Hypothetical: If the Raiders left, how would you improve the Coliseum for the A’s?

Before I begin, let me preface this post by stating that I have no information that says definitively that the Raiders are leaving Oakland. This is mainly a thought exercise. The Raiders could conceivably leave for a new football stadium next to the existing Coliseum. They could go to Santa Clara or San Antonio for a few years before returning permanently. They could leave for Inglewood or Carson for good. In any case, this is meant to be a discussion about benefits for the A’s, nothing more. What happens to the Raiders is not under the A’s, A’s ownership’s, or fans’ control. There’s little East Bay politicians can do save for writing enormous checks to Mark Davis. So for the purposes of this post, let’s leave what the NFL and the Raiders may or may not do out of it. 

Should the Raiders leave for God-knows-where after the 2015 or 2016 football seasons, the A’s and the Coliseum JPA will have some serious choices to make regarding the old venue. The main goal would be to make the Coliseum a more pleasing baseball environment for players and fans alike, while not costing an arm and a leg to do so. The cost issue comes into play because, if we’re assuming that the A’s would pay some amount for this transformation, there’s a question of how much they’d be willing to put into this project as opposed to funneling more money towards a ballpark on the same grounds. That’s the tension at play, and when considering the various decisions that have to made cost-benefit should be at the forefront.

The immediate change we can safely assume the A’s will make is to take control of the Raiders’ locker room, one floor above the A’s current leak and sewage-plagued clubhouse. The Raiders got control of the old, 50,000-square foot exhibit hall space when the came back, turning it into spacious locker rooms for themselves and visiting teams. The A’s will occasionally use the area for hosting groups, since the Coliseum lacks proper breakout spaces at any level except for the East Side Club. Once the A’s commandeer the exhibit hall, the old clubhouse problems should go away. The old clubhouses could themselves be remodeled into memorabilia-filled bunker suites or other premium accommodations that are currently lacking at the Coli. It might cost $10-20 million to renovate the space properly, which might include moving the workout room, trainer’s room, and offices at the clubhouse level. Since all of the benefits would go to the A’s, it would make sense for them to foot the bill for the remodel.

Beyond that, changing the Coliseum could go in any number of directions.

Option A: Return to the pre-Mt. Davis Coliseum (cost estimate: $35-50 million). The frequent refrain I’ve heard so far is a call to transform the Coliseum into the pre-1995 version, with the old bleachers in the outfield and the ice plant above it. Doing so would require the demolition of most if not all of the Mt. Davis structure, plus the construction of replacement seating and landscaping. While that would be perfectly acceptable to the A’s and A’s fans, the City and County are still on the hook for the Mt. Davis debt, so the idea of spending more money on demolition and additional seats that would not generate anywhere near the requisite revenue to pay for them doesn’t sound promising in the slightest. Besides, how many years would this configuration be used? Five? I would expect all parties to pass on this plan if it were ever proposed.

Want the hills back? It'll cost ya.

Want this again? It’ll cost ya.

Option B: Lop off the top part of Mt. Davis ($10 million). The best way to bring back the view of the Oakland hills, without incurring the cost of completely demolishing and rebuilding the Coliseum, is to take down the upper part. What’s the upper part, you ask? Well, that depends. It could be as little as the upper deck, which practically starts as high as the rim of the original upper deck. Or it could include removing the upper two suite levels, making the total struck roughly as tall as the original upper deck’s lower rim. The BART plaza, East Side Club and associated seats (Plaza Reserved) could be kept around, though with the large number of obstructed view seats they’d serve a better purpose as an outfield restaurant bar, much like the kind many ballparks are instituting these days. On the downside, there would be a lot of expense just to open up the views. Again, it’s a high-cost/low-benefit situation.

Top of the original bowl is as tall as the bottom of Mt. Davis

Top of the original bowl is as tall as the bottom of Mt. Davis upper deck

Option C:  Leave Mt. Davis as is, fill in foul territory with seats ($25 million). Given the $100 million lower deck renovation at Dodger Stadium, this seems like I’m undershooting things quite a bit. But most of the money at Dodger Stadium went towards extremely well outfitted clubhouses and a large, swanky club restaurant behind the plate. There are some structural things to address, such as dugout expansion and realignment. The bullpens might have to be moved. One way to go would be to scrap the existing lower bowl and make it more like one of the original cookie cutters, like Shea or Riverfront. Chief benefits would be more seating at improved angles, plus additional concourse space in theory. However, it would be expensive to implement and would eliminate most of the views from concourse, at least down the lines. Plus the way the concrete beams that support the Plaza level are only 4 feet above the lower concourse floor, so a concourse expansion would have to be another 4 feet lower than the existing lower concourse in order to allow for proper circulation.

