Oakland Mayor Schaaf to speak with MLB, NFL commissioners in NYC next week

BANG reported yesterday that Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf will meet with the commissioners of MLB and NFL next week, as part of a trip to New York for the World Cities Summit Mayors Forum.

Chances are that she will provide an update on Coliseum City, while explaining to both commissioners that the project is the best chance to keep either team despite misgivings on the part of Lew Wolff and Mark Davis. What the commissioners will probably ask – and this is the challenge for Schaaf – was what happens after Coliseum City. Whether Floyd Kephart some or all of the deliverables expected on June 21 (he won’t be able to provide the biggest, a commitment from a team), Schaaf and the City Council will be under pressure from both leagues to cut bait and start looking at alternatives. Those options are expected to be proposals from Wolff and Davis, though neither has offered one yet.

Let’s be clear about one thing – Schaaf’s talks with Roger Goodell and Rob Manfred will not be negotiating sessions. Neither league is participating in the Coliseum City process, and no other proposals are on the table, so there are no points to negotiate. Schaaf has remained adamant that Oakland can’t incur additional debt in the effort to retain any teams. Council member Noel Gallo took that no-giveaway notion a step further, announcing earlier this week that he’s against selling public land.

The problem is that everyone involved is talking around the problem at this point. Goodall and Manfred should by now be well aware of Schaaf’s no-subsidy stance. The land giveaway idea is practically a moot point. Neither team wants to extensively develop the Coliseum complex, so there’s no point to selling the land or figuring out a way to fund costly infrastructure when none will be built. Coliseum City point man Floyd Kephart keeps plugging away, even though he’s close to achieving persona non grata status in some circles. Manfred indicates that the A’s shouldn’t worry about what’s happening with the Raiders, though the current arrangement has their fates in Oakland intertwined and he knows it. Neither commissioner is going to tell Schaaf to boot the other’s team off the Coliseum property, yet that’s exactly what it will take for something to move forward. And neither is currently offering a solution for any funding gaps (NFL G-4 funds are limited, keeping the A’s on baseball’s revenue sharing plan is a subject for the next CBA talks in 2016).

What can we expect, then? Some words of encouragement. Renewed talk of urgency, moreso on the NFL’s part. The City of Oakland will probably keep its June 21 and August 21 deadlines, since they have little to lose over the next three months. It will be in their best interest to start formulating an exit strategy and plans to accommodate both teams on different sites if they haven’t done so already. That may be why the BANG item mentioned Howard Terminal. Dismissed out of hand from the start and declared dead last year, Howard Terminal is the only available large patch of land outside the Coliseum complex. It remains a difficult site to pull off because of regulatory hurdles and major infrastructure costs, but it’s something. And if someone can figure out how to pay for all of it, it may be viable after all. But who’s going to do that? No one talking in NYC next week will. Neither will either team.

Again, where are we with all of this?

89 thoughts on “Oakland Mayor Schaaf to speak with MLB, NFL commissioners in NYC next week

  1. No subsidy stance + no land giveaway + poor corporate support + low disposable income = Oakland TEAM-LESS by decades end. But I’m confident we’ll hear a lot of happy talk coming from Schaff after those meeting with the commissioners.

    SJ is alive and well. Stay tuned…

    • Re: Oakland TEAM-LESS by decades end

      If MLB didn’t have an ATE, then I’d agree. But since it does, I’m not so sure.

      • Fremont. The idea of Oakland/Coli came back from the dead; why not Tri-City? (cue pjk and his “nimby” rants…)

      • Neither Fremont nor Tri-City has any chance of getting the A’s to build a stadium in those places. To believe otherwise is pure, unadulterated wishful thinking.

        And for you to dismiss pjk correctly pointing out the problems that NIMBYs can (and do) cause just diminishes whatever convoluted point you’re trying to make.

  2. The Mayor is correct in her stance that no public money should be used. Not an excessive amount anyway. Professional sports are strong arming cities everywhere with this tactic. I’m a diehard A’s and Raiders fan of 40 years and was born in Oakland. I don’t support the way these two leagues do business anymore. Billionaires with no stake in the cities telling those cities to spend money on them instead of police, fire , education and infrastructure. It’s become a joke. SJ may be alive for the A’s. Maybe. But the Raiders are likely LA bound I would think.

