Oakland, the non-entity

They didn’t come, they didn’t see, and they didn’t conquer.

That was Oakland’s vibe at the NFL owners meetings. St. Louis made its stadium presentation previously, while San Diego did theirs yesterday and Carson made their preso today. It’s even possible that, unless Oakland pulls a rabbit out of its hat, it may not be invited to make a presentation in October either.

One of the many versions of Coliseum City that didn't solidify into a proposal

One of the many versions of Coliseum City that didn’t solidify into a proposal

Look, the bad news was known weeks before this week’s meetings. Oakland was not invited to make a presentation in front of the owners in suburban Chicago this week, because, to put it mildly, the NFL didn’t believe Oakland had a presentation to make. Here’s how you know how bad it is – in April Mayor Libby Schaaf hired one-time planning director Claudia Cappio to be the new assistant city administrator in charge of development. Among other responsibilities, Cappio became the de facto spokesperson for the project. That’s never a good sign, because when the City puts out a staffer and not a single Oakland politician wants to lay claim to the project, you know it’s in bad shape. What happened to Fred Blackwell? Remember him? Is he no longer consulting for the project? Oh that’s right, he left for a private sector gig. Blackwell clearly saw the writing on the wall.

The most damning statement came from NFL point man-cum-hatchet man Eric Grubman, who said this about Oakland’s situation:

‘The Oakland Raiders have great fans in Oakland city and the county of Oakland and a lot broader territory, but the facts on the ground are that there’s been no viable proposal that’s been made to the Raiders,’ Grubman said. ‘We’ve said one thing consistently to any of the markets that have been engaged in trying to put forth a proposal and it really rests on a couple of pillars. One of them is that a proposal has to be specific. The second is that it has to be attractive to a team and the third is it has to be actionable.

‘What actionable means is it can’t just be an idea to the extent that there is enabling legislation or enabling financing activities or there are litigation threats or anything of that nature, anything that needs to be assembled in a time frame where a club can act on it. Thus far, those sorts of tests have not been made in Oakland so as of yet, there is no proposal for the Raiders to consider.’

The irony of this is if the words above were uttered by Lew Wolff he would be ripped in column after column by the usual lazy critics. Wolff’s statements about Oakland in the past have largely had a similar tone and verbiage. But since Grubman doesn’t represent a specific team, and is in fact an arbiter of sorts for the NFL, these words will be met with little debate by potential critics, and mostly resigned disappointment by others. Yet look at that second paragraph. It is on par with Wolff saying that people can’t just point to a site and hope it into becoming viable. It needs to pencil out. And for three years and counting, Oakland has not made Coliseum City pencil out, not to any appreciable degree.

Thing is, I agree to some extent with what Oakland’s doing. It tried, it found out that the NFL wasn’t interested in a complex developer-finance scheme, it looked for alternatives and found nothing but resistance. All that’s left is to give up or wait for the NFL to kill Oakland. The former provides some (though not much) political cover for pols regarding constituents who want to see the City move on from Coliseum City. The latter provides cover when facing Raiders fans. In the meantime Oakland can finish the process, since it won’t hurt to do so with 10 or 40 days left in the ENA. Two months until the next meetings is not enough to rally the resources to make Coliseum City or an alternative happen, especially if Mark Davis isn’t committed to the effort.

There also has to be some detached bemusement coming from Rob Manfred and the Lodge. Unless Manfred worked out some sort of wink-nudge deal with Oakland, Manfred has to be wondering what kind of effort and political will he can expect out of Oakland for a ballpark. Observers have been poking holes in Coliseum City for years, and Oakland has done little to prove them wrong. Consider that the main accomplishment at Coliseum City was the passage of a planning-oriented EIR. That’s a procedural step, not a truly major milestone. Manfred will certainly play nice with Oakland once a ballpark process begins, but if he doesn’t like what he hears, don’t be surprised if he turns the heat up on the City and even Wolff. Manfred’s previous job was to get the best deals out of everyone MLB worked with, from cities to media outlets.

