Opening Day success, Wolff says San Jose “Not worth nasty battle”

Well, that was nice. The A’s finally won on Opening Day for the first time in forever, Sonny Gray nearly pitched a no-no, the scoreboards were a huge success (with a few hiccups), and many new A’s made solid debuts.

Off the field, Lew Wolff broke his own news, courtesy of Phil Matier:

Oakland A’s owner Lew Wolff said a possible move to San Jose is ‘not worth a nasty battle’ over territorial rights with the San Francisco Giants, and is hopeful the city’s new mayor can helpthem get a new stadium built in Oakland.

Wolff also fought back against the constant critics, while reserving praise for Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf. I’m not sure what’s going to convince the critics that Wolff is serious besides an actual groundbreaking ceremony. I’m glad that at the very least Schaaf doesn’t have the same combative tone as her predecessor.

Whether Wolff was told outright by The Lodge or not, San Jose is not in the plans anytime soon. And if Wolff actually wants to get this done while’s he still breathing (something he’s alluded to in jest more than once), Oakland’s the only path. The only way San Jose opens up is if a Raiders’ plan is approved, kicking the A’s out. Then you have to deal with the payout, the CBA, all these things that The Lodge has avoided like the plague over the last two CBA ratifications and would prefer to avoid again. Of course, many of the A’s brass are totally on board with building in Oakland. Broadcasting veep Ken Pries, from last July:

From our position, we just don’t think that (Raiders project) is going to happen – we are betting it doesn’t.

This isn’t hard to figure out. A’s ownership knows that the money is in San Jose. Anyone with a brain can figure that out. Wolff and Fisher also know that they are boxed in, try as they did to escape that box. With the Raiders’ future up in the air, the A’s should take advantage of a potential Raiders departure. As I mentioned Saturday, there are still issues to work out in terms of revenue sharing, but they’re minor compared to a T-rights fight, whatever that may entail.

Unlike Coliseum City, there’s no real timeline or framework for the A’s to do anything. So far their strategy is to wait the Coliseum City process out. If they, like MLB, are gambling on Coliseum City failing, the Coliseum should be delivered on a silver platter. Then again, Wolff did hedge a bit by re-signing that land option in San Jose.

Hey, Lew’s gotta have a Plan A and Plan B, right?

131 thoughts on “Opening Day success, Wolff says San Jose “Not worth nasty battle”

  1. even if the a’s were to build a new park in oakland, something i think the midgets would still try to derail with some bull**** opposition group they’d back, this whole territorial rights issue is such crap.

    it’s been said probably a thousand times in these kinds of discussions every other two team territories area be it los angeles(dodgers/angels), new york(yankees/mets), chicago(cubs/white sox) and even the dc/baltimore area are basically shared territories yet the bay area is the only one that split in two uneven territories, 5 counties for the midgets and only 2 for the a’s.

    never seen before and likely will never see any sports org like the a’s get screwed over like this.

    utter bull****!

    • If there is an obvious issue that causes one to consider challenging MLB’s ATE, just take a look at how MLB has failed to resolve the unprecedented, unequal, and unfair territorial division of its two team shared Bay Area market.

    • DC and Baltimore do not share any territory. There is actually a three county buffer built in between their two territories.

      • It is utter BS. You ever wonder why a Giants dugout and McCovey restaurant were in DTown Walnut Creek in A’s territory? Unreal. BTW….A’s territory should also include San Joaquin and Solano Counties IMO.

      • “You ever wonder why a Giants dugout and McCovey restaurant were in DTown Walnut Creek in A’s territory?”

        No, I never did. MLB territories limit where teams can build ballparks, and nothing else.

        “A’s territory should also include San Joaquin and Solano Counties IMO.”

        This would be a completely pointless exercise, as the chance of either the A’s or any other MLB team trying to relocate to San Joaquin or Solano county any time in the foreseeable future is pretty close to zero. And MLB likely won’t assign those territories until and unless a team ever expresses an interest in doing so (if then).

    • EXACTLY! Wonder why these points are never brought up to MLB Blue Ribbon Commitee or to Manfred or to Wolff and the greedy azz evil Giants?

    • I couldn’t agree more! This is the issue where I disagree with many Oakland A’s fans, even if the A’s get a new ballpark in Oakland, it’s not going to change the BIGGER problem. The Giants are still going to control over 70% of the Bay Area and it’s the wealthiest 70%, to boot. Even the mighty N.Y. Yankees couldn’t get away with that and, personally, I, for one, think we A’s fans should protest, petitions, etc.

      • If you could get a large portion o the business community in SV would pull their support of the gints over their greed in locking out SJ that might have an impact. So ironic when you think that these companies have to compete based upon merit–not some outdated exemption that no one else has.

  2. Despite these comments from Wolf I still think he wants to build in San Jose as his first choice. If anything Wolf is probably hoping the Raiders succeed with CC and give him his justification to open up San Jose for relocation.

