to private money in Santa Clara than the Raiders do in Oakland. And with the city/county unable to make up the difference via taxpayer money, the Raiders have been left fumbling around for 3-5 years or so trying and failing to get a stadium built, with another season of playing on a baseball infield in the works.

    • According to Forbes magazine, Mark Davis is worth $1.7 bil., Spanos $1.2 bil. (The Raiders should be the lessor – not the Chargers)

      • Most rankings have the Davis family at or very near the bottom of NFL owners in terms of net worth.

      • That is a different Mark Davis. He is the son of a guy named Stanley who started a massive Dairy business in Minnesota. Oakland’s Mark Davis has a net worth of about $500M.

      • @duffer: I believe the davis family owns 35-40% now so he is not worth 1.7B. Still get millions if they sell though

      • Man, Mark is on food stamps as it compares to the other NFL owners. I knew the guy was at the bottom, but it’s worse than I thought. He still wealthy enough to put a stadium proposal together (with NFL help), and make it happen. But it’s looking more and more like Mark will sit around until someone else dose the heavy lifting.

      • JeffreyAugust – you are correct sir. that is a different Davis

      • The real “big difference” between Spanos and Davis (and most other NFL Owners) is how much of their net worth is related to the team. Davis’ net worth is almost entirely the result of equity in the Raiders. Spanos made a lot of money as a construction magnate (whatever magnate means).

    • there’s enough land on the Coliseum property for a rebuilt Oakland Coliseum And a small ballpark for the Oakland Athletics…You Will See COLISEUM City Still lives.

    • @daniel Mark Davis just confirmed on Kawakami’s podcast that the Raiders will be 50/50 equity partners with the Chargers in Carson, not a tenant. He indicated the fact that was not possible in Santa Clara is a big reason Levi’s Stadium won’t happen for the Raiders. All of which is perfectly logical.

      • He can say that, but I don’t believe for a second that the Raiders and Chargers are contributing equally in Carson. The numbers simply don’t make sense.

      • “He can say that, but…” Again, THEY’RE ALL LYING TO US. (in other words, we’ll believe what we choose to believe in this saga)

      • @SMG Why would you say that?

        First, what reason would Davis have to lie? The truth would come out soon enough.

        Second, if Davis really were going to be a tenant, he wouldn’t be tapping into the revenue streams that could make LA a more advantageous market and would have little incentive to move. If he were going to be a tenant in LA, he might as well go to Santa Clara where he could begin playing in a new stadium as soon as next year.

        Third, it’s been said that the Raiders and Chargers are using the same financing model as the Niners. If the Niners could finance a $1.6 billion stadium by themselves, why on earth couldn’t two teams in a larger market use the same model to finance a $1.7 billion stadium?

        PSL and premium seat sales would be double (and probably quadruple what could be achieved by a single team in Oakland). Naming rights would be worth a lot more, both due to the larger size of the market and the fact there’d be twice as many nationally televised NFL games played at the stadium. And quite possibly the NFL would make twice the contribution it would for a single team stadium.

        Not only would the numbers add up, it would be fairly easy. If your reason for saying they wouldn’t is that Davis is relatively cash poor for an NFL owner, that’s the wrong way to look at it. These owners aren’t putting their own cash into these projects, they’re financing them with other people’s money. Davis just needs sufficient PSL streams and future revenue streams to get the financing for his share. The team itself is more than enough collateral to secure any loans.

      • Correction, Levi’s was $1.3 billion not $1.6 billion. Nevertheless, my basic point remains.

      • I say that because they already aren’t equal partners. The Chargers bought the land.

      • And it’s kind of a moot point because I’m willing to bet that the Carson stadium never happens.

      • “I say that because they already aren’t equal partners. The Chargers bought the land.”

        First, cite your source for the proposition that the Chargers bought the land. Initially I saw reports that land had been purchased, but no details were provided as to who bought it or who holds title. However Thursday, in TK’s podcast, Mark Davis said land acquisition was in process.

