Just in from Santa Clara County Superior Court: Judge Joseph Huber, who has presided over the smaller Stand for San Jose-vs.-City of San Jose case for a few years now, has called the land option agreement between the City and the A’s against the law. Wrote Huber:
“The city is and has been in violation of (the law) for several years and it does not appear it will comply with the terms in the foreseeable future.”
Combine that with the blows that San Jose has received in federal court, and you have to think that any chance of a ballpark happening in the South Bay is toast, short of a miracle. Yet it all comes down to some serious strategic errors on San Jose’s part that could have strengthen their case, in this local venue and the federal one.
Remember that it was former mayor Chuck Reed who wanted to go to the ballot box in November 2009 (!), then March 2010. The deal would’ve set up the possibility of a voter-approved stadium deal in San Jose. Instead, he had a discussion with former MLB president Bob DuPuy, who relayed then-MLB commissioner Bud Selig’s desires to keep the deal on the shelf. Reed complied, there was never a referendum or initiative, and San Jose’s position has looked significantly worse ever since. All San Jose has right now is a prayer for SCOTUS to take the case, which isn’t likely. Throughout all of the various legal battles, at different levels, the weakness of the option agreement has been cited. The A’s have little vested interest in San Jose, and the City is no closer to putting together a deal than it was six years ago.
Now that even Lew Wolff has for all intents and purposes given up on San Jose, the spotlight is on Oakland, where that city faces an uphill battle at Coliseum City and could entertain an A’s proposal should the football stadium plan fizzle out. That brings to mind three scenarios.
- If Oakland can’t get Coliseum City done and the NFL doesn’t allow the Raiders to move to LA, the Raiders would either be forced to limp along at the Coliseum indefinitely or consider a move to either San Antonio or even St. Louis. The former would be a continuation of the awkward status quo, with no new venues in sight for either the Raiders or A’s.
- Should the Raiders vacate, they would clear the path for the A’s to build a new ballpark at the Coliseum, infrastructure or other public contributions to be up for significant debate. Or maybe no new infrastructure (no baseball village) because no one has figured out how to pay for it.
- If Oakland gets Coliseum City to work out with only a football stadium (the NFL’s and the Raiders’ preference – no one sane is buying into the multi-venue fantasy at this point, right?), the A’s are pushed out (per lease terms) and have no obvious backup plan. Would MLB direct the A’s to start looking in the East Bay and maybe the broader Bay Area for ever diminishing land opportunities, or start playing hardball and making threats as it does with so many other markets? How does a stifled San Jose factor in? And what of the Giants?
It’s just as well, we’re so overdue at this stage for a stadium that San Jose will soon have to deal with Sharks owner Hasso Plattner on his designs for a makeover at the 21-year-old arena that bears his company’s name. And if the goal is to get on par with the best new hockey arenas, it won’t be cheap. That discussion is for another day.
—
P.S. – The scant output over the last month was an intentional move on my part to see what would happen if I chose not to be swayed by every little gesticulation in the media over the A’s or Raiders. While readership was down a little, I felt it was the right move because there was no need to blog about mostly vague details or the rumor mill. Therefore I’m getting to stick to publishing 2-3 times a week while using Twitter to get out quick notes or retweets. If you haven’t already, follow the feed. Things should pick up again in June with the next set of Coliseum City deliverables is expected to be released.
newballpark.org 
This would be huge if the judge hadn’t gotten his decision so wrong. San Jose only needs to put a referendum to the public if public funding will go towards construction of the ballpark (or any stadium for that matter). Why no lawsuits or judges striking down Avaya Stadium?…EXACTLY! Land options happen all the time between the city and private developers, with the one between the A’s/Wolff and San Jose being no different. The city will rightfully appeal, which should be easy to overturn. And BTW: it’s always been Stand for San Francisco, not Stand for SJ.
Bet the county judge is a long time Giants fan as well. San Jose: still alive and well, and this is FAR from over…
Perhaps Judge Huber should KNOW the law (regarding SJ referendums for stadia) before making wild claims that SJ is violating the law. Imagine that…
EXACTLY Tony! The Judge is on then take. How could a land deal be “illegal”? Ridiculous!
Hit the nail on the head Tony!
Sounds like someone is scared of the little ole A’s huh? SMH
When I see what the Giants are doing to San Jose, I boil every time I see someone in this city wearing Giants garbage.
I’m with you on that one pjk..
fuck the midgets, go a’s!
that is all.
It’s a freakin sick corrupt joke!
There is a simple legal concept (eminent domain) designed for situations such as this, which will make judge Huber’s decision meaningless, if SJ goes forward wirh its ballpark plans.
This has nothing to do with eminent domain. This is about the land that SJ already owns and wants to lease to the A’s.
My point is that if the A’s get approval for the SJ move, this judge’s ruling likely will not be much of problem. Also San Jose has the Authority to use eminent domain if needed, not an SC county judge or the giants.
@raider/dave – Eminent domain gives governments the right to purchase private land. In this case the city already owns the land so that’s not the issue. The issue is what the city is allowed to due with the land in regards to a stadium.
Judge Giants decision is also meaningless because even without Diridon in the conversation there are other sites to consider around the South Bay/SJ for the A’s: Airport West, Adobe/SJ Water Co. Parcels, North San Pedro (where absolutely nothing is be built) to name a few. We have a LONGGG way to go in this saga, so time is not the issue.
@Slacker the obvious purpose of the eminent domain law is to allow municipalities,such as San Jose to legally acquire land for public use. Whether it’s,needed, for road construction, public parks or,ballparks, there is no doubt what San Jose city officialsp plan to use tDirdion which would,be,considered a proper,usage of eminent,domain
.besides there is plenty of legal precedent for San Jose to succeed with eminent domAin if they,need to use it. The judge’s,ruling,appears,to be insignificant and even silly
Every one of those locations is garbage compared to the Diridon site.
SMG,
You are more than entitled to your opinion. That is all…
How about you give us a brief overview of a better location in SCC for an A’s stadium?
The Diridon site is in a downtown core next to a major (and expanding) transit hub and multiple highways. No other plausible location has all those things.
SMG,
I never said Diridon wasn’t the best site, just that there are possible SJ options out there if it wasn’t on the table or proved impossible (for some reason). Thankfully, time is on our side..
Yeah would seem logical that SJ isn’t going to happen, not unless Raiders get control of Coliseum site and MLB decides to deal. Seems true that Fisher/Wolff are playing for full control of Coliseum complex. When would the timing be for them to present a plan for control to JPA?
There is no timing for that to happen right now, though it could accelerate if Coliseum City dies this year. If not, Wolff has shown he’s not going to interfere with or participate in it.
