We all have different opinions about what’s happening with the teams at the Coliseum. One or more will likely leave, maybe one or two stay, maybe everyone leaves or stays. Perhaps the remaining Coliseum debt will be paid off by private interests, maybe not. There are different timelines for each team, different project costs, different levels of financial wherewithal, and differing approaches. And that says nothing about a third party like Floyd Kephart, who has to figure out how to keep a team and make money off the deal, or the City and County, who are scared to death of being ripped off as they were 20 years ago.
Take all of those factors, throw them all into a bowl, mix them up, and see what you get out of it.
Kephart announced that he submitted his June 21 deliverables on time. City/County/JPA will take 20 days to review the documents, and decide after that review whether to continue with the plan as offered by Kephart, with no leaks or public release prior to that date. For me it’s frustrating, but I get their caution. Coliseum City is extraordinarily complex, so due diligence is of the utmost importance.
While I’m certain many behind the Coliseum City effort have been nothing but sincere in their desire to retain teams while revitalizing Oakland, there’s also been an underlying feeling that the whole thing is a stalling tactic. To that end it has worked to an extent. Both the A’s and Raiders could’ve been gone as early as after the 2013 seasons thanks to their short-term leases. Instead the Raiders are in Oakland through at least 2015, and the A’s could be in the Coliseum until 2024. Yet while Oakland treads water, the teams aren’t standing still… actually, they are standing still. The A’s chose to wait this process out in hopes of getting the Coliseum all to themselves, a strategy that Andy Dolich called “intelligent inaction” on YSTL tonight. They pushed for the lease extension last year, and so they have a sort of first-mover advantage because the lease is solid and they have fewer complications than the Raiders. The Raiders could’ve taken a similar approach, but Mark Davis chose to use one-year leases to help spur Oakland – a strategy that hasn’t worked so far. Meanwhile, Davis has given some broad strokes about what he wants:
- Raiders would buy some of the Coliseum land (for how much and for what purpose aren’t clear)
- City/County/JPA would provide free infrastructure, costing $100-140 million
- City/County/JPA would retire Mt. Davis’s debt
There’s still no word on how exactly the funding gap on the stadium would be addressed. I figure that 1 & 2 are related and would offset each other somehow. The Mt.Davis debt has to be added to the total cost of the stadium, as the City and County have been adamant about not subsidizing the old venue more than they have to. Does that make the gap $400 million? $500 or $600 million? Hard to say at this point.
This project has been marked by a series of decisions made on all sides. The teams chose not to negotiate, waiting either for a stadium to fall into Mark Davis’s lap or for the project’s demise. The City chose to partner with three different entities in hopes of finding someone that had the resources and connections to make the project take off. The County chose to sit out for three years, not becoming a party to the talks until this spring.
Ironically the City/County/JPA, the Raiders, and A’s all would benefit if they didn’t have to make choices of their own free will. If the Raiders leave on their own the public sector gets a little political cover, since they can point the finger at Mark Davis for abandoning Oakland. Should the A’s wait and the Raiders put together a stadium deal, the A’s can say that the Raiders caused hardships, forcing the A’s out. And the Raiders can point to either the A’s no-sharing stance or Coliseum City’s expected demise as their own obstacles to staying in Oakland. Even when they don’t actively decide, there are consequences.
Try as they might, the big decisions can’t truly be avoided. Because in multibillion dollar stadium deals just as in life, eventually if they don’t make choices, someone else (NFL, MLB) will make choices for them.
—
P.S. – At the end of the Dolich segment he expresses amazement at how the City/County/JPA aren’t in direct negotiations with both the Raiders and the A’s. That sentiment is completely understandable if the goal is to wrap up a deal ASAP. The problem is that the teams aren’t on a level playing field. If both had separate stadium projects with similar costs and similarly sized private contributions, working out fair deals for both should be simple. That’s not the case here because of the football stadium’s massive funding gap. If the public sector attempts to make any kind of public contribution (land, infrastructure, direct or indirect funding) for the football stadium, you can be assured that Rob Manfred will ask about the same kind of contribution for the ballpark. He’ll have every right to ask, and he’ll have every right to be severely disappointed if City/County/JPA can’t deliver. That’s the danger in making the deal.
newballpark.org 
How is there even a debate about who between the A’s and Raiders is positioning to offer Oakland a better deal?
– A’s are pretty much on-the-record as indicating that if given the Coliseum site, they would assume the Coliseum debt on their own
– Raiders are asking for that to be assumed by the City/County/JPA
– A’s would offer 81 home games to bring business activity to the area
– Raiders would offer 8
Those are just points, but two major ones.
I hope/assume rational heads will prevail here and this set of events occur:
1. Everyone lets the CC idea burn out without further extending the New City ENA
2. Raiders get a crack at negotiating with the city directly, but ultimately get a better deal teaming with the Chargers in Carson
3. A’s get a crack at negotiating with the city with years of quiet planning behind them, and the two find a solid common ground since neither party at that point will have a whole lot of options available to them
I agree with Dolich – A’s should be the ones deciding what gets built at the Coliseum. Just from the tidbits released up to this point, they offer the way more compelling case and have the in-house development expertise to make it happen.
The notion that there is any economic benefit for Oakland to choose the A’s for their 81 dates over the Raiders for their 8-10 dates is not supported by reality. Both teams propose to build their stadium/ballpark surrounded by a sea of parking. You can bet the parking revenues will go directly to the team to help support any construction. Neither team has indicated that it will be doing much else in terms of other development outide of the venues. As fans do today they drive to the games and leave right after–their is no economic benefit to Oakland as no significant dollars are spent in Oakland before or after the games. Oakland should pick a team the provies the greatest national exposure which hands down is the NFL- baseball provides regional exposure which wont provide Oakland any value regardless of the number of dates-
If both teams end up with just a sea of parking, I don’t disagree but the national exposure argument is also ridiculous. Oakland currently has three professional sports teams (2 with Oakland in their name). How has that worked out for Oakland so far?
@slacker–I don’t think that you can argue which league has greater national exposure- obviously success will only add to this exposure as evidenced by the Dub’s and Oakland getting some well deserved exposure
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1707663-nfl-is-the-most-popular-sports-league-in-the-usa-really-too-big-to-fail
The national exposure is worth, what exactly?
I’ll take the 81 games of people buying hot dogs and beer, vendors working, and whatever, if any, corollary development does occur over anything as immeasurable and wispy as national exposure.
@jeffreyaugust nailed it. Oakland already has national exposure via it’s sports teams. What good is it doing Oakland?