    Lets say for the sake of discussion the Raiders succeed with CC in getting a stadium deal. Is that a guarantee that MLB will allow the A’s to relocate to SJ? Or will the league tell the A’s they still have to build somewhere in their territory? I suppose the Supreme Court deciding to hear SJ’s territory case is another possible path for the A’s to SJ.

    • MLB can’t afford to dillydally if the Raiders push the A’s out. A stadium would be built by 2019-20 and per the lease the A’s have the right to vacate. So Manfred can start scrambling around for East Bay sites that either keep disappearing (Warm Springs, Camp Parks, Concord NWS) or remain extremely expensive (Howard Terminal, Victory Court), or it can have the A’s share AT&T Park with the Giants indefinitely. As much as the Giants don’t want to the A’s in SJ, they really don’t want to be roommates with the A’s.

      • Just for arguments sake RM, nothing concrete being built at Warm Springs/Tesla until after 2017 (commercial component after 2020). Still time to incorporate/adjust plans if necessary IMHO. Respectfully.

      • @ML
        Re: “As much as the Giants don’t want to the A’s in SJ, they really don’t want to be roommates with the A’s.”
        Do you think the Giants would rather let the A’s have San Jose, then allow them to room with them say 2-3 years? I guess if we were talking 5-7 years then there preference may begin to tilt toward giving up San Jose, rather than to have the A’s in their park that long.
        I can recall many times people theorizing that if the A’s stayed at AT&T Park for an extended period of time, that it would in essence be part of the overall compensation settlement (rent), towards the Giants for allowing the A’s to move to San Jose. I guess that’s feasible, but I actually think there is a better chance it could work the other way around, that is to say that the Giants would allow the A’s to play at AT&T for the guarantee that the A’s/MLB never again peruse San Jose, and that the A’s build in there presently defined territory or leave the Bay Area.

  3. Key words, “anytime soon.” Again, a LONGGG way to go in this story. Looks like I’ll be celebrating a SJ ballpark in retirement. Who would’ve thought 10 years ago..

    Some random thoughts:
    1) Wolff “boxed in” to Oakland? When was the A’s territory shrunk to be just the 120 acre Coli site?

    2) Yes, money in SJ…but it’s also in Fremont. If territory hasn’t been shrunken, why not get that money where no nasty territorial battle would be necessary.

    3) respectfully RM, don’t equate Pries quotes last year to meaning he’s “on board” with building in Oakland. More to do with being against Coli City than anything else.

    4) Coli could be delivered to A’s on silver platter, but not to Raiders?

    5) Wolff more concerned about his legacy and futures of son/grandsons than whether he sees A’s ballpark personally come to fruition (IMHO).

    BTW, “silver” is only meant for one team in this saga…and that team didn’t play or win last night. Patience…

  4. BTW,
    Remember when SJ was “plan A” and there was no “plan B”? Stay tuned everyone, and be ready for more juicy quotes over the next couple of years…

  5. A quote, is just that a quote. Politician’s make them all the time and do something else. Davis has a long list of quotes that suggest he would prefer to stay in Oakland, and we still haven’t seen a proposal from him. We will be able to write a book of quotes before this is over, I guess ML already has.

    • @Neil You hit the nail right on the head. People have a tendency to read WAY too much into isolated quotes given at a certain point in time. Circumstances change, and people change their minds.

      Wolff is severely limited in his ability to fight the Giants directly on this even if he wanted to, and he already has San Jose as his proxy carrying on the fight on his behalf.
      Given his apparent strategy to wait out the SCOTUS case and the Raiders/Coliseum City discussions he has no reason not to make this comment.

  6. The A’s have a couple of revenue sources in Oakland that they would not have in San Jose:

    1. Parking

    2. Small Market Revenue Sharing (potentially)

    Regarding #2, hopefully the A’s ownership can make the case to MLB that, even with a new ballpark, having an artificially restricted market means that they should be eligible to keep receiving revenue sharing money.

    • I would say those two revenue sources pale in comparison to what the A’s would get in San Jose or even Fremont. But yes, I agree that IF the A’s were forced to remain at the Coli then continued revenue sharing is a must, no question about it.

    • The A’s will never build anything in their currently defined territory unless they get continued revenue sharing. It’s simply a precondition for building in the East Bay under the split territory status quo.

  7. Your choice Oakland: An 80-days-a-year baseball stadium financed by the team, or a 10-days-a-year football stadium for an owner looking for handouts, with this stadium struggling to fill dates as it competes with Levi’s Stadium down the road. Your choice Oakland: An MLB stadium that keeps the property used 80+ days a year or the pipe dream of $2 billion worth of privately funded facilities for three franchises, one of which has already bought property for an arena in Frisco. Seems like a clear choice to me.

    • If you don’t think Wolff would be looking for “handouts” from Oakland…well, I’m still selling that big orange SF bridge if you’re interested.

      And to date: Mark Davis’ pledge for a new Raiders stadium, $400 million. Lew Wolff’s pledge for a Coli ballpark, $0 million.

      Seems your criticism here is misguided pjk..