Wait a second RM, been thinking: aren’t the Diridon parcels now under the control of the Successor Agency (SCCo)? And if so, shouldn’t the option agreement be between the A’s/Wolff and the County?
Seems this whole option thing, be it city or county land, is being blown way out of proportion, since judge Giants can’t force either to do anything with the parcels. Heck, they can simply sit on it and allow it to go undeveloped if they pleased OR sell it to Wolff or any other developer when they please.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I think this ruling really only impacts the possibility of SCOTUS hearing SJ’s ATE case.
Right now it doesn’t matter whether the A’s have the option on the land or not as they can’t move to SJ anyway. If MLB grants the A’s the ability to move to SJ, it might mean that SJ would have to have a vote on it, but it doesn’t block the A’s from the site.
Wasn’t that land option transfer to the successor agency ruled illegal by the state?
I thought the state, by getting rid of RDA’s, made the land transfer to the successor agency happen.
At this point ML might be right. Time for SJ to focus on the Sharks, and what they’re going to want to stay, than worry about the A’s. As much as I wanted A’s to SJ to happen, it doesn’t seem very promising at this point.
I won’t give up on The Dream until Mayor Sam officially raises the white flag. But IF A’s to SJ doesn’t happen, yes, a NEW arena (not just refurbished Tank) should be in the offering (especially with the new SF arena coming by decades end). Perhaps even my AAA “FTP” Plan B should also be considered for downtown for year around critical mass downtown.
Damn MLB may prove itself to be very, VERY stupid: passing up big money in $an Jo$e to keep the A’s small market, welfare dependent in Oakland. UN @#%&! BELIEVABLE!!
Disagree about SJ needing a new arena. Sharks owner at the press conference today says it’s still one of the best out there, and he’s right. Sharks committed to being there at least another 10 years (and quite possibly longer) with only incremental improvements along the way.
I’m not the smartest when it comes to the legal stuff, but I don’t understand how San Jose broke the law? It’s not illegal for any company to have a land option agreement with the city is it?
Ok I get that the land option, if fully exercised is intended to build a ballpark which would require a public vote, right? But if that’s true then San Jose would only be breaking the law if Wolff was in the process of building without a public vote on the use of the land. Is that correct?
Is San Jose breaking the law because of their intended use of the land (ballpark), with the agreement they have in place with Wolff? Man I’m confused.
You completely nailed it LSN! Again, San Jose’s law only deals with referendums re tax dollars/public subsidies to build venues seating 5,000+. It has NOTHING to do with land options. This was a complete REACH by an activist judge who’s surely in the SF Giants camp.
Perhaps this Huber character needs to be investigated..
My guess is that the argument is that the land value is worth more than $25M so an option agreement for the A’s to build a stadium on the land at $25M amounts to a public subsidy and therefore has to be voted on.
I still wouldn’t be shocked if somehow the Giants were behind this. I’m still convinced they’re behind the recent issues the Warriors have run into and even behind the NIMBY issues that blocked the A’s at Pacific Commons. Just saying that I can see a logical argument here.
@ Slacker
Thanks.
I do see there augment and I would not have a problem with concerned San Jose citizens filling that this land agreement should be put to a vote, biased on their belief that it amounts to a public subsidy, and I suppose in theory there could be some that fill that way, but knowing this group is for the most part not concerned citizens but the San Francisco Giants doing everything they can to push the A’s out of the Bay Area really stinks.
Despite the ruling by the judge, I believe all options are still very much in play as they relate to the eventual A’s new home. I do admire the fortitude and determination of the Giants, even , though I believe they are terribly misguided and are acting against the best interests of the entire Bay Area MLB market, as well as MLB as a whole. I only wish that the Santa Clara County corporate community had that same determination to have had fought for MLB in the nation’s tenth largest city. If that had happened, the A’s would have likely long been in San Jose by now.
So let’s see here. This comments sections contains claims that this ruling is meaningless and then proceeds to freak out and talk at length about it… because that makes sense. Oh wait.
The fact remains that all the dealings with San Jose are functionally meaningless until the status of the Coliseum site is clarified.
I believe the County, as successor agency controls the property and has agreed to hold it for SJ if a ballpark is approved in SJ by MLB. In any event, Wolff would buy the land with or without an option..,small piece of the total project cost. This one is not over by a long shot!
I’m not seeing what that has anything to do with what I said. Fact of the matter is that all of the A’s and City of San Jose’s interactions are just back burner contingency plans. Neither MLB or the courts have indicated that SJ is seriously in play yet. Having unacted upon contingency plans hit a stumbling block is not a big deal. And since it’s not a big deal (and people are saying that), nobody should then proceed to freak out about it.
If the Supreme Court took the ATE case or MLB for some reason decided to open SJ, and then the lower court said “Oh by the way, the land option isn’t legal as it’s currently structured”, then there would actually be something to talk about.
KA,
I believe you to have NAILED IT my friend. Excellent!! Bottom line is that at the end of the day an activist judge can’t decide what gets built at Diridon or who buys the parcels/at what price.
And for the record, a supposed “discount” on a land purchase DOES NOT equate to a public subsidy under SJ’s Muni Code dealing with referendums/public funding/stadium construction. That is all…
@Tony D – We’re arguing over semantics here, but the clause in the muni code is an “includes without limitation” clause meaning the examples listed after it are not an exhaustive list. The code doesn’t say that selling land at below market rate would not be considered a public subsidy. It’s just not listed as an example but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply.
Either way, like I said before, I don’t think this is a huge issue. MLB (because of the Giants) are the blocker. If that gets removed overcoming this ruling is likely trivial. Worst case this gets put to a city vote and I highly doubt San Jose residents would turn down the A’s paying to build a stadium.
Slacker,
Fair points. IMHO kind of a reach if the judge believes selling the plots at below market rate to Wolff/A’s is considered a “public subsidy” for a stadium. Seems SJ and Wolff could simply go back and reword the agreement to buy the plots at market rate or agree to a market rate land lease.
In any case, you’re right! Not a huge issue by any means.
Who’s freaking out? We’re just discussing the facts at hand and offering opinions where need be. That is all…
Fact remains you are a Giant fan who probably is a part of that joke of a Stand for San Jose group. Get out of here ya freakin troll clown!
I have been nothing but supportive of the A’s building in the Bay Area, preferably in downtown San Jose.
Don’t come in accusing me of trolling when you’re LITERALLY telling me what I believe. That pretty much takes the cake in terms of hypocritical, trollish behavior. If you had basic literacy skills, you’d have figured out by now that your accusations are baseless and objectively wrong. If I was part of some conspiracy against the A’s, then why the hell would I consistently support them moving into what MLB currently designates as a Giants territory? Your delusional, witch-hunting nonsense adds nothing of value to the conversation. It never has and never will. Grow the hell up and stop attacking people who support the same end result as you do.