@Jeffrey- I dont know the value that any city puts on national exposure- I do know that cities spend to market themselves nationally to attract visitors/businesses and business travelers to spur economic development. Not sure how much that means for Oakland considering no convention center but bottom line they all aspire for nat’l exposure which is why Oakland worked so hard to have ESPN show Oakland specific sites and not SF sites during the NBA finals.
@TT- Any concessions revenue will go directly to the teams based upon their investment in their venues. While I agree that there will be more hours worked by concession stafff in an 81 date baseball season I am not sure that these low-wage jobs provide any measurable value to Oakland.
@GoA’s – The value of the food/beer is not in the grosses but in the sales tax. Sales tax revenue in the age of Proposition 13 is king for cities. Also, these jobs mean a lot to East Oakland. The workers are organized and show up to CC meetings. There are political as well as economic drivers present.
FYI, Oakland has a convention center downtown.
@TT–sorry about the convention center–but at 64000 sq feet I equate that to hotel meeting space. SJ is considered a mid-size convention center at 550,000 square feet. Also found this quote
interesting in Oakland Convention Center website “Located in the heart of downtown Oakland, the Oakland Convention Center is just minutes from San Francisco”. Perhaps some new marketing will help Oakland.
In terms of concession revenue assocaited with sales tax—I would venture to say its max of $1.5M additinonal revenue for an entire season. Also note that the city needs to pay security/other personnel so some of this additional benefit is offset—
Bottom line I stand by my original statement that there is no distinct benefit to Oakland for 81 games v. 8-10 games for a sports venue out in the middle of 880 and surrounded by parking
@GoA’s – You’re right that there’s no benefit to 81 dates vs 8 dates if the stadium is surrounded by a sea of parking. There’s also no benefit to the arguably greater national exposure given by an NFL team.
Oakland has had multiple professional sports teams in a sea of parking for a decade now and what good has it done the city? Oakland has to consider a different model to gain any of the economic benefits being discussed.
While Wolff has said he wants surface parking he hasn’t ruled out some development or future development down the road. If he has control of a chunk of land, he’s going to come up with a way to make money on it.
The same cannot be said about the Raiders or Mark Davis. With just an NFL stadium, there’s no chance for additional development.
There are no guarantees here and it’s definitely a gamble for the city, but sticking with the Raiders is just a smaller version of more of the same which hasn’t worked. Going with the A’s, at least gives them a chance (even if it’s slim) at something different.
@Slacker–appreciate the civil debate–and sounds like we agree that the on the surface the difference in economic benefit is minimal. And I will agree that the nat’l exposure is minimal as well. So given this why would Oakland want to keep any of its teams? For civic pride that has no tangible economic value? It would seem to me that if they want to do something differently they need to figure out how to build a venue- either arena or ballpark in the downtown area where they will have a tangible economic impact. Absent being able to do that (and it sounds as if there is no chance of this) then allow the teams to vacate and use the Coli land for true econoomic benefit with houses and corporations that can leverage the transit in the area and increase tax rolls.
Btw–remember Lacob said that HT would make a fine venue for the A’s; time for Oakland to be pushing him to build his arena at HT.
@GoA’s – I’m a huge sports fan and selfishly want as many teams as possible in Oakland. That being said, Oakland is doing itself a disservice if it doesn’t evaluate what alternative uses it could do with the land.
My overall point is that the current model hasn’t worked out well for them. Putting a new stadium (whether it’s for the A’s or the Raiders) in the middle of the same parking lot is simply re-arranging the deck chairs. Oakland needs to try something different.
Oakland at least has a chance for something different with the A’s. If nothing else, Wolff is a very good developer. If there’s a way to make money off of additional development (even if it’s down the road) tacked on to a sports stadium he’s much more likely to be able to get this done than Mark Davis.
In terms of HT, of course Lacob is going to say that. He’s leaving Oakland and doesn’t want to look like the bad guy. That’s a nice way of deflecting blame (and I”m not suggesting he is to blame for the Warriors leaving) on to the A’s. If HT is such a great site why aren’t the Warriors building there?
@Slacker “Oakland already has national exposure via it’s sports teams. What good is it doing Oakland?”
That national exposure is pretty much the only reason anyone on the East Coast has ever heard of Oakland. Without it, Oakland is Camden, NJ.
The benefit of that national exposure is to at least be considered when companies decide where to locate their businesses. If your city never crosses the minds of the decision makers, it’s not going to be on the short list.
As far as how much good the national exposure is currently doing Oakland, that cannot be directly measured. However, it is logical to assume Oakland is better off with it than it would be without it. One can also get a sense of its value by calculating how many millions of dollars Oakland’s Chamber of Commerce would need to spend to generate equivalent exposure without it.
What companies have setup shop in Oakland because of name recognition?
When the Raiders left Oakland for LA, what impact did that have on the Oakland economy?
What about San Jose? San Jose’s name recognition comes from businesses that started there and not sports teams. The businesses have led to the market that would make a sports team profitable, not the other way around.
In terms of name recognition, Oakland also has name recognition for being in all of the top 10 lists for cities with high crime rates? The NFL and the image of the Raiders also doesn’t help here.
I’m not saying there’s no benefit to name recognition, but you’re overstating things. Oakland draws significantly more benefit out of being part of the SF Bay Area than it ever will from professional sports teams.
Cities want sports teams because it makes them a “major league” town. This is not meant as an insult, but Oakland is not a major league town. It’s a medium sized city in the SF Bay Area. A pro sports team doesn’t change that.
@ Slacker “What companies have setup shop in Oakland because of name recognition?”
That’s almost impossible to prove one way or the other. You’d need to do an exhaustive study, and there are so many variables that even then I’m not sure how conclusive it would be. But it is intuitive and an article of faith among Chamber of Commerce and PR people that free publicity, especially of a positive nature, is a good thing.
“When the Raiders left Oakland for LA, what impact did that have on the Oakland economy?”
Again, impossible to prove one way or the other. It certainly didn’t enhance Oakland’s image as a city on the rise.
“What about San Jose? San Jose’s name recognition comes from businesses that started there and not sports teams. The businesses have led to the market that would make a sports team profitable, not the other way around.”
Actually, I consider San Jose a great counterexample to your argument. San Jose has enviable size, demographics, and location but poor name recognition and has dramatically underperformed the rest of Santa Clara County as a job center. San Jose is Exhibit A as a city that would HUGELY benefit from the addition of a big 3 (NFL, NBA, MLB) sports franchise bearing its name.
“In terms of name recognition, Oakland also has name recognition for being in all of the top 10 lists for cities with high crime rates? The NFL and the image of the Raiders also doesn’t help here.”
The crime perception may tend to counter the positive perceptions brought by the sports teams, diminishing their effect.