    • here, here! It’s one thing most rational human beings agree on… Billionaires can pay their own way. (As far as where the teams will end up, I’ve learned over the years… They will be in Oakland until further notice and that’s all we really can know)

      • Agree Jeffrey. GO OAKLAND WARRIORS!

      • Agreed Jeffrey. A lot of talk about moving but last time I checked they still play in Oakland!

      • Jeffrey is not talking about the Warriors (who are already paying/planning on paying for a new venue in SF). Correct me if I’m wrong about your intended meaning Jeff.

        People want rich owners to pay for their own facilities and the Warriors are doing exactly that. That facility just so happens to be outside of Oakland.

        How is it that that’s lost on you two?

      • I think Tony was referencing a picture I posted in the social media world that was an “Oakland Warriors” logo. I think all of this is right… If a team plays in Oakland, they should be the “Oakland” whatevers. Or, if they are playing in a place like Fremont, it’s okay if they go by the San Jose whatevers, or the Oakland whatevers or the San Francisco whatevers. I think Golden State is just a dumb name (though I understand that it originated because the Warriors moved from SF to play home games in both Oakland and San Diego in the same season, so they had to go with something).

        As far as the Warriors moving to SF, I prefer that and an entirely privately financed stadium to staying in Oakland and asking for Alameda County and Oakland to foot part of the bill. That’s not to say I think they need to move to SF, they could play in any Bay Area city and clean up at the gate. They are the only NBA team for one of the 5 largest metro areas in the country.

  3. “she will provide an update on Coliseum City”

    The Coliseum City situation receives about as many useful updates as does Windows 98 these days.

  4. What I expect Schaaf will hear from both the NFL and MLB is that the city is expected to help fund the costs of facilities since the city benefits from having the teams. And Oakland is not a compelling enough market for owners and the leagues to foot 100% of the costs. Not when both the Raiders and A’s rank at or near the bottom of attendance and revenues. What’s in it for the leagues to pay for these stadiums on their own?…I think the best avenue is for the Raiders to leave and the A’s to find a way to get a ballpark done, probably through continued revenue-sharing..

  5. RM, a respectful suggestion: if you’re going to delete comments that you feel don’t add to the conversation, delete them all! Allowing some to stay and deleting others reeks of favoratism (how long have we’ve been at this now? Over 10 years?).

    And for the record, my deleted comments weren’t over the top or off point at all. How was my opinion/response to pjk re Raiders staying and A’s leaving inflamming? Perceived insults embedded in some of my commentary were only in response to being insulted in the first place.

    I’ll keep it clean on your site RM: hope others will follow suit.

    • Tony – How about you stop your diarrhea of the mouth and restrain yourself sometimes? JFC.

      You know what? I often have to stop comment threads because of your wasteful exchanges with SMG. Instead of wasting my time, you get to comment somewhere else for a while. Thanks.

  6. MLB could be attempting to get the A’s to commit to Oakland before the SC decides what to do about the San Jose vs MLB case – they evidently may be concerned that the SCOTUS will take the case. I called the MLB commissioners office about their recent comments about the situtation and they appeared very interested at the A’s staying in Oakland – mentioning that the A’s have built a large fanbase in Oakland (which they consider important, they do have a point about that) and that will be a big factor what they will decide to do.

    • Duffer,
      That actual “large fanbase in Oakland” actually comes from outside the city proper: Fremont/So Alameda Co., Tri-Valley and even San Jose/SCCo. If you had just the citizenry of Oakland attending A’s games you’d probably have just 4-6,000 folks in the house. MLB probably realizes the A’s would get good crowds (perhaps even better than the occasional 23,000) in Fremont or San Jose as well, but they won’t speak to loudly on that at the moment.

      Don’t personally think the SC will hear SJ’s case. At the same time, don’t think SJ will be “dead” either after the fact. As always, just my opinion…and stay tuned 😉

      • MLB may believe otherwise about their ATE (they have the inside scoop also) At least Manfred appears to want a solution soon – leaning strongly to towards Oakland, if not, hopefully San Jose.

      • Exactly Tony!

    • Did the city buy up the rest of the minor land surrounding the Coliseum complex yet?

  7. I’m so tired of this sh#t! It’s interesting that both commissioners are even willing to meet with the mayor of Oakland, but what for exactly? They already know she is not willing to use general fund money, or to put general fund money at risk, so what? Neither Wolff or Davis will be there so what’s going to be going on again?