For now, desperate Raiders fans are left to criticize other cities’ stadium proposals in hopes that their success or failure will “trap” the Raiders in Oakland. It’s hard to come up with a concept more absurd than that. The NFL wants results, and if Oakland can’t provide them, the league is not going to sympathize. It will move on.

60 thoughts on “Oakland, the non-entity

  1. Still, to this day dont understand why Kephart spent money on this venture. Unless his group always spends money on different ventures, hoping they work. This one just seemed an obvious loser. Why would the city have gone the kephart route when all others have failed. A lot of wasted time and money by supposed smart people who should have been able to see this outcome

  2. Oakland County, huh. So trying to find developers to build houses and offices and hoping they have enough profit margin left to pay for a $1 billion football stadium, not to mention a basketball arena and a baseball stadium at $500 million apiece, is not a viable plan? Who’d have thought it?

  3. re: Manfred’s previous job was to get the best deals out of everyone MLB worked with, from cities to media outlets. …Oakland is going to offer a slab of land at the Coliseum parking lot and that’s it. MLB can argue that Oakland spent hundreds of millions on the Raiders and Warriors in the 1990s and zip on the A’s, and now it’s the A’s turn. But that will fall on deaf ears because Oakland simply has no $ to spend. Will MLB accept what would have to be a 100% privately funded ballpark in Oakland, since that’s the only option left? Looks like we may find out. It appears Oakland is going to let its beloved Raiders walk rather than spend money it doesn’t have to keep them. Let’s see what happens with the A’s.

  4. It is obvious that the NFL expects the city/county/state (pick one) to tax its residents, build a sports palace, and give it to the NFL team owner at little or no cost. It is interesting that there are no requirements of Davis having to do anything.

    I’ve said before, the city should schedule an auction on the steps of the city hall and sell the Coliseum to the highest bidder. That bidder can then keep and use all or part of the current structures, or tear them down and replace them with a football stadium, a baseball park, a basketball arena, or anything else that meets city zoning (housing, shopping center, factory). That will bring the greatest return to the city.

    • If that happened, the highest bidder would probably tear down the stadium and arena and put up condos and offices. There’s no money to be made building stadiums.

  5. “The NFL wants results, and if Oakland can’t provide them, the league is not going to sympathize. It will move on.”

    Oakland is well aware of this. However, Oakland is comforted by the fact that MLB is still as of now committed to keeping the A’s to their East Bay territory, regardless of whether the A’s get a new ballpark or not. It remains to be seen if Manfred will now finally relent and no longer hold the A’s hostage to their designated less desirable territory within their shared Bay Area market. MLB has a chance to do what the NFL appears to be doing. Namely, looking out for the best interests of its teams.

  6. It doesn’t sound like Carson made a proposal but rather the Chargers and Raiders made a proposal. The same is true with the Rams. Kroenke is pitching this not Inglewood.

    St Louis and San Diego are making presentations because they are selling something in terms of public funds to convince teams to stay. Carson and Inglewood are not.

    I’m by no means suggesting that Oakland doesn’t deserve blame here, but end of the day they should not be committing public funds to help pay for a stadium for the Raiders (or the A’s). The NFL is trashing Oakland for that.

    Even with the full support of the city, to make something work in Oakland, you need a competent owner capable of taking on a very complex development project with complicated financing needs. Mark Davis does not fit that description.

    This post could just as easily be titled Mark Davis, The Non-Entity.

    • Oakland officials are indecisive – they should have stuck with the Mt. Davis plan, working with the Raiders and making it more suitable for football, booting the A’s out, and recouped their investment. Davis might have agreed to some arrangement such as that temporarily. Davis is credible when he says Oakland officials have not been communicating with the Raiders.

      Then Oakland could have offered the A’s real estate to build a new ballpark at the Coliseum site – instead they’ve played both franchises indecisively and stalled, thus adding to an already confusing situation.