“Oakland draws significantly more benefit out of being part of the SF Bay Area than it ever will from professional sports teams.”
Whether that’s true or not, it’s kind of irrelevant to the question of how much benefit the visibility brought by sports teams confers.
“Cities want sports teams because it makes them a “major league” town. This is not meant as an insult, but Oakland is not a major league town. It’s a medium sized city in the SF Bay Area. A pro sports team doesn’t change that.”
Oakland may not be a major league town but to a degree it is perceived that way, solely because of its sports teams. Oakland is in the consciousness of people on the East Coast because of its sports teams. Fresno, on the other hand, is not.
@Bartleby – That’s the point though.
Have the Raiders brought more name recognition to Oakland than the A’s? Yes.
Can you prove that the name recognition matters? No
The same is true for the 81 games vs. 8 argument. Oakland currently hosts at least 130 sporting events a year at the Coliseum. Has that resulted in a ton of additional business around the Coliseum? Absolutely not.
What we do know is that Oakland is not in good shape economically. Oakland is also not a major city. A brand new stadium in a sea of parking at the same site doesn’t change anything. Oakland needs to change it’s thinking.
Even if it’s slim, with the A’s, there’s at least a chance of a different type of option at the site. With the Raiders that chance completely goes away and Oakland is in the same situation it is today only worse because it now has two less teams.
Your comments make so much sense, IF the ownership has a commitment to winning beyond the regular season, a commitment to the community (they really want San Jose) and want to build for the long term and have a nucleus of players, they don’t!
Let the Raiders prevail, the A’s will fall in line.
Absolutely right. If winning is the key metric, I’d much rather go with the team that’s 56 – 136 over the past 12 years.
This whole thing is ludicrous, since there is a brand new stadium 30 miles away ready to take the Raiders. Tough luck for the Raiders that their current home city can’t provide a new stadium for them. But the Raiders stadium problem has been solved. They have a new stadium they can use in their market. Too bad for them if they didn’t get in on the ground floor and now the place is decked out in 49er red, which won’t even be seen once Raiders fans occupy the read seats.
There are already two teams sharing an NFL stadium in New Jersey. There are no cases of two teams sharing an MLB stadium for more than a year or two. The NFL even wanted the Raiders at Levi’s. Nobody is talking about permanent sharing of an MLB stadium. Let the Raiders move 30 miles away and give the A’s the Coliseum property. Problem solved… I see one of the Oakland council members is already publicly disagreeing with Wolff and saying there’s plenty of room for two stadiums at the Coliseum site. If Oakland chooses the Raiders (again), watch San Jose’s now-dead stadium effort spring miraculously back to life. Wolff knows what he’s talking about when he says how difficult it would be to compete with the Raiders for sponsorships, PSLs, etc. (In Oakland, the A’s must forsake all that Silicon Valley money they would get in San Jose and tap from the East Bay’s small corporate base.) A new Raiders stadium in Oakland means there will never be a new A’s stadium in Oakland. It’s Oakland’s call now.
Except that ignores that AT&T Park is not set up to host two teams long term… Levis Stadium is.
The new stadiums are the A’s and/or Raiders organization’s investments anyhow. Both Wolff and Davis will fund most if not all of the cost for their new stadiums – not the taxpayers – it’s their dime, not yours or mine. If they care to spend privately for a new ballpark, that’s fine with me. Besides, as an A’s fan, what would be more revolting than being required to view games at the phonebooth park.
What is ludicrous is you hating on the Coli City idea if no pubic funds will be used toward Stadium construction. Also….that half azz rush job of a stadium called Levis is ugly in a bad location and was a waste of good money.
It appears that most of the people in this blog are on the Lew Wolf payroll and are not for the best interest of East Bay Sports. How can you feel LW is on our side when he makes “taking my ball home” comments like this:
“I don’t want this fellow (Kephart) telling the A’s what to do. We have no desire to compete with the Raiders for PSLs (personal seat licenses) and sponsors. We just don’t see that.”
Why is this about you Lew? This is about getting a stadium for a community that has supported your ass for 10 years! Let Lew take his ball and go elsewhere. Start supporting a team THAT WANTS TO BE HERE.
Several potential developers had previously backed out of the Coliseum City project. Despite what I’m sure are impressive looking Coliseum City plans, I don’t see any potential developers willing to invest into a risky East Oakland combination stadium and multi-usage development project. With MLB holding the A’s to the Coliseum site, the best case scenario for Oakland Raider fans is for their team to move to Levi’s Stadium, at least on a trial run basis.
Let Kephart of other billionaire investors worry about their potential invesntment in Coli City. That area/land has nothing but upside and money to be made by a much needed redevelopment.
The A’s to San Jose is evidently more in play that many local media hacks Ray Ratto, Tim Kawakami, KNBR, etc. admit. (They certainly won’t give a good objective analysis about an A’s San Jose move) A San Diego sportswriter commented that the A’s possible move to San Jose is a factor in what Davis will do. Also Davis evidently must have $900 mil. available towards either a new stadium in Oakland or Carson.
Furthermore, even if Oakland Mayor Schaaf supports the A’s, that is no guarantee other Oakland politicians will. Many Oakland city council members, and the JPA support the Raiders, and may have enough power to keep the Raiders in Oakland, over Schaff’s objections. Recall the difficulty of getting Oakland agree to an A’s lease extension (MLB even had to threaten Oakland that the As would move to AT&T Park, if Oakland officials wouldn’t agree to the A’s lease) Schaff might get plenty of opposition from Oakland politicians who support the Raiders.
TribTowerViews
Your reading in the 2nd paragraph is strange. Yes, Larry Reid is an explicit Raiders supporter, but he’s only one CM. He’s also retiring after next year. The rest of the council ranges from tepidly supporting the A’s or clear indifference to sports. There isn’t, as you suggest, some Raiders voting bloc on the CC that will derail an A’s deal.
I recall the difficulty of the A’s getting their lease signed last summer, but I also remember that was under Jean Quan. She tried to play hardball with Wolff and got burned by the MLB. She didn’t play hardball because of some anti-A’s sentiment on the CC, but because she vastly overestimated her negotiating skill and position.
Mayor Schaaf may have her rightful detractors, but she as least has a firmer grasp on the reality of the situation than her predecessor. She got the County on the same page, something Quan failed to do in three years of Coliseum City planning.
RE: the media. Occam’s razor suggests that its more likely that media is making as accurate a reading of the situation as possible with the facts available. It is less likely that there is a conspiracy to derail the A’s to San Jose project and that the “true narrative” is only visible to someone from San Diego.