  8. waste of time this all is.

    • No substance, just more blustery talk from the same cast of characters (Selig, Manfred, Davis, Schaaf, and Wolff…staring in a Samuel Beckett-inspired real-life play entitled “Waiting for Stadia”). Amounts to nothing more than kicking the can down a road that has no end. What a mess this all is.

  9. As Kephart’s deadline approaches, I have but one wish: Raiders stay in Oak, and the A’s go to SJ. That way we keep both teams in the Bay Area. Any other option, we lose one team, and the fans are the big losers! Probably makes too much sense, but we can hope!

  10. As far as MLB Commissioner Manfred is concerned, he will likely be reassuring Mayor Schaaf that the A’s do have a ten year lease to continue playing at the Coliseum. As long as the Raiders don’t force the A’s to vacate, MLB will continue holding the A’s to their East Bay territory. Manfred will also want to have Larry Baer’s presence at the meeting, via telephone hookup, to reassure Mayor Schaaf that the A’s are not going anywhere..

    • If something is worked out with Raiders than A’ s can break their lease in 2 years I believe. So than Manfred can get off his stubborn rich azz and allow A’ s to move to SJ where Wolff wants them to be and where the SJ also wants the A’ s to be. All of this in the best interest of baseball. Force the arrogant , whiny Giants to comply. Period!

    • MLB (Manfred) is taking the initiative this time, commenting of being dissapointed with the pace of the A’s/Oakland stadium plan. (Selig never made comments like that) MLB evidently wants the A’s stadium problem resolved, either because they are annoyed about it (as most A’s fans are) or are concerned that the SC will agree to take the the SJ vs MLB case, and MLB could lose that. Its likely that Manfred won’t allow the stalling about the A’s new ballpark to continue (as Selig did)

  11. Howard Terminal should remain an option. Enough with the excuses of why it can’t work…make it work or A’ s can go to SJ where Wolff wants to be. Keep Raiders and NFL football in Oakland where they belong!

    • A better solution is to dissolve the Raiders as an NFL organization and put the players through a dispersal draft. Actually, they should do that to the 49er’s as well.

    • sure lets find the 1.5-2 billion dollars it’s going to cost to make it happen.

    • Who is going to make it work?

      The A’s don’t want the site because they think it’s too costly and not a good location. You can’t force a business into a bad decision that it doesn’t want to make.

      The city doesn’t want to spend the money and even if they did want to spend the money they don’t have it.

      The city, the team, and in the case of moving out of Oakland the respective league all have to be on board with the stadium plan. You have to look at things from the point of view of all of the parties and think about how the plan benefits them.

      • yeah reminds me of the same people who blamed wolff for not getting anything done with a site like victory court.

        honestly the two sites in oakland that made the most sense and was most realistic and it’s been this way dating back to 2002 when HOK made their presentation was uptown and the coliseum area.

        every other site in oakland back then and since that’s been deemed as a potential spot for a baseball park is fantasy land type thinking.

      • City doesn’t want to spend the money…than let’s see what happens to Oakland when both Warriors and Raiders are gone and A’s go to SJ in 6-7 years. Let’ see what happens than huh?

  12. “Again, where are we with all of this?”

    Just to keep things in perspective, if we scroll back to 2005 & the onset of this blog, we were post dotcom bust, at the top of the housing bubble. By 2008, that bubble burst, due to lending practices and other factors. Some homeowners lost their houses, others were bailed out.

    In 2005, Wolfe was proposing his baseball village, first in Oakland, then in Fremont. Both of those projects could have been very adversely affected. In a way, we could be thankful for those initial delays, both the team and those municipalities may have dodged a bullet.

    Since then, property has re-acquired much of its value, due to more natural factors such as supply-and demand rather than artificial inflation. The market is now more prudent. Residential has become less of a concern in stadium construction by team owner. It is a component of CC – a civic project.

    Another thing that has changed in the last 10 years – Oakland is no longer a city to be mocked. It has gained a reputation as a desirable location. Public opinion and property values reflect that. It has less to lose if its teams decide to split. Workers are flooding in; they need space to work and sleep. Oakland’s leadership (or lack thereof) may have done itself a favor by simply standing pat. There are worse mistakes.

    • “Workers are flooding in; they need space to work and sleep. Oakland’s leadership (or lack thereof) may have done itself a favor by simply standing pat. There are worse mistakes.”

