Grubman: In Three Years Oakland Has Gone Backwards

Stan Kroenke's planned indoor stadium in Inglewood

Stan Kroenke’s planned indoor stadium in Inglewood

The NFL’s man in charge of potential relocations, Eric Grubman, called into to LA sportscaster Fred Roggin’s radio show today. Grubman fielded a lot of questions, including Roggin’s asking him to assess Oakland’s chances of getting a stadium deal done:

I’ve had multiple visits to Oakland. And in those visits – each of those for the past three years – I visited with with public officials, and I feel like we’ve gone backwards. So I feel like we’ve lost years and gone backwards. And that usually doesn’t bode well.

Grubman’s talking about the same Oakland that passed zoning changes and an EIR for Coliseum City, so from the process standpoint Oakland hasn’t gone backwards in the slightest. The financing piece is what remains a mystery, and I think I know why.

Coliseum City in dreamier times

Coliseum City in dreamier times

Three years ago, the big money tied to Coliseum City was Forest City, a proven mega-developer. They determined early in the vetting period that they weren’t going to make money, so they cut their losses. Colony Capital and HayaH Holdings took Forest City’s place. Rumors of other kinds of exotic financing surfaced (EB-5 visas, Crown Prince of Dubai). In the end, Colony Capital give up too, leaving Oakland scrambling to find someone to pick up the pieces.

Eventually that savior came in the form of Floyd Kephart. Kephart’s an adviser to the money, not the actual money guy, an added factor in an already complicated deal (his company gets a small cut). Over the past several months Grubman has dropped hints that the NFL prefers to have a simpler deal in Oakland, one without a middle man and preferably one not so contingent upon pie-in-the-sky development plans to help pay for a stadium. The league and the Raiders went into Coliseum City wanting a simpler, smaller outdoor stadium, a concept that didn’t take hold with Oakland until last fall. Even now there’s a lack of consensus about what the actual plan is, which probably frustrates the NFL to no end. If you don’t have a set concept for a stadium, you can’t have a cost estimate, and you can’t nail down the financing. Meanwhile, Stan Kroenke has financing down in Inglewood, the NFL is giving credit to St. Louis on its efforts to get public financing, and newcomer Carson, which has numerous details not in place, at least has Goldman Sachs working with the Chargers and the Raiders on 49ers-style financing for the shared stadium.

Over time the big question overshadowing Coliseum City has only gotten bigger. Everyone involved with Coliseum City knows this, you and I know this, and most importantly the NFL knows this. I’ve heard so many Oakland fans talking about how the NFL will provide $200 million or Davis can put together $400 million or even more. But anyone who has observed the NFL stadium loan process knows that the money is anything but a given. It’s directly tied to achievable stadium revenues, and is not the foundation upon which a stadium financing plan is built. Other financing has to be the foundation. The NFL awards a G-4 loan only after everything else is secured. Maybe Kephart has an ace up his sleeve that will help him deliver the project. Right now it’s easy to peg Oakland as the most behind the eight-ball in terms of actually building a stadium. Despite that gloomy outlook, things may play out in a way that keeps the team in Oakland – even without a new stadium on the horizon. Grubman advised against anyone putting forth definitive statements about any team’s future, and I agree completely. There are too many variables, too many possibilities to say anything with real confidence.

The other thing I’ve noticed over the past few weeks is how the media has covered the teams’ stadium prospects in the different markets. LA media is fired up about at least one team coming as they haven’t been in 20 years, with the Daily News and the Times providing unrelenting coverage and talking heads like Roggin regularly talking about it on the radio. San Diego sports radio has tried to prop up site alternatives in the city while the Union Tribune has constantly beat the stadium drum, led by columnist Nick Canepa. The Post Dispatch has worked the St. Louis and State of Missouri efforts, with Bernie Miklasz writing quite a bit about the Rams’ travails – at least until spring training started.

In the Bay Area? You have news coverage from the Chronicle and BANG, plus in-depth stuff from Bizjournals. Columns and radio air time have been remarkably light on the Raiders’ stadium issue, especially when compared to the 49ers’ move to Santa Clara and the A’s efforts to leave Oakland. I can’t figure out exactly why. Sure, the nomadic history of the Raiders has to be a factor, as is the Davis name. There has to be more to it, though. Are people tired of the stadium saga? Are they coming to grips with the idea that at least one team will leave the Coliseum complex? There are supporting fan/civic groups in the East Bay, but they don’t have big voices. In the past Dave Newhouse would’ve been the guy screaming bloody murder about it all, these days it’s Matier & Ross sprinkling in a scare once in a while. The loudest voice is a college-aged superfan from the Sacramento area who knows little about politics, especially Bay Area politics. If a decision is made to move the Raiders in the next year or so, many will be left wondering how it all happened, and they can start with the media. The flip side of this light coverage is that there are no frequent calls to provide public financing, a refreshing change of pace.

Hell, I’m only interested in the Raiders insofar as it affects the A’s. If the Raiders leave in 2016, that’s fine with me since I can focus on what it’ll take to build a new ballpark for the A’s at the Coliseum. I’d love to be more empathetic, but frankly I’ve been waiting 20 years for a proper ballpark for the A’s, half of those years writing this blog. The quicker the A’s can determine their own future the better. And if that means the Raiders are gone, so be it.

144 thoughts on “Grubman: In Three Years Oakland Has Gone Backwards

  1. Eric Grubman is Goldman Sachs point man in the NFL office, and is using his position to enhance Goldman Sachs Debt Underwriting Division. This is becoming the most disigenuious process I’ve ever witnessed. goldman Sachs is underwriting STL’s loan, and Carson City loan. Like Santa Clara, the owners and cities are trading low interest rate loads, which will be secured by county and city issued bonds. If these stadiums don’t make money, the taxpayers will bear the brunt of these developments.

  2. I thought California outlawed all public financing?

  3. “In the Bay Area?” Answering your question RM, it’s because the SF-Centric Bay Area media SUCKS! See the Kawakami’s, M&R’s and KNBR’s of the world….that was easy.

    Speaking of easy: if Kephart somehow represents Strike Three (after Forrest City and Colony Capital bailed on the Coli), how does this all of a sudden become “easy” for an A’s ballpark at the Coli? If Forrest City determined early they weren’t going to make money at the Coli, how does any $600 million-$1 billion dollar sports venue (surrounded by parking in a corporate poor region) make money?