TribTowersViews: Your comment about the A’s lease negotiations and Oakland politicans seems plausible. However, you are way off the mark concerning some local media personalities and their very slanted, pro-Giants coverage. The giants own Ratto, Kawakami, etc. in their back pocket, also KNBR is very pro-Giants (no need to explain that one) They are not at all reputable, objective sources about the A’s.
“The Mt.Davis debt has to be added to the total cost of the stadium, as the City and County have been adamant about not subsidizing the old venue more than they have too.”
Not to get too hung up on what may be just semantics, but this is an incorrect way for Oakland to analyze this. The Mt. Davis debt is a sunk cost, and is still Oakland’s problem if all teams leave. A good deal for the city going forward is a good deal going forward, and getting hung up on the debt is a way to screw up what could be a workable deal
This argument presumes the Raiders are the only possible deal for Oakland. Wolff has mentioned retiring the Mt. Davis debt as part of a possible Coliseum land deal. Taking the Raiders deal precludes a deal where the debt is actually retired by a non-Oak/ALCO party. As an Oak/ALCO taxpayer, that’s not something to get hung up on but a critical piece of any deal.
Trib, it’s amazing how many out-of-town suburban fans are eager and excited to stick Oakland and Alameda County with huge debts to subsidize their 8 “tail gate parties” per year.
It is entirely possible that the A’s vision for the Coli is a rehab—tear down Mt. Davis; restore the bleachers in that area,and upgrade the ballpark in its present form. A few hundred million plus $100M for the outstanding debt will need to be offset by something from Oakland such as development rights elsewhere in the city or other mechanisms. Bottom line no one is going to give Oakland free stadiums. The city/county will be providing public dollars–just not out of the general fund.
@TribTowerViews If the A’s actually come forward with a concrete proposal that includes paying off the existing debt, that might be a good reason to pick the A’s over the Raiders. But if the Raiders actually come forward with a concrete, doable proposal for an NFL stadium that does not include assuming the debt, passing on that proposal in hopes Wolff will do something charitable based on a few comments he has made in the newspaper would not be wise.
Really, neither team is obligated for the existing O.co debt, so I’m not seeing a reason why either would take it on unless they were getting that money back somewhere else (e.g. free land or infrastructure). It will be good for the politicians to be able to say they got a team to retire the debt, but I would carefully scrutinize all line items of any such deal before making a judgment whether it’s good for taxpayers or not.
@Bartelby — OK I get that, but there is no Raiders proposal on the table. Based on their invitations to offer, they don’t plan on paying down the debt at all. This is a politically noxious point in ALCO. The County is on record that the debt must be dealt with prior to a deal happening. Last year when Jean Quan floated forgiving the debt in a deal with the Raiders, people freaked out. Such a deal would have severe political consequences, especially in southeastern ALCO.
Even if the teams have no obligation to deal with the debt, it has to be taken care in some fashion if JPA/City/County want to approve a deal. That’s why Mark Davis’ insistence that he won’t come to the table until the debt is off the table is a non-starter. Mark Davis may be able to shake on a deal, but Oakland CC and ALCO CC have to answer to anti-tax people, public land advocates, affordable housing activists etc.
@ Brian I agree.
Exactly! The debt will be taken care of. People here need to stop with their BS negative hypotheticals. The main issue with the debt is if the Raiders end up leaving. Than you have no NFL team and existing debt to pay? Embarrassing. Also, do people really believe that Wolff would be willing to pay off existing Raider debt if he were given the existing land to develop for himself at Coli City? Ridiculous!
No, the debt will not be “taken care of.” There needs to be a plan to cover that, and deal with the ongoing operating subsidy at the Coliseum which the Raiders also don’t want to pay. You can only generate so much money from a development when it is forced to be limited in scope due to the need for parking. As for no public money, that’s not what Kephart is saying. He’s saying “no new taxes” and “won’t hit the general fund”. Even that is debatable at this point.
Kephart must have a financing plan of some sort, it is stunning he won’t release it on a high level like San Diego did…..NDA or no.
In the end, I think the Raiders get it done with a funding plan something like this:
-Raiders $300M
-NFL $200M
-Naming rights $125M (49ers were $220M for 11 years)
-SBL sales $120M (49ers were at $531M, San Diego estimates $120M)
-Suite Sales-$150M (49ers were at $400M)
-Oakland/JPA/Alameda County- $150M (Infrastructure upgrades and teardown)
-Parking/Ticket surcharges- $80M (San Diego estimates $111M over 30
years)
-80M of bondable construction capital from team rent (San Diego estimates $173M)
Total: $1.255B dollars for brand new Oakland stadium
I have the Raiders only getting a fraction of what the 49ers got and what San Diego is estimating in all areas outside of direct NFL and Raiders capital contribution to project.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2015/03/san-francisco-49ers-levis-stadium-debt-license-sbl.html
The 49ers stadium ended up costing $931M dollars total and they built in ultra expensive Santa Clara/Silicon Valley according to the article above. It came under the $1.1B projection by $80M.
Therefore $1.285B estimate is not unreasonable considering the Oakland location and improved economy from when the 49ers broke ground.
This “funding gap” is only stated because no one has stepped and put a plan together for public view like San Diego and Minnesota have.
I believe Kephart saw what San Diego/SF/Minnesota have done and will do the same in his latest proposal.
Only $150M is coming from the public sector for infrastructure, the $80M in bondable capital is borrowed against team rent over X amount of years.
I think the Raiders a lot closer than people are generally left to believe.
Issue is when you have Mark Davis, Oakland, JPA, and Alameda County working together with Kephart you got the “blind leading the blind”.
This is not hard and this stadium should happen.
@ Sid Your numbers look reasonable provided the Raiders and/or NFL haven’t assumed some of those revenue streams won’t be dedicated to paying back their $500 million share. I’m not sure that’s the case.
Good point. The NFL provides a loan of $200 million. the league and the Raiders may want that PSL (how’d that work out last time the Raiders tried it?) and naming rights $$ for itself. Are Raiders fans prepared for enormous spikes in ticket prices to pay for this building? Are there enough of them to clinch this project?
Is your calculation based on the just the actual Raider Stadium or Coli City in general. The Stadium will not cost that much.
“Second Verse, Same as the First!”
Bartelby,
Levis Stadium in the top 5 of all Stadiums in the NFL?? Come on now…. Bad reviews of Levis abound. The exterior showing the beams is atrocius….the stadium does not contain crowd noise….doesn’t even get as loud as the Stick did….and nobody sits on the East Side due to the sun being in the faces of fans all game long.
The suite tower concept is an illa advised concept for stadia and a waste of money. The turf was replaced like 10 times during the season?? The parking situation is a absolute nightmare and the location off the Alviso/237? Going in and out of that stadium is horrendous…and there is a weak transit system there. VTA??