Man, how does anything ever get built in California?
It doesn’t. Everything you see around you is a Matrix-like illusion.
@SMG
Yeah, and most of got built at a time in California history when it was much riser to get large projects done.
@ SMG
Sorry: Yeah, and most of “it” got built at a time in California history when it was much “easier” to get large projects done.
Well up until relatively recently, having the public foot the bill was both standard practice and widely accepted.
@SMG
That would be correct.
Sj should just let mlb deal with Oakland only, and when that ship sinks, and they come back to SJ, demand better terms (pay for infrastructure, etc).
Another option would be for the A’s to build a temporary ball park next to Oracle Arena and maybe later down the road when the Golden State Warriors leave Oakland more land would be available to plan something out for the Raiders and A’s. Again after ten years of back n forth it’s good to have some relief and focus on one city…miss u San Jose Ballpark
The A’s were never going to be allowed to move to San Jose. Its either Oakland, Fremont or hopeful Sacramento for Northern California options.
Don’t agree with your first sentence Joel (MLB would probably approve SJ in a heart beat if offered a completely acquired/ready to build Diridon site and some form of public financing), but do agree that Fremont should be on the able for Wolff/A’s. Perhaps time for Wolff to bring Fremont, Lennar and Tesla to the table..
That would be a solid move actually!
What’s the motivation for Lennar though? If some of the land in a given area was already allocated for a stadium, and then the team partnered with a developer to build up the rest, that would make sense. Because in that case the developer (Lennar in this case) never expected to make money on the acreage set aside for the stadium (and parking). But currently, Lennar expects to make money on acreage that might otherwise be used for a stadium at Warm Springs because they already control said acreage. How would you go about incentivizing them to give up all that potential profit from development?
If you want a different example, look at Coliseum City. If all that land were already promised to a developer with plans to use the entire site for residential/commercial development, why would they give up a bunch to the A’s and/or Raiders to build stadiums? That would only cut into their bottom line.
The point is that the space for a stadium (at any site) needs to be allocated first. THEN a developer can evaluate and be brought in to develop the remaining acreage, so that they aren’t losing space they were already promised.
SMG,
I’m not so sure if motivation comes into play here regarding hypotheticals with Lennar/Warm Springs. Lennar will be clearing a huge swath of their purchased land (and making infrastructure improvements as well) for a future commercial component, which they themselves WILL NOT be building on. My thinking (perhaps wishful) is that Lennar (or even Tesla on its northern fringe) would set aside 10-14 acres for a ballpark, which could be leased or sold outright to Wolff/A’s. A ballpark would be (IMHO) a huge catalyst for their proposed urban village at Warm Springs BART.
Yes, we would be talking about rabid NIMBY’s again, but at least Tesla wouldn’t be against a ballpark and Lennar was willing to work with a proposed Niners stadium at Candlestick SF.
As always, just thinking outside the box. Again, I feel strongly that if SJ if forever banned Wolff should keep ALL options open in the East Bay…including Fremont. Just my opinion.
By doing that….Wolff can also offer ballpark naming rights to Tesla and add Lennar as a major corporate sponsor. Hmm….?
1968 All-star game. Fast forward to 1:04- John Blue Moon Odom of Oakalnd faces Willie Mays.
Yes, if San Jose offered to pay for the ballpark, there might more of an inclination to tell the Giants to go scratch. MLB wants Big Public Funds for ballparks. Not owner-paid ballparks. And that’s the problem because instead of Oakland and San Jose bidding on a stadium, with the highest bidder theoretically winning, neither city is offering a dime for ballpark construction. It’s a bad example for other cities when their team owners come to the city council meeting looking for more money. “The A’s didn’t need taxpayer funds. You don’t, either.” MLB already has to live with the “bad example” of the Giants ballpark.
@pjk
I think your right on the money with that assessment, can’t have a bidding war if you don’t have bidders.
It’s very true – if SJ kicked in some money for construction, and had all the Diridon parcels signed, sealed, and delivered, and all infrastructure costs taken care of, MLB probably would have moved on the T-rights. But SJ didn’t do those things, and no doubt MLB doesn’t want to set a precedent on private financing – it’s a slippery slope for them. They’d much rather remain sucking on the public funding teat.
Looking at it that way, paying the A’s 30+ million a year in small market welfare is likely less costly to them.
The only reason they “tolerated” the Giants private financing of AT&T is that a) there was public funding in terms of land and infrastructure costs, and b) it’s such a jewel of a ballpark in an ideal downtown and waterfront location, and c) Candlestick was such an abomination.
But no way it happens again unless it meets the above Giants scenario conditions, or more, much more.
For MLB to change the T-rights, they needed a no-brainer, hit-it-out-of-the-park deal that involved substantial public financing.
Of course, just like everyone else here, that’s pure speculation on my part.
But going forward, the only way I see SJ opening up to the A’s is:
1. SCOTUS here’s SJ’s suit – no likely.
2. SJ kicks in substantial funds – again, not likely since it’s extremely tough for any CA city to get those funds.
3. Raiders get Coliseum City going, leaving A’s homeless – not likely (1/2 billion funding gap)
4. Upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement involves changing T-rights, pushed on by the players’ union (keeping A’s in Coli brings down overall salary), and perhaps some other team owners (tired of paying welfare).
J-A,
Unfortunately, you also may have hit the nail on the head. I don’t believe for a second MLB would ever approve rescinding the Giants T-Rights to SJ if Wolff has to not only pay for the ballpark BUT BUY THE LAND AS WELL. I’ve been of the belief that SJ should not have gone the legal route and instead (like you implied J-A) should have been proactive in swaying MLB: having all the land acquired/cleared, offering favorable lease terms to Wolff and offering some form of public financing (i.e. Mello-Roos like Levi’s Stadium/SC).
So what is the next option for management? Is Fremont, San Leandro or even Oakland in play???
Where MLB messed up was in expanding to places like Denver and Phoenix in the ’90s, greedy for those expansion $$, instead of leaving those markets open for teams like the A’s and Rays to move to those cities with their publicly funded stadiums. Now, the A’s and Rays stay stranded in substandard stadiums with no replacements in sight in their current cities. Those expansion fees have long been canceled out by the annual revenue-sharing teams like the A’s require. Of course, this mistake by MLB leaves us with our team still here.
The Rays joined at the same time as Phoenix and after Denver…
Great post ML.
I think your scenario #1 is most likely… status quo for at least the next decade. I don’t think public money is coming from anyone any time soon anywhere in California.