      Exactly right. No City needs any of this stuff, least of all an NFL stadium on the public dime. It is a luxury for sports teams to have the market to draw from, not the other way around.

      • Although the studies made about the cost/benefit analysis of publicly funded ballparks is a draw. (When a city receives a privately funded ballpark – it is a win-win situation for them – there is no way the city can lose) The studies also don’t include the recognition a city receives from hosting a pro sports franchise (which is the main reason why many municipalities publicly fund stadiums – for the name recognition that the city receives)

        San Jose city officials are likely aware of that benefit, they’ve seen how the Sharks franchise has put SJ on the map, and that’s why they are pursuing the A’s (and deserve the A’s more than Oakland does (San Jose officials want the A’s more than Oakland city officials do)

      • @ duffer
        RE: Sharks franchise has put SJ on the map, and that’s why they are pursuing the A’s (and deserve the A’s more than Oakland does (San Jose officials want the A’s more than Oakland city officials do)

        Please let’s not get into who deserves what. A case could be made that the A’s, Raiders, and Oakland deserve better, conversely a case could be made that the A’s, Raiders, and Oakland don’t deserve better.
        I would prefer to think that the A’s, Radars, and Oakland deserve exactly what they have, because all parties have some fault.
        San Jose probably doesn’t deserve anything more or less then Oakland (IMHO), or shall we descend into the mindless dribble that seems to permeate the Oakland-Only crowd, why we say we are nothing like them?

      • “Although the studies made about the cost/benefit analysis of publicly funded ballparks is a draw.”

        Unless you consider a game with a final score of 80 to 20 a draw, this is just simply not true. Google it. It’s difficult to find a study that does’t show that publicly funded stadiums lose money for a city. The one’s that you do find, are funded by organizations that will directly profit from the building of a stadium. No way can you call this a draw. It’s pretty clear that the direct economic benefit of a publicly funded stadium just isn’t there.

        Even privately funded stadiums can be bad for a city. Cities do take on an additional expense in regards to policing game day activities.

        Also, there are no guarantees that a stadium results in additional benefits to hotels, restaurants, etc. Oakland is the perfect example of this, unless of course you consider selling churros and black market t-shirts on the BART bridge a huge benefit to Oakland business.

        You’re also forgetting about the opportunity cost of what else could be done with the land. Land in the Bay Area is an extremely valuable resource. Even if a team is paying market price for it, that doesn’t mean the city is getting it’s best bang for the buck off the land.

      • There is no credible study that says even privately financed stadiums are a win-win for a city.

        It’s very simple to show why it isn’t, or can’t be proven to be. Look at the economic impact of the UCSF Hospital in Mission Bay and Compare it with AT&T Park. One is the equivalent of a billion dollar business, the other has the economic impact of a medium sized enterprise.

      • @Slacker, if you are familiar with San Jose, you would know that there was not much going on the land where the Shark Tank was built (basically a light industrial area) San Jose didn’t lose any opportunity cost by building it there, there likely. wasn’t much demand for that land at that time. The San Jose city government officials are not stupid, they know the economics of a new A’s stadium and can do the math and are pursuing the A’s – you know more than they do?

    • @jeffreyaugust, slacker: I don’t have to go very far to provide an example of how a 100% publicly funded sports arena nets surplus revenue for a city. The Shark Tank (a cost of $160 mil. in 1991- which would be double that total in 2015) was 100% funded by San Jose taxpayers) It earns a net profit from its leases alone (this doesn’t even include the tax revenue San Jose receives from ancillary developments near the SAP center (night clubs, restaurants, hotels, etc.) The SAP center, 100% funded by San Jose taxpayers, has been a profitable success for SJ.

      The San Jose politicos (Liccardo, Reid, etc) know what they are talking about and are much more onboard and focused about the A’s San Jose stadium than Oakland officials have demonstrated. Extra tax revenue gained from the A’s and their ballpark are a main factor why they are pursuing the A’s – not to lose revenue.

      It’s odd that two apparent Oaklanders have such a venomous attitude about public tax dollars used to fund pro sports stadiums, If the Oakland city officials share your views (they evidently do) Oakland will likely lose all three sports teams. You all seem to be overlooking some obvious benefits for cities that host sports teams, city name recoginition, etc. If you keep maintaining that attitude, It won’t be surprising at all if the A’s move to SJ – even without the help of of a possible SC ruling in favor of San Jose.

