Manfred visits Oakland, stays on message – with a wrinkle

Before I get into today’s edict from MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred, let’s first sum up his position on the A’s with regard to a new ballpark.

  1. The A’s need a new ballpark.
  2. Oakland is the city for the A’s.
  3. The Coliseum is the only site under consideration in Oakland.

Okay, now let’s unpack what he said in today’s pregame press conference.

View from east towards Oakland Estuary. Image: JRDV

View from east towards Oakland Estuary. Image: JRDV

Via BANG’s John Hickey:

Speaking before the A’s played the Angels Friday night, Manfred said, ‘With respect to San Jose, all I can say is that we are still involved with really significant litigation, significant enough that it’s in the Supreme Court of the United States. I can’t foresee any movement until at least that litigation is resolved. That litigation has clearly been an impediment to things moving forward.’

At the same time, Manfred all but ruled out the A’s staying in Oakland if the Raiders attempt to build a stadium on the Coliseum site. The Raiders also are considering a move to Southern California, but Manfred suggested that if the NFL team stays, the A’s would have to go.

Another constant has been Manfred’s stance on San Jose. The South Bay city will not be in play as long as the antitrust lawsuit, which SJ city leaders are petitioning to have taken up by the Supreme Court, is still pending. MLB wants that little gnat gone, which should that happen by this fall, immediately brings up another question: What is MLB’s relationship with San Jose once the lawsuit is over? I’ve said all along that MLB is not going to kill San Jose while the A’s long-term fate remains unclear, especially in Oakland. That hunch certainly seems correct.

From the Sacramento Bee’s Matt Kawahara:

Manfred urged that the city of Oakland and Alameda County ‘focus on the need to get something done in respect to baseball — not to the detriment of football, but the need to get something done with baseball.’

‘I’ve said publicly I think it’s absolutely vital to the long-term health of this franchise that the A’s get a new facility,’ Manfred said. ‘It remains my goal, part of baseball’s long-standing policy, that we try to get that stadium built here in Oakland, where the A’s have been and have their fan base.’

There are some within the Oakland-only crowd who have been complaining endlessly about the A’s not providing a proposal to Oakland after the Coliseum City process was “opened up” last fall. Manfred knows this and is likely nudging Lew Wolff and John Fisher to get their ducks in a row. To me the idea of pushing Wolff has never made much sense. Wolff’s bargaining position will be best if the Raiders leave, and the lease gives him plenty of time to wait that out, plus there’s no indicator that he’ll get any financing help from MLB on an Oakland ballpark, so MLB can only dictate so much. Yet there’s a different suggestion that comes straight from Manfred himself, and it may come down to what Coliseum City has represented from the start.

Coliseum City was not originally conceived as a precise plan to keep all three current tenants in town. It was a mostly a plan to convince the Raiders to stay. It had a large, multipurpose domed stadium as its centerpiece. A ballpark was shuffled off to the northeast corner, a developmentally distant Phase B to the football stadium. The existing arena could stay – inadequate as the NBA sees it – or be replaced by a venue on the other side of the Nimitz. That new arena concept has practically disappeared as the scope of the project has shrunk, and while Floyd Kephart and CC proponents are still pitching separate venues for all teams, a distinct possibility is an either-or scenario, baseball or football. To that end Manfred has qualified his plea as “not to the detriment of football,” but he and his counterpart at the NFL, Roger Goodell, know full well what’s at stake. Neither league wants to share, or to put it more diplomatically, neither league wants to step on the other’s toes, which is exactly what would happen if both teams stay while a new venue is constructed.

If anything, Manfred seems to want the same kind of attention given to the A’s by Oakland as the City has given the Raiders. While Manfred strong-armed Oakland into signing the 10-year Coliseum lease last summer, he also did them a favor. Manfred kept the A’s in place for several years to come and enforced the territorial rights issue. If anything, Manfred wants Oakland to submit its own Coliseum-tailored-around-the-A’s plan. It may not be something that Wolff would sign on to, but it would likely curry favor with Manfred, and that tactic could be much more effective within the Lodge than keeping the A’s in their second banana status. Oakland tried to make this play before with Howard Terminal, but the difficulties there made it effectively infeasible, and OWB’s giving up on the site does nothing to discount that widely-held opinion.

From SFGate’s Lev Facher:

‘My information is that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have two facilities on the current Coliseum site,’ Manfred said, indicating that a successful Raiders project could preclude the construction of an adjacent baseball stadium.