One more thing,
Someone has to do the task of selling SBLs, Suites and premium seating in general to the fan base…….Don’t know who that is, but I would just hire Legends like the Giants/Jets and 49ers did
Rush summed it up many years ago, “If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
PJK: “There are already two teams sharing an NFL stadium in New Jersey. There are no cases of two teams sharing an MLB stadium for more than a year or two.”
Maybe no “recent” cases, but the Angels did 4 years in Chavez Ravine, Phillies/A’s and Cardinals/Browns shared parks for years. No one has done it recently, because there hasn’t been a reason to share.
I think ML’s comments in the PS section are really the key issue here. As others have said we don’t know what the A’s will actually propose. The reason for that is that they don’t have a chance to make a proposal.
I realize that technically the ENA with New City allows for the A’s or the Raiders to submit an alternative proposal but there is no framework for how this should be presented and no clear sign that the city would even evaluate the proposal. Without giving clear direction to the A’s, this is a pure CYA move on the part of the city and is forcing the A’s into the waiting game.
It is true that it’s not an even playing field between the Raiders and the A’s in terms of their ability to submit a proposal. I think this is unrelated to the cost of the stadiums however. IAn NFL stadium will cost more however the NFL will kick in funds whereas MLB won’t. The NFL’s revenue sharing model also makes this much easier for the Raiders. These items balance out the cost of the stadium.
It’s not a level playing field because of the differences between Wolff and Davis. Davis has no ability to manage this whereas this type of a proposal is right in Wolff’s sweet spot. Oakland has passively aggressively made their decision by offering New City as a lifeline to the Raiders to help the Raiders overcome their own incompetence.
At some point the city has to wake up and realize it ain’t going to happen with the Raiders. By that time they could have blown their chances with both teams.
Ratto might have a valid opinion about something (for once) about the Raiders possibly moving to LA. The team continues to broadcast the Sliver and Black show down there, also an FM radio station carries the Raiders games in that region. Besides, when visiting there, judging by the vehicle bumper stickers and fan gear, the Raiders easily dominate that region (way more than the Niners do)
Ratto’s belief that the Raiders value will jump by moving there may be false though. If they were to average 40K fans per game (as they did with their previous stint down there) their value wouldn’t increase and would drop instead. That also could easily occur because of market saturation (two teams playing in the same stadium) Judging by past history, the LA area has demonstrated that it can support only one NFL team – the two team attempt playing there failed miserably.
LA can’t support two teams in LA, plus the Chargers if they stay in SD. LA has proven in the past that it can barely support one team.
The value of the Raiders will go up regardless if the new stadium is in LA or in Oakland. If Coli City or semi Coli City with just the Raiders Stadium…the whole plot of land will increase in value with the housing, retail, bars, res
It is a huge mistake to assume LA can’t support two NFL teams based on data that is over twenty years old, with two teams playing in sub-optimal venues, and in a vastly different economic climate. If markets like Jacksonville and Nashville can support an NFL team, LA can easily support two teams whether or not there’s a team in San DIego. Don’t forget, the reasoning that LA is considered a more lucrative market than others has little to do with attendance and lots to do with sponsorship and corporate opportunities.
The reasoning that LA is considered a more lucrative market than others has little to do with attendance and lots to do with sponsorship and corporate opportunities. Even assuming a team in LA drew only 40K fans in LA (a questionable assumption given a new, SOTA stadium), an NFL team in LA would be doing fine economically. It might look bad on TV, but home gate revenue is a small slice of the overall NFL revenue pie.
The reasoning that LA is considered a more lucrative market than others has little to do with attendance and lots to do with sponsorship and corporate opportunities. Even assuming a team in LA drew only 40K fans in LA (a questionable assumption given a new, SOTA stadium), an NFL team in LA would be doing fine economically. It might look bad on TV, but home gate revenue is a small slice of the overall NFL revenue pie.
An NFL team wouldn’t do that fine economically in LA if they drew 35-40K per game (as the Raiders did there previously) The Rams, in the 90s, averaged even worse, 25K per game. Teams that draw poorly don’t receive much corporate sponsorships and luxury box revenue. The Raiders need to draw well to succeed there.
Given LA’s past history of supporting two NFL teams, (very unsuccessful) assuming that two teams, playing in the same stadium, and the same division, would be successful is really rolling the dice. They could easily oversaturate the LA NFL market, with one or both teams drawing poorly – that’s why both teams left there originally.
@ duffer “An NFL team wouldn’t do that fine economically in LA if they drew 35-40K per game (as the Raiders did there previously)”
Your facts are wrong. The Raiders never averaged anywhere close to 35-40K per season in LA. By my calculation based on game-by-game figures published in Wikipedia, their attendance ranged from a low of 46K to a high of 64K while they were there:
1994 51,195
1993 48,954
1992 52,156
1991 63,472
1990 58,616
1989 49,621
1988 52,625
1987 54,611 (excluding replacement player games)
1986 64,526
1985 63,724
1984 64,087
1983 46,035
1982 46,284
Overall, Raiders attendance during their time in LA was pretty close to NFL average for those years. Sometimes lower, sometimes higher. This is pretty good considering they played in a crumbling venue with lousy sightlines, few amenities and gang problems, and were run by an owner who was openly hostile to marketing and fan service. They’d do a lot better in a new SOTA stadium and with proper marketing.
“The Rams, in the 90s, averaged even worse, 25K per game.”
Sorry, not even close. http://losangelesrams.org/about/statistics/attendance.html
“Teams that draw poorly don’t receive much corporate sponsorships and luxury box revenue. The Raiders need to draw well to succeed there.”
Another unsupported assertion. Most of these naming rights and sponsorship deals are long term deals, some of which would be locked in as part of the initial financing package. I’m aware of no data showing correlation between general attendance and corporate sponsorships and luxury box revenue, let alone causation.
“Given LA’s past history of supporting two NFL teams, (very unsuccessful)”
As shown above, notwithstanding the prevailing narrative, LA supported two NFL teams fairly well even though both played in substandard venues. LA is bigger and richer now, and it’s reasonable to expect two teams will do even better in a state-of-the-art venue.
“assuming that two teams, playing in the same stadium, and the same division, would be successful is really rolling the dice. They could easily oversaturate the LA NFL market, with one or both teams drawing poorly – that’s why both teams left there originally.”