An expanded concourse has its downsides and challenges

An expanded concourse has its downsides and challenges

Option D: Move home plate back eight feet, bringing every seat on average 6 feet closer to fair territory ($5-10 million). Also known as the Ken Arneson plan, this proposal would sacrifice views from the Value (upper) deck in order to bring everyone else several feet closer. I like the idea of the Monster-type seats in the outfield, though I would also like to see a wholesale rework of the bleachers with steeper pitched seats if they’re going to add a premium option. That way the first row could be as little as 8-10 feet above the field, instead of the 15-foot high scoreboard wall that exists in the power alleys. While they’re at it, the metal “notch” sections that fill in either down the lines for baseball (sideline for football) should be replaced. They have a nasty tendency to pool water when it rains, and they’re more weathered than the permanent concrete sections. Changes like these certainly won’t be eye popping or easy to spell out in an offseason ticket sales pitch, but they can certainly help the vast majority of fans without incurring great expense.

The Giants and Cardinals both made changes to their venues as they waited for their purpose-built ballparks to materialize. In both cases, they built fan goodwill that was cashed in when their ballparks opened. Just as the A’s built new training facilities and rebuilt a ballpark in Mesa, a similar investment could pay off in Oakland. It couldn’t come until everyone knew the Raiders were leaving, so we wait. And wait.

93 thoughts on “Hypothetical: If the Raiders left, how would you improve the Coliseum for the A’s?

  1. Ideally i like the full demolition of Mt. Davis to restore to prior Coliseum, but as you said the fact that there’s still debt on this seems unlikely. So I do like the proposal of taking the top and middle of Mt. Davis. I’d start there. Then close off some of the foul ground, bring some higher paying seats closer to the field, and that could allow some removal of the seats at the top to create more ample corridors, so kind of a combination of your options C and D.

  2. Very interesting ideas.

  3. really i don’t think much should be done if it’s going to cost tens of millions and all you’re going to get is maybe 3-4 years at the most? you can argue they spent that amount with the two new scoreboards but there was always the scenario where they could move and use those new scoreboards in any new mlb or nfl venue that would be built in next door.

    any renovation to the venue itself on the existing coliseum couldn’t be translated to a new baseball only park.

    if anything any money the a’s could use to renovate or upgrade the coliseum use it on any new mlb park.

  4. if i had to pick one of the options it’d be option D.

    also agreed that moving the a’s clubhouse to the raiders clubhouse would be another added change that would be beneficially. no more “yellow” showers or “stuff” backing up the drains. 😦

  5. Can’t see the point of Big $$ changes to the existing facility. Save that money for a new ballpark. What did the Giants do with Candlestick – retrofit the food court, add bleachers beyond the fences? Not all that much.

    • yeah, realistically, the “none of the above” option makes the most financial sense, especially if a new place is going to be built.

  6. I would like Option E:
    Demolish Mt Davis and restore the bleacher/outfield grass section
    Fill-in the foul territory with seats
    Move home plate back
    Better access to the BART station. Maybe another bridge that services the other side of the platform so it is fed from both ends?

    Probably the most expensive, but with the Raiders gone, it could go to baseball-only permanently and I think be serviceable as a nice stadium for quite a few years into the future.

    But the question remains…. is that enough to bring fans in to fill the seats?

  7. My question is: does it really matter what happens to Mt. Davis? It’s really just a giant concrete slab of debt at this point. Neither team gets much out of it. It would seem to me it’s not going to make money ever again. If the Raiders relocate, don’t the A’s reasonably stand to make more money by tearing it down (at least in part) and crafting the place into a more aesthetically pleasing place to see a game? Wouldn’t this also create much needed goodwill amongst many A’s fans while ownership ostensibly works on getting the new yard built? Wasn’t that the Candlestick playbook for the Giants?

    • The Giants’ changes to the ‘Stick were relatively small. Bleachers in LF. A padded fence instead of chain link. Revamped suites. The family Pavilion in RF. Very difficult to compare because the scope was so much smaller. Goodwill, yes, but at what price? Are there less expensive ways to show you care?

      • This may sound naive from me because it assumes it would lead to some kind of miraculous spike in attendance (I don’t necessarily think it would), but if the Raiders leave, that thing is coming down no matter what, right? What would it matter if it was torn down next year or five years from now? Hypothetically, If the A’s could pick up a few more bucks in the next few years from spending another $10 million (the cost of the scoreboards, no?) to boost attendance, would it be better to just move on from Mt. Davis asap?

  8. How much would it cost to get the sewage system up to snuff, upgrade the restrooms and leave the seating AND Mt. Davis alone?

  9. so can 1) the top of Mt. Davis (above the suites) be demolished and 2) seating be added at field level to cut down on the foul territory? Combining those two would be a big improvement.

    • I think tearing down the upper stands on Mt Davis should be the least they should do.

      They could add extra field level seats, cutting down foul territory.

      And of course, take over the Raiders locker rooms.

      They could also spruce up the lower concourse – cover exposed conduits, paint the concrete some brighter, mellow color (A’s yellow, with green accents, perhaps), and add more lighting. And of course, replace the bathroom troughs with urinals. These things would be relatively small cost, and would greatly improve the fan experience, and create good will with the fan base and media.

  10. Removing the top deck of Mt. Davis,, and filling in foul territory or moving back home plate seem the only reasonable things. The A’s should take down the to deck and a huge outside party deck like Levi’s.