    • I don’t believe the A’s are looking at the same situation to build that the Raiders are. It’s the Raiders who apparently needs outside funding just to have a place to play. All along, the story is Wolff has the ability to build a place on his own, and he’s going to be part of the ownership group that profits from the development (and, of course, the games themselves) if it can be done the way he wants it to be.

    • I agree that the SF centric nature of the media comes into play here, but I also think the fan support for the Raiders plays a big part.

      When the Carson plan was announced, the overwhelming feeling I got from Raider fans commenting on the web, radio shows, the news, etc was that who cares if they go to LA, it’s a short flight.

      Don’t discredit the nomadic nature of the Raiders as well as the global and TV nature of football. Football is much more national/global than baseball so the location of the team isn’t as important.

      • not true at all– the media has become monopolized and the comment sections are non existent– for example csn refuses to cover ANY oakland stadium details–ANY—it is obcene…BUT and this is no exaggeration they will link 2 or three ap reports on LA and have that pip squeek scott bair write about the LA deal—there is no oakland trib any longer, in name only yes—it is rolled over into the mercury news…alas the raider iba buzz site gets 1000 comments a day—the fan base is strong, now if the team was…

  4. Most of what i read that’s posted by Raiders fans about Coliseum City is all the most optimistic stuff imaginable – about how the stadium is going to be fully privately funded without mentioning how the thing has been on the drawing board for years, developers have taken a look at it and passed and the NFL does not like the CC plan. That leaves 0 of the major sports leagues endorsing CC.

  5. It seems clear the NFL wants a secure, solid, stable form of financing for a Raiders stadium – as in taxpayer general funds – not the roll-of-the-dice, cross-our-fingers-that-it-all-works plan to have the stadium subsidized by private development. And it is clear the NFL is not going to get those general funds. At some point, the NFL is going to tell Oakland it has had 5 years or so to come up with a plan and can’t get it done.

    • Stadium subsidized by private developemnt. Nothing wrong with it. It had been done before in other cities hasn’ t it? Is the NFL about keeping teams,in their existing markets and communities or only having that done on there terms??

      • What other cities has it been done in? What percentage of the entire project was funded by ancillary development? I’m testing for understanding, not saying you are wrong.

  6. I find it interesting that there has been no leaks of who Kephart has an investor. It almost feels like Kephart is just on a joy ride, and is going to all these meetings with no shot of financing. Is there a list of Kephart accomplishments, and who financed these projects? It would also be interesting to know the value of these projects. I feel bad for the Kephart believer’s, because this is not going to end well.

    • It has come to my conclusion that the NFL “wants out of Oakland” for some time. Since the Raiders want out of Oakland, let them because I want the A’s to stay in Oakland, or in San Jose.

      Mark Davis lied….he hasn’t really tried….and neither has Oakland. They both suck.

      • JM,
        The Raiders leaving Oakland doesn’t necessarily mean the A’s staying in Oakland. If this Oakland/Coli thing has been a Clusterf**K with the Raiders/Davis, it could very well be the same with the A’s/Wolff. Stay tuned…

      • @ Tony D:

        Yes, i think you’re correct that even if the Raiders left Oakland, it wouldn’t gaurantee that the A’s would stay. So i will stay tuned to this channel.

      • I’m not sure the NFL wants out of Oakland. I think it’s more that the NFL doesn’t want to shell out additional funds/loans for another football stadium in the Bay Area.

        The NFL pushed hard for the Raiders to go in with the 49ers on Levi’s. That would have made the most sense for all parties involved (including the A’s and Oakland).

  7. It’s painfully obvious that prospective developers are turning away from considering to build ancillary developing at the Coliseum site. Developers view this East Oakland area as being too risky, and not likely able to generate enough revenues from this project to be able to adequately fund a new stadium. By the way, I’m sure Lew Wolff has these same concerns regarding getting involved in a Coliseum area ballpark project for his A’s, as well. As for Oakland city officials, they are well aware of one very important Ace card. They know all too well that MLB will still be holding the A’s to their current Eat Bay territory, despite the apparent likelihood that both the Warriors and Raiders will be leaving Oakland. With the Coliseum site being the only open option available to the A’s, Oakland officials are expecting that the A’s will eventually relent and build their new ballpark on the Coliseum site. Since Oakland officials believe that the A’s have no place to go, the worst case scenario will be that the A’s will still be playing at the current facility for many years to come. Oakland officials view this scenario as a win-win for the city, even with the Raiders and Warriors good as gone.

    • Agree with your assessment. Because of the 10 year lease and MLB, the A’s have no where to go.

      If the city picks the A’s, the politicians will be blasted for running the Raiders out of town as the A’s have made it clear if they build at the site they want the land and control meaning the Raiders are out.

      If the Raiders leave on their own, the politicians can deflect some of the blame and put it on the Raiders as being their choice since they have at least given the Raiders first crack at the site.

      The risk that the city is taking is that SCOUTS hears the ATE case and MLB caves. Avoiding this risk though would require the city to fully commit to the A’s and put together the details of a plan to lock up the Coliseum site. Besides the political fallout that would come from this, I think it’s fair to say the city isn’t competent enough to pull something like this off quickly.

      • Giving Lew Wolff the Coliseum City land and running the Raiders out of town would be a political disaster for Libby, the City and County leaders. Losing the Raiders a 2nd time under there watch with still 100 mill left to pay on existing site and no NFL pro football during the fall and winter ? Emabarassing!

      • Again, not trying to say you are wrong but… If the Raiders currently cost the City/County around $20M a year in debt service and an additional $7M for day of game expenses… Isn’t it less embarrassing to continue to pay the $20M and save the $7M rather than go in for more debt to finance a new stadium on top of both of those things? The City has done a tremendous job over the last decade of pushing it’s economy forward, the Raiders, A’s and Warriors don’t have much to do with that, mathematically. Or am I missing something?

  8. @Marine Layer – You made the comment about the Raiders and the NFL wanting a smaller stadium for the Raiders but the city hasn’t been any drawings out there for this. In general, when new stadiums are built for an existing team, does the city typically present the plans or do the teams present the plans?

    I always figured it was largely the team’s idea and they just worked with the city/state/county etc on potential funding, but the design typically fell on the team, or is this situation different because of the whole of Coliseum City?