After that #3, either via new football stadium only or a renovation for the Raiders… the A’s might be homeless for a while.
You mention the available land shrinking in the Bay Area… it might be time for pro sports to start looking in the Central Valley for a stadium. I bet a Raiders stadium in Tracy, Manteca or Stockton might actually work. Lots of land, easy access from the Bay Area, Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto… heck even Fresno would only be a 2-hour drive. One drawback is lack of public transit, but for an every-other-weekend event eight times a year I think people would overlook that or the Raiders could sponsor game-day commuter buses from cities along the 99/I-5 corridors and buses from Pleasanton BART.
I don’t think it would work for the A’s though.
Ridiculous. Where there is a will…there is land…and there is land…where there is a will. No stadiums in the Central Valley. Furthest would be Dublin or Livermore.
Unlike MLB, NFL games are less frequent, have a wider regional attendance draw, are generally a weekend event and are not at all dependent upon casual walk-up ticket sales. Teams that sell-out do so well in advance of game day.
I totally agree that MLB in the Central Valley would not work at all – not even in Sacramento – but NFL teams can play anywhere and sell out every game as long as the stadium is within a three hour drive of several million people.
Sharks not going anywhere; wonder what the improvements will be? Good thing the city is tending to the team it has instead of only focusing on the team it doesn’t have. http://www.csnbayarea.com/sharks/sharks-announce-lease-extension-arena-improvements
Perhaps my Raiders aren’t going anywhere either (?). Good to see them investing up to $40 million for a new training facility in Alameda. Yes, I know: Raiders could theoretically practice in Alameda and fly down to LA for “home” games. But C’mon! Let’s be real! Don’t think we’ll be seeing “Los Angeles Raiders” plastered on the side of an Alameda building 😉
The Raiders have been asking for handouts for a new stadium for several years now. None have been forthcoming. The mayor this week reiterated the city’s stance: No taxpayer financing of stadiums. I think in 1982, the Raiders played in LA and still practiced in the Bay Area.
It’s certainly a good sign. However, the Raider haters on this board will just be negative and troll about it as usual and say look as a glass half empty situation. They will say predictably…”oh ….Davis spending 40 million in a new practice and workout facility for players means nothing. If they move…they will just sell the new buidings.” SMH
The training facility update has nothing to do with Stadium issues – it was was a demand in Del Rio’s contract. It came out like this in the press:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/13/jack-del-rio-wants-to-get-raiders-facilities-up-to-standard/
Heard it from a buddy who was there working on it.
ML has 3 scenarios, I have four as well but are slightly different.
I for one think San Jose is on life support but not dead. Only because of Oakland/Raiders ineptitude and the long shot of SCOTUS
Here are my 4 scenarios:
1. Raiders fail at Coli, NFL does not allow Raiders to move to LA, therefore both teams are stuck at Coli until 2025 or place falls apart. This is what I believe will occur.
2. SCOTUS grants cert to SJ, not likely, for some reason the lower courts think the Curt Flood Act strengthens the ATE, but in reality it was meant to weaken it. In this case MLB is screwed, they have to pay off SJ big time or let the A’s in….they will let the A’s in to keep their ATE intact.
3. Raiders build at Coli, A’s are out of Coli for good, they have one place to go….ATT Park. The Giants would kick and scream but for the same reason they can lock out SJ, MLB can force the A’s on their heads. San Francisco Athletics. I am curious on how long the Giants would still lock out SJ in this scenario? Wolff has to ask for San Jose again in this case, in fact, he should call for a vote himself if Manfred refuses to do it. Sharing with the Giants is just bad form for MLB as a whole. A temp ballpark is out of the question, MLB would have to subsidize the A’s even more.
4. Raiders move to Santa Clara, LA, St. Louis or go to hell for all I care. Leaving Oakland with 1 team, the A’s. Wolff for the first time has massive leverage on Oakland and can get his stadium and development done on his terms……This I believe is as unlikely as SCOTUS granting cert to SJ.
The Raiders stupidly did not build with the 49ers in Santa Clara, if that had occurred Wolff would be breaking ground now in the parking lot of the Coli.
These are the Raiders we are talking about, any other NFL team would have partnered with the 49ers in 2010, it made too much sense. SMH
We all need to root for the Raiders to build at the Coli, the Raiders miracle is the only way the A’s get a new ballpark as sad as that sounds.
Totally rooting for the wrong people here…..
@ Sid
“for some reason the lower courts think the Curt Flood Act strengthens the ATE”
You may recall, years before the lower courts in the San Jose case had ruled on this I told you a likely interpretation was that the Curt Flood act constituted legislative endorsement of the ATE as applied to franchise moves and that even the SCOTUS might conclude they are powerless to change it and defer back to Congress. Not understanding why this is taking you by surprise.
“The Giants would kick and scream but for the same reason they can lock out SJ, MLB can force the A’s on their heads. San Francisco Athletics.”
You keep saying this but you’ve offered no rational basis for it. Frankly, it makes no sense whatsoever. The Giants hold territorial rights to San Francisco as well as San Jose, so that same issue applies either way. And I’m aware of no law or agreement that would allow MLB to force an A’s tenancy on the Giants, any more than they can force you to let me live at your house. Private property owners do have rights, one of which is declining undesired tenants. If you’re going to keep repeating this over and over, at least offer some kind of explanation or justification for it. If I’m missing something, please enlighten me.
@ Bartleby- always appreciate your insights. Just curious on what you believe will happen if the raiders do work a deal to stay at the Coli which then forces the A’s out. Do you think the gints will have won at this point and the A’s will be out of the Bay Area? Or will MLB force the gints into some sort of deal with the A’s regarding SJ? Realize your just projecting also but curious as to your thoughts- thx
@GoA’s
I don’t see the A’s leaving the Bay Area under any scenario, at least not any time in the foreseeable future. There just aren’t any equal or better markets for them out there, and no inferior markets have put together a big public money “St. Louis luring the Rams” or “DC luring the Nationals”-type offer that would even tempt them (at least not yet). This is one reason (though not the only one) that I am far more concerned about the future of the Raiders than the A’s: I believe the Raiders are fairly likely to leave the Bay Area as soon as next year, and there are several plausible scenarios where they would leave the state.
If the Raiders succeed in building at the Coli, I think one of a few things could happen, listed in order of projected probability:
1. MLB brokers a deal giving the A’s access to San Jose;
2. If San Jose is definitively eliminated as a possibility, Lew Wolff swallows hard and accepts Oakland’s offer of a leftover parcel of Coli land to build on;
3. Fremont comes back to life in some form; or
4. The Giants accept the A’s as a tenant (not because MLB forces them to, but because the economics of it make sense to them).