    • This is the story, not the non-news in the article. Why are we waiting for a city to make a proposal and not the team that wants to “stay in Oakland”. All teams have the money to finance their own stadiums. We just saw that in the latest profit sharing checks they just cashed. The Raiders are the third team in what will be a two team market. Mark needs to start working on a solution for himself and not waiting for Oakland to ask him if their ideas are OK.

  7. It is funny how the NFL expects owners to do little but have cities drop their pants to keep their teams.

    Chargers/Raiders have zero financing plan for Carson and the site is contaminated. They seem to think $$ will fall out of the sky when they will be cannibalizing each other for premium seating sales.

    Meanwhile, the Rams have a financing plan and the site is shovel ready and they do not need another team.

    The Raiders/Chargers require re-alignment, Seattle or Arizona would have to move to the AFC West with the Raiders or Chargers coming go the NFC West.

    What a headache, the NFL will have to make concessions to one of these teams.

    St. Louis and San Diego do have some kind of plan to keep their teams and while Oakland may not directly it is not like Carson is offering public money.

    Why would the NFL reward the Raiders when they refused to share with the 49ers in their own market but now are OK sharing with the Chargers in a situation requiring re-alignment?

    Why would the NFL risk moving two teams to a market where it has proven between all 3 teams in question to be horrible in fan support in the past?

    The NFL is only going to move one team to mitigate risk and where they know financing pencils out without realignment.

    LA Rams in 2016,

    The Chargers/Raiders will be forced to break apart, Chargers will head back to SD and Raiders back to Oakland and the drawing board.

    Once Inglewood is built and it is flourishing can a 2nd team come into play.

    The NFL would be foolish to do anything else otherwise

    • “Chargers/Raiders have zero financing plan for Carson and the site is contaminated. They seem to think $$ will fall out of the sky when they will be cannibalizing each other for premium seating sales.”

      There is so much wrong with this statement that I don’t even know where to begin. And then you end with definitive statements of what the NFL will do with LA. Analyzing through wishful thinking is no way to go through life, son.

      • With a name like Guesticles it screams intelligence “son”

      • Your comment was dumb and your attempted comeback is dumber, son. Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about

      • I do know what I am talking about.

        More than one person below agrees with me.

        How about you post some facts and thoughts “son”

        Or would your brain explode?

      • You most certainly, laughably, have no idea what you’re talking about. Financing is secure and backed by Goldman. You don’t understand the financial landscape difference between LA and smaller towns like SD and Oakland. Are the Jets and Giants “cannibalizing” each other??

        Furthermore, its probably the Rams who move to the NFC West if Carson goes through. Even that you don’t know….or why.

        Im surprised you didn’t go off on some “Carson is a toxic waste dump” rant, that guys like you always do.

        Do some reading. People like you pollute the info through sad, wishful thinking when this topic comes up.

    • If the Rams stadium goes through, I see the Raiders boxed in to Levi’s. The Chargers will be co-tenants in Inglewood, the NFL will tell the Raiders there’s already a stadium they can use in their market. Tough luck about the red seats, 49er logos and statues of Joe Montana and Bill Walsh; the Raiders should have known all along the unlikelihood of getting a stadium in Oakland and should have partnered with the 49ers.

      • Yeah so far it seems the only certainty with regard to the whole relocation debacle… is that the Raiders have no future in Oakland. Whether they’ll end up in LA, San Antonio, Santa Clara, St. Louis… remains to be seen. But the days of the Oakland Raiders are numbered.

    • If Kroenke is willing to spend $2 bil. for an NFL stadium in Inglewood – the NFL should have no argument with that. The NFL would be better served with the Rams in LA than St Louis anyhow. Also the NFL is focused on a two team stadium solution in the Los Angeles fanbase – 90% of the other NFL franchises don’t share their stadiums with another NFL franchise, why the NFL is imposing this on the LA market seems puzzling. Splitting up the AFC West, one of the lbest inter-division rivalries in professional sports, is goofy. Besides, the LA NFL fanbase supporting two teams – playing at the same site is questionable – cannibalizing for fans is exactly what a Raiders/Chargers combo would do.