It’s not why both teams left originally – they left over stadium issues. The Raiders were playing in one of the worst venues in the league, and couldn’t get anything done to improve it. The Rams got bribed away by one of the biggest sweetheart deals/public money giveaways in the history of sports.
bartelby; I don’t mean to be rude, however it’s fortunate that you aren’t an NFL GM. The Raiders attendence in LA sucked – it was nowhere near average, they drew better in Oakland. And yes, attendence does matter. There isn’t much luxury box and corporate sponsor demand for a team that plays to a half empty stadium. Both the LA (for two teams) and St Louis markets have proven to be a big-time bust for the NFL. There is likely a good chance both the Raiders and Chargers will stay put because they are aware of that fact, even though it appears the NFL is prodding them to make the Carson move.
“bartelby; I don’t mean to be rude, however it’s fortunate that you aren’t an NFL GM.”
duffer, I don’t mean to be rude, however it’s fortunate that you aren’t a civil engineer, as you’re really bad at math. Further details below.
“The Raiders attendence in LA sucked – it was nowhere near average,”
Average Raiders attendance in LA: Approx 55,069 (not adjusted for the shortened strike years in 82 and 87; such an adjustment would actually push the Raiders average slightly higher)
Average NFL attendance 1982-1994: 56,469
“… they drew better in Oakland.”
Wrong again. Average Raiders attendance in Oakland since returning in 1995: 53,299
Specifically:
1995 51,820
1996 49,864
1997 46,937
1998 48,318
1999 49,767
2000 57,814
2001 59,011
2002 60,636
2003 55,007
2004 50,742
2005 52,306
2006 58,495
2007 59,109
2008 57,850
2009 44,284
2010 46,431
2011 59,242
2012 54,216
2013 50,444
2014 53,699
Source: Wikipedia (1995-2007); Statista.com (2008-2014)
“And yes, attendence does matter. There isn’t much luxury box and corporate sponsor demand for a team that plays to a half empty stadium.”
You still haven’t cited any support for your proposition. Naming rights deals are locked in for something like 20-30 years; other sponsorship and suite deals are locked in for multiple year terms as well. General attendance ebbs and flows based on various factors (including the performance of the team); sponsorship and suite deals are much less volatile. Team performance might be something of a factor if either good performance or bad performance went on long enough. General attendance? Not so much.
“Both the LA (for two teams) and St Louis markets have proven to be a big-time bust for the NFL.”
This is simply, flatly, not true. The Raiders played to near-average attendance during their time in LA despite a crappy, crumbling stadium; indifferent marketing and repeated gang problems at their games. Rams average attendance during their time in LA was more than 5,000 OVER NFL average. The Rams sold out every game they played in St. Louis from 1995 until they started 0-8 in 2007. Fan support was pretty decent over the next five years considering the Rams only won seven home games in that time (worst ever in the NFL).
Some of you here are jusy ridiculous Raider haters. Kephart/Davis plan will call for NO public money for the actual stadium! Public money maybe be used for infrastruture around the stadium (Bart Imporvements, clean up, and new overpass) which has been said and agreed to by Libby and the politicos this whole time. What’s the problem now??
If the Kephart plan (Davis’ involvement in this is questionable at best) is realistic and doesn’t call for public money beyond infrastructure, Oakland should absolutely consider it. I don’t think anyone is questioning that.
The issue is why shouldn’t Oakland also open up the bidding for the A’s to present a proposal? What if the A’s require less in infrastructure funds, agree to pay the same price for the land as the Raiders, plus agree to take on the debt that the Raiders dumped on the city.
By not even talking to the A’s, Oakland is negotiating against itself.
Or is this such a terrible idea because you’re just a ridiculous A’s hater?
@ Slacker Your idea makes perfect sense: if Oakland can lure the Raiders and A’s into a bidding war for the site, it should absolutely do so. The problem is, Lew Wolff is no fool, and has shown no indication he will allow this to happen.
Wolff’s strategy instead seems to be wait for the Raiders to fail, then swoop in with an uncontested proposal to a now-desperate Oakland. If the Raiders somehow succeed, maybe he gets San Jose. Win-win for the A’s.
I think the way this is likely to play out is, if Oakland actually gets a viable proposal from the Raiders it will have to judge it as good enough or not good enough on its own merits without the benefit of knowing whether the A’s could or would make a better offer. It would be foolish to pass on an otherwise viable proposal that does not retire the debt based on a pie-in-the-sky wish that if the Raiders leave the A’s will do so out of kindness. The A’s incentive to do this will be much, much less if the other teams are on their way out the door and there are no competing proposals. As has been said before, the existing debt is a sunk cost.
Of course, another outcome could be the Raiders produce a viable proposal that does not retire the debt, Oakland says good enough, and then the A’s swoop in with a last minute better offer. I think that’s best case for Oakland.
Wolff is no fool, but he also doesn’t have a choice. Oakland has a chance to try and force the A’s hand. If Oakland opens it up to the A’s don’t you think Manfred is going to step in and tell Wolff he has to submit a legitimate proposal?
Between Oakland, the Raiders and the A’s, the A’s have far away the least amount of leverage. They don’t have any clear options in the region or out.
The Raiders can move to Levi’s, LA, San Antonio, St Louis, etc.
Oakland at least is holding a plot of land that two teams want.
If you’re Oakland, wouldn’t you want the low leverage player at the table in this case?
Nope! I’m an A’s AND Raiders fan. Not some off A’s fan/Raider Hater. I value NFL football remaining in the East Bay Area with a brand new stadium that is looks much better than that half ass rush job in Santa Clara the Niners built. Wolff already has stated many times he wanted SJ over Oakland and he still does. He just learned to shut his mouth about it 2 years ago to not piss off the A’s fans in Oakland more than he already did.
@slacker: the A’s do have other options, recall during the the A’s lease extensions with Oakland, after Selig threatened Oakland officials that the A’s would move to AT&T Park temporarily if Oakland officials didn’t agree to the lease extension. The A’s made no comment about a possible temporary move to AT&T park and instead suggested they would build a temporary ballpark somewhere locally, MLB (Manfred) agreed with that and added that the A’s could move anyplace they wanted (inferring San Jose also) if Oakland didn’t agree to extend the A’s lease. The other local options (not including San Jose) are still an option for the A’s.
@duffer – Vague references to temporary homes and the possibility of San Jose are not options. They’re a negotiating ploy.
Until MLB (or SCOTUS) opens up San Jose, the A’s are stuck to Alameda and Contra Costa County. If the A’s had a viable option within their territory, don’t you think there would be some details, if for no other reason than to put some leverage on Oakland?
@cisco007 “I value NFL football remaining in the East Bay Area with a brand new stadium that is looks much better than that half ass rush job in Santa Clara the Niners built.”