I do not believe a Tri-Valley ballpark or Sacramento ballpark are viable or have any realistic chance of happening.
As Tony D would say, just one man’s opinion. YMMV – the above predictions should not be used for wagering purposes.
Thx Bartleby- I also expect the Raiders to be gone which should set up the interesting scenario as to whether or not Oakland can deliver for the A’s so that a privately financed ballpark can pencil out. Wondering what other land oakland might have to give to LW as I personally don’t believe there is enough value in the Coli land to make economic sense especially with the surface level parking requirements that he is looking for. Also, the W’s now might be a wildcard if development of their arena in SF is delayed due to promised lawsuits.
I can only hope the voters of SF reject the gints development proposal also. Time for LW to play as dirty as they are and finance the equivalent of Stand for SJ group to screw it up-
@ bartleby
I think you scenarios you laid out for the A’s future are right on the money. I think I may be a little more hopeful then you about the possibility of the Raiders staying, but that’s probably wishful thinking on my part.
@GoA’s “Also, the W’s now might be a wildcard if development of their arena in SF is delayed due to promised lawsuits.”
Agreed – that’s a point that hasn’t gotten much discussion yet. Perhaps Oracle Arena stays standing for Coliseum City Phase I. But it certainly adds some moving parts and makes the numbers harder to juggle.
If this were the case, might be a reason for Mark Davis to more seriously consider the remodel idea (at least if his heart is truly in Oakland).
@ Neil “I think I may be a little more hopeful then you about the possibility of the Raiders staying, but that’s probably wishful thinking on my part.”
I really, really, really hope you’re right. I tend to be a bit pessimistic by nature (I find I get disappointed less that way). But I also am not buying the notion that the NFL can or would necessarily want to keep the Raiders in the Bay Area if Coli City doesn’t pan out and there’s a better stadium option elsewhere. So again, St. Louis really worries me.
@ bartleby
Yeah, me too. (worried)
@bartleby – Selig previously threatened Oakland officials that the A’s would move to phonebooth park if Oakland wouldn’t ok the new lease with the A’s, so it has been discussed by MLB (at least by Selig)
Also, one could conclude that if the MLB has the authority to prevent the A’s from moving 40 miles further away from SF – it also has the power to direct that the A’s play at ATT Park, at least temporarily, despite the gnats objections.
@ Duffer “Selig previously threatened Oakland officials that the A’s would move to phonebooth park if Oakland wouldn’t ok the new lease with the A’s, so it has been discussed by MLB (at least by Selig)”
First of all, I don’t remember Selig ever saying anything as specific as “we’ll let the A’s move to AT&T Park.” My recollection is that MLB made a vague pronouncement that it would give the A’s broad permission to move, which could have been interpreted as permission to move to San Jose, AT&T Park, U.C. Berkeley, Sacramento, France or the moon. Or could have been interpreted as a bluff. If I’m remembering wrong and you know different, please provide a link to your source.
Second of all, even if Selig had said something to that effect, that doesn’t mean MLB has the ability to force this upon the Giants. It is possible that the Giants would voluntarily accept the A’s as a tenant, especially if it were only a temporary situation. If the A’s build a new ballpark in San Jose, they will be in a position to poach the Giants corporate customers with no benefit to the Giants. If the A’s are a tenant, the Giants will be in a position to dictate financial terms and will likely keep the lion’s share of that revenue. Totally different situation.
“Also, one could conclude that if the MLB has the authority to prevent the A’s from moving 40 miles further away from SF – it also has the power to direct that the A’s play at ATT Park, at least temporarily, despite the gnats objections.”
Your premise does not logically follow. MLB has the ability to prevent the A’s from moving to San Jose because all MLB teams have accepted certain contractual obligations and restrictions in the form of the MLB constitution. That document contractually binds all 30 teams to certain territories, subject to modification by 3/4 vote of the owners.
That same document restricts the A’s against moving to San Francisco just as much as San Jose, so if the Giants opposed such a move it would require a 3/4 vote as well. If MLB isn’t willing to face down the Giants on this issue over a move to San Jose, it defies logic to think it would do so to force a move to San Francisco.
Even if, common sense to the contrary, 3/4 of MLB owners voted to allow the A’s to move to San Francisco (rather than simply voting to allow a move to San Jose), they would still need the Giants consent to accept the A’s as a tenant. Property owners have certain rights, chief among them the right to exclude whoever they want from their property.
To the best of my knowledge (and I don’t really care enough about this to research it), the Giants have granted no such consent and there is no provision in the MLB constitution that says MLB retains the right to force tenants on its member teams. Even if there were, there are practical considerations that would require a certain degree of cooperation from the Giants to create a landlord-tenant relationship.
I don’t know if the Giants would want the A’s as a tenant or not; so far as I know, they’ve never made a public statement on the issue. As I noted above, it’s possible they could view having the A’s as a tenant as an economic benefit and take them in voluntarily. Or not. But I highly doubt MLB has any ability to force the A’s on the Giants as a tenant if they don’t want them, and it makes no sense MLB would try to do this even if they did have such authority.
@bartleby: In 2014, MLB demanded that Oakland city officials approve a minimum 2 year lease or the A’s would play at AT&T Park temporarily:
http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/news/print.jsp?ymd=20131125&content_id=64206976&c_id=oak
@duffer “In 2014, MLB demanded that Oakland city officials approve a minimum 2 year lease or the A’s would play at AT&T Park temporarily:”
That article doesn’t say MLB would or could force the Giants to take the A’s as a tenant. As reported below, the Giants’ consent would be needed and they would have good incentive to give it:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/MLB-may-help-A-s-play-in-S-F-if-no-deal-sources-4952005.php?cmpid=twitter
The following article also affirms that the Giants would voluntarily share AT&T Park with the A’s under certain circumstances:
http://ballparkdigest.com/201402277132/major-league-baseball/news/giants-baer-wed-share-atat-park-with-athletics
This is all very logical; A’s as a tenant at AT&T has a lot of upside for the Giants and little of the downside of a new A’s ballpark in San Jose. I’ve still seen nothing that supports the idea that MLB has any ability to force the A’s on the Giants as a tenant.
BTW. The A’s will never leave the Bay Area….No Sac, Modesto, Tracy, etc…
If the A’s leave the Bay, the Giants will carve up the TV rights like the Warriors do with the Kings now.
Right now the A’s are televised to almost 10M people over Nor Cal/Nevada.
Moving out of the Bay would reduce the # big time, the A’s would be blacked out in the Bay like the Kings are now.