  9. what’s sad and somewhat confusing to me is that you Rhamesis could be a strong voice in keeping the raiders in oakland. Politicians listen and respect you for the most part. What i’ve never been able to fully understand is why you mostly take the sides against the raiders cause rather than promoting it, fighting for it. I understand that you are not a raider fan. I get that. But I know you are a huge A’s fan. And I also believe that ultimately you’d like to see them in SJ. The fact is, I WOULD TOO. So to me, the Raider’s staying in Oakland would actually be BETTER for the A’s cause to move to SJ. The can go to MLB and show that they would be better off in SJ than share CC with the Raiders. As you know there is no guarantee that with the raiders gone that Lew would embrace CC. He wants to be in SJ. To me the best way to get there is to have the Raiders STAY in Oakland. Is this not how you see it? I urge you to please use your influence to keep the raiders in Oakland, to push the media to report what’s going on with the raiders and CC. To push politicians to get on board. Etc. At the end, we may have the Raiders in Oakland and the A’s in SJ. Wouldn’t that be ok with you?

    • I’m not going to speak disingenuously in support of the Raiders or Coliseum City’s prospects. My work here is analysis, not sales. CC has been flawed from the beginning. I’m not going to soft-play that aspect to engender better relations with Raiders fans, CC stakeholder, or even to get clicks. Plus you’re severely overestimating my influence on this. I don’t talk to politicians, trying to get scoops or whatnot. I’d rather be removed a level. It allows me to have a clearer view of everything.

      • I have a better perspective on your stance now. I do believe though that you seem to retweet/comment on more of the negative Raider news than the positive. But I’ll respect your way of doing analysis if that’s how you want to go about it. I do think you are more influential than you think though. Floyd K comments back to you, and many others that don’t respond to most. I think your voice is stronger than you perceive. Given the lack of truth in the media when it comes to A’s/Raiders stadium my wish is that you would use your voice to bring the truth to the surface more. But if not I’ll still follow you blog as I have been since the A’s in Fremont days haha. It just bums me when I only see the negative Raiders tweets, but I’ve been a raider fan since 1976, so there’s that bias in my head.

      • @ Steve
        That was a good year, to start being a Raider fan.

      • Sounds like NFL are just looking for any excuse to mot keep the Raiders here in Oakland and build a new stadium. No wonder why you agree with the NFL made up as they go along rules and terms on new stadiums. You have an agenda, just like the NFL seems to have with not wanting the Raiders to stay in Oakland. What a joke!

      • Your thoughts/negative attitude are flawed IMO.

        If Oakland doesn’t have the where with all to build a stadium than how in the heck did cities in a similar or worse economic situation than Oakland like Detroit, Cincy, Cleveland, Baltimore, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, JaxVille, get new stadiums and in some instances host a Super Bowl ie Detroit and JaxVille and ssecure a G4 NFL loan?

      • Yes we know already…you dont give a rats azz about the Raiders. Too bad for you. This should be about keeping ALL the East Bay sports teams here in the Bay Area…not just about keeping the A’s! As Yoda once said…”That…is why you fail”. lol

      • Transforsming the exisitng Coliseum talk again?? Would that include redoing the sewage, and drainage piping and raising the existing field above sea level? THAT is the major issue as to why just tearing down amd renovating the upper bowl is a waste of,time.

    • To his credit, RM has advocated for a sensible Coli rebuild for the Raiders to remain in Oakland (tearing down old bowl and building new around refurbished Mt. Davis). RM’s definitely not all doom and gloom when it comes to our RRRAIDERS!

  10. I’m getting some good laughs out of the fact that people talking about CC breaking ground in 18 months are still using the renderings that have a roofed stadium, a ballpark, AND a new arena west of 880.

  11. What I don’t understand is that Mark Davis has been out front in spelling out the specifications of what he is looking for in a Raiders stadium at the Coliseum site, and nobody seems to be listening. His stadium priorities are that it is of simple design with little or few frills, have a seating capacity between 55,000 to 60,000 maximum, have sufficient surrounding surface parking to accommodate fans driving to Raider games and for tailgating, and have direct walking distance access to BART and other forms of public transit. It seems that a stadium of this type can be built without the need for ancillary development that would otherwise be required in a more mega sized state-of-the-art facility. Better yet, a partial rebuild/renovation of the Coliseum that would retain the newer Mt. Davis side of the stadium could reduce total construction costs by as much as half. What I don’t understand is that if Mark Davis really prefers to stay in Oakland, then why doesn’t he come out more forcefully to propose these more doable and less costly stadium design plans? My answer is probably that Mark Davis would still much prefer that someone else build a new stadium for his Raiders. Unfortunately, that passive attitude could very likely block the Raiders from ever being considered and approved to move to LA, St. Louis, or any other market with a new stadium plan.

    • Absolutely. If Davis was truly serious and/or capable of building a stadium in Oakland he would have at least presented a pretty picture by now.

      The city can’t (nor should they) put the plans together themselves. Pushing everything over to an outside developer, a la Coliseum City, just increases the cost and raises the need for ancillary development which may not be able to happen. If Davis truly wants to stay in Oakland he has to step up and do the work.

      I don’t think the problem is that Davis is passive, I think it’s that he’s incompetent.

      He might luck out and a city like St Louis might build him a stadium (assuming the Rams leave). He also might luck out and the NFL marries him up with the Rams or Chargers in LA.

      If neither of these happens, the question is will Oakland finally wise up and give up on the Raiders.

  12. Yes we know already…you dont give a rats azz about the Raiders. Too bad for you. This should be about keeping ALL the East Bay sports teams here in the Bay Area…not just about keeping the A’s! As Yoda once said…”That…is why you fail”. lol

    • It’s already been mentioned. And it’s pure bullshit. There’s precisely zero evidence that ground can realistically be broken in 18 months. The financial picture isn’t finalized or even clear and they still don’t know what they even plan to build. Some lazy reporter probably heard a timeframe mentioned in passing and ran with it.

    • This is actually just a post from the PR session that New City held this morning. There is no schedule for groundbreaking.

  13. ML and Wolff, and SJ city officials are some of few bastions of sanity involved with this bizzare mess. Davis claimed he can privately finance $500 mil. towards a new Raiders stadium. A much wiser, practical decision would involve transforming the Coliseum into a new-looking football only stadium.( for $300-$400 mil – much more economical)

    The NFL’s plan of forcefeeding two NFL teams in the LA fanbase us byts History has clearly demonstrated the Los Angeles NFL fanbase can support only one team well – supporting the Raiders and Rams both was a complete bust. This new plan will also require that both teams play at the same stadium (market oversaturation in a fanbase which has exhibited that it clearly cannot support two NFL teams?)