  11. The A’s “may” change it back to pre-1995 Coliseum before the Raiders “invaded” it. I would love to see it go back to its original “C” structure.

    L.A. Raiders: 2016

  12. With an assumption that any changes are an interim change to a new ballpark, I’d say don’t bother treating down Mt. Davis. Instead, turn the upper level suites into a restaurant with views of the ballpark. Turn the East Side Club into an A’s museum. Take the upper level of Mt. Davis and turn them into a water feature that goes off with each home run. Lastly, turn the Plaza level bleachers into a children’s play area so that parents can provide diversion for the kids while still watching the game.

    Taking over the Raiders locker room is a given.

    Don’t worry about the foul area. Wait until the new ballpark is built. Until then, keep the large foul area that makes the park so famous.

  13. If the Raiders leave, Mt. Davis will get torn down eventually, no matter what. So, the sooner the better. The A’s will have at least 4-5 years before new ballpark is ready, so might has well make the experience better for fans, while they wait for the new venue, as soon as possible. I would think that is a no-brainer. At the very least, tear down the upper parts short term.

    Then, move to the Raiders locker room – a given, and a no-brainer.

    Fill in some of foul territory with seats, and expanding area between concourse and lower seats, which expands lower concourse a bit.

    While we’re at it, paint lower concourse, add more lighting, cover conduits, replace troughs in bathrooms with urinals. This will make it seem less like San Quentin, and more like a ballpark. That lower concourse, as it is now, is just an absolute pit.

    Fill in concrete steps next to foul polls with seats, or convert to new bullpens. Those steps serve no real purpose, and are butt ugly.

  14. With the obvious exception for the A’s to take over the Raiders’ locker room, no money should be spent to upgrade the facility. To do so would give both Oakland and MLB the false impression that the A’s could be willing to stay indefinitely at the Coliseum.

    • Agreed. Why spend money on the destined-for-the-wrecking-ball Coliseum instead of on the new ballpark? Just keep the place in working order, maintain the plumbing – stuff like that. The place was ruined for baseball in 1995 and spending millions trying to “revive” it for a few years makes no sense.

      • Creating a better fan experience, and better fan relations, makes no sense to you? Ugh.


        Sorry for the internet shouting – not my style. But the fact that Mt Davis is destined for the wrecking ball, eventually, no matter what happens, seems to be lost on people. Mt Davis, along with it’s debt, and it’s demolition, IS A SUNKEN COST.

        What’s not a sunken cost is the ill will Mt Davis generates. It’s existence generates ill will with the fans and media and everyone else. It’s lack of existence will IMMEDIATELY generate lots of positive will with the fans and media and everyone else.

        Therefore, the only logical conclusion, is to tear down that butt-ugly, fan-repellent, monstrosity, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

        There is nothing to lose, and everything to gain. It’s going to be torn down eventually. So do it as soon as the Raiders leave!

        🙂 🙂

    • To not do so (spending money on Coliseum improvements) would give the A’s fan base, as well as the local media, the false impression that A’s ownership/management that they don’t give a sh!t.

      Mt Davis is a sunken cost. The Mt. Davis debt exists whether it’s being used or not, whether it still stands or is torn down. The demolition of Mt. Davis is also a sunken cost. No matter what happens, it’s going to get torn down, eventually.

      Thus, there is no excuse to not tear it down as soon as possible. Everyone hates it – the fans hate it, the media hates it, the players hate it, the coaches hate it. Everyone hates it. The longer that monstrosity stands, the more ill will it generates. Once the Raiders are gone, there is absolutely no reason to not tear it down immediately, being that will be demolished eventually.

      • So you’re talking about a partial demolition, in anticipation of a full demolition. That might make sense, provided the A’s don’t have to pay for it. They didn’t build the building, they don’t own it, they didn’t ruin it in 1995. But won’t the city just love paying millions of dollars in debt service for several more years on a structure that no longer exists?

  15. if the a’s are going to build at the coliseum site with their own money and not use taxpayers’ money on building the park then i think that’s good enough “good will” from the a’s ownership that the a’s fan base should be happy they are getting a new park maybe sometime at the end of this decade.

    tearing down mt davis and spending the tens of millions to try to turn it back to the pre 95 coliseum for a couple of years isn’t worth it.

    • Again, it will be torn down eventually. But you do make a good point that there would be extra cost making it into pre-1995 bleachers-plus-ice plant.

      So therefore, perhaps the best thing would be to tear down the top part (upper seats, plus upper suites), and leave everything else in tact. Again, that tearing down of upper part will just be part of a long term demolition (the long term sunken cost). So then it opens up the Coli, and views of the hills, but without extra costs of putting in new bleachers and ice plant.

      • how long would it take to do something like that, knock down and then clean up the mess of taking off the mt davis seats along with the suites? you’d assume they would do it during the offseason so would all that take 6 months to do?

        we already saw wrigley’s outfield seats not done and construction lasted well into the 2015 mlb season. now one reason why it may have been so long was because of the potential weather, doubt construction was being done during the winter months when it was snowing? obviously that wouldn’t happen here in oakland.