        Second, it really wouldn’t matter if the Chargers had bought the land. It’s a small percentage of the overall project and a simple accounting adjustment to true that up and make the Raiders 50/50 partners.

        Mark Davis has said they are equal partners and I see no reason to disbelieve him. He has nothing to gain by lying about this and the whole proposition wouldn’t make business sense if he weren’t.

      • “And it’s kind of a moot point because I’m willing to bet that the Carson stadium never happens.”

        I would tend to bet that way also, just because there are so many variables and different possible outcomes associated with 3 teams, 4 cities and potentially 6 or more different stadium plans. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not one of the more reasonably likely possibilities. I see it as somewhat more likely than a new Raider stadium in Oakland, unfortunately.

      • Having now read the article at Daniel’s link, I see where you’re saying the Chargers are buying the land. But that’s clearly because the Chargers had already contracted to buy the land before striking a deal with the Raiders. But I’m fairly certain the Raiders/Chargers deal commits the Raiders to 50% of the property. It would be a simple matter to transfer part of the title over once the sale closes.

  12. Oakland should go after the Sabercats to move to Oracle. Change to silver & black… “Here they are…YOUR…Oakland Traitors!

  13. A’s won’t build in Oakland under any circumstances. Raiders will be the last hope for sports in Oakland. Oakland should work with MD with no distractions.

    If the Raiders leave, Oakland should focus on building up the city without sports, i.e. make it an underrated city (it’s already starting). Perhaps in time a team can be wooed back.

    • If pro sports leave Oakland, they are never coming back. The textbook way to look at it is as follows:

      If a pro league (NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB) was looking to start from scratch and choose home cities for 30-32 teams, would Oakland be one of the cities chosen? The answer is “definitely not”.

  14. Ok. Then the city needs to let it go.

  15. Oakland has already lost the Warriors, and it’s beginning to appear that they will likely soon lose the Raiders, as well. However, Oakland is comforted by the fact that the A’s have no place to go other than to remain at the Coliseum site. City officials have been publicly assured, and likely privately assured by the Giants, that MLB will Keep the A’s in Oakland. As a result, Oakland officials believe that eventually over time the A’s will relent and work out a new Coliseum site ballpark deal that will be acceptable to both City and County officials.

    • @llpec
      the Warriors probably won’t be going anywhere till the last minute so they will be in Oakland for a while the Raiders have a good chance to revamp the Coliseum site. the Oakland A’s management needs to work and build the ball park next to Oracle Arena enough space and infrastructure

    • Actually llpec, for now the A’s are only limited to ALL of Alameda and CoCo Counties re a new Bay Area ballpark, not just the city of Oakland. There’s a reason Wolff isn’t pursuing a Fremont come back near the Santa Clara County line, and it has nothing to do with what MLB or the Giants want, but that’s another topic for a future thread…

    • @llpec: Tony D is correct. the MLB commissioner has commented that there are other local sites for the A’s besides Oakland. Also, there could be a private MLB agreement which allows stalls the A’s SJ move until 2020 or later.

      • I think you nailed it duffer with that last sentence. Last year now mayor Sam Liccardo was interviewed by SJ Inside and said something like “when this thing (A’s ballpark downtown) gets over the goal line in 10 years everyone will say they were for it.” My first thought: 2024 for an A’s ballpark in San Jose!? But if you take recent commentary from John Fisher about “patience” when it comes to sports venues well…again, you nailed it! 😉

  16. I love the Raiders and would love to see them remain in Oakland. However, I’m opposed to tax payer dollars funding billion dollar corporations. Especially since the team owners will regularly come back to the city for more money or threaten to leave. Cities need to stop pandering to these billionaires, and let them do what Jerry Jones did. Pay for it themselves.

  17. @bartleby: you know the final cost won’t be 1.6B, it will be close to 2B but assuming that both teams split 1.6B, the raiders have to come up with 800M. Davis claims he has 500M with 200M from the NFL . Davis won’t get 200M from the NFL when moving to Carson, 100M maybe so now he may have 300-400M at best. Davis still has to borrow 500M or more. 500M could get the raiders a new stadium in Oakland, right ? Why can Davis borrow 500M and build in Oakland? Any banks will take the raiders team as collateral. I think Davis is blowing smoke….