‘The A’s folks have been pretty clear that they believe the Coliseum site is the best site for a baseball stadium in Oakland,’ Manfred said.

Manfred’s in Oakland’s corner. That is, until Oakland starts to act in a way that displeases the Lodge. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that picking the Raiders over the A’s at the Coliseum is a sure fire way to get Manfred out of Oakland’s corner and into Wolff’s corner.

50 thoughts on “Manfred visits Oakland, stays on message – with a wrinkle

  1. Can we dispense with the “Oakland-only crowd” nonsense? The anti-Oakland agenda? Like I’ve been saying since this blog was conceived, or the San Jose folks got on: I’m not pro-Oakland whatsoever. Oakland is scary! Go away! Thank you!

    Oakland had a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PARADE today. Everyone was invited. Everybody had a good time. We’re totally gonna get invaded now.

    Our mayor rode in on her snail-mobile escorted by MC Hammer. Behind her, Ed Lee (FRISCO! BOO! just kidding) rode in a normal car, Pelosi and whatever. We’re not stupid, we don’t trust them. Followed by the rich white guys who own the contracts of the (75% black) players. They don’t matter.

    When the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYERS spoke, everyone was stoked. Whatever city or skin you live in.

    Meanwhile, 6 kids fell to their death off of shoddy prefab junk in Berkeley. Everyone culpable will point their fingers at each other. The same death-wish Wolfe has been trying to sell us, that Guber wants to sell to Frisco. That’s crawling up around us, like vermin.

    Modern architecture is designed to fall down. That’s it’s beauty. Shoddy prefab junk you gotta build again in 20 years. Cha-ching!!!

    Go A’s! Go Oakland! Go Old Stadiums! Go San Jose, go Vallejo, Frisco, Larkspur, Livermore! Wherever!

    But don’t be stupid. Manfred can wait until next week.

    • Great victory parade. Wonderful. That was the dream that came true. Now comes the reality: Coliseum City and what’s (not) happening with it. Celebrate that. Or say “whatever” or some incoherent rambling nonsense. I’ll be here.

  2. I do believe the coliseum site will include one single-purpose stadium, when all’s said and done. And if you take that as a reasonable assumption, the math is clear: 81 regular season home games vs. 8.

    I’m a Raiders fan, but I’m rooting for their departure for the good of the city.

  3. Without offering significant incentives from both Oakland, Alameda County, and MLB to make it worth the risk for Wolff to build his new A’s ballpark at a less desirable Coliseum site, Wolff would not take any action to build there. I gather that Manfred is putting all his hopes on the Raiders leaving Oakland, so that the A’s could gain leverage with Oakland to get an acceptable new ballpark deal done at the Coliseum site. However, as long as MLB continues to hold the A’s to their current East Bay territory, the A’s would not gain significant bargaining leverage against Oakland, even with a Raiders move from Oakland. MLB has to let Oakland officials know full well that the A’s will be approved to move to San Jose, If Oakland does not work with the A’s to get for them an acceptable new ballpark deal done. For the A’s to finally get their new ballpark, in either Oakland or San Jose, MLB has to significantly step up the pressure on Oakland’s city and county officials. We will soon see if Manfred really means business, or if it’s just the same talk.

  4. If MLB and the A’s want a new ballpark as a condition to stay in Oakland then it is their responsibility to come forth and tell the City/County what they want. If they have a proposal for a new ballpark, they should present it. This idea that the elected officials have to make a decision between the A’s and Raiders without a proposal or request from the A’s is absurd. That is not the responsibility of the elected officials. It is ownership’s responsibility to present their request and requirements to the City and County. The only reason consideration is being given to a new Raider Stadium is (1) they asked for a new stadium to stay in Oakland (2) only entered into a year to year lease to show their intent to leave if a new stadium is not going to happen and (3) they set forth conditions to negotiate a deal. The A’s executed a 10 year lease and made no such request. So don’t put a decision about what should be done with the A’s on the elected officials, this is an ownership decision. Now is the time for the A’s ownership to publicly state THEY want to stay in Oakland and to present to the City/County their proposal for a new ballpark. Otherwise, everyone should take their 10 year lease on the Coliseum as ownerships decision as to what they want until ownership and not someone else makes a different decision.

    • Floyd, one of your main charges is to bring one or both of the teams to the table, to sell them on the project. Every outside observer of this project has known for years what an uphill battle that would be. Your complaint now rings hollow. Where I work if a salesperson doesn’t close a deal, he doesn’t get credit for not closing just because the lead was uncooperative. It’s my charge to understand why the teams won’t sign, and the reasoning is crystal clear. When you can start talking about that, you’ll actually be educating the public on something.