You keep saying this, but it’s a completely unsupported statement. First of all, that stadium was years in the making and took the same amount of time as any other NFL stadium, so “rush job” is absurd. Second of all – and I say this as someone who has contempt for the Niners and who has been to almost all the current NFL stadia – Levi’s Stadium is clearly in the top 10 of NFL venues, some would say top 5. I’d take it for the Raiders in a heartbeat (without the red seats, of course).
@Slacker “Wolff is no fool, but he also doesn’t have a choice.”
He absolutely does have a choice: wait out the Raiders. If they fail, he gets the Coli site to himself and can negotiate from the security of a 10 year lease. If they succeed, he probably gets San Jose. He has no reason whatsover to try to outbid a theoretical Raider plan that may or may not be viable in the first place.
“If Oakland opens it up to the A’s don’t you think Manfred is going to step in and tell Wolff he has to submit a legitimate proposal?”
No, I don’t. First, all indications are that Manfred is on board with the A’s wait-out-the-Raiders strategy. Second, Manfred doesn’t have the ability to force the A’s to do anything. He can block them from San Jose, but he can’t make them do anything in particular in Oakland. Third, as I understand there’s nothing preventing Wolff from making a proposal now. He could even give it to the papers and try to win public support to put pressure on the politicians to pick the A’s over the Raiders. He’s not doing that, because it wouldn’t be a wise strategy. In a sense he’d be bidding against himself.
Now, once a Raider plan is made public, assuming it was at all viable, I could see the A’s making a proposal at that point. I could also see them not making a proposal at that point.
Wow, that’s an original thought there. Glad somebody came up on here to drop that knowledge on us.
Seriously, at least try and come up with a logical argument here.
You said before that people shouldn’t support the A’s because they don’t have a commitment to winning in the post-season while the Raiders have been the laughingstock of the NFL for over a decade now.
Now you’re arguing that Wolff has no loyalty when the Raiders have already abandoned the city once, have a history of screwing over cities (Oakland, Irwindale, El Segundo) and have spent more time and effort on projects outside of the area (LA and San Antonio) than in the area.
What’s next, an argument that says that Oakland should go with the Raiders because the city shouldn’t be supporting MLB because they put their players lives at risk?
Umm….that is when Al Davis was alive. Mark Davis is the owner now and Al Davis is dead…just in case you didn’t know. Also, do you blame Al for trying to get his team a new damn stadium in this damn state?
Come up with something “logical” like you do?? Roll eys… SMH…lol
re: This is about getting a stadium for a community that has supported your ass for 10 years! …Yep, supported him with bottom feeder attendance no matter how good the team is. In 2006, the A’s almost went to the World Series, yet they were still stomped upon at the Box Office by the Giants. There are many many A’s fans who simply believe the A’s owners should donate a ballpark “because they are rich.”
Umm…the reason attendance is so slow and is because of an old azz ballpark/stadium. If you build it….they will come. Remaining competitive and producing an exciting product/team is key also. That comes with being able to attract high level talent via free agency. If new stadiums/ballparks are built for Raiders and A’s….the new revenue streams and facilities will attract more free agent talent and also more fans and corporate sponsors.
@pjk:the A’s play in an obsolete football stadium that needs to be replaced, that is effecting their attendance more than any other factors. The A’s (for all practical purposes) beat Seattle in attendance in 2014. Seattle plays at a slick, newer, baseball only ballpark, and has a considerably larger MLB fanbase than suggested possible future MLB team sites offer, such as Portland, Sacto, Vegas. If the A’s can outdraw Seattle in Oakland, playing at an outdated football stadium, they can certainly outdraw Portland, San Antonio, Sac, etc. The A’s attendance isn’t bad considering that they play in a dump.
Also the Giants plan of driving the A’s out of the bay is failing miserably. The A’s keep gaining in attendance each year – this is not what the Giants organization was aiming for – with their consistent attempts to marginalize the A’s and possibly squeeze them out of town.
The problem with the A’s is the constant roster turnover. When fans start to get excited and aquainted with players…Wolff and Beane continue with their 3 year firesale. Blowing it all this past season was a terrible over the top decision by Beane. Should have at least kept JD and the Cespedes trade was just plain dumb. Getting rid of Moss for nothing was dumb also.
Yep, let’s pick the team to go with based on player turnover and personnel decisions.
Who’s had 20 starting QB’s and 8 head coaches in the past 12 years?
Who’s made the brilliant decisions to draft Heyward-Bey and J’marcus,
Who used up multiple first and second round picks on a crapfest of QB’s?
Most in here are pro Lew Wolff for some reason…and especially after he openly told Oakland and it’s fans to eat crap and that he wants SJ. This is a pro Lew Wolff and A’s blog and is full of Raider Haters. The weird group. Some are even Niner and Giant fans with their own personal agenda.
Keep Raiders in Oakland and give Wolff and SJ what they want by having A’s move to SJ. Simple solution for everyone…but MLB are a bunch of blatantly incompetent crooks and the Giants are greedy turds!
I think we’ve lost some context here, otherwise cisco007 is having a dandy argument with himself.
With that said, I am a 49er fan, and a Giant fan. More than anything else, though, I am a San Jose fan. I am also a fan of the Athletics being allowed to move to a better location for themselves, whether it be San Jose, Concord, Fremont, Dublin, Portland, San Antonio, or the Dark Side of the Moon. Because I grew up in San Jose, it is my strong preference that they be allowed to move there, especially in the stadium location as proposed. It’ll be good for the team, and good for my old home town.
Further, it is my strong belief that there is no currently viable site anywhere in Alameda County for the A’s that would approach the benefits they would derive from the Diridon site in San Jose. Same for Contra Costa – no viable sites that can avoid a NIMBY hurricane or a traffic nightmare.
The A’s would not be in this state were it not for the idiocy of the Coliseum board in the mid-80s that took a perfectly viable ballpark and turned it into a half-football, half-cookie cutter monstrosity, and then saddled both the City and the County with the check. That Raider fans can come on here and throw shade at the current A’s ownership for wanting to get themselves a better environment for their team beggars belief, but it’s also understandable given the typical Raider fan mindset.
This site may be pro-San Jose, but this is probably because most folks on here are intelligent folks who have been studying this issue for TEN. EFFING. YEARS., and most folks who can actually think can also come to the conclusion that the most logical solution to this issue is moving the A’s to…wait for it…San Jose. A move to San Jose cements the Raiders in Oakland for the long term as well. Eh…you take the good with the bad.
I hate the county-based delineation in the MLB constitution. The two-team market designations in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York are precisely the same; only the SF Bay Area is different…I really wish that Lew would take the question to The Lodge, and make people vote one way or the other on a change, if for no other reason then to see where people sit on the issue. I’d rather not have the Supremes decide the issue for MLB.