      • But as they were saying on one of the sports shows last night – The NFL would have an argument with Kroenke’s plan: No public money involved. The horror of horror for these sports team owners is the thought that they have to fully fund their own new stadiums. “Kroenke did it in LA, why can’t you? Funding request denied.” That’s why the Raiders are in all likelihood moving into their lame-duck season in Oakland: the city’s no-public-money stadium proposal has been deemed “not viable” by the league. But at least Kroenke appears to have the cash on hand and is not relying on fantasy projections of profits on ancillary real estate development (Coliseum City).

    • “The Raiders/Chargers require re-alignment, Seattle or Arizona would have to move to the AFC West with the Raiders or Chargers coming go the NFC West.”

      I’ve heard that elsewhere…but why? I cannot think of a reason why this would have to happen.

      • This would cause problems with the TV contracts. While there are some exceptions to this I think with flex games depending on what games are shown on MNF and SNF, FOX owns the NFC games and CBS owns the AFC games. There are also rules around showing multiple games on the same network in the home market when the home team is in town (which would always be the case in this scenario).

        In other words, there would be weeks where based on the TV contract where one of the Raiders or Chargers could not be televised in SoCal, which would not work.

  8. Oakland a non entity because Miley and his Alameda County cronies are pretty much doing whatever they can sabotage Coliseum City for their own personal interests and their handshake deal with Wolff. Hence why Wolff said he doesn’t want the County to be bought out by the City. Miley and Wolff ….the snakes in the grass have been weeded out.

    • there is no handshake agreement between LW and the county–LW has maintained his distance from the Raiders/Oakland fiasco because he doesn’t want anyone to believe that there is an implied committment to Oakland if the Raiders leave. If this happens then Oakland will have to put forth its best offer that can rationalize a privately financed ballpark. If it still doesn’t pencil out he has no obligation to Oakland just because the Raiders left. Should be fascinating to see what Oakland is willing to provide to help make this pencil out–or not—which in that case will require manfred to actually do something…

    • Big surprise: Some people will blame the Raiders departure on Lew Wolff, even though he has stepped aside completely to allow the Raiders to get a stadium done. But it’s not happening, so it must be Lew Wolff’s fault. I think I understand now.

    • Wait, I thought Wolff was evil because he wanted to move the A’s to San Jose.

      Now he wants Oakland so desperately that he’s striking back room deals to kick the Raiders out so he can have it all to himself?

      • Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. Wolff committed the unpardonable sin of trying to move the A’s a whole 30 miles to San Jose. He’s gotten far, far more heat for that than Lacob has gotten for moving the Warriors to Frisco or Davis has gotten for looking at LA and San Antonio. Obviously, there is great resentment in the “traditional” Bay Area – north of Fremont – that San Jose has outgrown and surpassed its now-smaller cities to the north – Oakland and Frisco.

  9. City and especially the shady Alameda County “leaders” should be ashamed of themselves. How embarrassing. If the Raiders leave it surely isn’t Mark Davis fault ….it’s the fault of the shady politicians. The new rendering of the Carson Stadium looks nice by the way. They revised that nasty suite tower look….because they learned from the terrible Levi Stadium design. Lol

  10. When its all said and done….L.A. Raiders will be back in 2016. Sorry Oakland you lost and lost big.

  11. NFL, throw Oakland Raiders fans one bone. Move them into NFC West. that way they play one game in Santa Clara each and every year. Better than nothing. We’lltake over the stadium.

    • The NFL will never throw a bone to the Raiders…except in L.A.

      One game in Santa Clara will not make things better. It’s devastating to know the Raiders will leave Oakland again. All people can say that…OH WELL.

      Go L.A. Raiders in 2016.

  12. I can understand the skepticism of the Raiders prospects of staying in Oakland or the Bay Area long term but nothing was officially decided in this owners meeting this week only submissions of stadium proposals. The NFL will look over all stadium proposals and make a final decision later this year or early next year.