    • @daniel You really can’t see that LA and Oakland are not equivalent markets? First of all, the NFL gave the Giants and Jets $300 million for a shared stadium. They won’t give Raiders/Chargers less, and they could conceivably give more. A naming rights deal will be much more lucrative in LA given it is a much larger market, there will be twice as many games, and it would be the only stadium in the market (not a second and inferior stadium). And the PSL and premium suite potential is much greater in LA than it would be in Oakland, especially since a Carson stadium would be state of the art and an Oakland stadium would not. Davis could come up with $800 million in LA much more easily than he could in Oakland.

  18. I have been a firm believer that the A’s move to SJ is best for the team and fans. I still believe that to be true and have shaken my head in dismay seeing the worthless dog and pony shows put on by Oakland Pols, media, MLB. I have steadfastly believed nothing would get done in Oakland that works for the A’s/fans.
    However, something that could work in Oakland has popped up. This one year deal inked by the Raiders just reinforces that the Raiders will soon be gone from Oakland (unless one is to believe the Raiders will have a firm workable proposal in hand from the Pols in 12 to 24 months).

    With the Raiders gone and the W’s gone, the Oakland Pols will likely be more flexible in dealing with the A’s. What this all leads to is the most important points for the A’s making it work at the Coli/in Oakland: (1)LW has a sizable chink of land to build a ballpark as well as additional real estate to develop, (2) LW’s group is in charge of the project.

    Anything short of these things happening will mean the status quo has fully returned (status quo being the obvious conclusion that the A’s will not be playing in Oakland eventually).

    • @siliconandsteelTW – You make some very good points.

      However, this A’s ownership will never build a stadium in Oakland. The Raiders mean nothing in this saga. A’s ownership will never build in Oakland ever. IMO, you are a fool if you think they will if the Raiders leave.

      The end game for this A’s ownership is SJ. Nothing else. Fisher was a partial G’s owner before. MLB thwarted an Oakland ownership group in favor of a pro-SJ ownership. I’m certain Fisher knows what he’s doing regarding T-Rights.

      Looking back it should have been the SJ Giants and the Oakland A’s in the Bay Area.

      Due to unforeseen issues it will now be SF Giants and SJ A’s.

      Oakland needs to focus on the Raiders and let the A’s go. The A’s to SJ was written into this script a very long time ago. Everything since has been smoke and mirrors.

      City of Oakland, retain the Raiders now. If you don’t, Oakland will have no teams. The A’s are NOT building here. Ever. Don’t be swindled by these people.

  19. We all know that San Jose is still very much the first choice of Wolff/Fisher to be the new home for the A’s. However, if the Raiders do move from Oakland; I still believe that, under the right circumstances, the Coliseum site could still be an acceptable plan “B”. However, for A’s ownership to agree to fund and build their new ballpark on what they believe to be a more risky and less desirable locale, both Oakland and MLB will have to offer enough inducements for the A’s to accept this less desirable plan “B”. MLB has to be well aware that the division of the Bay Area market into two separate and unequal territories puts the A’s in a very competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis the Giants. If MLB wants to maintain the unfair status quo on the territorial issue, they must at least allow the A’s to continue on as revenue sharing recipients.
    To do otherwise would be asking too much of the A’s, especially given that the team would have to provide total private funding for building their new ballpark. Likewise, Oakland would have to also agree to provide the funds towards badly needed infrastructure surrounding the Coliseum site area. We shall see!

    • @IIpec

      I could not agree with you more.

      • Me, too. MLB has allotted the A’s an inferior, small market territory where there is no public money for for a new stadium but still wants to treat the A’s like a Big Market Big $$ team. Uh, no.