      • Great and here are 5 examples of publicly funded stadiums that have been bad economic investments:

        Oakland Coliseum (both arena and stadium)
        Marlins Park
        Paul Brown Stadium
        Great American Ball Park
        Georgia Dome

        Also, here’s a link to a Google search showing tons of articles highlighting the “success” of publicly funded stadiums:

        https://www.google.com/#q=are+publicly+funded+sports+stadiums+worth+the+investment

        Even for San Jose, you’re not factoring in the opportunity cost. Could San Jose have sold the land to a developer building additional office, retail and residential space, resulting in more profit? My guess is yes.

        You’re also assuming a lot in regards to the arena’s impact on downtown San Jose. Don’t you think the .com boom also had a bit of an impact?

        You can always find an exception to the rule. You don’t make business decisions based on exceptions, especially in the case of Oakland. How have publicly funded stadiums at the Coliseum site worked out so far for the Oakland?

      • @ duffer – what was going on at the site of the Tank was an old, underperforming car dealership and a PG&E gas conversion plant. The environmentals of that site would not have allowed for residential use. Also, since the site was and is west of the Guadalupe Parkway, there would have been some pretty drastic FAA-imposed height restrictions, thus canceling out many of the benefits of a potential office development – particularly when there were several more suitable sites on the east side of the Guadalupe.

        We could go on about the “if San Jose had only done THIS back in the day” all day long, but the bottom line is that, in the case of the Tank, public funding for that arena, at that location, at that time…worked.

        It’d be interesting to see who, if anybody, outside of the Shasta-Hanchett Neighborhood Association would now confess to having voted “no” on that arena vote.

      • I’m not an Oaklander (I live in Pleasanton) and I honestly don’t care where in the Bay Area the A’s end up playing as long as they are paying for their stadium. It’s funny that Oaklanders always confuse me for a San jose resident, and San Jose residents always confuse me for an Oakland resident. I must be doing something right if you can’t tell where I live.

        What you just laid out is not the same thing as what Slacker and I were both referring too. Regardless of what is in place, it is probable that the Arena site had a better use that would generate more income to the city in the form of taxes.

        Either way, I am done with this circular debate.

      • Thumbs up!

  13. While Oakland definitely deserves a chunk of the blame for the current situation, at least in regards to discussions with the commissioners, I hope Schaaf realizes that she actually has some leverage here especially with MLB.

    Both commissioners, will push for public funding. Oakland has had 2 to 3 major pro sports teams playing in publicly funded stadiums for almost 50 years now. The results, the city is bankrupt, has minimal corporate support and the publicly funded stadiums are in a high crime area. On top of that, the city is sitting with a ton of debt directly from the stadiums. What argument does either commissioner have for why the results will be different this time out.

    For MLB specifically, you could argue that MLB needs Oakland just as much if not more than Oakland needs MLB. There really aren’t any other viable markets out there for the A’s. MLB also doesn’t want to address the SJ issue and the Giants. Making Oakland work solves problems for MLB.

    I’m not suggesting that Schaaf is negotiating from a position of power here, but she legitimately should put some demands out there to the commissioners, such as what ML suggested in regards to the NFL’s stadium fund and continued revenue sharing for the A’s.

  14. Manfred is no different than Selig. He won’t do the right thing.

    • Yep. From what I’m hearing from hm, he’s not going to get anything done either. He’s going to try to get a publicly funded ballpark in Oakland, which is not going to happen. Wolff, I’ll bet, will show him numbers about how a new ballpark in Oakland, sans public $$, won’t add up without permanent revenue-sharing, which the MLB owners won’t want to offer. And Manfred will be as terrified to stand up to the Giants as Selig. The only way San Jose gets the team is to offer more public $ than Oakland, which won’t happen. (And none of this even factors in the Raiders. The A’s are not going to want to share the lone site left in Oakland with them.) Result: The A’s sit in Oakland until some out-of-market city (Portland, Vegas, San Antonio, whatever) comes up with a nice publicly funded package to become the new home of the A’s. Don’t be surprised to see the A’s actually complete the 10 years on this lease, in the same old obsolete, decrepit ballpark.