    One big advantage of the Inglewood site is that it is almost shovel ready as Sid pointed out. They can break ground as early as December. The Carson site on the other hand would require some time to clean up before they can even break ground. The time and cost of cleaning up the toxic landfill is uncertain. If the cost ends up being very high it could potentially kill the deal. There is also the possible high cost of the relocation fee which the Rams can easily afford along with the cost of the new stadium at Inglewood.

    Some are also saying that St Louis violated the lease with the Rams making it noll and void and that Stan Kronke is not legally obligated to stay and build in St Louis. Not sure if that is true but wouldn’t be surprised if it was the case. As others have pointed out breaking up the Raiders and Chargers historic rivalry is ridiculous. This rivalry dates back to the AFL Era. Plus I believe the teams of the NFC West cannot be forced to switch Conferences and go to the AFC West, they would have to consent to such a move.

    I also heard on twitter that Oakland will present a complete stadium plan at the next owners meeting in October. If that is indeed true they damn well better be ready next time and not have a repeat of what happened this week. I think Oakland is trying to juggle too much with trying to negotiate with the Raiders, A’s and possibly the Warriors. They could possibly make a deal with the Raiders quicker if they weren’t trying to deal with the other teams all at the same time. Something to keep in mind is that if SCOTUS decides to hear San Jose territory case and the A’s are SJ bound, then Oakland may cave in and drop to its knees and give Mark Davis everything he wants for the fear of losing all the teams.

    Finally, even if NFL decides to chose Inglewood proposal and the Raiders are stuck in the Bay Area, Oakland/East Bay cannot rest on their laurels. They would still have to come up with a stadium plan or the Raiders will end playing at Levi for the short or long term. The Raiders would have to pay to make the stadium look more neutral like replacing the red seats with green seats if it is for the long term.

    • This is a lot stars that need aligning for the Raiders to get an Oakland stadium–especially since SCOTUS will not take the case.

      IDLF, architect of the ’95 deal, is even calling out MD’s inaction in Oakland. The Raiders want to go to Los Angeles and besides some goofy statements made outside of the Fairmont, they haven’t done anything tangible against that goal.

      • Now you’re a legal expert that knows what the SC will do about the SJ vs MLB case?

      • I am no expert but I can look at percentages – the Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.

        Moreover, there is a strong argument San Jose doesn’t have standing. “With that option agreement now void and San Jose enjoined from selling the land for stadium development, MLB said the city can no longer claim, as it has done in the past, that baseball’s actions caused a direct injury to its “commercial interests.” http://www.law360.com/articles/648332/mlb-urges-supreme-court-to-leave-antitrust-immunity-alone

        There may be votes for cert on the ATE, but not where standing is dubious as in here.

        Of course, there is a possibility that SCOTUS grants cert. But that scintilla of possibility is too speculative to support this grand theory of the Raiders staying in Oakland.

      • @TribTowerViews: Manfred appears to be more concerned about losing the SJ vs MLB case than you (and many legal experts) are. That itself is interesting. Also I would not desire to make a living predicting what the SC will do.

      • Do you have an argument besides these unnamed legal experts?

      • @TribTowerViews: All bets are off – I’m not making a prediction about the issue.

      • The vast majority of the cases have already been dismissed. The fact that SCOTUS has agreed to discuss the case on 9/28 suggests that SJ vs MLB is on the short list for possible cert, and that one or more Justices is interested in the case.

        Still probably a long shot, but not nearly as big of a long shot as many believe. Stay tuned!

    • “I also heard on twitter that Oakland will present a complete stadium plan at the next owners meeting in October.”

      Oakland is not going to present a stadium plan because Oakland isn’t building a stadium. Any stadium built in Oakland will be privately funded.

      Even if the Raiders have the Coliseum land to themselves, Mark Davis has no ability to build a stadium on his own. He’s said this himself. He wants someone to build a stadium for him in Oakland and that’s not going to happen.