  16. If the Raiders leave, Wolff has said he would offer money for that land, relieving the City and County (JPA) of that Mt Davis debt. At that point, Wolff can do whatever he wants. Regardless, it will be up to whomever develops the Coliseum site to demolish Mt Davis (and eventually the entire Coliseum). And I don’t see Wolff building on the Coliseum site unless he has site control. That’s the only way it pencils out for him and the A’s. And once he has site control, he can just have at it, including Mt Davis.

    But you make a very good and fair point. The JPA isn’t going to tear down Mt Davis while they still own it and are still paying debt service on it.

    But once Wolff has control (again, the only way he actually builds at the Coli site) through purchase/debt relief, that sucker is officially done for. At that point, it’s not a matter of “if”, but “when”. And the “when” is better sooner rather than later.

  17. I say option A. Also get ride of 3rd deck sections. Extend the west side club all second deck sections. Put up canvas awnings on second deck. Move the sore boards and out of tone bosrds to where mt Davis was.

  18. If the A’s get control of the site and commit to building a new ballpark there, then I think they should put as little money as possible into the existing Coliseum. I would strongly prefer that they spend their money on the new ballpark by building a fan-friendly, architecturally attractive facility and getting it built as soon as possible.

    Sure, if they decide that they’ll have to pay the demolition costs for Mt. Davis anyway, then maybe they can remove it sooner rather than later. And it would seem that they’ll save some money from converting the field from football to baseball, which perhaps can be used to spruce up areas such as the concourse or adding some seats in foul territory.

    But my preference is for them to put the money into a really nice new ballpark in as quick a time frame as possible. I think the excitement of a great new ballpark will excite the fans and get them over the hump until the new ballpark is ready.

  19. There is one scenario in which Mt. Davis could be retained, at least partially. That scenario would be in a partial rebuild/ renovation of the Coliseum into a football stadium configuration. This would be a less costly way of building a replacement stadium for the Raiders by re-utilizing the newer and elongated Mt. Davis grandstand portion of the Coliseum footprint.

  20. Wouldn’t it cost more to lop off select parts of Mt. Davis while preserving others than it would to just wrecking ball the whole thing? Seems like the partial demolition would need to be much more careful, and thus, expensive.

    I would completely demo Mt. Davis, and put up some semi-temporary bleachers in its place (similar to what the Giants had in the waning days of Candlestick). Put the concourse at field level behind/underneath them with just restrooms and basic concessions and have access for these via the 101/133 stairs. Forget the iceplant which just blocked the view of the East Bay hills from the first and second levels. Then take the money saved and do Option C as well.

    Option D would seem to be unworkable if you were to preserve the sightlines from the lower rows of the first deck at all. Ever sit in rows 13-20 of 116-118? Close to the field, but you’re looking around people’s heads to see the plate because the seats are pitched so slightly and start so high (I’m 6’1″ as well, I can only imagine what it’s like for short people). Moving that back would make this even worse (and would similarly affect 215-219 and 315-319).

    • I like your second paragraph. That makes total sense, and wouldn’t cost any much more to do, as opposed to tearing down Mt Davis well after a new ballpark is built. And temporary bleachers would not cost much, plus putting in the ice plant at this point wouldn’t make any sense.

      Once again, Mt Davis will get torn down. Might as well tear it ASAP (as in, when the Raiders leave, and Wolff has site control), and put in temp bleachers.

      It would be a tremendous good will gesture to the fans, and would help get everyone excited for the new venue.

      • I don’t think any major renovations should be made to the existing Coliseum if there are concrete/certain plans for a new Oakland venue. An upcoming new ballpark (with dirt turning and spikes in the ground) would be enough for fans to get excited.

  21. Turn Mt. Davis into an office building. Use rent to pay down (if not off) some Mt. Davis debt. A’s themselves should move into this new office building; it will at least be convenient form them to supervise the construction of a new park nearby. No good view to the hills? (a) It was Oaklanders who elected moronic politicians that bribed the Raiders to come back, & (b) want a rise in ticket price?

    This makes it a win-win situation between a team and a city.

    • Yep and it is a different set of moronic shady politicians who have been elected that will lose both the Warriors and Raiders for the 2nd time! Embarrasing!

      • warriors were leaving no matter what. the w’s new ownership from the beginning was eyeing an move to frisco so there was nothing oakland could do. oakland couldn’t force the warriors to not have their big media and or social events the past couple of years from not being held across the bay. still shocked they had the championship parade in oakland nearly two months ago.

        raiders? there is no money to build a billion dollar venue. davis certainly doesn’t have the vision and maybe more importantly the money as we’ve seen from his actions recently.

        it’s amazing that i feel if and when the a’s were to spend their own 400-500 million dollars on a new park in oakland there were still be “fans” from the east bay who will still complain about this ownership group. especially when the two teams that likely will leave the city and who were given hundreds of millions of dollars from the tax payers to refurnish and upgrade their current venues, which the a’s didn’t have the pleasure of when they f’ed up the coliseum in the mid 90s for baseball, haven’t done a whole lot to or really next to nothing at all in regards to them planning to build a venue.

        when the a’s release their plan along with potential renderings of a new baseball park to be built at the coliseum site, it’d be 10x more than whatever the raiders or warriors have done in trying to stay in oakland. heck the failed coliseum north plan unveiled last decade is still more of a plan than what those other team “oakland” teams have ever presented.