    • And the Raiders have to tarp off tons of seats just to “fill” the stadium. So by that logic, the Bay Area doesn’t even sufficiently support 2 NFL franchises. The idea that the Raiders would be any worse off in LA is absurd on its surface. Maybe they wouldn’t be much better off either, we don’t know, but they definitely wouldn’t be any worse off.

      • Uhh…it’s all about fielding a competitive product entertaining product also and a winner. That is the sole reason for the tarps.

      • Definitey true, however, the Raiders were averaging 35K crowds at the LA Coliseum with a typically decent, over .500 pct. team making playoff berths consistently and winning a superbowl in LA. The Raiders have been a typical 4-12, .250 pct. team for 12 season (a .296 winning pct.) since 2012. Davis is likely better off staying in Oakland at a rebuilt Coliseum than a stadium share in LA (especially with Kroenke, worth $!3 bil. to Davis’s $500 mil. net worth – likely not a favorable partnership situation for Davis)

      • LA full of fairweather fans. They would rather go to beach or shop or Amusement Parks than go to a game on Sundays.

      • So the lack of a competitive and entertaining team is the reason for the tarps, but LA has the fair weather fans?

      • Huh, that’s weird… I thought the LA Dodgers are the only team in MLB to never be in the bottom half of MLB attendance (at least since 1968). And all during peak beach season and what not.

    • Yup! If the NFL and Grubman thinks that SD , and LA can support 3 teams with consistent sellouts of 80k fans and with 2 teams sharing a stadium in LA…than they have a false sense of reality.

    • Build one locker room in Santa Clara. How much does that cost?

    • Transforsming the exisitng Coliseum talk again?? Would that include redoing the sewage, and drainage piping and raising the existing field above sea level? THAT is the major issue as to why just tearing down amd renovating the upper bowl is a waste of,time.

  14. NFL, Goodell and Grubman obviously have an agenda when it comes to not wanting Raiders staying in Oakland.

    • The only agenda the NFL has is to make lots of money, and get free stadiums. They obviously make alot of money, and almost always get close to free stadiums. There is a reason Oakland and san Diego don’t have new stadiums, they aren’t free, that’s why

      • Exactly. The NFL can explain away LA as an exception for privately financed stadiums because of the size of the market, but fundamentally the NFL wants publicly financed stadiums.

        If a team in a small to medium sized market like Oakland pays for a stadium itself, this causes teams in markets like Jacksonville, Buffalo, etc to lose leverage. This is even more true with the stalking horse of LA being gone as an easy relocation threat.

        To add on top of this, the NFL does not want to shell G4 funds itself. Why do you think the NFL wanted the Raiders to go in with the 49ers.

        This has nothing to do with the NFL’s like or dislike of Oakland or the Raiders. It has every thing to do with the implications of Al Davis’ bad business decision to not partner with the 49ers.

      • Don’t give in to blackmail!

      • Agreed. Oakland should absolutely not cave and publicly fund the stadium for the Raiders or the A’s for that matter.

        Just calling out the fact that the NFL’s stance on this likely has less to do with a dislike for Oakland and more to do with their greedy nature of wanting gov’t funds.

  15. Know why the NFL lifted the TV blackouts for 2015 ?? They probably know by August which teams are in lame duck status for the season and fans will not show up to see and sell out a stadium for a team that is moving in 2016.

  16. I love it, the waiting game. Wolff is waiting on Davis (supreme court as well), and Davis is waiting on anyone who will build him a free or almost free stadium (Carson, Inglewood, Oakland, San Antonio, London, the Rams owner, the NFL, or Mars), while Oakland/Alameda county is content to do nothing but wait.
    Wait, wait, wait…

  17. Here is the reality of the situation: Even if the Raiders pack up and leave to LA, St Louis, San Antonio or anywhere else, there is no incentive for the City of Oakland to give the Land at Coliseum City to Wolff. Why? Because pure politics. If the A’s cannot go to San Jose where are they going Montreal? I can see Libby Schaaf coming out as her Campaign Message protecting the 99% against “Greedy Owners” ( like Wolff and Davis). Of course, it’s like ‘The Who’ put it “Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss.” ( she will help the A’s end their hundred year plus goal of a New Stadium in the same way Jean Quan and Willie Brown did not at all and waiting for the foundation to crumble ( hopefully for her after she is returned to office)).

    • @ David Brown
      Thanks, I forgot St Louis. I don’t know how I could have since they have put together more of a plan then Oakland (or Davis) to this point. Totally agree with your other point, there is this idea that if the Raiders leave then everything will work out for the A’s in Oakland, and unfortunately there will still be many challenges even if the Raiders where gone.
      The city of Oakland could respond exactly as you describe, or Wolff may still refuse to build on the site, using the “it won’t pencil out” strategy, weather true or not really isn’t relevant,
      Davis may only be willing to build at the site if someone is willing to build for him, Wolff may not be willing to build at the site at all. We really don’t know.

      • “…it won’t pencil out” strategy whether true or not is irrelevant? Really- help me understand one other owner in all of professional sports who built a facility out of the good of their heart? It’s a business- oakland is making business decisions why should economics be irrelevant for LW?

      • GoA’s
        The point was, it may or may not pencil out. Not that Lew should do something out of the goodness of his heart. I’m not saying he should he doesn’t owe anyone anything; conversely I don’t suspect he is that sort of person anyway.
        When I said it wasn’t relevant, I was referring to the fact that he may use it as a ploy not to build there weather it was true or not. In other words I question whether Lew Wolff would build at the site weather it “penciled out” or not.
        If it can work (penile out), provided both the Raiders and Warriors are gone, doesn’t mean Wolff will do it. So that would mean I don’t necessary take him at his word, which is by the way the same way I fill about Davis.

      • It just blows me away that you people are worrying about what billionaires do with their assets (toys). Tell them to build their own glory holes or take an effin hike! Your state is going to DIE of thirst in the next few years (or the bill to keep that from happening) and you’re worried about a stadium?
        Watch it on TV like I do! I am so glad I don’t live in a “major league city”. Go Round Rock Express! And yes, I voted against building that giveaway to michael dell also! Why do people LOVE to give billionaires stuff? They are ALL exploiters of labor. Great thing is one day they will come for you! LOL!

      • GoA’s
        And Oakland/Alameda politicians, as well as Kepheart, MLB, the NFL, the San Francisco Giants, Jerry Brown, Sacramento, San Jose, L.A., two thousand other people, and a partridge in a pair tree…
        Although, I realize criticizing the patron St. Wolff can cause a bit of discomfort around here.