      That being said, you’re right that it’s not out of the realm of possibility that the Raiders stay in Oakland. If MLB wakes up and lets the A’s move to SJ or if the A’s build on the Home Base/Malibu lot, I can see a scenario where the Raiders are still playing at the existing Coliseum 10 years from now. If they don’t want to move to St Louis and they don’t want to share Levi’s, this may be their only option.

      • Randos on Twitter know more than the reporters that NFL reps told directly “Oakland is unlikely be invited to make a proposal.” Seems legit.

  13. Seems to me that this is exactly what the city really wants: Coliseum City won’t be approved, and once the Raiders are out of the picture, Wolff will come forward with his plan. Oakland (most likely having found some way to buy out the county) will deal with Wolff, and a baseball park will be approved at the Coliseum.

    Libby Schaaf is no fool — she knows she can’t support anything that involves direct public expenditures for a stadium since there is no money for that, and she knows that while many still want the Raiders to stay, Davis is unable to finance the stadium himself. There is her political cover for the Raiders fans. She also realizes, despite her public comments to the contrary, that two stadiums are simply not practical and that a team-funded ballpark for the A’s is the more (only) realistic proposition. Wolff will get some publicly-funded infrastructure improvements (which Libby has already gone on record as supporting) and the rights for ancillary development around it.

    I think that there was in fact some sort of handshake between Libby and Manfred that the city would let the Raiders go by letting the Coliseum City process run its course, and in return, Manfred would continue to push the A’s to commit to Oakland.

    If Carson doesn’t work out for the Raiders, they’ll wind up at Levi’s, where they should have gone in the first place.

    • @jerry- I think you are giving Schaaf way too much credit. Is she smarter than Jean Quan? Yes

      But she hasn’t accomplished anymore than Quan to this point. Schaaf support Victory Court when she knew full well there were several businesses not wanting to sell and transportation issues.

      In fact, she publicly bashed Wolff at the time for not wanting to look at the site. Then of course the EIR that was in process mysteriously disappeared mid course.

      I think Schaaf is playing 2 hands, one with the Raiders and one with the A’s while knowing full well the Warriors are long gone.

      If she keeps one team then she succeeds, I agree with you on that one. She knows she cannot keep both but she will not openly commit to the A’s.

      Only way your theory holds true is if Manfred is promising a subsidy from MLB to the A’s in some form. With revenue sharing it cannot be a loan it has to be free money to build.

      Then MLB has to give Wolff a revenue/profit guarantee every year for eating it and staying in Oakland.

      Too many moving parts I think, although you could be right.

      • @ Sid — Having been a resident of Oakland, and in Libby’s district, I think that she was frankly not up to speed on the whole A’s/Raiders/Stadium issue while she was a councilmember. From my perspective, she was focused almost exclusively on crime and budget issues since the police budget was cut and crime was flourishing. People were very worried, and as their council representative, she responded. Also, Quan was the city’s point person on the A’s ballpark, and then Coliseum City. Libby’s comments at that time may not have reflected her current knowledge of the situation, but IMO, as mayor she has so far shown herself to be quite capable. We shall see.

        I think the MLB should help the A’s finance a ballpark. It’s just wrong for the MLB and its owners to feed at the public trough when it comes to building ballparks. But the A’s have to market the team to gain more fan and corporate support, nurture their fan base and retain at least some of the good players/fan favorites so that they can sustain the revenue they gain from a new ballpark and not have to rely on the league forever.

  14. Raiders have been absolutely terrible during this whole stadium push. We always knew that the Davis family was poor, but Mark is just going along for the ride with anyone who will pick up his hitch-hiking butt.

    I liked the Dolich interview and I’ve always gravitated towards his position that Oakland can sustain the A’s and Raiders. Hell, if Oakland picks up the infrastructure tab, that’s a pretty big nugget.