Oh, and eff the Rai-duhs, now and forever.
The Haas made a terrible miscalculation by being “nice” to the Giants and allowing them terriorial rights to SJ so they can work on ballpark instead of moving to Tampa. I remember that mess whole heartedly.
However, MLB should have rescinded those rights as soon as what is now known as ATT Park in the China Basin broke ground? Were the Giants given permanent rights? Where the outline of the agreement that was made on those rights.
Raider Haters like you can go to hell and eat crap in hell as far as I’m concerned. GTFO.
@sierraspartan “Oh, and eff the Rai-duhs, now and forever.”
Honestly, was that necessary? Did that add anything to the discussion? The rest of your post was fairly rational; I’d like to think you’re better than that.
Bartelby,
Levis Stadium in the top 5 of all Stadiums in the NFL?? I have a hard time believing that! Come on now…. Bad reviews of Levis abound. The exterior showing the beams is atrocius….the stadium does not contain crowd noise….doesn’t even get as loud as the Stick did….and nobody sits on the East Side due to the sun being in the faces of fans all game long. Torturous! The half/3/4 bowl design with that damn suite tower?
The suite tower concept is an ill advised concept for a stadia and a waste of money. The turf was replaced like 10 times during the season?? The parking situation is a absolute nightmare and the location off the Alviso/237? Going in and out of that stadium is horrendous…and there is a weak transit system there. VTA??
@cisco007 “Levis Stadium in the top 5 of all Stadiums in the NFL??”
I specifically said, easily in the top 10, arguably in the top 5. I’ve been to 27 of the 31 current NFL stadia and personally I’d probably rank it 7th or 8th. You name for me 10 NFL stadia you’ve personally been to you think are better.
“I have a hard time believing that! Come on now…. Bad reviews of Levis abound.”
People like to whine, that’s Yelp!’s entire business model. A lot of the complainers either don’t like the fact that prices have gone up or are the SF-equivalent of the “Oakland-only’ers.” I’ve been to Levi’s a number of times and believe most of the complaints are either unfair or overstated.
“The exterior showing the beams is atrocius….”
Personally, I like the architecture and I especially like the fact it doesn’t look like every other stadium. This one is subjective, but I’d have to say based on your other postings you’re coming at this with a certain bias.
“the stadium does not contain crowd noise….doesn’t even get as loud as the Stick did….”
It’s not notably worse than most other open air stadia. The bigger issue is that it draws corporate crowds who don’t want to make noise. That just comes with the territory. You watch, if the Raiders ever get a new state-of-the-art-stadium, it will be a lot less noisy too. Regardless of where it gets built.
“and nobody sits on the East Side due to the sun being in the faces of fans all game long. Torturous!”
The sun is in your face the whole time on the East Side of the Coli, too. I had season tickets on the East Side of the Coli for a number of years, and the East Side of Levi’s is not notably worse.
“The half/3/4 bowl design with that damn suite tower?The suite tower concept is an ill advised concept for a stadia and a waste of money.”
How so? It’s doing what it’s supposed to do, which is make money. That suite tower represents a significant source of the funds that paid for that mostly-privately-financed stadium.
And again, I like the design. It has an open feel, allows breezes in and provides views of the surrounding area.
“The turf was replaced like 10 times during the season??”
So what? The turf is not a permanent architectural feature of the stadium. Bad groundskeeping is bad groundskeeping regardless of the stadium. Anyway, problem seems to be fixed now.
“The parking situation is a absolute nightmare”
The parking situation is a bit congested in the close in lots and perfectly fine in the outer lots. Fine with me, I don’t mind walking. It’s no worse than most other NFL stadia. See how long it takes you to get out of the lot in San Diego, Miami or New Jersey.
“and the location off the Alviso/237? Going in and out of that stadium is horrendous…”
It’s a great location: In the heart of the fanbase, close to three major freeways, and with several different transit options.”
“there is a weak transit system there. VTA??”
Again, the transit system is better than what’s available at most other NFL stadia. A lot of them have no nearby transit to speak of at all.
Bartelby,
Levis Stadium was a rush job. Niners didn’t want to wait for the politcis of SF to play out and they headed to Santa Clara? In a 3/4 bowl stadium with suite tower that doesn’t contain crowd noise with beams showing on the exterior in a bad location?
Crap!
@cisco007 “Levis Stadium was a rush job. Niners didn’t want to wait for the politcis of SF to play out and they headed to Santa Clara?”
The Niners worked on a new stadium in San Francisco from 1997 until finally giving up in 2006, nine years. It then took them 8 years to plan, design and build Levi’s Stadium. Calling it a “rush job” after 17 years is just idiotic.
“In a 3/4 bowl stadium with suite tower that doesn’t contain crowd noise with beams showing on the exterior in a bad location?”
Those features are all intentional and a lot of thought went into them. You don’t like them? Something tells me you’re not an architect.
What happened to TonyD? I do miss seeing his posts.
Is he being suppressed for too much zeal or, um, actually telling the truth? I think people are missing the CYA tilted comments from Manfred. We tried. No choice now.
Hello, SJ?
Tony’s been suspended for the site, mostly because he can’t stop himself from getting trolled and drawn into the same stupid arguments over and over again. He’ll be back soon, maybe.
Makes sense. Thanks ML.
C’mon. See above.
I’ll be eagerly awaiting ML’s report on Oakland’s “worst by far” stadium proposal. It’s an awful proposal for the Raiders, if the Mercury News is accurate. We A’s fans could be high-fiving ourselves pretty soon if this proposal is as bad as it’s been made out to be.
@pjk “We A’s fans could be high-fiving ourselves pretty soon if this proposal is as bad as it’s been made out to be.”
As an A’s fan, I’m finding very little in this report to “high-five” about.
First of all, many of us (maybe most) are also Raider fans. A good Coli City deal probably represents the best chance to keep both teams in the Bay Area.
Second of all, even for A’s fans who are not Raider fans, many recognize that a good Coli City deal is probably the best chance to put the A’s in the best available location, downtown San Jose. While some may prefer Oakland for sentimental reasons, rationalists recognize that downtown San Jose would put the A’s on the strongest possible financial footing and give them the best chance to compete for the next 30 or so years. In addition, downtown San Jose is probably the A’s last best chance for a downtown and/or urban location and the energy that brings.
Finally, as has been pointed out numerous times the Raiders leaving Oakland guarantees the A’s nothing. We’re supposed to be excited about a mere possibility the A’s could end up with a lonely, isolated ballpark in a sea of parking in the same shitty location we’ve been enduring the last decades? Sorry, you can share your high fives with Giants fans.