      • @LSN- understand your cautious approach to LW- just keep in mind that MLB/gints are looking over his shoulder on everything he does because he is locked into 2 counties and very limited options. We all know that there are better economic markets than Oakland for sports- no one should even argue that point as both the NBA and NFL have come to that conclusion- not to mention Mark Davis also publicly stating that. i completely agree that just because the Raiders and W’s leave and Kephardt/CC is sent packing that all of the sudden the Colisieum is a slam dunk for the A’s to build. LW will make an offer that will ensure that he gets a return on his investment. It will be up to Oakland to decide if they can live with it.

      • Lakeshore, I totally get your point, but you seem to be going about this with the idea that Wolff has an evil intent from the start.

        Whether you like him or not, I think it’s safe to say that Wolff is very pragmatic. Wolff doesn’t give me the impression as someone that would throw out ideas on building a stadium at the Coli site on a whim.

        You’re right that even if Oakland gives him the ability to present a proposal, it doesn’t mean it happens, but your comments make it sound like he’s throwing the idea out there as a ploy with ulterior motives.

        End of the day, I think Wolff just wants a new stadium for the A’s in the Bay Area that the team controls and to not lose his shirt in the process. If he thinks he can do it at the Coliseum, he should at least be given an opportunity to present a proposal.

      • @ GoA’s/ Slacker
        I get where both of you are coming from, and I can’t say I disagree with either of you. I will quibble a bit with you Slacker. When you say.
        “he should at least be given an opportunity to present a proposal.”
        The fact of the matter is he has (and is), been given every opportunity. He could submit a proposal right now, but he chooses to wait out Davis, or as he may have convinced others “Oakland must chose”. I’m not mad at him for choosing to do that he needs to try to gain leverage somehow, but let’s not confuse his strategy of waiting Davis out, for him being given an opportunity to present a proposal.
        What’s standing in his way of an opportunity to present a proposal?
        Certainly not the nonbinding ENA that New City has with Oakland/AC.
        Certainly not the 10 year lease that Wolff got primarily to have time on his side. (gain leverage)
        Centrally not the Oakland /AC politicians? Unless we are going to go with the “Wolff/politicians didn’t want to make it look like he was kicking the Raiders out of town” line.
        Certainly not his Oakland attempts in the past? Or are we going to go with the “Wolff made efforts in the past that Oakland shot down” line.
        Sorry my friend I don’t believe any of that, at the end of the day Wolff may build in Oakland (with one hand tied behind his back by MLB), but I will never believe it’s because it’s what he wanted to do, which is ok. He doesn’t have to want to do it for me to be happy it got done, but till it’s done, I will be skeptical of him (all involved), when I know full well he could have put together a package that would have kicked Davis’s ass back to L.A. by now.

      • You guys, this is a good exchange. Thanks for being smart people.

      • In terms of the “non-binding” nature of the ENA, folks with more experience in city planning and real estate development can definitely correct me on this, but I view this as a CYA move on the part of the city. If Oakland doesn’t add a clause like this even as part of a seemingly unrelated discussion such as a lease related discussion with the A’s, if the New City deal falls through, New City could potentially sue Oakland saying they violated the ENA by even talking to the A’s about the Coliseum.

        While it’s completely unrelated to real estate development, I deal with contracts like this in my job and these clauses are common when someone outside the agreement might also need to interact with the parties, to avoid one of the parties claiming that the exclusive element of the agreement has been breached. While technically they allow for someone else to jump in, that’s by no means the intent and it would be considered bad form for one of the entities involved to actually let someone else crash the party.

        If nothing else, the city is certainly not welcoming the A’s to submit a proposal as they haven’t given any guidelines as to how the A’s would even go about doing this. This isn’t like buying a house were anyone can fill out a few standard forms and submit an offer.

      • @ Slacker
        I respect you’re point of view, and find myself agreeing with the majority of it.
        I will say however, when you concluded you’re last comment by saying ” the city certainly is not welcoming the A’s to submit a proposal”, I will concede that the city has bent over backwards for the Raiders in the past, at the exclusion of the A’s, but at present the city hasn’t made a distinction between the Raiders or the A’s, and the Warriors for that matter both (all three) are free to submit a proposal and neither (none) have. To the extent that the city hasn’t been “welcoming”, it’s my opinion that the A’s, Raiders, and Warriors have been every bit as none welcoming, perhaps even much more so.

  18. ML, I really enjoy reading your columns. You are usually really insightful and have good things to say.

    But I gotta say, this is probably your worst column.

    “If a decision is made to move the Raiders in the next year or so, many will be left wondering how it all happened, and they can start with the media.”

    Really… blame the media?!?

    Yeah let’s blame the media…

    for the Davis family having no business sense whatsoever

    for the Mt Davis debt

    for the empty seats year after year after year

    for 20+ years of inept politicians

    for Oakland not having any money (and the fact that it never will)

    for the tarps (empty seats year after year after year)

    for Oakland not being a major-league city because it has always lived in the shadow of San Francisco

    for the tarps and the empty seats year after year after year

    for convincing the people with money to burn that Oakland is a bad investment

    We might as well go ahead and blame them for the drought that will make EVERY city in the state broke if it doesn’t end SOON thus rendering all this publicly-funded stadium talk extremely fiscally irresponsible

    The Raider’s were (and are continuing to be) mismanaged into insignificance. That’s not the media’s fault.

    • Considering the media just spewed out “Groundbreaking will happen in 18 months” (that’s just one of many examples), it’s pretty fair to blame them for a good portion of the stupidity surrounding this saga.

    • Not blaming the media. I am observing that other than a small set of fans there doesn’t seem to be any enthusiasm or urgency about this. What role the media plays in this is uncertain. Regardless, it’s curious.

      • How about one of the hosts on 95.7 The Game interview McKibban, Haggerty, Kephart, Badain, Davis and to see where things really are at with the keeping the Raiders here in the East Bay Area where they belong?! Find out who is BS’ing and who isn’t!

        Where is the sense of urgency from the Raiders “flagship” radio station?? Or are people at the so called Raiders flagship station content with the team leaving…again…embarrassingly?

        The Game should be leading the charge to keep the team here in the Bay Area! Keeping the Raiders and developing Coliseum City will not just keep the Raiders here but it will revitilize that whole Coliseum Area into a year round revenue machine for decades for the city and county. The local media and the Game need to get with it and get on it!