They are better of staying at the Coli, TV rights mean so much now
I also believe that the NFL intends to hold the Raiders to the Bay Area, regardless of whether the Raiders do get a new Coliseum deal done, or not. Whether it’s being plain stubborn or for some other stupid reason, I believe that Mark Davis would much rather have his Raiders staying at the antiquated Coliseum indefinitely with the A’s than to share, at least on a trial run basis, with the 49ers at Levi’s Stadium. As far as MLB is concerned, I am dubious as to whether the MLB Lodge is still willing to placate the Giants and to hold the A’s indefinitely under the embarrassing conditions at the Coliseum, and to thus keep the A’s on as revenue sharing recipients.
@llpec “I also believe that the NFL intends to hold the Raiders to the Bay Area, regardless of whether the Raiders do get a new Coliseum deal done, or not.”
Why do you believe that? The NFL has been pretty encouraging of the Carson project. Also, certain owners have made statements strongly implying that if St. Louis ponies up public money for a new stadium and the Rams leave anyway, the League will make sure they get another team.
“Whether it’s being plain stubborn or for some other stupid reason, I believe that Mark Davis would much rather have his Raiders staying at the antiquated Coliseum indefinitely with the A’s than to share, at least on a trial run basis, with the 49ers at Levi’s Stadium.”
This part may be true. But I don’t think that preference would necessarily extend to a new, SOTA, publicly financed, Raiders only stadium in either St. Louis or San Antonio.
@bartleby, I believe that the NFL wanted for the Raiders to partner and share with the 49ers in Santa Clara, from the beginning. That didn’t happen and the NFL was none too pleased. I also believe that the NFL feels that the Bay Area market is fully capable of supporting two teams, as well as no more than two teams in the Southern California market. The Rams seem to be the front runner to be returning to Los Angeles, since the Kroenke Stadium plan is far and away the best financed. Given this likely scenario, the Chargers will either get their new stadium in San Diego or partner with the Rams in Inglewood. As for St. Louis, the NFL will be given first consideration for a future down the road expansion or possible team relocation, i.e Jacksonville, Buffalo, or even the Raiders.
@llpec “I believe that the NFL wanted for the Raiders to partner and share with the 49ers in Santa Clara, from the beginning.”
Agreed.
“That didn’t happen and the NFL was none too pleased.”
Perhaps not, but that’s not going to influence their franchise location decisions. It’s a business, they’ll do what makes economic sense.
“I also believe that the NFL feels that the Bay Area market is fully capable of supporting two teams,”
Agreed, but there are lots of locations that can support an NFL term that currently don’t have one or could lose one soon. This is not a reason to keep an NFL team in the Bay Area rather than moving it to one of those markets (especially considering the Raiders mediocre attendance over the past 20 years).
“…as well as no more than two teams in the Southern California market.”
No more than two teams in LA, yes. No more than two teams in all of Southern California, no. I’ve seen no statement from the league that suggests they feel this way, and the notion defies common sense. Southern California easily has the population and corporate base to support two teams in LA and one in San Diego. Riverside and San Bernardino counties by themselves are bigger than several NFL markets (though admittedly lacking in corporate base).
“The Rams seem to be the front runner to be returning to Los Angeles, since the Kroenke Stadium plan is far and away the best financed.”
Perhaps the Rams are the front runner right now, but they also seem most likely to be offered a publicly financed stadium in their current location. If that happens, Kroenke may decide to stay put. Even if he prefers to go to LA, if St. Louis has a publicly financed stadium plan and the Raiders and Chargers strike out in their current markets but are able to put a plan together in Carson, don’t you think the NFL is likely to pick Carson over Inglewood? That way all three teams get new stadia and the NFL gets the benefit of $400 million in public funds. Otherwise the Raiders and Chargers are screwed. The NFL could let one of them move to St Louis, but I think that’s more market churn than the NFL wants to see and still leaves one team as odd man out. No indication Kroenke wants an equity partner, and neither the Raiders nor Chargers want to be a tenant.
“Given this likely scenario, the Chargers will either get their new stadium in San Diego or partner with the Rams in Inglewood.”
There is no indication that the Chargers are likely to partner with the Rams in Inglewood, First off, Kroenke doesn’t need an equity partner and has given no indication he wants one. Second, as noted above, there’s a reasonably good chance he could get a publicly financed stadium in St. Louis and decide to stay there, in which case there won’t be any stadium in Inglewood.
“As for St. Louis, the NFL will be given first consideration for a future down the road expansion”
No indication expansion will happen any time soon. And with a number of teams with stadium issues, it is far more likely to be relocation of an existing team to St. Louis.
“or possible team relocation, i.e Jacksonville, Buffalo, or even the Raiders.”
EXACTLY. Of those teams, the Bills are on a path to a new stadium or significant renovation and the Jags are locked into a rock solid lease. So that leaves the Raiders, which contradicts your original point that the NFL “intends to hold the Raiders to the Bay Area, regardless of whether the Raiders do get a new Coliseum deal done, or not.”
With San Jose out. Where do you guys honestly see the Oakland A’s landing? And a guess at a timeframe?
You’re assuming of course that San Jose is out. Other than the possibility of SCOTUS hearing the SJ case, this decision has very little impact on the possibility of the A’s moving to San Jose.
The decision on whether the A’s move to San Jose still sits with MLB. This course case doesn’t change that
If MLB grants the A’s the ability to move to SJ, this decision might mean that there has to be a vote for the A’s to build a stadium but that’s likely a low bar as the A’s would likely be footing the bill anyway.
San Jose is not out….at least not yet. A’s will be remain here Oakland, whether the ballpark is on Coli City , Warm Springs, Howard Terminal etc. Or they will wind up in San Jose or an outside of chance of Portland. I think Wolff sells to a local buyers before a move to Portland or anywhere else outside of Bay Area though IMO
http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/balancing-act/201503/raiders-stadium-solution-oakland-may-buck-national-trend-going-small Loved this article. Would love to believe it was true.
Any bets on how much money Floyd paid to have this “news” article published?
Don’t know that it would’ve required an outright payoff, but I think your skepticism is fair.
So what if he did?
Article is hilarious actually with all the assumptions that LA is a better place to be than Oakland is with a more compact stadium. Two teams in LA will be able to sellout 80k consistently?? BS! Plus Davis wants his own stadium preferably…he doesn’t want to share unless he has to.
kephart was on 957 with bruce earlier today. pretty sure they’ll be a recap posted eventually.
With so many moving parts, it helps to look at the things we do know and go from there.
First, there is almost zero chance the Raiders build something on their own. They have shown no ability whatsoever to organize everything it will take to build something as complex and expensive as a new stadium. They will need to partner with another team or have it handed to them by the host city. I’d say there is a slightly better chance of them being involved in a renovation of the Coliseum, but no one has shown any desire to go this route so I find it extremely remote. That means they end up in St. Louis, Carson or Inglewood. Santa Clara is out because Davis clearly feels it would be worth sharing in LA but not up here.