  20. @SMG – Most certainly not. What’s past is prologue. Oakland screwed up in 1995, but this is a new age. I would hope they learned from their past mistakes. Do I trust Davis? No, but I trust A’s ownership even less. I do believe the Raiders have the best shot at staying put, most likely with an upgraded stadium.

    The A’s? I love them but my personal opinion is that this ownership has the trucks ready to roll south, even if the Raiders leave. Thus, Oakland will have no teams.

    I want Oakland to have a fair chance to retain a team and I personally believe dealing with the A’s ownership would be a futile effort for Oakland with the deck stacked heavily against them.

    If Oakland loses a team with an honest attempt by all involved, I could live with that. If a team goes because of a disingenuous attempt by the team, it would be hard to swallow and I personally would be bitter.

    • That has nothing to do with what I said. The fact is that the Raiders have consistently looked for public subsidies and handouts while already getting preferential treatment. If that’s not the public getting swindled, I don’t know what is.

  21. The A’s simply don’t have the go-ahead from MLB to move. They are stuck in Oakland, for the time being. The onus is now on Oakland to work with the A’s to get a new ballpark built. Now, if Oakland opts for a new Raiders stadium on the Coliseum property after MLB has made it clear it wants that site, then MLB will be within is bounds to say, as I said the other day, that it’s over in Oakland after a 20-year window of opportunity for the city.

    • @pjk
      I respect you’re opinion, but I believe the onus is on Oakland to work with the Raiders (not the A’s), because Lew Wolff has instituted the wait Davis out strategy , and as Djhip points out there is no guarantee that the A’s ownership will ever build in Oakland, if Wolff were to get San Jose even after the Raiders departure, he will not build in Oakland..
      Oakland should have made the A’s a priority when the had the chance, they did not and because of Wolff’s strategy the Raiders should be the priority today.

      • By not dropping everything and pounding on Wolff’s door, Oakland is saying, well, what we pretty much already know: City officials value the Raiders more than the A’s and take the A’s for granted. MLB has already locked Wolff into Oakland – for the time being – I’m not sure what more it has to do. Oakland has the chance to make the A’s a priority right now. Is it doing that? Nope.

      • @pjk
        Perhaps Oakland should have valued the A’s more then the Raiders in the past, but at this point it doesn’t matter if they value the Raiders more or not, because of Wolff’s strategy of waiting Davis out. Oakland probably doesn’t have much of a choice in make the A’s a priority, as long as Wolff’s priority seems to be San Jose.

  22. Then why isn’t he out there playing linebacker? We could use him.

  23. @pjk – I agree with LSN. As it stands today, Oakland can’t do much with A’s ownership. We can go on and argue about whose fault this is but I am personally beyond that. The A’s want SJ and will wait on things to develop, whether it’s through the courts, T-Rights negotiations, owner’s votes, or whatever else.

    Pragmatically speaking, Oakland cannot influence anything with owner’s that don’t want to be there. OTOH, they have an opportunity to work with the one team that has at least showed somewhat of an interest to look at possibilities in Oakland. I won’t go into how much interest they have because that is unknown at this point. Even with obvious overtures to possibilities in LA, they are still the only team to show a desire to work on something with Oakland.

    The narrative has already been set, by whom is debatable, that Oakland has to pick one team. With JLS shut out the Coliseum has been set as the one and only option. Again, by whom? Debatable. If that is the reality, then so be it. Oakland should work with the team that will work with them. Not with a team that doesn’t want to be here. No finger-pointing or bringing up the past and who screwed up and how. Just stating that I believe, as it is presently, Oakland has a shot to retain the one somewhat amenable team and they should put their full resources in it otherwise I believe they will have no teams in 5 years. Perhaps sooner.

    I think the right proposal to include a refurbished stadium for NFL will be the end result.

    • No party involved has seriously floated or prefers a refurbished Coliseum. So no, it won’t be the end result.