      • I know you want the A’s in San Jose. That may still happen. I just want the A’s to get a new ballpark in the Bay Area. I made the choice to support an Oakland team when I moved out here 25 years ago. I don’t mind the team staying in Oakland, even if Oakland has done nothing to show that it deserves an MLB team. The biggest slight yet may come soon if Oakland signs a deal to give the Raiders the Coliseum site while the relegating the A’s to a small patch of land at that property or again pitches the dead-on-arrival Howard Terminal site without offering to fully fund site remediations.

    • A retractable roof stadium will attract more events and year round that a small unorthodox baseball park. Especially if the new stadium at Coli City is designed and looks waaaaay better than that crappy looking located rush job of a Levis Stadium. Especially when the Arena will become a ghost arena in 10 years. Think bigger picture instead of smaller picture of 80 homes vs 10.

    • @pjk The 80 days vs 10 days argument is a lot more compelling if the venue is located in a downtown area or is accompanied by sufficient ancillary development to take advantage of the additional traffic. Given the way this is headed (i.e. CC downsized from 800 acres to 120 acres and both teams in contention preferring a single venue surrounded by a giant parking lot), it’s questionable whether the additional dates would make a big difference for Oakland. If not, there’s a strong argument to be made that the higher visibility and profile of the NFL brings more value to the city.

  8. ML,
    You say “the money is in San Jose.” Do you mean:

    1. There are more major corporations in San Jose than Oakland? That may be so, but major international corporations do not limit their spend to city limits. Any new ballpark in anywhere the bay area will bring in corporate support from corporations all across the bay area (and beyond). As an example, Levis is not headquartered in Santa Clara.

    2. There are more people in San Jose city limits than Oakland city limits, so that means more money to buy game tickets? Again, fans are not limited by city limits; they come from miles away to see a MLB game. A case in point is Cincinnati, a city of only 297,000. The Reds always draw well (averaged 30,000 last year), with many fans coming from other cities (Dayton, Columbus, Indianapolis, and Louisville). There is a lot of people within easy driving distance of both San Jose and Oakland.

    Lew Wolff would not be making the statements that he did if his internal economic analysis showed San Jose=money and Oakland=no money.

    • 4Libertee: We already have the experience of the Raiders and A’s struggling to lease luxury seating at the Coliseum, including what were brand new, state-of-the-art luxury seating in 1995. There’s no need to speculate that Oakland could hold a candle to the South Bay when it comes to luxury suite sales. When we look at the failed experiences at the Coliseum and sold-out-at-premium-prices Levi’s, we know that it can’t. The Raiders themselves have pointed out that the corporate money is in the South Bay and not the East Bay, even as they try to get a new stadium in the East Bay. It will simply be inconvenient for South Bay corporations to lease suites at an Oakland ballpark that requires an hour-long trek through heavy traffic to get to it. To make a new Oakland ballpark happen, especially without public funds, MLB is probably going to have to keep the A’s on revenue sharing forever. If this is where MLB wants the team, then MLB should be willing to pony up the $$ to make it happen.

      • pjk:
        1. Oakland hasn’t had a state of the art park for over 40 years.
        2. I’ll bet a lot of the Levi’s suites are sold to corps over an hour away.
        3. MLB will keep the A’s on revenue sharing as long as they are in a small market (only 2 counties in their territory). If they added Santa Clara County to the A’s territory, the A’s would have 3 counties in their territory, and no longer be considered small market or qualify for revenue sharing.

      • There’s a huge difference between the NFL ticket buying model and the MLB buying model. To refute that proximity is a lot more important for one than the other is fallacy.

    • Credit where credit is due: good response pjk! I’d add that at this point Wolff could make any statement he wants, he knows the money is in $J/$V. Also, PSL/suite sales/season tickets are local when it comes to MLB, usually 20 mile radius from ballpark. Big difference from folks purchasing 81 game packages vs travelling once a week 40 miles to catch a game.

      Also see why Warriors want out of East Oakland..

      • Tony D. The Warriors don’t want out of the East Bay. They want to be in San Francisco. You gotta understand that distinction. Just because you want your kid to get into Harvard doesn’t mean you’re dying for your kid to move out.

      • Less supply and more demand when it comes to the purchase of luxury suites at Raider games than an A’s game.

        Less home Raider games will cause those luxury suites at a new stadium to be a much more in demand hotter and hotter ticket than an A’s luxury suite tickets. Especially since the MLB season is so damn long.

    • 1. There are more major corporations, medium-sized and small businesses, startups, old and new tech, car dealerships, banks, law firms, everything you can think of. Most constant support comes from within ~20 miles of the ballpark. San Jose does quite well on its own. Oakland’s saving grace is its proximity to SF, which the Giants control.

      2. If 1% of San Jose bought season tickets for a ballpark there that alone would be bigger than the A’s current season ticket roll. Smaller cities often have to depend on county arrangements to get things done, making things more complicated and leading to bad deals at times (Indy, Cincy, Mt. Davis). Saying the money is in SJ doesn’t mean there is no money in Oakland. It means that comparatively it’s harder to make pencil out. You don’t need to look farther than Coliseum City for evidence.

      • It’s also about just building a new damn stadium or ballpark for fans to buy season tickets…along with providing an exciting competitive product.