    • Why would they spend $100k+ on proposals that they have no glimmer of hope will happen??? They are saying “show me the money and THEN I’ll show you what I want to do with it.”

      Was I wrong in thinking you were supposed to be delivering a financial package that would make this happen? Where’s the money? Is there any money to make this happen?

      Money talks, BS walks. So far, as we’ve seen is the latter.

    • Mr Kephart, Lew Wolff has made it clear what he wants. He wants to control his own destiny in terms of developing anything on the coliseum site. After all he is a developer. He can’t get what he wants until after your efforts are completed.

      • Mr. Kephart. I think you’re delusional. The Raiders are not going to stay with what is being presented. LA is offering money while Oakland And Alameda want the Raiders to take the Mt. Davis debt. That precondition alone is a non-starter. Mark Davis has been kind but all incentives point to LA for them.

        That being said it makes perfect sense for Wolff to wait for you to inevitably fail and the Raiders to move.

        Wolff doesn’t need you. He needs this circus out of the way.

    • I’m on Fred keypart side😏🏀⚾🏈

      • Me too! What Floyd says is correct, the A’s have not come to the table and have only mocked Oakland while negotiating with San Jose on the side.

  5. Manfred says its important that the A’s simply not wait on the process of the Raiders efforts to build at the site, but to become proactive themselves. Wolff, by doing nothing is being proactive in his efforts to eventually build in San Jose.

  6. Manfred seems upset about the San Jose lawsuit. Official MLB policy is San Jose is nothing but a colony of Frisco and shall NEVER get a team unless the Giants decide to move there, which won’t happen anytime soon. Selig ignored San Jose for years. What did MLB expect?

    • Manfred is upset…because the SC may judge for SJ and than the A’s move to SJ is forced and he knows it. MLB stall tactics when it comes to SJ is a joke.

  7. Floyd, the A’s have given you an outline of the stadium they want, its Cisco Field. It gives you an understanding of the basic size and dimensions they would request. The Raiders gave similar outline of the number of seats of a venue without an agreement on CC and yet there seems to be a proposal for them that will be presented.

    Your argument isn’t logical.

  8. Wolff will never, ever build in Oakland even with the Raiders gone. He will do everything he can to build in SJ, which has been obvious for years and it’s his prerogative to do so. Don’t think that the Raiders leaving means the A’s stay because it will never happen under any circumstances with this ownership group.

    Manfred’s public stance just may be the leverage for SJ to drop the lawsuit to really get things going for SJ. I think this is the most likely outcome. With his overt and obvious desire for SJ, there is zero reason for Oakland fans to believe otherwise. Only another ownership group with no major ties to SJ would build in Oakland and Wolff will never sell.

  9. Manfred really has drawn a line in the sand: Choose the Raiders and the A’s are gone.

  10. Floyd is hilarious. Raiders conditions for staying in Oak, are a free stadium, while doing nothing for it, while leaving the city or you to retire the debt and pay for infrastructure. Come on Floyd, what have the raiders done during this whole process? They don’t even have a crayon drawing of the stadium they want. The raiders money is from a hopeful loan, naming rights and psl’s. The raiders, are the one’s putting the decision in the hands of elected officials because they aren’t offering anything to the city. They are waiting for you to them when the ground breaking is.

  11. I agree with Floyd Kephart. It would be nice to hear from the owners about what they want. The public is totally confused by this ownership group (can anyone tell me what John Fisher and Lew Wolff officially want?)

    Why not come out and say the following: “Our ideal scenario is to move the A’s to San Jose. We are willing to wait until most of the following occurs:

    1) Oakland chooses the Raiders over us
    2) MLB finds a way to change their position on territorial rights
    3) All other legal issues/hurdles are cleared
    4) All other Oakland options are ruled out (one being the Raiders leave and we get the Coliseum site to ourselves)

    Until all of the above are settled, we’re not going to do any of the following:

    1) Present any proposals regarding CC or any other Oakland site
    2) Commit to any specific future in Oakland
    3) Sell the team

    This would make it abundantly clear what their position is versus the current approach of not saying anything about what their priorities are. Of course, they are under no obligation to do this and I’m sure they are concerned that they would irritate the small existing fan base (compared to the Giants, and I’m an A’s fan saying this), so there are some good reasons to just remain silent too.