      • “it’s amazing that i feel if and when the a’s were to spend their own 400-500 million dollars on a new park in oakland there were still be “fans” from the east bay who will still complain about this ownership group”

        There is nothing amazing about your feelings about people’s feelings in a speculative future.

      • Don’t forget the A’s – they could lose all three teams.

      • guess all those anti wolff a’s fans who speculate what he truly thinks is all the better for spouting out nonsense for years now and will continue to do so even if he were to build a new baseball park in oakland.

  22. Nothing of significance will be done to the Coliseum if it is the A’s intent to build a new ballpark – and let’s hope that it IS their intent to build a new ballpark. In fact, I bet they would recycle the new videoboards from the Coliseum by placing them in the new ballpark.

  23. Leave Mt Davis exactly the way it is as a symbol to all the bull!@#$ that goes on in the world!

  24. Want to have an idea of what shady and corrupt politicians are in an urban city? Watch The Wire. That gives an explanation of what is kinda of going on in Oakland/Alameda County and it’s sports teams.

  25. If the Raiders have $900M for their share of a stadium in Carson, why don’t they have $900M for a stadium in Oakland? I still think the Raiders will end up staying!

  26. I agree with KA, Raiders are not going anywhere. Carmen Policy is in charge and we all know his success rates building new stadiums…ZERO.

    Plus where is the financing plan? None to be seen anywhere.

    As for the A’s and the Coliseum site if the Raiders end up leaving (fat chance).

    Wolff buys the land and now owns and the JPA is relieved of the Mt. Davis debt.

    Here is a the big problem….utilities.

    Right now nothing is run to any part of the Coliseum site except where the current stadium stands. Even the HomeBase lot has a massive sewer line that cannot be moved and it still needs the rest of the utilities to be run there.

    Who pays for all of this??? The JPA.

    The JPA should be the ones who pay for all infrastructure/utilities and tear down of the old Coliseum since it was them who built it and ruined it in the first place.

    Wolff then can build his ballpark himself at the old Coliseum site or the Hombase site or the in the Coliseum parking lot. If Wolff is smart he will force the JPA to tear down the current stadium, build there while he shares with the Giants for 3 years to keep costs low.

    As for putting lipstick on the pig? No way, the JPA made this mess why should Wolff invest in it himself?

    If the JPA wants to make improvements on their stadium then go ahead unless they make concessions on the eventual tear down and infrastructure runs for the new stadium…..In that case, if I was Wolff let’s make it more fan friendly and put “some money” in.

    Wolff is going hold the JPA by the balls if the Raiders leave as he should…..But the Raiders aren’t going anywhere, I believe the Rams will be in LA first, it the “less risky” move for the NFL.

    • You could be right – the latest Rams news says that several Rams marketing executives have found employment elsewhere, and the Rams organization recently sent memos to its employees informing them that the franchise will hire LA area marketing executives so current Rams marketing employees shouldn’t be making plans of relocating to Inglewood.

      • Of course, sending the Rams to LA does nothing about the stadium problem faced by two of the three California franchises. So give the Rams a couple years to have LA to themselves, then let the Chargers move in and share the place. Raiders? Welcome to Levi’s.

      • sure jed will sure whore out levis stadium as he’s done since it was built.

        screw player safety by replacing the sod twice in a matter of a couple of weeks because some idiot thought it’d be smart to have two major concerts on the field during the month of aug when the exhibition season begins.

        but good old jed will tweet out more pics of the upcoming concern as he did with swift’s concerts this past weekend.

  27. I know it looks bad for the City of Oakland and County of Alameda. Sure, the Raiders, A’s and Warriors want out, and the Coliseum’s stadium and arena complex is now outdated. Sure, the Raiders think going back to L.A. will make them rich. Sure, the A’s and Lew Wolff want San Jose, but really can’t say anything until the Supreme Court decide its fate. The Warriors, well, San Francisco is only 33 miles west of Oakland, and its offering a new arena to keep them in the bay area. However folks, its not the end of the world and I’ll tell you why.

    It may turn out that maybe Lewie wants to stay in Oakland, but there’s no knowing if he will stay if the Raiders leave. Will Lewie make an offer Oakland can’t refuse…godfather reference. Lots of A’s fans heard the rumors before, but IS LEW SERIOUS?!?!? No one knows but Lew himself. Can he be the one that turns the Coliseum City project into his own golden child. Stay Tuned.

    What about the Raiders leaving to go back to L.A., the hell hole city they left Oakland for since May 7, 1982. Will L.A. offer a nice shiny gold stadium nugget the Davis’ been wanting to own since the late 70’s. Hell, L.A. has been offering that gold stadium nugget since May 7, 1982. However, that gold nugget turned into a golden stadium turd in the 1986 NFL season. Since then, the Raiders have been terrible. As u have notice, the Raiders haven’t won a Super Bowl trophy since 1983, when they were the Los Angeles Raiders. The original OAKLAND Raiders have either disappeared from the face of the earth, died since the team left Oakland in 1982, or hiding. Even in 1983, Oakland “celebrated” the Raiders Super Bowl XVIII victory. Don’t believe me, visit the Oakland Public Library…if it still exists.