    • Agree with your points up top. Big corporations all over the Bay Area and outside that are not tied to just the Giants and Niners.

  9. Can’t he use the San Jose land to build something to help pay for the ballpark development. Didn’t he talk in the past that the development and the ballpark didn’t have to be on the same land?

    • He had land near the old IBM / Hitachi that was zoned for business use. The city of San Jose agreed to rezone the land for housing so that Wolff could sell the land to a housing developer. The value of the land was much higher for housing so he used the profits from the zoning change to help pay for Avaya stadium.

      Within San Jose, the same thing could be done for a baseball stadium. San Jose will not be rezoning land for Wolff if he builds a baseball stadium in the East Bay.

    • Wolff only gets the San Jose land if he builds a ballpark on it. He’s not going to be able to build a strip mall in downtown San Jose to help pay for a ballpark in Oakland.

  10. “Quotes are only important when they match your predetermined outcome.” – Thomas Jefferson

  11. There are economic reasons why Wolff would prefer the Coliseum site over San Jose – 120 acres of free real estate compared to 16 at a discounted price at Dirdion in SJ. Also, what the SC decides to do about the SJ vs MLB case will be a huge factor.

    • Also, in San Jose Wolff has no chance at revenue sharing whereas in Oakland (assuming the same territorial rights are in place) he has a legitimate claim.

    • Who said it would be free? If it’s not free for the Raiders it won’t be free for the A’s. Also, real estate in Bay Area not created equal (East Oakland vs $ilicon Valley?)

      • It’s still the Bay Area though and it’s the place to be really with high real estate value everywhere and if the existing Coli Site near the water is redeveloped nicely? The land value was sky rocket!

    • SC should favor SJ on it. MLB and Giants can’t stop a free city to want to build a baseball stadium to have a major league sports franchise. Especially when the territorial rights granted to Giants were given on good faith on more of a temporary basis to help keep Giants in Bay Area. MLB messed up by not rescinding those rights as soon as ATT was approved and broke ground.

  12. I thought his comment that “we are going to be around here a lot longer than people think” was directed to the gints and was a broad reference to his continued efforts to stay in the Bay Area. Got to give the man credit- he has staying power which most of the previous A’s owners did not. For those who question the gints motivations about forcing the A’s out of the Bay Area there was no better story than what Piccinni shared when he was looking into buying the A’s and the gints basically told him “we want you to be part of the lodge- just not here”-

    One other comment – since we seem to be in broad agreement that welfare will need to continue for the A’s if they build in Oakland think about the cost to baseball over a 30-40 year period- more than a billion dollars would be given to the A’s to protect the gints- pretty steep price to pay by the owners but can totally see why LW is willing to build in Oakland if they give him the site-

    • A brand new ballpark 11 miles away from ATT Park would be an outcome the Giants detest. Remember – they are actively marketing to the East Bay and even opened up a souvenir shop there. Anyone else like the thought of an A’s ballpark opening up in Oakland later this decade while the Giants facility nears its 20th birthday?

      • It’s also an outcome they can do nothing about.

        And AT&T at 20 years old isn’t even going to be 1/3 (or even 1/4) of the way through its life. All the childish, emotional hate for AT&T is just ridiculous. If the situation were reversed and the A’s were the ones playing there and the Giants were in, A’s fans would LOVE AT&T as a home ballpark. People that claim otherwise are just acting like Nav did with Levi’s (hate on it constantly but he’d love it if the Raiders played there and/or if the exact same structure was placed in Oakland). Not to mention AT&T is universally put in the top 5 ballparks in MLB in comprehensive rankings.

    • In regards to your revenue sharing comment, while what you’re saying is absolutely correct for MLB as a whole, it won’t necessarily work out this way for most clubs.

      All teams essentially pay in to the pot a percentage of their local revenues. Only half the teams receive revenue sharing.

      The A’s being on revenue sharing would potentially only directly impact one club because in theory the A’s could bump a bottom half team in to the top half. This is a huge question however because MLB would potentially have to make a weird provision anyway to allow the A’s to continue on revenue sharing.

      The real impact is to the total MLB revenue pool and the overall franchise value. If the A’s bring in more revenue that increases the overall pool for all teams. It also impacts the A’s franchise value, which could have an impact on the value of other franchises.

      The benefits to MLB overall won’t necessarily be seen directly by most owners and by the time the revenue difference between Oakland and San Jose does filter down it may not matter.

      This is why this is more of a “in the best interests of baseball” type of situation.

  13. Well stick a fork in San Jose I guess…

    Now it all hinges on the Raiders bugging out. Which will hopefully be decided by year’s end.

    • C’mon Dan! You get Avaya Stadium and all of a sudden want to piss on SJ A’s supporters with that comment!? Then you hate on the Raiders? Don’t give up on us yet based on the latest quotes. This thing is far from over..

    • Raiders ain’t going nowhere buddy!

  14. Wolff’s statement could very easily be read as the cost to buy out the Giants is too much.

    San Jose is definitely a better site than Oakland both geographically (given the Giants in SF) and economically. If no MLB teams existed in the Bay Area and MLB was going to put two teams in the Bay Area they would pick SF and SJ.