    Instead (and to Floyd’s point), why not come out and say “to stay in Oakland we want XYZ”?

    It’s starting to get really embarrassing for MLB to have a commissioner saying one thing and having an ownership group taking a different approach in a passive-aggresive type manner.

    The owners not winning over other members of the lodge and ultimately will end up with a really long end game that results in no other future than to sell, move out of the Bay Area or stay in the Coliseum.

    • The Giants are opposing the A’s move to San Jose, not the lodge. MLB questions the Giants on how the giants believe they will lose attendance if the A’s move 40 miles away from Frisco. The Giants are the culprits . No MLB owners have publicly supported the Giants, several have supported the A’s move to SJ though.

      Also, the Giants supposed large fanbase is false media hype propagated by the Giants and many local media dopes such as Ratto and Tim Kawakami. The Giants are the only pro sports franchise that claim all their games are sell outs even though AT&T Park appears to only at 2/3 capacity for many games, (not very impressive for a team that has won the WS 3 times recently.) After several sub .500 seasons and the novelty of AT&T Park declines – that supposed large Giants fanbase and corporate support will shrink. If the Giants were smart (which they aren’t) they would stop opposing the A’s move. Manfred’s and Wolff’s comments make it clear the A’s aren’t moving out of town – which is the giants owners goal. The A’s staying in Oakland is not a victory for the Giants organization.

  12. Well @duffer, a few points:
    1) Moving requires 75% of MLB owners to vote for a move to be permitted. The last move was 29-1 of the Expos to D.C. One team cannot single-handedly hold up the process (as Peter Angelos found out). So far the issue has failed to make it to an agenda item within the Lodge. Are you claiming that the votes are there? No one knows this and I would love to see even a “straw poll on the matter” with journalists asking owners for their position on the record. Probably won’t happen… even off the record.

    2) Fan base numbers is actually not as important as revenues. That’s a function of TV eyeballs and gate sales/concessions/merchandise…. price x quantity. Doesn’t matter if it’s 2/3rds full. It’s freaking expensive! I see no end to the number of people going to games for the the next decade. or decades… has the novelty of going to Fenway park worn off yet? What about Wrigley or Dodger stadium?

    3) Giants can’t win every year and a few mediocre seasons won’t impact the big picture of them being in the top 10 for payroll. Just like the Red Sox, Yankees, Cardinals etc – they have the ability to bounce back fast. Money solves problems. in MLB. To a certain extent having the Giants win a few more WS may help the A’s cause, as some owners may get sick of their dynasty and try to level the playing field by pushing A’s to SJ! If you’re the Dodgers, you really want the A’s in SJ.

    4) Lastly, I realized there is something that could keep Fisher & Wolff up at night. What if they get their way and the A’s move to SJ and the new stadium is a flop and the team fails to catch-on? They’re assuming that Oakland A’s fans will ALL go with them in this move. They could possibly eat a s&#! sandwich of losing a big chunk of the base and failing to eat into Giants fans or non-committed fans in San Jose (aka “causal fans”). It’s a possibility…

    • The giants fanbase is more fickle than you believe (the Giants owners likely also know this, that’s why they are always attempting to marginalize the A’s or squeeze the A’s to make a move to Portland, etc) The Giants so-called dominance can stop very quickly.

    • Be awful hard to not sell out a smallish 35k ballpark in SJ with all the corporate support they would receieve. The Giants are greedy turds !

    • @Steve – a so-called A’s fan considering the Giants a “dynasty”? (The Dodgers likely make more cash than than the Giants and Cards combined and likely don’t care how an A’s move to San Jose will affect the Giants)

      Also, with La Russa now in charge of the D-Backs, and that team improving (they already swept the giants at AT&T) the Giants will soon need to deal with two NL West teams that will always keep Giants in third place status and out of the postseason.

      Furthermore, when Selig was the MLB commissioner, Wolff requested an MLB owners vote for the A’s move a few times – so a majority of MLB owners evidently support the A’s move to SJ.

  13. Wolff says no Raiders at the Coliseum site and mentioned PSLs, too. This is coming down to the wire. If Oakland opts for a Raiders stadium, it is effectively kicking out the A’s.

  14. Mandred like Selig is a coward.

    Both teams cannot build on the same site. It just does not pencil out.

    Without SJ able to compete Manfred is hand cuffing Wolff indirectly. He is too dumb to realize it though.