    • Yes really! Bringing up stories from “ancient history” July 2014 to bolster your point? Just go back a few weeks to the “we want vast parking lots and don’t want anything to do with land we’ll never develop” story and get back to us pjk…

  24. It should be noted that the NFL would provide the Raiders some assistance in funding for a new or refurbished Coliseum under its G-4 loan program. On the other hand, MLB has stated that they would end revenue sharing assistance to the A’s, once the team gets a new coliseum site ballpark built in Oakland, or anyplace else within the Bay Area. Two distinctively opposing roles by the two sports leagues.

    • Anyone know what the relocation fee will be to the NFL for any team that moves into the LA market? A few hundred million may not be a lot for the Rams- for the raiders it would be significant- and I would assume the Chargers would be minimal

      • @GoA’s

        I don’t know what the relocation fee is, but that’s an interesting point. One that doesn’t always get factored into Davis’s decision.

    • @ IIpec
      Yes, those factors along with the relocation fee in the NFL ( any LA move), really impact the final places both of these franchisees build.

  25. @pjk – I won’t get caught up in a debate about which team is honest or disingenuous, but I will say one thing in response.

    From the AN article in the first paragraph, Wolff says once the lease agreement is made, he will begin stadium talks with Oakland in earnest.

    Lease was done. Perhaps my understanding of that statement doesn’t mesh with what he actually meant? Maybe he has earnestly been in stadium talks and I’m unaware?

  26. @pjk

    We could talk all night about who should have done what in the past, or why Oakland should have chosen the A’s before today (I would agree), but none of it’s relevant to today.
    Today Oakland is trying to work something out with the Raiders, I hope they are successful. If this success creates a situation where the A’s can’t build in Oakland, I hope they get San Jose.
    Wolff has made it clear he doesn’t want to build in Oakland, I don’t care for the way he has gone about it at times, but he doesn’t want to and may not even be willing to, even if the Raiders were gone.
    Davis may want to build in Oakland (don’t know for sure), I believe he does unfortunately that may not be enough, if it’s not we will find out if Wolff begrudgingly builds in Oakland. if not, again I hope he gets San Jose.

  27. Okay, this discussion has me confused. Some here are saying that the smart thing for Oakland city government to do is to “choose” to help the Raiders organization build a new stadium in the current site and “let the A’s go” to San Jose since that is where Mr. Wolff prefers to build a stadium. Fine. Except that isn’t there a certain MLB baseball team across the Bay wearing Hallowe’en colors who STRONGLY object to the A’s moving to the South Bay? Unless you guys have more current info than I do (which is probable), I assume that the MLB owners still support the Gnats opinion that the A’s CANNOT be allowed to move to San Jose. If this is true, then where does this leave the A’s? BTW, Yes, I’m aware that the A’s have signed a 10-year lease with an “out” clause, but it does not mean the A’s absolutely will build a stadium in either Oakland OR San Jose. I can only presume that those here who prefer the Raiders to stay in Oakland are willing to accept the possibility (however large or however small) of the A’s being moved entirely out of the Bay Area? Am I correct or did I miss something?

    • That’s exactly the risk here. That the A’s can’t build in Oakland and won’t be allowed to go to San Jose. So they will be gone from the Bay Area.

    • @ Matt
      The risk is not on Oakland, the risk (if any), is on Wolff he is the one employing the wait Davis out strategy. (IMHO)

      • And Oakland is employing the “Let’s wait for Wolff to commit to Oakland’ strategy and moving forward with the Raiders, instead of shouting from the housetops, “We love our status as a MLB city and we want to do everything we can to make a new ballpark happen! What can we do for you, Mr/ Wolff? The Coliseum property is all yours! We’re ready to give you first dibs!”