    That being said, I think the value of San Jose does get overblown a bit on this site. SJ is not a gold mine. Even in San Jose I still don’t think the A’s are in the top 10 in revenue. SJ will play a distant 2nd fiddle to SF from a TV/radio revenue perspective. I could see it approaching SF from a ticket/ball park revenue perspective but local TV contracts are king in MLB.

    If the A’s can stay on revenue sharing in Oakland (this is a big if), it’s not out of the question that Wolff views Oakland as the better economic option depending on the price to buy out the Giants.

    • @Slacker- agree with your comment with today’s demograpics but put the A’s in SJ and it’s the next generation of fans the gints are worried about- those that would grow up watching/rooting for the SJ A’s and ultimately shifting the dynamics of the region. San Jose will see signifant growth over the next 20 years as SF and Oakland proper are mostly built out. If SJ demographic as one of the wealthiest city’s on a per capita basis continues as they grow it could have a signifant impact on the gints reign in the Bay Area. Assuming the A’s build in Oakland will be interesting to watch them directly compete with the gints for SV dollars. They really need to step up their game in this area.

    • “Wolff’s statement could very easily be read as the cost to buy out the Giants is too much”

      @Slacker, Actually I believe that Wolff is sending a message to the Giants via MLB. At some point, MLB may have to ultimately approve the A’s to move to San Jose(Raiders get new Coliseum deal, SCOTUS, etc.) Wolff may be sending a message to the Giants to ease up on their territorial rights demands. Otherwise, MLB could grant the A’s approval to move to San Jose without any compensatory strings attached, as it was done when the A’s originally gave up Santa Clara County to the Giants.

  15. Allot of interesting coments. Not sure how it will play out.

    Only one thing about the new score boards they or to bright for night games. They to need be adjusted for night games.

  16. The only thing if SFG LLC wanted cash payment for SJ. I think John & Lew will pay for tertory. There’s no sure thing SJ voters will vote to pay for a ball park ask the Giants about that. Giants got turned down two times.

    The Giants may have a gruge with SJ. For getting shot down two times.

    • There have never been any public plans to ask SJ voters to pay for a ballpark. Now if MLB is telling Wolff to get SJ to pay for the ballpark, then yes, MLB is wasting its time because it won’t happen. MLB feels entitled to publicly funded ballparks but didn’t get one from Frisco and won’t get one from SJ or Oakland, either.

    • re: grudge. SJ turned down the Giants once, Santa Clara once and Frisco twice. I believe that’s how the votes went down. If this were about grudges and vendettas, then there would be no ballpark in Frisco.

  17. Here is reality: The Giants have won. The only question is to what extent? There are four possible scenarios. 1: Raiders move and the A’S get a New Stadium. 2: Raiders stay and A’S go to Montreal. 3: Raiders leave and the Status quo remains for the A’S for years to.come. 4: Both leave. Under scenarios 2 & 4 it is total victory,under 3 major victory, only with a New Stadium can they “Lose”‘ and even then they got what they wanted no other team in San Jose.

    • The Montreal talk is the wildest speculation of all. There are no interested ownership groups for a Montreal team and no prospect of getting a new stadium there.

      • @SMG- can you cite your sources that say no interested ownership groups and no support for a stadium in Montreal?

      • Previous Montreal study indicated that they would need a billionaire to buy a team and move it to Montreal. The team would still be on revenue sharing, stadium projections were extremely rosy (paid off in 8 years?) and probably were outdated in terms of cost. Total outlay: $1 billion for ballpark and team. By the time Montreal has a chance to act, double that.

      • Tha ML- good insight- found it interesting that Manfred made a comment that they passed their first test of gauging fan interest with the 48k average for the recent games played at Olympic stadium. Of course he is looking for the stalking horse that the NFL has in LA-

      • The burden of proof lies with those claiming or insinuating that the pieces needed for a Montreal team are in place or on the horizon. Because they are not in either case. I am simply pointing out the fact that these pieces are not in place. In fact, not one of the numerous pieces needed is in place or on the horizon.

    • “There are four possible scenarios.”
      Not exactly, there is at least one more no matter how improbable.
      5. They both stay and build at the coliseum city site. I know I know, there is not enough room for both, but that’s assuming that both teams use maximum ancillary build out to finance their individual parks. There is more than enough room at the site to build both a football stadium and a baseball park, the idea that there is not enough room is looking at the situation threw only one prism. And no, I don’t exactly know how they would finance it.
      Do I think it’s probable? NO. Do I think it’s possible? It becomes more possible as this situation gets even more desperate, so yes. Of course that increase in desperation also heightens the possibility that something else inertly could happen as well.
      I realize the chances of this happening are rather remote, and I’m not secretly siting here wishing it would even happen (well maybe.) I would really like to see the Raiders get something done at the coliseum, and the A’s get something done at a different location, weather that’s San Jose, Fremont, Dublin, anywhere in the Bay Area, but the fact is the reasonable site’s the A’s could built at in the Bay Area are vanishing fast, and if they don’t get San Jose, they very well could be gone.
      Well unless? Fill free to get the slings & arrows out. Or not…

      • Warm Springs near Tesla land still available with a new BART station being built as we speak.