    Manfred has yet to state why SJ should drop the lawsuit?? Why should SJ trust him or anyone from MLB at this point?

    They have proven to be not trusted and SJ is smart to take this to scotus. 6 years and no report from the BRC?

    Explain to SJ why the BRC was disbanded before this report was shown to them?

    Manfred like Selig is not to be trusted.

    In the end, the A’s need a Raiders miracle in Oakland. Sadly as it is, they need the Raiders to succeed so they can get San Jose.

    Or they need a LA miracle where the NFL shoots down the Rams proposal is favor of the Chargers/Raiders proposal to have a chance to stay in Oakland and get leverage.

    Neither is going to happen…..NFL sides with the Rams and Raiders are stuck with the A’s.

    Status quo for years to come…..

    • Manfred is scared of the SC. Hence why he says this BS about the SC suit delaying things with SJ. MLB and its coward cronies are full of crap. The SJ rights given to the Giants for free should have been rescinded immediately when the ground broke for ATT Park.

  15. This whole saga about getting the A’s and/or Raiders a new park, has been considered by many fans to be a joke spanning many years.

  16. Okay, suppose for a moment that a deal is reached between the city and the Oakland Raiders to build a new football-only stadium at the current site of O.co Coliseum. Suppose further that, per the above San Jose Mercury News article posted by Ramin Salem, Mr. Wolff is telling the truth about ruling out building a stadium for the A’s in San Jose and prefers to build a stadium in the Oakland area. (I know there are many of you who believe he is lying through his teeth about this, but amuse me here for a moment, okay?) With Mr. Wolff ruling out Howard Terminal, where else in the East Bay can a baseball-only stadium be built? It seems to me that one possible area is Richmond/San Pablo, but I say that only by looking at a street map and not knowing any problems that may prevent such a large-scale project from happening. Concord? Pleasant Hill? Antioch? El Cerrito? Union City? Alameda? San Lorenzo? Livermore? Some place else in Alameda/Contra Costa Counties?

    • Can you say…NIMBY? All of those locations, save, perhaps Richmond and San Lorenzo, will face a blizzard of NIMBYism that would chase even the most aggressive developer away.

    • None of those places works for an MLB stadium. The Blue Ribbon Committee spent 5+ years looking for stadium sites in the A’s current territory and never found any. Had something been found, MLB would be pursuing that site. That’s why the A’s are defaulting to the current, bland, industrial area Coliseum site, which offers nothing as far as waterfront views or downtown access. It’s the same old Coliseum site. And let’s not again bring up the contaminated, bound-by-enormous-railroad-obstructions, not-near-public-transit Howard Terminal non-site.

      • Umm…across the 880 Nimitz West Side of the Coliseum…is water. Too bad nobody has been bothered to re zone that territory for a ballpark. Would be a great location.

    • What Wolf basically said is that Oakland is their current choice but the Coliseum is the only option. If the Raiders get the Coliseum site all bets are off:

      “If the Raiders are going to be there, then I don’t know what will happen. We’ll have to sit down with (baseball commissioner) Rob (Manfred) and see what to do.”

  17. If the Raiders stay Wolff has no choice to but to share with the Giants at ATT Park indefinitely.

    At that point Wolff would have massive leverage on the Giants and MLB for a San Jose move.

    This is of course is only if SCOTUS shoots down the SJ appeal. If the SJ appeal is going to be heard, SJ happens as they will force Manfred’s hand.

    Wolff is playing multiple hands at the poker table, he has a Raiders hand, SCOTUS hand, Oakland hand and Manfred hand.

    But he cannot go all in until the Raiders decide to build in Oakland or leave. If they stay and do not build we are stuck for years to come in the status quo.

  18. @Sid, I’m sure the Giants have reassured Mayor Schaaf that MLB will hold the A’s to their East Bay territory, as long as the Raiders do not get their new Coliseum stadium. This means that as long as the Raiders cannot work out a new Coliseum deal, the A’s will not be going anywhere, and quite possibly the Raiders, too.

  19. I wrote this response in regards to a recent article written by Ray Ratto in CSNBayArea, about the Raiders are a sure bet to leave Oakland (which he is dead wrong). My response also effects the A’s situation, as the A’s would have to settle for building a baseball only stadium on the current coliseum site along with a new football stadium for the Raiders. If the Raiders stay put (and they’ll definitely stay put a few more year …the Rams will move to LA for the 2016 season and eventually move into their new home in Inglewood, CA.), the A’s will be forced to either acquiesce to the Coliseum City proposal, or spend all their time in court fighting a friutless battle against the Giants territorial rights. In the end, both the Raiders and A’s will come to some kind of agreement to build on the Coliseum City proposed site. San jose will keep the sharks.