      • @pjk
        Oakland is employing the “We will work with whomever, will work with us”, strategy.
        There is nothing keeping Wolff, or Davis for that matter from making a commitment to Oakland (ENA with New City is nonbinding). It appears that Davis may make that commitment to Oakland, if so Oakland has little “choice”, but to make a commitment to go with the Raiders. Wolff is a developer, with plenty of resources, and political connections, if he wants the site he can easily take it from Davis, of course he doesn’t have to do that if he can simply wait for Davis to fail.
        You have stated on serval occasions that Oakland doesn’t have any resources, in conjunction you have also stated that Wolff shouldn’t be forced to build in a place, where he can’t expect to get a ROI.
        What exactly do you expect Oakland to do?
        You stated “instead of shouting from the housetops, “We love our status as a MLB city and we want to do everything we can to make a new ballpark happen! What can we do for you, Mr/ Wolff? The Coliseum property is all yours! We’re ready to give you first dibs!”
        You can’t give someone first dibs, if they don’t want them, if anything Oakland strategy is “Let’s wait for Wolff or Davis to commit to Oakland”, they really is can’t do much more.

    • If Oakland and the Raiders do get a new or refurbished Coliseum deal done, it will leave the A’s without any remaining viable new ballpark site option for them within their designated East Bay territory. MLB will then have little choice other than to approve the A’s move to San Jose, even over the objections of the Giants.

      • @IIpec
        That’s the hope.

      • I don’t see MLB as having “little choice” but to go to San Jose. The Giants are going to fight this forever – they’ve made that clear. It will be much easier to send the team to whatever city is offering the highest (public) bid. And there definitely be bidders. Chances to host an MLB team don’t come around very often. (San Jose’s bid for a new ballpark: $0.00. Should be easy to beat.)

      • Name one non-MLB city/metro area that has shown serious interest in publicly funding a new major league stadium. Because I sure as hell can’t come up with any.

      • To supplement SMG’s comment (with which I agree): it is questionable whether another city exists in North America that has the population, demographics and economic fundamentals to support an MLB team and doesn’t already have one. MLB is not the NFL, NBA or NHL.

        81 home games per year x 35,000 attendees per game requires a large population of people interested in baseball who have disposable income. Plus, significant corporate base is needed to support premium seating and sponsorship requirements.

        The most viable place to put another MLB team right now would be a third team in New York City. But if you think the Giants are screaming about a intramarket move by the team they already share a market with, you can imagine how much the Yankees and Mets would scream about that.

        So where else could support an MLB team? Portland and Charlotte are both very marginal MLB markets. Monterrey, Mexico? Huge gamble. Montreal is probably the most realistic market; that pretty much tells you all you need to know.

        Even if there were a city out there willing to build a publicly financed ballpark, publicly financed ballparks tend to come with 30 year leases. Locking a team into a non-viable market for 30 years would be a nightmare for MLB.

        Bottom line: I’m extremely worried about the Raiders leaving the Bay Area; I”m not terribly worried about the A’s leaving the Bay Area.

  28. @pjk,

    How do you attribute the power of the Giants’ self interests over the rest of MLB? MLB knows all too well that San Jose is in reality part of the shared Giants/A’s Bay Area market. It is shared in terms of media and team broadcasting coverage, marketing and public relations, etc. The nonsense territorial issue only restricts were each team’s respective ballpark can be located. That’s it!

    • MLB sold its soul over the Bay Area in the early 1990s just to stay in Frisco after San Jose voted down the ballot measure. To get the new Giants owners to agree to build a new stadium, they were given this expansive 6-county territory while Haas only asked for 2 counties and signed off on Santa Clara County. That leaves us with the Giants
      “It’s mine mine mine and you can’t have it!” stance we have with San Jose today. MLB made these huge concessions and now the Giants owners can sit back and say “A deal’s a deal!” while the A’s are stuck in a sewage-spewing football stadium in an inferior territory. And with San Joseans – even at least one city council member, apparently – still fawning all over the Giants, what’s the incentive for the Giants to change their stance when there has been little to no public relations backlash? (When I say city council member, I’m referring, again, to a particular San Jose city council member proudly wearing his Giants hat during the city’s July 4 parade about 4 years ago, right when the Giants were clamping down on San Jose’s efforts to liberate itself from the Giants’ clutches.}

  29. SMG: Other than some overtures from San Antonio and Vegas, we haven’t seen much public courting of MLB franchises in recent years because none are in play – yet. If/when MLB lets it be known that the A’s are up for grabs, we can all watch the bidding begin. Even a 50% publicly funded stadium is better than what is being offered by either San Jose or Oakland, who are locked into bids of $0.00 for ballpark construction.