Second, there is almost zero chance the Supreme Court or MLB in one way or another opens up San Jose to the A’s. Personally, I think Diridon is the best semi-available location in the Bay Area right now and I love the renderings Wolff did for this site. However, this is the longest of long shots unfortunately.
Those two things combined would mean the Coliseum is open to the A’s and they have nowhere better to go. I think all of that is by far the most likely to happen at the moment.
Beyond that, it becomes pure speculation time. I think the Rams move to LA and Inglewood happens. I think the Carson plan will then die. Then it’s a battle between the Raiders and Chargers to be the second team in Inglewood. If the winner is the Chargers, St. Louis makes a strong push for the Raiders and they move to a new stadium there. If the Raiders win, I really have no idea what the Chargers do. Maybe they move to St. Louis, maybe they reluctantly come back to the table with San Diego. Like I said, that’s just speculation on my part. It could go a lot of different ways in LA, SD and STL.
@turin- from my perspective there is 0 chance that MLB will require the A’s to build a privately funded ballpark in a location that doesn’t make financial success….which is the Coli today without some level of financial assistance from the city/county (land, development rights, mello Roos district etc). As I recall when the A’s were originally talking about building at the Coli site years ago they were proposing to bring $100M to the table. City/county would be on the hook for the rest.
I don’t think mlb would force him either. But that doesn’t mean Wolff can’t be presented an opportunity he feels he can work with. I think that’s very possible. A lot has changed since the Coliseum North plan.
You do know that developing the existing Coli Site and around it on the West Side especially with the restaurants, bars, hotels, housing, retail, offices and the stadium than it will be a money maker for years for the City and County. Much more than what it is now that for damn sure. On top of that you have the money that can be made with an Airport, Rental car and possibly BART tax and that ancillary revenue will just be paying for itself very quickly IMO. Along with the property taxes on the housing. This doesn’t even include the year round events and entertainment that will be booked at the new stadium. Imagine how attractive it will be when it winds up being a better looking stadium than that half azz rush job in that crappy location in Santa Clara? No matter what the glass half empty people think….redeveloping Coli City has great potential …especially with it already being a transportation hub with BART and Airport close proximity. A lot of money to be made.
Opportunity he feels he can work with? Like the opportunity that’s being presented to the Raiders? ??? You are more than entitled to your opinion Turin. Have a great day…
Tony – the difference is the Raiders have shown no ability to take advantage of that situation (i.e.: to get a large project done). Wolff has many times.
Raiders will not be moving to St Louis or SA or Hawaii..write it down. Its LA or Oakland for Raiders.
And you say this based on what, other than wishes?
Write it down? So far we haven’t been able to write anything down, other then when we wake up tomorrow morning we will still be stuck in this crapy situation.
Bartley,
What is your issue with Coli City being developed? You a Giants/Niner fan? Or are you just a weird A’s fan and Raider hater? You know…one of those? I would like to know the root of the constant negative and tired pooh poohing of anything Coli City related.
Could we stop the rampant accusations of other commenters? Jesus Christ people, find a better argument.
That’s what I said. Write it down. The talk of Raiders going to St Louis is a waste of time. Mark Davis isn’t that crazy…he knows where his fan base is. Rams leave St Louis…most of those fans will convert to Queef fans if anything. If Mark leaves Oakland…he sure as heck if not going to a City that is worse off than Oakland is and where most fans don’t give a crap about the Raiders. Let’s stop with that non sense.
That’s what I said. Write it down. The talk of Raiders going to St Louis is a waste of time. Mark Davis isn’t that crazy…he knows where his fan base is. Rams leave St Louis…most of those fans will convert to Queef fans if anything. If Mark leaves Oakland…he sure as heck if not going to a City like St Louie and where most fans don’t give a crap about the Raiders. Let’s stop with that non sense please.
@cisco007 “What is your issue with Coli City being developed? You a Giants/Niner fan? Or are you just a weird A’s fan and Raider hater? You know…one of those? I would like to know the root of the constant negative and tired pooh poohing of anything Coli City related.”
It’s called critical thinking, you should try it some time. My fan allegiances are pretty much irrelevant to my ability to analyze factual information and form cogent opinions (just as they are for SMG), but since you asked: I am a die hard Raider fan since childhood and was a season ticket holder for fifteen years. I would desperately love for Coliseum City to pan out and if I had to choose between the Raiders or A’s staying I would choose the Raiders.
You would know all this if you paid the slightest bit of attention to what others are saying, as I have posted it before many times. But none of it has anything to do with what I think is actually likely to happen as opposed to what I might wish would happen. I think Coliseum City is something of a long shot for the Raiders. I am deeply concerned the Raiders will end up in St. Louis. I will be crushed if that does happen.
Now, if you’re going to post stuff like “write it down. Its LA or Oakland for Raiders,” you should be prepared to back it up with something. Facts. Logic. Something.
I’m with you, bartleby. Some commenters start with what they want to happen then grasp at every rumor and comment that supports it while ignoring every piece of evidence that does not. Not going to extract much insight that way. Fortunately, they are easy to spot and ignore.
I am critical thinking . However , I am more of a glass half full kind of guy instead of glass half empty. Where are the “facts” that Raiders will go to St Louis or even consider it?? Oh…I have paid attention to what others who keep pooh pooh ing about Coli City on and on again about. Constant negativity…without “facts”. I also asked you a question about where your loyalties are at? You a Giants/Niner fan or some A’s fan who is a Raider hater like ML is? Do tell….
@cisco007 “I also asked you a question about where your loyalties are at? You a Giants/Niner fan or some A’s fan who is a Raider hater like ML is? Do tell…”
[Taking a deep breath].
First of all, I’ve been a regular poster here for a long time. You’ve been here long enough that if you actually bothered to read and try to comprehend what other people write, you would know the answer to your question without having to ask it.
Obviously, that’s not the case. Nevertheless, if you bothered to read THE POST YOU’RE CURRENTLY RESPONDING TO, you would notice it includes a detailed and specific answer to your question.
So, a homework assignment for you. Go back and re-read my post (today, May 9, 2015, 4:49pm, just a few posts above). Now, find a third-grader to read it and have him or her explain it to you. Then, report back and tell us what you learned.
Thanks for answering my question Bartle. I apologize for asking it again….I confused your post with someone else post. Try and keep the faith. A percentage of the money made by Coli City can also be used to pay cops over time.
@cisco007 Sorry my being a little snippy before. I think you and I basically want the same thing, I’m just a bit more pessimistic than you are.