    I’m no fan of Lew’s, mostly b/c I thought he never understood how to navigate the lodge, and his ‘woe is me’ rich guy shtick got old quick, but if he’s ready to move foward at the site, then it’s beyond time to drop Coliseum City.

    Is there any scenario where they level the Oracle arena, or is that too new a facility?

    Level the Oracle site and placing a new baseball stadium there to avoid the sub-level power/water lines being re-routed on the Denny’s site. At least it would clear additional land for development or shift parking slots.

    • Always amazed how people expect LW to pay for a ballpark regardless of whether or not it pencils out from a business perspective. Privately financed stadiums/ballparks are rare–and only applicable in those markets wth significant corporate support and a high level of disposable income.. Besides SF, LA and SJ the demographics required just dont exist–its not Mark Davis fault that Oakland doesn’t fit this demographic nor is it LW’s. Nor should MLB or the NFL make an exception for Oakland and subsidize their stadiums/ballpark. Why would they ever do this when they don’t have to? Its business folks—quite whining about rich owners taking advantage of cities—its the way it is—either play by these rules or they pick up and go elsewhere. W’s have already done this, Raiders will be next. Question is whether Oakland will be able to provide a solid enough package to keep the A’s. Getting rid of the Raiders is step 1—Oakland will have to do much more than that to keep the A’s—we are only just beginniing—again—any wonder why a 10 year lease?

      • Meh.
        If Davis can’t come up with the money on his own, that’s on him and I have no problem with Oakland walking away.

        Lew can go right ahead playing at the Coli, move anywhere the club has territorial rights, or find a new market like Charlotte or San Antonio. I’m sure it would be the most luxurious, classy facility you’ve ever seen that nobody attended.

        Lew has surrendered the point that they can make it work at the coliseum site – granted he wants it all to himself to maximize his profit (which i don’t begrudge him).

        Oakland picking up the infrastructure tab (as laid out on this site) would be significant, probably $100-200 million, plus handing over control of the site for development is also a pretty penny if that’s what it takes.

        It’s not nothing, but it’s also not dropping 50% on a stadium and tying taxpayers to upgrading the facility.

  15. I am not disagreeing that Oakland doesn’t have money and shouldn’t be investing in stadiums. With that in mind what LW has said is with the W’s gone and the Raiders gone he will look at the Coli site again and is in the process of doing so. He also has said what he expects is a sea of parking around the ballpark and for the citxy to cover the infrastructure improvements. What he hasn;t said is what else it will take to make a ballpark pencil out—for example—city/county/A’s have fought over parking revenues in the past—u think LW will be willing to give up a cent of this revenue to the city/county—nope—think this might be an issue for the city/county—yup—second–if development rights are going to be a requirement to help make a ballpark pencil out than he wants development rights for housing– problem with the coli site is that affordable housing advociates will be all over him which will ruin the financials of that happending—see 12th street—so the city/county will need to provide him with other development rights somewhere else in the city or county where he can build housing (note just like the city of SJ did for hiim to build the EQ stadium)—

    picking up the infrastructure tab is expected–providing the land is expected—you have yet to pay for a $600M ballpark—and that is the part that Oakland had better be creative and willing to negotiate on otherwise at some point all of the teams will be gone–including the A’s

    • Agreed, the details would be negotiated and hammered out with the new city planner and mayor once they declare the coliseum city dead. The City can get creative, but i doubt any amount goes towards the actual stadium construction.

      Oakland really doesn’t have to cave on this – especially if the A’s would be the sole tenant/owner of the site. That’s a huge chunk of great real estate for development, and would likely mimic his original Oak to 9th plan from 2006 (?).

      There isn’t political pressure for the city to pay for a new A’s stadium anyways.

      All in all, it’s a pretty square deal for Wolff to get a huge chunk of prime real estate in one of the most economically viable regions of the country (as compared to say Cleveland). The owners and the commish have already thumped Lew on SJ, so he’s got every reason to be at the table. He’s not exactly rolling in leverage, but he’s also not inept. They can get it done.