    Now for the Warriors. I’m glad they won the NBA title in 2015. It was good to see them win one NBA title before I leave this great world of ours. It was nice that the league referenced the great history of the Warriors with great players like Rick Barry, Clifford Ray, and Jamaal Wilkes. I was only 6 when they won it in the 1974-1975 NBA season. Now, saying all that, will the Warriors leave Oakland??? Ones will never know, but it looks like they might.

    What I am trying to say is that, even if they all leave, life doesn’t end. The City of Oakland and Alameda County, your way better than the Raiders, A’s and Warriors combined. Sure, the Warriors won the NBA title, but that doesn’t mean that they would leave the minute the City of San Francisco, who couldn’t even offer a decent stadium deal to the 49ers, want the Warriors to “come home,” offer a arena package they can’t refuse. Even if they did and use public money to do it, ITS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.

    The City of Oakland REFUSES to use public money to offer the Raiders and the A’s. Why? Are they broke?? MAYBE. Who knows what they have and don’t have. The Raiders want FREE LAND. Sorry, you have to pay for it Mr. Davis. Mr. Wolff, u have to pay your own way, which is why u might say, “Do U know the way to San Jose.”

    Do what John Oliver says….MAKE THEM PAY….MAKE THEM PAY…good god almighty MAKE THEM PAY.

  28. 33 miles west of Oakland? Maybe Lacob could put the new arena on the Farallon Islands. No complaints about traffic there.

    • LOL good one

      • How about a “floating” stadium device for both the Raiders and the A’s. The stadium should be titled “The Golden Nugget” after the great John Ascuaga.

        Hey we can dream can’t we?!?!

  29. ML, I would like to see a financial analysis on how much the Raiders (and NFL) can benefit from a new stadium. Unless the current facility is beyond repair, the additional revenues at the gates can’t possibly come close to making the investment back?

    My take is that a new stadium in Oakland would probably benefit the Raiders for less than 1 billion, and nearly nothing for NFL. My rationale was that Davis said the team had about 400 m to contribute, and that the NFL appears to not wanting to invest even 1 dollar. In contrast, a new park for the Athletics, should it get the A’s a non-crap TV broadcast contract, would be highly profitable. Also getting the As off revenue sharing benefits MLB too, so the league should be motivated to assist.

    Thus I think the A’s will get a new park but the Raiders won’t. Where the new park is and where the Raiders play though, I don’t know. Alas, Fremont A’s and Levi’s Raiders would have made the most sense.

  30. The A’s lost the east bay fan base 10 years ago. The Giants have completely dominated the marketing…oh and have one three world series. A new A’s stadium at that site will still draw 7,000 on a Monday night ( paid attendance ) . The Raiders are the only thing that matters in Oakland, and they must stay. Get lost Lew

    • But the Raiders and the NFL want $400 million from Oakland, which the city doesn’t have. The A’s have not asked for any money. So it’s $400 million for a football stadium to be used a dozen days a year, or a privately built baseball stadium used 80+ days a year.

    • They will never stay. Don’t believe me….ask Al Junior.

      • All this “The Raiders belong in Oakland” talk doesn’t do anything to make up the $400 million funding shortfall for a new Oakland football stadium (and it’s probably more than that amount).” Money talks…

      • it’s all wolf’s fault if the raiders move.

    • yes and the raiders lost the east bay back in 83 when they moved out of oakland and the niners went on to win 4 super bowls in the next dozen years.

      and since returning to oakland the raiders have been mostly an embarrassment to the city of oakland having only had 3 .500 or better seasons in 20 years. raiders during this time frame probably have had the lowest attendance in the nfl too i’d guess.

      • burn

      • @ letsgoas: Good points, but with some correction here.

        First of all, the Raiders left Oakland on May 7, 1982, not 1983. They won the Super Bowl in ’83.

        Second, they went to the playoffs three times during the 2000, 2001 and 2002 NFL seasons.

        Third, the Raiders, since returning to Oakland in 1995, have a .388 winning percentage. A record of 124 wins – 196 losses and no ties.

      • yeah my mistake. should’ve posted three “winning” records in their 20 years since returning to oakland in 1995.

    • The giants fanbase is bogus and overhyped. They claim they’ve had 360 or whatever consecutive sellouts – yet 80% of their games appear to be 75% of capacity or less (and they consider those sellouts?)