    • Even if some foolish city were willing a to build it, a publicly financed ballpark does not a viable MLB market make, as discussed in my response to your earlier post, above. MLB is not the NFL, NBA or NHL.

  30. Raiders to Oakland : we want the land and 500M+

    A’s to Oakland : we just want the land

    • Yep. And of course, Oakland is negotiating with its beloved Raiders and leaving the A’s hanging until they are ready to “make a commitment to Oakland.” They’ll get a corner slab of the Coliseum property and another invitation to build at the dead-on-arrival Howard Terminal site.

      • @pjk
        Yep. And of course, Oakland is negotiating with its beloved Raiders and leaving the A’s hanging until they are ready to “make a commitment to Oakland.

        Re: Have you ever considered the possibility; this scenario may be just what Wolff wants?

    • @daniel
      Raiders to Oakland: we want the land and 500M+ (and we will build)
      A’s to Oakland: we just want the land (and we will think about building, if we still can’t get San Jose)

  31. Sj is still a real possibility for the A’s. Recall not too long ago, MLB gave the A’s the ok to build a temporary ballpark any site they choose if the JPA didn’t renew the A’s lease, including SJ, If the JPA chooses the raiders over the A’s, the A’s would Likely get MLB approval to build a temporary facility near anaya stadium and start construction for Cisco field also.

  32. I agree with Bartleby the Raiders are far more likely to leave than the A’s because MLB is already in the right markets.

    A’s and Rays are in the right markets; just the wrong locations within those markets. The A’s ideally should be in San Jose while the Rays should be in Tampa based on population, traffic patterns, and corporate bases.

    The NFL on the other hand has a huge gaping whole in Los Angeles and has 3 teams vying for it.

    All 3 teams left LA years ago and want back in…..the irony as LA proved to be a bad NFL market over the course 3-4 decades.

    Would that be different today? Perhaps, with a new stadium…..yes. But only temporarily.

    The 49ers and Raiders even in a market half the size of LA still sold out in dumps with bad teams for years. LA/OC wouldn’t sell out even if the teams were good in the past.

    That is the inherent risk with a LA team and the NFL knows it full well. The initial money is too good to pass up so they will do it. But long run?

    Two teams could cannibalize each other thus leaving one team getting blacked out. Especially if they both share one stadium.

    Mark Davis screwed up not building with the 49ers in Santa Clara. Now he wants to share with the Chargers when he knows full well that would cause a NFC West team to swap with a AFC West team.

    Causing a disruption in rivalries and whom ever moves will get compensated as well…a la Houston Astros in the American League West.

    Bet on the Rams proposal, it has a built in development component in it already while the Carson proposal does not. NFL can only pick one

    Chargers share with Rams, while Raiders are stuck in Oakland.

    Davis should have called the Rams and asked to be the 2nd tenant there instead…..Stupidity on every level.

    I think Oakland and the Raiders are stuck together indefinitely….They are just both to stupid to realize it.

    • Sid, you say “The A’s ideally should be in San Jose while the Rays should be in Tampa based on population, traffic patterns, and corporate bases.” I don’t necessarily agree that SJ area is better than Oakland area in population or traffic patterns. And corporations are all world-wide companies; they will sponsor stadiums outside of the city they are located in. Look at the Santa Clara football stadium: I believe the naming rights went to a San Francisco company (two counties away).

      • A downtown core in city with more money is pretty clearly a better location than the periphery of a city with no money.

      • Can’t compare 10 games to 81- guess the gints are wrong to be working so hard to keep the A’s out of SJ- maybe you can go provide your advice so they can see the light-

  33. I carefully considered whether I would say this on here or not, but why not?

    I’m wondering how many SJ fans on here would be satisfied with getting this team but with a brand new identity? New name, colors, etc.? In other words, if a deal was struck that SJ would be granted MLB but included a stip that it would be a whole new franchise but still in the AL West.