      • The media has no real influence over financing a stadium. You obviously have no idea how things actually get done in the real world. Some newspaper column or radio interview won’t do a damn concrete thing to advance CC. Not one of those potential interviewees is going to reveal actual financial details (and that assumes they even have any to reveal) in some one-off radio interview.

    • I’d also add that the media has been completely disinterested in reporting actual facts in this whole saga. They have let people like Dr. Death spew ridiculous nonsense for years, some even amplify it.

      They haven’t taken the time to understand the differences between how MLB operates and how the NFL operates. ie. Territorial Rights applies to one and not the other, you wouldn’t even figure that from the lede.

      They let Jean Quan spout ridiculous garbage about all of this stuff. They’ve basically taken press releases from various entities and printed them without question.

      The media has, without any doubt, done a disservice to everyone throughout this whole process.

    • @ DIP
      I don’t think ML is blaming the media necessarily (they get blamed for a lot, that’s not their fault), but the local media (San Francisco Bay Area), has done a disservice to the community regarding this ongoing story. I realize this is a niche subject, and most people don’t care if the A’s, Raiders, or Warriors get new facilities to play in, and perhaps even care less where those facilities are located.
      I have never trusted the media in general, not because I thought they did not care, or had anterior motive, but they never seem to get a story correct, or at least correct enough for me.
      In following this story (mostly through this blog), I must say what little trust I had, that the media would get a story even remotely correct has evaporated.
      The worst example within the context of this story is the San Fransco Giants willful attempts to sabotage anything the A’s attempt to do (IMHO), yet no one in the local media seems to care.
      I am nobody’s conspiracy theorist (generally), but I’m fully convinced that the San Francisco Giants don’t just want the A’ s just out of San Jose, they want them out of the Bay Area altogether, and with a complicit MLB that may just happen.

      • MLB may not be so accommodating to the giants since Manfred took over. The MLB commissioner’s office personnel now candidly admit that the Giants belief that their fanbase will shrink if the A’s move 40 miles further from SF is nuts ( MLB in fact always argues that fact with the giants management) Perhaps if San Jose city officials became more pro-active, organizing a petition drive to approve the A’s move, etc, – that might work with Manfred.

      • re: petition drive. As long as I keep seeing what I saw yesterday – San Joseans crowding the Diridon train station in their Giants gear so they can head up to ATT Park, then such a petition is a waste of time. Is San Jose outraged that the Giants are blocking the city from ever acquiring an MLB team? Nope.

      • @pjk: the Giants support, as some astute commenters have observed, is very overstated from Santa Clara co. There is no way more than 3K fans per game (from Santa Clara County) are willing to commute 50 miles to Giants games on a regular basis. Besides, 62% of SJ residents support the A’s move here. A petition to the MLB office and Manfred could likely collect plenty of A’s to SJ support locally.

      • C’mon pjk!! There are over a million folks down here, yet you’re making a blanket statement for “all San Joseans” based on a few dozen Giants fans at Diridon? C’mon man!! FWIW there are a lot of folks outraged by the current situation, me included.

      • Let’s see some numbers duffer. You emphatically claim that 3k or less fans per game (which is 7.16% or less of capacity) come from Santa Clara county without providing any hard evidence to back it up. If it’s true, it should be easy to post a source.

      • @SMG – Baer claims that the Giants would lose 800,000 at attendance if the A’s move to San Jose (that’s 10,000 per game, and a complete false exaggeration) There is simply no way 10,000 fans are willing to commute 50 miles to attend an MLB game on a regular basis – 3K per game is likely a much more accurate figure.

        There is a general rule of thumb that a commute of 30 minutes or less to attend a game is acceptable for most fans – a commute distance longer than that makes attending a game more questionable for most fans. The drive from San Jose to SF is way more than that (45-55 miles – over a 60 minute commute)

      • That’s not hard evidence. That’s just speculation. In any case, I’m done with this line of conversation because it’s waaaaay off topic.

      • @SMG the MLB commissioners office evidently doesn’t believe the Giants either.

      • What the Giants are doing by actively trying to sabotage the A’s going to SJ makes me hate them even more! Stay classy SF Midgets!

    • The media still isn’t helping things and making an effort to campaign for the team to stay here in the Bay. Al Davis is no longer in charge and his son is actually making an effort to do things differently than his father. Have to commend him for that. The past is the past…think about the future. Or you can root for a team like Niners who are run by a spoiled brat like York. Who just swindled his fans and big corporate sponsors and their big money to helping them get that half ass rush job of a stadium called Levis and than see them blow up the team after the 1st year in the building. In turn the product and team will stink now. Way to bait and switch your fans, big corporate sponsors and season ticket PSL holders and your fans in the media.

      • You realize you just described Mark Davis as well, right? A spoiled rich kid who inherited a team and doesn’t run it very effectively. The difference being that the Niners actually got good for a few years and managed to get a new stadium on their own terms, which is way more than can be said of the Raiders.

      • SMG,

        Why is there no reply button on the bottom,of your posts?

        Mark and Jed are actually completely different people. Both were raised under rich parents….but at least Mark was raised under a football man and not some lawyer. Once a new stadium is built for Raiders (wherever it may be) I’m pretty sure Mark will not screw over his season ticket PSL holders and corporate sponsors by blowing up and destroying his team in the 1st year of the new stadium like York did when he fired the coach who turned his team around and help get his new stadium built. Nice! SMH

  19. OT RM, and I’m sure you’ll post about it (maybe), but those new renderings for the joint Carson football stadium: it almost looks like it could be a renovated/rebuilt Oakland Coli as well! With the grass berms and all. As we’ve seen over the years, it doesn’t take much to put together nice renderings for sports stadia. Could Mark Davis be working two fronts with his updated drawings?…

    • “As we’ve seen over the years, it doesn’t take much to put together nice renderings for sports stadia.”

      And yet we have yet to see the Raiders release any pretty pictures about what they want at the Coliseum.

      If Davis was involved in the updated Carson drawings, what does this say about his true interest in Oakland?

      • Wouldn’t come to any wild conclusions based on some pretty drawings. Heck, if that was the case we’d have new A’s ballparks all over the Bay. Yeah, Davis hasn’t presented any renderings for a new Oakland football stadium…just like Wolff hasn’t presented any for a ballpark. True intentions anyone? 😉

      • Why release pics or pretty renderings when financing and a deal is not secured?