    **************************************************************************************************
    (here’s my response to Ray’s article)

    I can’t believe how gullible L.A. people are. They take this ‘sham of an article’ that says the Raiders are moving and they start beating their chests and making ignorant comments about the Raider supposedly inevitable departure from Oakland. First of all, this [so-called] writer has NO (as in ZERO) credibility. He hates the city of Oakland, and he can’t stand the fact that that Oakland has an excellent chance of maintaining the Raiders. Secondly, if anyone took the time to investigate the Carson City project, they would know that this project has NO legs. It’s a total FRAUD! The environmental report will be over $250 million dollars, and the grounds are toxic (poison). The potential clean-up (after the $250 million dollar environmental report) will match or exceed the report. If the Raiders and Chargers would be willing to spend the nearly $500 million for the report and clean-up (which will take considerable time), there would also have to be willing to wait until at least 2019 (at the EARLIEST) or 2020 for the stadium to be ready for use. L.A. people are dumber than I thought they were. All your ‘raw-raw-raw the Raiders are moving south’ is a pipe-dream. This bush league reporter says the City of Oakland has no money (i.e. $400 million gap). The idiot isn’t telling you the truth…that all Oakland has to cover is the approx. $125 million dollars in infrastructure, which is what any municipality would contribute. It’s in Kephardt’s report. In the next news conference concerning this project (Coliseum City) you will see Mayor Schaaf and the City of Oakland and Alameda County officials APPROVING funds for infrastructure for the new stadium. This Carson City farce was only meant to speed up the negotiations for the Raiders and Chargers to get a deal worked out in their home cities. Nothing more, nothing less. And some of you feeble minded people fell for it. Both the cities of Oakland and San Diego have accelerated their negotiations with their respective teams. The City of Oakland is actually a little ahead of San Diego in that respect (San Diego may have to put the proposal up for a PUBLIC VOTE…something that the City of Oakland wisely avoided). But in the end Carson City was only a pawn to nudge city officials in Oakland and San Diego to hurry up and get with the program. Which is what they’re both doing. L.A. will get an NFL team. But it won’t be the Raiders are Chargers. It will be the team that called L.A. home for nearly 50 years; the RAMS! And it won’t be in Carson City. Their owner doesn’t have to wait for city officials. He is building his own stadium in Inglewood for his OWN TEAMS (the RAMS). Not for another team to lease the stadium he”ll spend almost $2 Billion dollars to build (as some IDIOTS have proposed). NO! He’s spending that $2 Billion dollars for his RAMS to play in. And he’s not going to start off ‘SHARING’ the stadium with another NFL franchise. The RAMS will be the only team playing there for a number of years (until the RAMS have successfully been re-established and financially supported in the L.A. market). Once the RAMS have re-solidified their fan base and have been securely rooted in market, then the NFL may”SERIOUSLY” consider moving a second team into the L.A. market. And the feasibility of moving a second team their will have to go through all the scrutiny of moving the first team. ONE team will be playing in L.A. in 2016, and that will be the L.A. RAMS. Not the Raiders, not the Charges. And if I lived in L.A., I’d welcome them (the RAMS) back with open arms! Because they’re all you’re going to get …for the foreseeable future

    • Both Carson (not Carson City, that’s in Nevada) and Oakland have huge funding question marks in the nine figures. The difference is that the NFL is supporting Carson, at least to the extent that it has blessed it by having Goldman Sachs on it. The NFL has said nothing good about Coliseum City or anyone involved with it. And don’t fool yourself, there remains a $400-500+ million funding gap that no one has figured out yet, because the way to get there runs counter to how Mark Davis wants the stadium built. If you can’t reconcile that you can’t make any kind of boast about Coliseum City. If you actually believe that the funding gap plus the remaining Mt. Davis debt have somehow been successfully resolved, you need to take off the silver and black blinders and start really trying to understand where that money is going to come from. Because no hedge fund billionaires are going to simply give it away just so that they can be associated with a football team.

      Consider this – why is the 20-day confidentiality agreement in place? Don’t you think that if Floyd Kephart had magically solved the problem he’d be touting it to the heavens? That’s not what’s happening. All he’s saying is that he got some parts of the proposal in. That’s not exactly confidence inspiring.

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