      Also, their actual attendance isn’t that impressive considering they’ve won 3 WS titles lately. The only area the Giants dominate is media hype and b.s. They are an over-hyped bogus team (along with their bogus, false “Stand for San Jose” group – opposing the A’s move to SJ)

  31. 10 home days vs 81?? Still a no brainer, I vote for the Raiders. The third richest owners in baseball should be able to finance a real ballpark in DOWNTOWN Oakland, not the Coliseum. Howard Terminal is ready, and has the support of the business community. Lew stands no chance of ever having success in the Bay Area, as long as the money printer Giants machine has completely taken over. Lew while all that was going on was too busy ( and still is ) trying to move to the South Bay, which just like the East Bay is now 75% Giants fans! Build for the Raiders, they are the true pride of Oakland. Build a stadium that will be the host stadium for all major Bay Area events. Levi stadium is kind of far from SF. A premier stadium in Oakland at the Coliseum becomes not only the home for the brand that is the Raiders, it also becomes the center of Bay Area Entertainment… Perhaps even a expansion MLS team that represents SF & Oakland? Soccer will be as successful in Oakland as it is in Seattle and LA, would create also a nice rivalry with the Earthquakes. Baseball is for nerds… Get over it!

    • soccer is b-o-r-i-n-g, it won’t pass MLB, the NHL or NBA, nobody cares about soccer except soccer fans (they likely follow soccer because they’ve hit too many headers playing the stupid game and don’t know any better.

      • Let me take a guess, you’re probably white and over 40.

      • @Chris: correct – also soccer is marketed as a new up and coming sport – when it’s actually the oldest sport around – way older than baseball, hoops, and hockey. Basketball and hockey are relatively much newer sports and have achieved much more global growth than soccer has.

      • coming from a guy who used to think soccer was boring I now choose to watch it over a baseball game any day; as do my kids who are in their 20’s and played baseball at a high level growing up. I have no doubt that soccer will replace baseball in the next 10-15 years. to love baseball you had to play it at some point growing up–and even then it can be quite a boring sport to sit down and watch–soccer has 90+ minutes of uninterrupted action–compared to near 3 hour average baseball games—add to the fact that more and more kids are choosing either soccer or lacrosse rather than baseball

      • @Go A’s – you are entitled to your opinion, although I would even prefer viewing a 2-0 Giants win than a 2-0 soccer match. Soccer is fun to play – however makes for boring viewing.

      • @GoA’s, I’m the same as you. I don’t have any children but all of my cousins’ kids (all under 10) are huge soccer fans. They don’t care for baseball at all. I’m only 30 years old and I’d also say most of my male friends follow soccer at least casually. The sport seems to have gained a lot of momentum in the U.S. in the last 5-10 years. I don’t know where it goes from here.

        Also, I’ve read that soccer is more popular than baseball among youths in traditional baseball markets like Japan, South Korea and is gaining ground quickly in Venezuela and even Cuba. Not sure what that means for baseball. I know that baseball used to be really popular in Mexico and Panama in the 1950s and then fell precipitously as soccer ascended. Nowadays, baseball in Mexico is more of a regional sport (popular only in the Northwest border states, Sinaloa, etc.)

      • @chris, Go A’s: You are attempting to apply the football vs baseball argument to soccer vs baseball. Soccer ain’t football – when compared to other sports besides football, baseball isn’t so boring. MLB players are possibly overall the highest paid entertainers, that’s proof of it’s popularity. Also many NBA rosters include plenty of Euros and some Asians, it also appears that 50% of NHL players are Euros – these sports appear to be thriving overseas. Most fans evidently prefer more exciting sports than viewing a boring 1-0 soccer match.

    • MLB looked for years for a downtown site; there isn’t one. Howard Terminal is contaminated, bound by railroad obstructions, distant from BART and surrounded by industrial uses incompatible with a baseball stadium. I know – people believe what they want to believe, the facts be damned. If you want a downtown or Howard Terminal site, it plain doesn’t matter if none of it is doable. Howard Terminal is “ready?” Nothing could be further from the truth. Another MLS team in the Bay Area? Pure fantasy. Where would they play? In a fictional new Raiders stadium, even though MLS wants socccer-specific stadiums? All the writing on the wall says the Raiders are leaving Oakland.

      • @ pjk: I think Howard Terminal is like a L.A. version of Carson.

      • Howard Terminal contaminated? Just as much as Carson Stadium landfill is contaminated and they are ready to build a beautiful 65k stadium for Raiders and Chargers. Fisher and Wolff are idiots for not building a ballpark near or around JLS or anywhere near DTown.

    • @ Oaktownraiders: U have very good points, sir. However, I think u need to point the finger at Raiders owner, Mark Davis, and ask him why hasn’t he hired a Carmen Policy to work for a deal in Oakland. Even so, point the finger at the politicians in Oakland and in Alameda County and ask them why are they lying to us about keeping either the A’s or the Raiders? Ask them if they have a way to pay for the stadium, and if not….why keep them if OAKLAND IS BROKE?!?!?!

      • Oakland’s in a tough spot: It can’t pay for new facilities at today’s prices ($2 billion for two stadiums and an arena; it can’t spend ANY money on sports facilities, FWIW) but it can’t concede loss of the teams. So what we’ve had instead is a parade of press conferences, fancy drawings of stadiums that won’t get built, pep rallies, stall, stall, stall. Looks like the NFL, at least, is getting ready to admit it’s over in Oakland; Oakland pols will never admit this.