    Oakland retains the history of the A’s from 1968 and SJ goes major league anew.

    I have always been curious about this.

    • What does it matter? Keeping the A’s here is the ultimate goal. Whether they are called Oakland A’s or SJ A’s or Fremont A’s , does it really matter? Where they play don’t really matter.

      It is no longer the A’s vs Oakland problem. It is MLB vs Oakland now. I am sure Manfred/MLB already delivered the message to Libby and JPA : give us the land.

      • He’s not talking about changing the name of the team to the San Jose A’s. He’s talking about changing the name of the team to something like the San Jose Navigators (my choice for the new team name in the vanishingly small chance this ever happened).

    • That would never happen though. They didn’t change the name or ignore past history when they went from Philadelphia to KC and from KC to Oakland.

      So no, Oakland would NEVER magically retain the rights to the history (without having a team present) if the A’s went to another city.

    • “I’m wondering how many SJ fans on here would be satisfied with getting this team but with a brand new identity? New name, colors, etc.? In other words, if a deal was struck that SJ would be granted MLB but included a stip that it would be a whole new franchise but still in the AL West.”

      What on earth would be the point of this? The only precedent for this has been when a team with a glorious history left a market altogether but it was obviously only a matter of time until it got a new one. In those cases “keep the team identity” was a bargaining chip that helped facilitate the move. If the A’s leave, Oakland has zero chance of getting another MLB team, especially if there’s still two other teams in the Bay Area. So what conceivable benefit would it obtain by keeping the colors and records?

      Overall, this seems like something calculated to make the vast majority of A’s fans unhappy. I can’t imagine the many A’s fans even in the East Bay would rather see the A’s wiped off the face of the earth rather than get to travel just a few extra miles to see their favorite team play in a brand new stadium.

      The A’s have a glorious history. For the most part, the only franchises that get their identity permanently wiped away (which is what this would amount to) are sad sack franchises where the successor is looking to dissassociate itself from the failures of the past.

      So there’s no way this happens, but just to answer your question: Yes, I’d continue to follow and root for the team. What else would I do? My team no longer exists, but there’s a new expansion team in my neighborhood, so why not. I’m certainly not switching sides to the Giants. But it’s a moot point.

  34. @daniel – it was just a simple question out of curiosity. Didn’t want to offend anyone and open a hornet’s nest.

    • I understand it would be difficult for people from further north of Oakland to get to SJ but for 40 years, people from the south bay have had to fight traffic to get to CC. Save the A’s. Keep the A’s in the BA.

      • By the time any of this would even theoretically get done, the BART extension to Santa Clara might already be in place, which means it would be no more difficult to SJ-based fans to go to Oakland or Oakland-based fans to SJ.

      • That BART ride from SJ to Oakland is going to be a long one because of the ridiculous route they used. South Bay folks heading north face much worse traffic on a weeknight than East Bay folks heading south. Also, a lot more people from the East Bay work in the South Bay than vice versa, and those people can hop over to a San Jose stadium after work. For all of those reasons, East Bay folks on average will have an easier time getting to a South Bay stadium that South Bay folks have endured trying to see an A’s game in Oakland.

      • Riding BART from SJ to Oakland or vice versa wouldn’t be any worse than riding Caltrain from SJ to SF.

  35. Thanks for the replies. It was just curiosity on my part.

  36. The Los Angeles Times is reporting that AEG is abandoning plans for building a football stadium in downtown L.A. Please check out the L.A. Times website for more information.

  37. So what was your impression of Al Davis?

    Mine was very positive – might have been the circumstances.

    If you are into “proper homes,” check out Chapel of the Chimes. John Lee Hooker is next door. Worth the trip.

    I knew the deal was worked out, just was pulling your leg. Nicely edited. See you at the Comcast SportsNet California Value Deck!

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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.