Raiders are not moving to St Louis….guaranteed! If it does happen…than more power to you and you can say I was wrong. Now that is a logical prediction. Just like some on here try to provide a logical prediction that Coli City won’t happen and Raiders will move to LA or (laughable) St Louis.
Do you know also…the season tickets sales have reduced since the team has not been competitive? Plenty of big corporate money here in the Bay Area to share the wealth. They are not all tied to the Niners mind you.
Good and you would know that fan allegiances in this situation are quite relevant IMO. Also, so you know that developing Coli City would be much better than leaving it where it is now for the next 40 years without a stadium or ballpark? Do you know how bad economically it will be for the region to lose pro football for the 2nd time here? Do you know how much potential future ancillary revenue would be wasted by having a mixed use stadium not be involved in Coli City? Especially with the existing 110 mill still owes?
@cisco- if this land is valuable as you say then oakland would make the most money by not building any stadiums/ballparks at all and rather focus on residential and commercial development. Emotional arguments never work when your talking with very rich people-
San Jose is not out….at least not yet. A’s will be remain here Oakland, whether the ballpark is on Coli City , Warm Springs, Howard Terminal etc. Or they will wind up in San Jose or an outside of chance of Portland. I think Wolff sells to a local buyers before a move to Portland or anywhere else outside of Bay Area though IMO.
At this time, nobody knows where the A’s and Raiders will ultimately be locating their respective new home stadiums. All commentators on this blog should be free to give their own opinions on this longtime unresolved issue. It should be noted that at this point, no opinion is either right or wrong when we don’t yet know the eventual outcome. Let’s for once stop nitpicking each other on our respective commentary. There will be a time, hopefully not too far off, when some of us will deserve a pat on the back for calling it right, at least partially or possibly even fully.
I like the new leaner meaner version of this site. Keep your audience wanting more.
Total city, state and NFL contributions = $250 mil. total towards for the St. Louis NFL stadium? – welcome to the 2016 LA Rams (and so much for the St. Louis Raiders idea)
@duffer First, you misread the article. It’s $250 million from the city and state; that figure does not count any NFL contribution.
Second, if you read the whole article you’d see the government entities are also planning to offer $150 million in tax credits.
Finally, the fact that this total package is slightly worse than expected makes me more worried about the Raiders ending up in St. Louis, not less. It makes it slightly less likely that the Rams will be interested, but it’s still more than enough to get Mark Davis interested if Oakland and Carson fall through. $400 million in cash and tax credits is about $400 million more than he’s going to get from either of those two cities.
The rams are going to L.A. anyhow, this latest news makes kroenke,s argument for L.A. even more convincing. If Davis were to move the team, San Antonio or L.A. would be the choices, not St Louis
Besides Davis appears wise, and would Likely prefer to revamp the coliseum into a football only facility, rather than go halves and build a new facility at two suspect NFL fanbases (which have previously failed big time with NFL franchises)
“Besides Davis appears wise”
Is this a joke?
Jason Cole of BR tweeted that he has heard that the NFL would like The Chargers to share the Inglewood Stadia with the Rams. I believe this. The NFL would rather have the Bolts in LA this time around instead of the Raiders…especially if the 25% of the Bolts fans being in Orange County/LA area numbers are accurate. Personally, I would love to see Mark Davis sell a big percentage of the Raiders to Larry Ellison of Oracle and see if he would be excited about the Coli City development. Comapred to the way it is now….that transportation hub land has upside to make plenty of money for decades.
Hope you’re right about the tweet cisco. ..
Good news for the Dubs new arena: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/05/13/governor-jerry-brown-fast-tracks-environmental-review-for-warriors-planned-san-francisco-arena/
@bartleby
I sure hope it works out for the Warriors at that spot.
Not that I care for the 49ers, or Giants (especially) but they are the only Bay Area teams to have new or reasonable homes. The Sharks seem to be okay, and the Quakes have a wonderful home. (Although not at the level of the other four spots in.American yet)
Perhaps good news as well for Wolff/A’s if/when they decide to revisit Warm Springs/BART. Irrational, rabbid NIMBY proof!! 😉
Completely off thread- but when/if the W’s win the Title wonder how Oakland will handle the victory parade in SF- could come around the same time the Raiders are given the green light to leave by the NFL-
Yes, parade would be in damn Frisco. No, no green light will be given to Raiders in June. That is all… ( respectfully )
Slap in the face to the East Bay / Oakland area of they hold the parade in SF. Utterly disrespectful.
re – article ML just linked to: The deal to build the Raiders a new stadium in Oakland “is gurgling blood” — the only question being when it’s going to be declared dead, according to one Coliseum official close to the talks.
…Can we make it soon soon soon?
Pjk,
Why don’t you leave the Bay “soon, soon, soon”?!! It’s a damn Matier & Ross piece for crying out loud!! Raiders aren’t going anywhere pal…
If they want a new stadium and can’t get one in Oakland, then they will be leaving.
Rumor: Kroenke sells Rams to Saint Louis ownership, buys Raiders, moves them to LA Also, Levi’s may be Raiders only Bay Area option
http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2015/5/16/8615509/check-out-this-insane-rumor-about-the-rams-raiders-and-inglewood
Hey Marine Layer,
I thought this might interest you and fellow readers:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12903032/montreal-mayor-denis-coderre-meet-rob-manfred-28?ex_cid=bbtnFacebook
Tampa Bay is more likely a candidate for Montreal. The A’s would be better off building in Oakland, a move to Montreal by the A’s would be less than a lateral move. (Bay area MLB fanbase total is 7.4 mil. – Montreal’s metropolitan region is 3.2 mil, also the Expos previously opted out of that MLB market because of bad support. (even though the gnats management would prefer the A’s move to Montreal – ain’t going to happen)
I hope to God that if A’s do stay and if they get a new ballpark…they actually start to spend money and keep young talent …intstead of blowing it up every 3years. Thanks to Beane and his premature firewall…they stink right now! SMH
Unlike Oakland, San Diego just announced their plan and the basis for funding. And that happened in under 3 months.
Good for them….what is their basis for funding….allegedly?
You do know the Coli City project is much larger and more complicated than anything SD is doing or anything in the country for that matter due to site is a major transportation hub.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-stadium-economics-20150226-story.html#page=1
Got to spend money to make money.
re: link ML posted http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/with-no-oakland-future-raiders-good-as-gone/Content?oid=2930373 …Sure sounds like the Raiders are gone. One more lame duck year and that’ll be it.
I think that the A’s either need to figure out what to do with the ballpark situation or move elsewhere. Portland is ready for a MLB team, why not the A’s?