  32. The Oakland pols know all too well that the only team that will remain in Oakland after all that is said and done are the A’s. The obvious reason is that MLB is committed to keeping the A’s in Oakland, unlike the NFL who at least is open about the idea of allowing the Raiders to move from Oakland if they don’t get a deal done on a new replacement facility. As a result, Oakland has for all practical purposes never made any serious attempts to get a new stadium deal done for the Raiders.

    • Blame this on the current politicans in Oakland and in Alameda County. Oh, I also wanna give thanks to Joe Bort who made this possible in 1982. He is the reason why the Raiders left OAKLAND

    • We don’t know if the A’s “are committed” to staying in Oakland, even if the Raiders leave for Los Angeles in 2016. Saying that MLB is committed to keeping the A’s in Oakland, is nice, but not a guarantee.

  33. Go to any High School, College or bar where people under the age of 35 reside. Players from European Soccer Leagues are household names to us,..where as baseball, I can not name 4 players on the A’s. I do not know who the league MVP was, and I don’t care. So I know it is a hard pill to swallow for some who carry baseball cards in their wallet, but the truth is, baseball is what is boring and unattractive. And for those who continue hate on Raiders Fans, go visit the airport the weekend of a Raiders game. See also how many people take Amtrak from all over the State. Do the A’s get anything remotely close to that. I have met people from all over the country and even the world at Raider games. Unfortunately Lew Wolf HAS divided the fanbase. Do the A’s really think they stand a chance of surviving without the support of the Raider Nation? Good luck! As for the rest of you A’s / Niner/ Stanford Football/ yet Cal basketball fans… Enjoy eachother in the East Bay and at the new A’s stadium. All 10,000 of you. GOOOOOOAAL!

    • Most people outside of this country think Baseball is lousy. It’s a highly overrated sport and is not fun to watch on TV….barely fun to watch live. Just a regional sport….the NFL Draft has higher ratings than a baseball game on TV!

    • Why would anyone watch soccer when they can watch hockey? Many times faster, more than a goal a game, physical play, no one going down like they’re shot and miraculously recovering seconds later, and fighting.

    • I’ve been to 1.5 Earthquakes games at the new stadium (had to leave early for one of them, for a bunch of reasons). In the time i was there, I saw a grand total of 0 goals. I’m still going back, but come on. No goals at all?

  34. WOW! I didn’t realize the soccer comment would cause such an debate…. Which means it is a totally viable option. Maybe Larry Baer or Joe Lacob go in on that expansion MLS team. Market them the way the Warriors do as ” the bay’s team” The beauty of soccer franchises you do not even need a city or a mascot to represent the team. They should call it ” Athleticos ” and wear black ( Raiders / Giants ) and throw some green in there to really stick it to Lew. Can you imagine?? Atheticos Bay Area playing at the Coliseum crushing the attendance of the Athletics baseball and Earthquakes soccer that Lew also owns. I think we really got something here.
    Also to note, the A’s are now looking into building a stadium in Oakland only because they have ZERO leverage to go anywhere else. The Raiders could move to any city they want, and would easily fit in because they have a fan base ALREADY in every city! Don’t blow it Libby, the Raider Nation is strong enough to sabotage your baseball franchise because the owner does not want our support. He does not want support from his own market fanbase! ; does that make any sense? Oh and Mrs. Mayor, if you manage to lose a brand and a franchise as powerful as the Raiders, your days as a mayor are finished.

    • I was reading something today that asked why Mark Davis hired Carmen Policy to promote a new stadium in LA but not Oakland? Yes, what a loyal devotee of Oakland Mark Davis is. He’ll stay as long as someone builds a stadium for him. Since that’s not going to happen, he is gone.

      • @ pjk: Mark Davis doesn’t care. IT shows. He made sure he hired Carmen Policy to work with him in Oakland, but no one stepped to the plate for the City of Oakland. U have to think what made that possible??? I know….Davis wants FREE LAND at the Coliseum.

    • @ oaktowngreek: I think OAKLAND has lost all three franchises.

  35. have read some real delusional stuff on this blog for the past decade or so but wow that one ranks right up there.

    • @ letsgoas: what delusional stuff r u talking about may i ask?

      • basically blaming wolff for ANY that seems like it puts oakland or it’s plans to keep the a’s and or all three of their sports teams in the city.

        it’s wolff’s fault that coliseum city isn’t going to get built even though anybody with reasonable expectations knew something that large of a project that the chances of that getting built in oakland as the pictures and plans that were released were slim to none.

        how howard terminal is some kind of easy and realistic site for wolff to build a baseball park there. even though it’d cost hundreds of millions to clean up, prep up, and not to mention the millions upon millions of dollars it’d cost to even make the site suitable infrastructure wise. sure it’d be the ideal site visually with the estuary and cranes form the port integrated into the park design but the return in investment financially isn’t worth it. but some expect wolff or anybody who owns the a’s to pick that site and risk hundreds of millions without knowing if they’ll ever see that money come back.

        my favorite one and i posted about it a couple of times recently is wolff sabotaged the victory court baseball site even though wolff had nothing to do with that site not becoming available due to the local business owners not wanting to leave the area.

Comments are closed.