      • @cisco007

        I keep hearing mixed messages concerning the availability of that site, but if something could be done there cool.

      • The site is more or less spoken for:

        Technically things could change but a stadium would go against Fremont’s goals for the site so it’s beyond a long shot.

        Keep in mind that a stadium is competing against housing and other development for land. For a suburb like Fremont, Dublin, etc. they can make more money off the land from housing.

        You have to look at it from not just the perspective of the team but also the city.

      • @ Slacker Housing is a money loser for a city in California because it consumes more money in services than it contributes in property tax revenue. An excessive amount of residential compared to retail/commercial development is a big reason why San Jose faces budgetary problems despite its overall affluence. Commercial/retail development is FAR more attractive.

    • @ David Brown ; the giants won nada, Wolff commented that the A’s aren’t going anywhere. The A’s will likely do no worse than a mid market team if they build at the CC site. The bay area fan base is much larger than Montreal s, (7.4 mil vs 3.4 mil) so the A’s get no advantage by going there. The giants were likely attempting to deliver the A’s a knockout blow and squeeze them out locally. That ain’t going to happen.

    • You say “reality” and then state Giants have won (?) and Montreal in the same breath? Wow!! Enough for now, off to the pool. Talk to you all later…

  18. Montreal will not get a MLB team, at least not anytime soon. Montreal has several important stumbling blocks which they also had when the Expos last played there. For one thing, Olympic Stadium is an aging oversized dump of a sports facility. The Expos were unable to get private nor public funds for a badly needed new ballpark. I’m sure the situation hasn’t changed from what it was back then. Montreal, with its distinctly different culture, has to have local based ownership The last local based ownership consortium for the Expos had little interest in adequately funding the team’s operation, and thus ran the Expos into the ground. Jeff Loria, an art dealer from New York, had subsequently purchased the team with the hope of saving the Expos in Montreal. That effort was doomed to failure, since Loria was viewed as an outsider, and was never fully accepted by the greater Montreal community. Lastly, the changing demographics of Montreal over the last some forty plus years has greatly impacted Montreal’s fan support base for MLB. Over the years, many from Montreal’s English speaking community have left for other parts of Canada and the US. Montreal’s Anglo community was considered a significant part of the Expos fan base. This did not only include ticket buying fans, but also included support from the broadcast media and business community sponsorship, as well.

  19. @’Shore: Desperation? – very doubtful. The team has been a big financial success since Wolff took over – why would they want to sell an investment such as the A’s? (that’s why the goofy attempts by the giants and or local interests attempting to get Wolff to sell are silly) The A’s can bide their, time, hope for a favorable SC ruling. If Oakland doesn’t pan out, both Wolff and Manfred have commented that there are other local options for the A’s – the A’s are chillin’ – not stressed out.

    • @ duffer
      Desperation yes, as in available other local sites.
      “Wolff and Manfred have commented that there are other local options for the A’s”
      Just because Wolff and Manfred say there are other local sites, does that mean there are? The only available local site that ready to go is Dirdon, and MLB will not let the A’s have San Jose, so tell me what’s left? Apparently Camp Parks is a no, Concord naval weapons station is a no, everyone here says Fremont is a no (other than Tony D.), Victory Court, and Howard Terminal are too costly among other things; the uptown site was gone years ago, so no, no, and no.
      Please help me here (not trying to be sarcastic), if the A’s can’t get San Jose, where is a reasonable site within their current territory, other than the coliseum? What area of land outside of the South Bay could they possible be talking about?

      • They evidently have a plan B (which very likely does not include Montreal, Vegas, Portland, etc)

      • @duffer
        They have a plan B, that’s comforting (sarcasm intended), I wonder what in the world that could be?

      • @’Neil: Anywhere south of Oakand to Fremont with quick access to 880, or Walnut Creek south to Fremont along 680.

      • Howard Terminal, Camp Parks and Fremont would have been great locations….but there was always some drawn up typical lame excuses to derail those ideas…..hmm…I wonder why there is always an excuse when it comes to the A’s building a ballpark here in East Bay as opposed to DTown SJ? LAlways excuses and excuses….

      • Those lame excuses are called $$$ and politics.

      • Maybe Warm Springs near Tesla. BART station being built there as we speak also.

      • LS,
        Respectfully, Diridon isn’t ready to go…not even close! As for Warm Springs/Tesla, Wolff gave up on it because he needed “to be in an existing downtown” and because he needed residential entitlements to make it “pencil out.” Heck, he needed to say something back in 2010 to bail honorably on Fremont to begin focus on SJ. Stay tuned…and VIVA LAS VEGAS!

      • @ Tony D.

        Thanks, I was under the Impression that the Dirdon site was closer to being ready, nevertheless I’m sure its much closer then the other sites we usually discuss provided they were available. I guess with the exception of the Fremont site you mentioned. Have a nice time in Vegas.