      • ^ Oh, you mean like what the Chargers and Raiders literally just did with Carson…

  20. Damn RM! The more renderings I see of the latest Carson Stadium (and so far all I’ve seen is a Raider-centric vision, not Chargers), the more I see a new Oakland Coliseum: black seats, grass/Earth berms, round nature of the venue. Perhaps wishful thinking on my part. A far cry from the renderings of a month ago, which were pretty cool as well. No more red seats!!

    • I’m not posting more than once a week on the Raiders/LA stuff. There’s no need for more than that. Gossip and clickbait fuels the constant stream of “news.” I’m not interested in that.

      • Understood RM (hence the “maybe” I threw into my comment). Regardless, when you have time check out the new renderings. Never a bad time for some pretty drawings…

    • I must admit , the new Carson designs are nice. Far better than that suite tower crap (like the Niners rush job )they came out with a few months back. Its futuristic and sleek and with a horseshoe seating design will cause it to get loud during games. If the City/County, Kephart and Raiders can get a stadium done similar to this design but on a smaller 62k seat scale than that would blow that crappy half ass Levis Stadium rush job of a stadium out of the water on aesthetic alone and would be fantastic! Can only wish, pray and hope.

      • Renderings are worthless until ground is broken. They are just (effective) click bait meant for people that don’t actually follow what’s going on. That stadium in Carson has no serious chance of ever getting built.

    • Black seats too hot in the sun. Silver seats maybe.

  21. Sadly the A’s/Raiders are stuck together and I do not see that changing anytime soon.

    The Raiders have no where to go, Carson is pie in the sky, because it needs 2 teams and financing has not been approved and the site still needs remedial work.

    Also, the NFL does not want to re-align divisions. It means they have to make concessions to another NFC West team (Seattle or Arizona) to move to the AFC West. Seattle and Arizona have already moved divisions once in the past 15 years.

    The Rams proposal is far better, way further along and only needs 1 team plus no realignment is necessary.

    Floyd Kephart needs to simplify this project. Get the stadium done through funding mechanisms like lifetime SBLs, naming rights, suite sales, and the Raiders/NFL $400-$500M.

    You only need a fraction of what the 49ers did in Santa Clara to get this done. I have done the #s, This is not 1995 and 10 year PSLs, this is a new day and age.

    Once he has the stadium financing done, now he can talk about development around the site itself. The A’s will be forced to head to ATT Park indefinitely, the Warriors will be out in 2018 thus leaving the entire site for a Raiders new stadium and development.

    But Kephart like Colony Capital and Forest City before him are trying to go for the jugular and want the whole deal at once, Oakland is to blame as well here wanting something so extravagant without willing to pay for it.

    I agree with the NFL, lets throw out the development and get the stadium itself done first. The development will come naturally over time.

    But this is Oakland and the Raiders we are talking about…..setup with each other to die with one another. With the A’s stuck in the middle

    • Raiders end staying here or move in with Kronkee Inglewood Stadium. Chargers will wind be sharing that stadium with the Rams.

    • Getting the stadium financing is the key in June if not sooner. Once that happens the Raider haters in the Bay Area can eat crap!

  22. And is anyone seriously surprised that Oakland has gone backwards on the stadium over the past 3 years?

  23. Kephart said it’s gone backwards everytime Grubman and the NFL go there which is true!
    Once we find out who the investors on or before June 21st than all Mark Davis and Badain and Raiders have to do is agree to the deal and by doing that…they will shoot and put down the bully corrupt bear.

    It’s sad the NFL tries to dictate what they want in a new stadium and how it should financed. NFL’s true corrupt colors at it again huh? Coli City will not just be about sports teams but about revitalizing a city and community as well. Guess the NFL isn’t aboit helping communities after all are they unless it fits their own corrupt agenda. It shouldn’t matter how a city or county gets it done financially to build a stadium as long as it gets done!

    How in the heck did cities that are like Oakland or even worse off economically like Detroit, Baltimore, Wash DC, JaxVille, Cinncy, Philly, Pitt and Cleveland wind up getting new stadiums and in some cases still host a Super Bowl (Detroit and JaxVille ) and get G4 stadium money?? I’m waiting for the answer….

    • Every single city you mentioned got deals done 15-20 years ago. I don’t know the specifics of any of those deals, but that was a much different time, financially, in this country.

    • In addition to brikz’s response, some of those cities represent their entire state whereas Oakland is just one city in a region with three major cities, not to even speak of the entire state of California.

      • Nailed it.

      • If that is the NFL’s excuse than that is a sad excuse to basically blame California and it’s economic structure in this day and age as opposed to 10 -15 years ago. If that is the case…than they should be working even harder to make sure Raiders stay in there own city and community. Always excuses….when there is an agenda.

    • Kephart is full of shit and has been since the beginning.

      • Than why was he hired? He should have been fired by now? Unless Oak and County want him to fail like some Niner and Giant fans on this board want him to do.

      • he was hired as a last resort. He really fucked up going after the NFL. wether the Raiders stay or go, he is fucking toast.

    • Also, for the other cities the NFL hadn’t just forked over G4 money to build a stadium 40 miles down the road that easily could be shared.

      • Hmm…Baltimore, Wash DC, Pitt, Philly, are all really close to each other within the condensed and saturated east coast interstates. JaxVille and Tampa got new stadiums also?

        Still how did crap cities like Detorit and JaxVille host Super Bowls again?

      • ^ Are you being intentionally obtuse or is it purely accidental?

    • “How in the heck did cities that are like Oakland or even worse off economically like Detroit, Baltimore, Wash DC, JaxVille, Cinncy, Philly, Pitt and Cleveland wind up getting new stadiums”

      All of those projects were completed at a time when stadium construction costs were far less than they are now (generally 50-80% less). All of those projects received public funding covering at last 25% of the cost, with Baltimore, Cleveland, Cincy and Jacksonville all majority public funded. The politics in those cities are different. All of those teams face less competition for the local entertainment dollar than the Raiders do. And the economics of a host city are not the critical thing, its the economics of the relevant market as a whole.


      Stuff costs money. Money must come from somewhere. An absence of money is not an “excuse.”

      • “You do know that airport, hotel and rental car taxes can be used to help pay for stadium infrastructure if need be and how do you know the citizens of Oakland or Alameda County would vote down any added tax like that if asked?”

        Because such a tax would require a supermajority, tax increases for sports venues have a miserable history in California generally, and if anyone proposed such a tax (which no one has even hinted at doing) opponents would plausibly argue that Oakland and Alameda County have more pressing needs to spend tax money on than a new football stadium that would sit vacant the vast majority of the time.

        Personally I’d vote for it, but I’m not unbiased, representative of the community, or a registered voter or taxpayer in Alameda County.