      • Both Manfred and Wolff have commented that there are other local options for the A’s besides Oakland (excluding San Jose) MLB evidently prefers to keep the team in Oakland because MLB believes the A’s have a good fanbase there already. Also, Manfred recently took the initiative, commenting about the pace of the the A’s/Oakland new stadium negotiations (Selig never made comments such as that)

        Also, the A’s moving to some rinky-dink MLB market such as Portland, San Antonio, etc. where the franchise wouldn’t receive enough attendance and media rights revenue doesn’t serve MLB’s interests. (There are enough MLB franchises in that situation already, MLB doesn’t want another one)

        The foolish franchise is the Giants organization. From the Giants point of view, the A’s are an equal threat in Oakland as the the A’s would be in San Jose. It’s evidently, both from the A’s owners comments and the new MLB commissioners actions that the A’s aren’t gong out of town. The giants objective of booting the A’s out of the bay area isn’t going to happen. Also the Giants would be better off with the A’s in San Jose anyhow. What would you expect from the Giants. organization though (stupid is as stupid does)

      • Manfred and Wolf are both saying they have other options because they need leverage.

        MLB has been looking for over a decade now at East Bay sites. Here’s an old post from ML listing out the possible sites from the HOK study as well as one’s promoted by the A’s or other groups:

        https://newballpark.org/2010/11/24/theres-trying-and-then-theres-trying/

        Look through this and the pickings are slim. Below are pretty much what’s left:

        HT – Vetoed by the A’s as being too costly

        Laney College – College doesn’t want it

        Pleasanton – Bad location on outer edge of Bay Area with NIMBY concerns that would make Fremont look like a dream

        Really, the Coliseum is far and away the best option at this point. Manfred and Wolff know this and unless Manfred opens up San Jose, as odd as this sounds, Oakland actually has some leverage here.

  15. ML: can you remind me/us, wasn’t part of the A’s 10 year lease that all non-coliseum site locations (e.g. Howard Terminal) are off the table for discussion? I think this is what you’re referring to when saying it was declared dead, just checking though. You say that it is difficult because of regulatory and infrastructure issues, but this seems like a big point as well. Thanks!

    • That’s correct. Also doesn’t help that last fall OWB, the group touting Howard Terminal, stopped work and ended its own ENA at the site. Port can’t wait, has to figure out ways to make money there.

  16. Maybe we can start looking at the Peralta site again.

  17. Okay…since we’re pretty much left with dreaming, then let’s dream…

    As I see it, an outstanding location for a new stadium would be Snow Park, at the intersection of 19th and Harrison. It would take a little bit of infill of Lake Merritt opposite of Adams point, maybe the closure of a street for a block or two, but in the normal alignment of MLB fields the stadium seats would have views of Kaiser Center, Lake Merritt and the hills. Three blocks from 19th Street BART, ten-ish blocks from Lake Merritt BART.

    Less infrastructure cost than HT, and a better location besides for both weather and view…and it’s in Oakland.

    Of course, a couple of old buildings will have to come down, but…

    • @ sierraspartan

      Actually, that’s really not a bad idea. A lot more doable then some other suggestions people have thrown out there.

      • Snow Park, and the lots adjacent to it, are way too small. Seven years ago or so, there was a proposal called “Emerald Towers” that was a high-rise residential building over the privately owned Schilling Gardens (next to Snow Park). It was shot down by the NIMBYs and the Oakland Heritage Alliance. I want to say former SF Mayor Willie Brown was part of the investment group for the failed project.

    • I just went on google earth to see how big that spot is. I agree, it’d be awesome to be close to the Lake with views (it’d be the kind of differentiator that I’d love to see as a fan), but it’d take a site more than double that park. My google earth calculations (hardly authoritative, but close enough) set that park and the adjacent buildings at somewhere between 5 and 6 acres.

      • Good rules to live by when dealing in the City of Oakland:

        1. If you’re talking about parkland, don’t bother. Especially if you don’t have a plan to replace said parkland. Same reason why the Estuary Park plan would go nowhere.

        2. If it’s public land that could be used for affordable housing, forget about putting a stadium there. Affordable/low income housing is a much bigger priority than any sports teams (see #SaveE12th movement at #oakmtg last week).

        Basically you have to look for land that is A) cheap or free and will not incur nine figures in cost to get it ready B) not suitable for housing, and C) is outside the jurisdiction of various regional and state bureaucracies that are not the City itself.

        Got it? Now go find it. Good luck.