  20. haha…what is Wolff going to say on Opening Day? “Yeah…we still want to go to SJ instead of staying here in Oakland”!

    If SJ became available tomorrow he would jump ship to SJ in a hot minute! LOL!

  21. Can Raiders fit in Howard Terminal? Still think that’s a cool option w Brooklyn Basin coming up.

    • A stadium there could work. Not nearly enough parking though.

      • @ML
        Forgive me if this is redundant, but is there any chance Laney College baseball/football fields could become viable?

      • Not unless Peralta JCD wants to sell. Nothing I’ve heard backs that idea.

      • @ML
        Viable for the A’s that is.

      • No.

      • @ ML
        Thanks for the response.

      • @SMG
        Do you have any specific information related to your response? On the surface we could say no about any site in the Bay Area, until the challenges are solved every site is a no.
        Or was that you, being you’re usually charming self? (sarcasm intended)

      • Having a basic sense of reality is what I base my statement on. There’s literally never been one ounce of evidence or indication that Laney College was, is, or ever will be an option. That alone is reason enough to discount in in any plausible reality. It’s not something that requires deep analysis.

      • @MSG
        Having a basic sense of reality?
        I thought that would be your specific information, thanks. (basic sense of reality that was sarcasm)

      • I can’t even understand what you’re trying to say or what you’re asking at this point. There’s no information whatsoever pointing to Laney College being a viable site. So why the hell would you, I, or anyone else just assume it is or feasibly could be? If you want to consider LC viable now or in the foreseeable future, then you have consider any and all already owned and developed land in the Bay Area (where the owner has no interest in selling or redeveloping) as a feasible site. That’s not a reasonable or realistic way to approach the issue.

      • @ SMG
        You can’t understand what I’m trying to say ?It’s okay ML already answered it.

      • And yet it’s made into a federal case when I expand on my answer, even though it included the same principle that ML laid out (i.e. the land isn’t and won’t be available).

      • @ SMG

        Federal case, who me? No I wouldn’t do that.:-)

  22. I agree with Wolff, there is too much drama to deal with SJ right now or the near future. He only re-upped the land option as a hedged bet in case SCOUTUS grants cert and hears SJ’s case.

    But that is a long shot and we will see where that goes.

    In reality, San Jose is not so appealing anymore because he just gets a ballpark and nothing else. In Oakland, he can develop his ballpark village and make coin on more than just a ballpark.

    The Coli parking lot is meant for 60k in fans, Wolff only needs a fraction of that. Tear down the tenant-less arena and he has even more room to work with.

    Wolff see gold where there was none when he requested San Jose in 2009. Now he wants the Raiders to leave but unfortunately even if CC falls through they are not going anywhere.

    Raiders boxed themselves into Oakland the moment they refused to use Levi’s Stadium as leverage. LA is not leverage, in fact they have very little in LA because of Kroenke and the Rams.

    As for the A’s, if the Raiders succeed by some miracle then it is off to ATT Park for who knows how long? The Giants are playing a game that could backfire on them big time.

    San Francisco Athletics win the 2019 WS at ATT Park……Good lord it would make Charles Johnson and Larry Baer cry like babies drinking their $5000 wine.

    That is the scenario I want to see, A’s stuck on the Giants heads making them want to kill themselves.

    MLB cannot force Wolff to leave the market to sell, therefore A’s can sit around at ATT Park, add payroll, and have access resources they don’t have right now for minimal cost.

    We should all be rooting for the Raiders right now! Sad as that sounds

    • Make coin in Oakland? A “ballpark village” (?) after he said he would want nothing but parking around a hypothetical ballpark? Oakland more appealing than SJ?! Like all of us Sid, you are more than entitled to your opinion, even if it is WAY out there.. (as always)

    • There is the entire Diridon Station Area Plan slated for development around and including the proposed stadium site in San Jose. I don’t believe it has any developer tied to it yet. And if that is indeed the case, the notion that a developer (Wolff) could only build a stadium isn’t even necessarily true.

    • The A’s haven’t said one word about leasing at AT&T – they have only discussed building a temporary stadium – and judging from Manfred’s comments, that includes SJ.

    • @ Sid It is possible that the Giants could view accepting the A’s as tenants as free revenue and do it voluntarily, but what makes you think MLB could or would force the Giants to do so if the Giants didn’t want to? First, there’d be the same T-rights issue as there is in San Jose, so a 3/4 vote of the owners would be required. Second, I know of no legal mechanism by which they could compel the Giants to do this.

  23. Do any of you douchebags ever go to any baseball games? Like in person?

    You’re missing out.

  24. @ freddy
    I will totally over look your usage of doucbags, and say of course we go to games. I guess I should say of course I go to games, and I’m quite sure others who comment here go as well. As I’m sure you’re aware there are other fan blogs that discuss the games, and I’m also sure you’re aware that this blog is dedicated to the never ending search for a proper home for the Oakland A’s. Unfortunately it seems to be living up to the “never ending” potion of its mantra; however I’m sure you’re aware of it. Anyway, welcome back, we haven’t heard from you for some time.