    • Good ! Keep on doing the research on the other stadiums/cities I mentioned.

      • This is not hard info to find. Just recently Atlanta and Minnesota just got new stadiums by telling the citizens to pay. Why do you think the rams are leaving, because they had language in the lease for 100s of millions of dollars in renovations costs the city was responsible for. Cincinnati is the worst offender. Both baseball and football has the city on the hook for everything. Google Atlanta braves new stadium, tampabay stadium. Sacramento is using public money. The list is endless. For a good time look up the coyote’s arena if you want to see hell. Then go go google Oakland and sandiego. Oakland residents would never vote for public financing in a million years after the Mt Davis fiasco. There is still the oracle debt that will be a fight.
        You add no public money, non-billionaire owner, Oakland politicians, endless other confluences, and you have no stadium. There you go

    • Even with govt,financing still hasn’t worked out too well? Well that is the cost of building a ballpark or stadium and keeping sports teams from leaving a city unless privately financed 100% by a billionaire or multiple billionaires.

    • Read that this morning letsgoA’s. Manfred (hopefully) is a pretty smart guy, and realizes the A’s “market” isn’t just the city of Oakland but the ENTIRE East Bay including San Jose (where fans originate for games, not stupid territorial borders). Heck, its not a reach to say actual support for the A’s from Oakland proper has been piss poor over the years.

      Public funding from Oakland for an A’s ballpark? That’s to easy, so no need to say anything further…

      • Manfred should know by now that Oakland is NOT going to help pay for a ballpark. This is not Atlanta or other places where the cities and state hand over blank checks for stadium.

    • BTW (and just my opinion), I don’t think Manfred wants the A’s to stay in Oakland. Maybe (perhaps) wants them to stay (or at least try to work things out) in their current designated territory, before allowing San Jose to be resurrected. But to tell one of your franchises to remain in a money loosing, welfare situation when money making opportunities exist is absurd. Again, I believe Manfred is a smart guy…

      • Manfred is praying for the “Oakland Miracle” but not in the same way Selig before him did.

        Tony is right, Manfred is far smarter than Selig but he has to wait this out because Wolff now wants to build in Oakland, in 2009 that was not the case when Fremont fell thru.

        Wolff has told Manfred he is willing to standby and see what happens with the Raiders first hence the 10 year lease with out clauses.

        He sees a goldmine at the Coli site that was not there in 2009.

        But Wolff needs control of the entire site and development rights. Problem is he has no leverage right now because of MLB/Oakland/Raiders.

        If the Raiders leave, now Wolff has Oakland on their knees and you will see Manfred get involved now that Wolff has leverage.

        If the Raiders succeed, Manfred has to force the A’s on top of the Giants indefinitely, then it is up to the Giants to open up San Jose or face the SF A’s in their stadium for god knows how long.

        If the Raiders get stuck (my prediction), then Wolff at that point has to go back to Manfred and ask for San Jose.

        Of course nuclear option is SCOTUS approves cert, I highly doubt it.

        Manfred, I believe knows all of this, but he thinks the Raiders are gone to LA, wishful thinking on his part.

        I could see this going on for 5-10 more years…..It is so sad.

      • @Sid Why do you assume MLB can force the Giants to take the A’s as a tenant at AT&T Park? The Giants might want to do so because, free money, but if not I’m not seeing what leverage Manfred has (other than stamping his feet and holding his breath).

        San Francisco is just as much a part of Giants territory as San Jose is. Plus, the Giants own the building; I’m not aware of any special MLB right to pre-empt private property rights in such a manner.

      • Sid,
        Wolff does not “want” to build in Oakland (just like I don’t want to have a root canal, but would probably undergo one if I had no choice) AND no “gold mine” exists at the Coli. See Wolff “wanting” nothing but parking at Coli site AND wanting nothing to do with the rest of the 800 acres. Probably a huge money pit vs gold mine IMHO.

      • @ Tony D.

        Root canal, man that was good. Wolff looks like he is undergoing a root canal every time he says something like “We are reevaluating opportunities in Oakland”, Ouch!

      • Only Selig has threatened that the A’s would temporarily move to Atandt park. Manfred or Wolff have not discussed
        That topic. If such a bizzare scenario were to occur, Manfred could find plenty of ways of getting the giants to oblige (approving the A’s move to SJ if the giants refuse, for example, anyhow the A’s would likely build a temporary ballpark locally, rather than move in with the giants.

  24. Time to rally support to make sure any gints development in SF is thwarted- organizing Stand for SF!

  25. Anyways, Tony Ds theory that the A’s planned SO move is becoming more evident (with Manfred requesting the Oakland taxpayers be required to foot some of the bill, and with the recent Oakland may day vandalism incident.

    • @ raider/dave
      “and with the recent Oakland May Day vandalism incident.”
      I seriously doubt that has anything to do with where the A’s will eventually build a ballpark. I will say one thing I agree with Tony on Wolff’s unwillingness to build at the coliseum site.
      Is Wolff really intending to build at the coliseum site even if the Warriors and Raiders are gone? He may (with one arm tied behind his back by MLB), but he hasn’t convinced me yet. (Not that he lives to convince me)

  26. @that incident also could be a new criteria for Wolff, Manfred also consider such incidents when evaluating new stadium locations,.for example, Manfred,s recent decision to play the Orioles home game, Minus the fans, because of concerns about fan safety, this was a first in MLB history, demonstrates that the new Cornish evidently takes fan safety seriously and may use it as criteria when evaluating new ballpark locations.

  27. @ raider/dave

    MLB has enough reasons not have a team in Oakland, without having to reach. The last commissioner said publicly putting a team in Oakland was a mistake. They will do what they want in the end, a little civil unrest won’t make or brake that decision.
    They will either give them San Jose, or move them out of the Bay Area if they can find the right situation (that won’t be easy), if they can’t they will make do in Oakland, it certainly not the best market but it’s not the worst either. But hay you could be right.

  28. from article ML just linked to” Mayor Libby Schaaf said in an interview that the city is looking for a way to fund any new venues privately and avoid taking on more debt.

    “We will not be financing new stadiums,” Schaaf said.

    …Hope the NFL and MLB are paying attention to this, in case they still hold out hope of Oakland caving and paying for new stadiums. (Of course, Oakland has been looking for years for a way to fund new venues privately and has found none.) The day has to be coming when the NFL or MLB or both says, “Enough is enough” and leaves. My bet is the NFL gives up first.

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.