      • dont agree that the city won’t be putting something towards development of the ballpark—foregoing parking revenues and allowing the A’s to collect all of that money are dollars going from city/county to the ballpark. Development rights of any kind are dollars going from city/county to fund the ballpark—-and with Oakland more of this has to be given than in SF, SJ or LA because their demographic is not as valuable—note that Lacob secured development rights to quite a bit more than just an arena in SF which is how he can afford to build a $1B dollar arena when most are costing $500M (Sacto). Coli is far from prime real estate—it may have transit to it but its in a distressed area–and building anything will be extremely challenging due to affordable housing advocates havign significant influence in this area.

        Last–I dont agree that SJ is dead—before this is all over I suspect that Oakland and SJ will be competing head to head on who can provide the best deal for the A’s–so if Oakland pols feel that they will have leverage over the A’s they should proobably check their confidence at the door and figure out how to make it happen—right now they are 0-2 when they had to compete–

    • Just want to put this out there–LW hasn’t said he needs a sea of parking, but that he doesn’t want garages. Garages are only necessary if substantially all of the rest of the parcel is infill development. I don’t think the city or LW have any interest in redoing the Coliseum site as a parking black hole w/o any attendant mixed-use development. That would simply repeat the flaws of site as it exists now. Nowhere to walk, eat or drink near the ballpark. Portions of the site will be developed w/ multi-family housing regardless of a ballpark deal.The city and LW just seem to disagree on the level
      of mixed – use:surface parking–which is a reasonable gap that can be negotiated.

      • Well you obviously have different sources than I do—what has been reported publically is as follows:

        A’s prioritize parking over development at Coliseum

        By Matthew Artz martz@bayareanewsgroup.com

        OAKLAND — In another potential blow for transforming the sprawling Oakland Coliseum complex into a bustling sports and entertainment district, A’s co-owner Lew Wolff said that if his team were to build a new ballpark at the site he would want it surrounded by acres of surface parking spaces — just like O. Co Coliseum is now.

        As to multi-family housing—sure–as long as it has plenty of affordable housing attached to it—remind me how things are going on 12th street where affordable housing advocates have shut down the sale of that parcel for the time being because of issues with affordable housing–

      • yeah i can’t believe the a’s and or the city would build a park at the current coliseum location or the one just south of it and basically have nothing to do before, during and after games.

        at the very least i could see some kind of big restaurant “built into” the park sort of how at&t built whatever the name of restaurant is next to the park by the mays plaza?

  16. Oakland is offering zero to the Raiders because Oakland officials have been reassured by MLB that the A’s are staying where they are, new ballpark or not. Also, there is no guarantee that the NFL will give the OK for the Raiders to stadium share with either the Rams or Chargers in LA. After all that is said and done, Oakland could wind up with keeping a minimum of one of its current teams, and may very well possibly wind up keeping two. Manfred has publicly stated that MLB is committed to keeping the A’s in Oakland, and Oakland is showing its hardball approach by offering nothing for the Raiders and A’s.. It is also reflective of the zero leverage in the bargaining positions of both the Raiders and A’s.

    • @llpec–I couldn’t disagree more about the NFL and MLB but I do agree with you that Oakland feels it has leverage on the A’s—that will evaporate quickly if they don’t show improved performance over the way they have managed the Raiders. And if Raiders stay in Oakland and are still playing in the Coli 5 years from now—SJ will be opened up in a heartbeat—Manfred says what he needs to say about Oakland now–start dicking around with him the way they have with the NFL and all bets are off–

    • The NFL has already endorsed the Raiders/Chargers Carson plan, they would certainly approve the Raiders playing at Carson. Since Davis does not want to lease – if the Raiders were to relocate to Levi’s or the Inglewood location, it would likely be a temporary solution until the Raiders build a new stadium somewhere.

      Manfred likely has switched (and has a different opinion than Selig did) to supporting Oakland for the A’s new ballpark because he knows justifying the Giants MLB ATE rights stance (as Selig did) in this debacle is nuts.

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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.