    • Neil, i love to see you at a game this season. I go at least 30 times a season, we have to be there at the same time at least once!

      • @ Jeffrey
        Man, I just left (in the Bay for a visit), I always catch a game when I’m in town, A’s, Raiders, Warriors. I would love to catch up to you at a game, perhaps we can figure out how to hook up next time I’m in town. I will be glad to let you know.

  25. I guess I’ll be the first to comment on the new victory song. It’s meh. But so was “Celebration.” The trick with choosing a song that’ll make lots of people happy is choosing a song that the least amount of people will hate. “U Can’t Touch This” is tired, but it’s fun and kicks in immediately and it’s the sort of thing you can let fly if you’re in a good mood.

    • While I still would vote for Celebration just for nostalgia sake going back to the early 80’s, “U Can’t Touch This” definitely has a nice A’s slant given MC Hammer’s history with the team.

  26. Since freddy mentioned attendance anyone have any insight into the season ticket buyer trends over the past 3-years- giving the A’s winning ways I hope it’s increased- as I recall it was one of the worst in baseball

    • Last night’s attendance for a 10-0 victory: 19,000 and some change. Meaning there were at least 15,000 or so empty, untarped seats. Must be Wolff “suppressing attendance” again. It’s the same thing every year: Bash the owners, talk about the “great fan support” the A’s supposedly enjoy and then the players play to a half-empty house.

      • @pjk
        There are a variety of reasons for the bad attendance (we have discussed at nausea), and as much as I may criticize Wolff from time to time, there is no good reason for the attendance to stay this low. I continue to be disappointed.

      • @pjk
        I would like to think (hope), that with a new ballpark in Oakland that would change. We know it would change in San Jose, its pretty depressing.

  27. Lakeshore: Would it change for the long term in Oakland? We’re talking the end of $2 seats and other ticket bargains at a new ballpark. Fans would have to show up consistently every night forever, at the higher prices, long after the novelty of a new ballpark has worn off. If the Giants ever drew as few as 19,000 for a game, management would probably hold an emergency, closed-door meeting to discuss the attendance “crisis.” The A’s? 19,000 is actually not half-bad considering that it’s often a lot worse than that.

    • @pjk
      Re: Would it change for the long term in Oakland? I would like to think (hope), as I said before.
      Re: If the Giants ever drew as few as 19,000 for a game, management would probably hold an emergency, closed-door meeting to discuss the attendance “crisis.” If the Giants ever? They have and it wasn’t pretty.
      You and I have been around and around, about the reasons as to why the attendance is not where it should be. We will probably never agree on all of the reasons, and that’s ok. I’m simply saying that in spite of the errors I believe Wolff has made (I know you see it differently), there is no good reason attendance is as low as it is, and that it’s depressing. I’m sure you and I can agree on the last part, that being no good reason, and that it’s depressing, even if we see the reasons for those things differently (sometimes), or varying degrees of severity within reasons we agree upon.

    • Attendance would without a doubt change with a new ballpark that has been wanted and needed for years here in Oakland! Especially if it is only a 35k-37k ballpark and especially if team is competitive.

  28. The A’s drew 19K – the Marlins 16,127 (at a slick-looking new ballpark), the Rays 13,569, the highly hyped Cubs 26,814, the D-Bags, 21,642, KC 23,385 – 19K isn’t bad considering the A’s play at an obsolete football stadium (with a new baseball only park even in Oakland, or Fremont, Dublin, San Ramon, etc. – the A’s would draw 25% more easily – which is in mid-market MLB range) the ballpark is the problem – not the fanbase.

  29. anybody see cle’s progressive field renovations? thoughts? basically most of the seats in rf and upper deck into a park deck/bar atmosphere. also cut the capacity from just over 42k to just over 36k.

    any new a’s park likely will also be in that 35k-38k i think. believe the cisco field projected capacity was 32k but then you had that report that mlb wanted the capacity to be higher though who the hell knows if cisco field in sj will ever be built.

    if the a’s were to build at the coliseum they have no restrictions in terms of capacity or even concourse width which they may have had to face if they build in sj.

  30. Just got back from Avaya Stadium. With an A’s stadium due to be twice the size and 5-6X the budget of Avaya, I think we’re going to be very happy with what gets built by Wolff/Fischer. Avaya is very nicely done – offering great sight lines and attractiveness while at the same time being no-frills.

  31. Why do people here keep saying that the A’s have a good chance of getting revenue sharing if they build in Oakland? The current MLB says that they would not, and there’s no reason to believe that that would chance.

    • @ jeopardydd
      Because most people here realize that if the A’s build in Oakland, revenue sharing would have to be part of the agreement to make it work.
      There is no reason to believe that would change?
      Yes there is reason to believe that could change, the very fact that MLB is insisting that the A’s build in Oakland, or in their defend territory’s; suggest that MLB may be willing to bend on that. If not they should/would, only be looking outside the Bay Area altogether, which they have not given any indication that they are, at least in regards to the A’s.

  32. er, typo. “change” not “chance”.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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