      • The closest thing we have to that in Oakland (drumroll please), is the area in and around the coliseum.
        Oh well, what can you do…

    • Tear down the Kaiser Convention Center and use some of that land for an A’s ballpark.

  18. How about Treasure Island? That would really piss off the gints. 😉

  19. MLB must say to the, Giants enough already with your unprecedented selfish antics. The A’s share the same market in the same way as the teams in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles do. The A’s can relocate anywhere within their shared Bay Area market. Problem solved. Manfred, for once act like a commissioner and do the only right thing for MLB in its Bay Area market.

    • One thing I have always felt was pure bullshit- The A’s are specifically called out in the most recent CBA in the Revenue Sharing guidelines because they share a large market with the Giants and, yet, they don’t, in practice, get to actually share that large market with the Giants with respect to building a stadium.

      • You couldn’t be more correct, that is total BS

      • And this is why if MLB insists on the A’s in Oakland, it will need to throw some $$ the A’s way (perpetual revenue-sharing) to make the franchise whole. The A’s have offered a solution – move them 30 miles to the biggest, most prosperous city – but MLB has rejected this. So time to pay up, MLB. You want Oakland – you make it happen. Lecturing Schaaf on Oakland’s “responsibility” to publicly fund a ballpark is a waste of everyone’s time.

  20. Right now Manfred believes the Raiders are going to leave after this upcoming season to somewhere…..doesn’t matter where.

    What he fails to understand is the dynamic and moving parts to come together in order for the Raiders to leave Oakland, this is where he is lost in space.

    Wolff I believe knows he has zero leverage with MLB, Giants, Manfred and Oakland right now, so he is standing pat and enjoying himself.

    If the Raiders stay in Oakland and build new then he has leverage on MLB and the Giants as he will be forced to vacate to ATT Park. Now he can negotiate, or if the Raiders leave he now has leverage on Oakland to build at the Coliseum site.

    Or by some miracle SCOTUS takes on the SJ case, then Wolff has leverage there as well.

    In the end Manfred like Selig before him needs to understand in order to build a ballpark you need leverage on your host city in some form.

    If Wolff was allowed into San Jose, Oakland could step up and do something a la the Warriors in 1995. Oakland straight dropped their pants when San Jose was on the verge of poaching the Warriors with a big public subsidy, ironically worked out in Oakland’s favor.

    Because MLB won’t allow Wolff to negotiate with San Jose, he has no leverage on Oakland. This boggles my mind as what does MLB expect to happen if they pigeon hole the A’s with only 1/3 of the market and won’t allow them to move FURTHER away from the Giants???

    Stupidity all around, Oakland, MLB, Mark Davis all deserve each other….Wolff is the only smart guy between all these idiots

    • One thing to keep in mind is that the Raiders don’t necessarily have to leave in order for the A’s to have a chance at the Coliseum. Coliseum City/New City is really the key blocker to the A’s.

      Once New City fails to meet the current deadlines, the rational thing for Oakland to do would be to ask both the Raiders and the A’s to present their proposals for the site. At that point the A’s are in the driver’s seat.

      The A’s have a 10 year lease, rich owners with significant development experience and experience building stadiums. The Raiders have no lease, and an incompetent owner who has said he can’t build a stadium on his own. Who’s going to win here?

      The cynic in me says that this was Schaaf’s plan all along. She can show she’s done what she could to try and keep both teams by extending the ENA with New City. This also buys time for the Raiders to potentially find a deal in another city that Oakland can’t compete with, putting the blame on the Raiders.

      Assuming the Raiders can’t find a deal, she can then say she gave both team’s a fair shot at a proposal but the Raiders didn’t come up with anything. Also, she can point some of the blame on Wolf for kicking the Raiders out more so than her letting them leave. Everyone already hates Wolf anyway, so Wolf may not care as long as he gets his stadium.

      All of this will of course take time but the A’s have the 10 year lease so they can afford to be patient.

      Manfred may not be banking on the Raiders leaving, but rather the Raiders incompetence and Schaaf’s political need to avoid looking like she kicked the Raiders out.

      • so in those scenarios when is the earliest you can see the a’s playing in a new park if it’s built at the coliseum site?

    • How “smart” is Wolffe for alientating OAKLAND A’s fans and not wanting the team to be in Oakland and openly wanting to move to San Jose and than trying to retract himself due to desperation?

      Yeah…real smart Wolff! SMH

      • He hasn’t alienated me. Here’s a guy who could have thrown in the towel on getting a new ballpark in the Bay Area but he remains committed to getting it done. We should all tip our caps to him. Of course, this won’t satisfy the “Wolff and Fischer are rich and should donate a ballpark to Oakland” crowd.

      • I don’t know, how smart was Al for moving the Raiders to LA. How smart was Mark for spending more time and effort on Carson and even San Antonio than he’s done in Oakland.

  21. There is a good chance the Chargers will stay at SD. That city will conduct a vote for their new stadium proposal, evidently with the Chargers in agreement (they had a meeting with the Charger representatives before going public about the vote). It won’t require the 2/3 voter majority that previous Charger stadium proposals have because it does not require taxpayer increases, so it has a better chance of passing. That rules Carson out for Davis. Also since Davis does not want to be a tenant at a Kroenke Inglewood stadium (Kroenke wants total control over the stadium and does want a partner) the Raiders won’t move there either. Also Davis has said that Santa Clara is not a long term solution for the Raiders, (key word being long term) The Raiders would probably be open to moving there short term.

    • Although one of the most storied franchises in sports, the Raiders are simply unfortunate enough to be in a city that can’t afford them. With the LA option apparently fading, they could find themselves orphaned, with no choice but to move to Saint Louis, where they have no history, or San Antonio – same deal as Saint Louis – or to be permanent tenants of the 49ers, where I believe 49ers season ticketholders would get first dibs on Raiders tickets. When served a lemon, perhaps the Raiders might want to think of how they can make lemonade – moving, kicking and screaming, to Levi’s and then re-branding themselves as the Silicon Valley or San Jose Raiders- the South Bay’s NFL team. With the 49ers still pretending they are in Frisco, this should be doable for the Raiders.

      • The Raiders have no one to blame but themselves for their current situation.

        Al made a horrible decision when he said he wouldn’t partner with the 49ers on Levi’s.

        Oakland has given the Raiders first dibs on the current site. Mark Davis has done nothing to get a stadium done. He doesn’t have funds to build on his own or the ability to manage a development of this scale.

        On top of this, one of the major problems with the Coliseum site is the debt that the Raiders have dumped on the JPA.

        The economics of football are very different than the economics of baseball. If the Raiders had any form of competent management, they would be in a new stadium by now.

  22. With relocation options appearing to be dwindling down, I also see the Raiders moving to Santa Clara, at least on a short-term trial basis. I really believe that this is the NFL’s first choice for the Raiders, other than to getting a Coliseum site new stadium deal done. With BART soon to be extended to Santa Clara County, there will be much easier and improved public transit access for the Raiders’ East Bay fan base to Levi’s Stadium. Also, Levi’s Stadium was designed to accommodate a second home team, including a second home team locker room. Also, stadium signage adjustment capabilities will reflect and display advertising for the second team, as well as give the team a home field identity. If by any chance the A’s eventually get to move from the Coliseum site, the Raiders will then regain leverage for a possible permanent return to a new stadium there in Oakland. However, at this time Santa Clara is looking more and more likely as the Raiders best option.

  23. I’ve always wanted the Raiders to move into (or before it was build, partner with) Levi’s. I just has always seemed like a no-brainer, and minimal investment for MD – just add Raider decoration and other goodies for Raiders game days. It would by far be the easiest and most economical solution for them. And If MD doesn’t want to be a 49er tenant, he could be an investor in the stadium (see Raider decorations, add new locker room, build shad structure for west facing stands, etc). And two NFL teams share a stadium is not a logistical problem at all (unlike two baseball teams sharing a stadium).

    There’s no chance MD can get it done at the Coli, and the LA options are completely dependent on what others do.

    Levi’s is the path of least resistance, and it’s the NFL/Goodell’s first choice.

    This would leave the Coli site open for Wolff to do his thing, and if anyone could do it, it’s him. It would be the best solution for Oakland (he even said he could relieve the Mt Davis debt), and could develop the commercial/residential, and build the ball park.

    Unfortunately, Al’s, and now Mark’s, ego gets in the way of this no-brainer of a solution.

  24. In re the Raiders moving to Santa Clara – has anybod actually asked Jed if he would be okay with Mark Davis bunking in with him at Levi’s?

    • I think he did say it would be OK but he requires a certain amount of years as a commitment to cover the cost of building-out the second locker room. Of course, he’d set the rent too.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s