Frankly, I’m tired of writing about Coliseum City, what’s (not) happening. Instead of devoting 500 words to running out the clock or whatever metaphor you feel is most appropriate, I’ll simply leave this here:
- Final Coliseum City proposal met with pessimism (BANG, Matthew Artz)
- Oakland talks with Raiders and A’s While Waiting for Coliseum City Developer (East Bay Express, Steven Tavares)
- Key Deadline Comes for New Oakland Coliseum Proposal (ABC7, Laura Anthony)
- Coliseum City Investors Submit Development Plan (CBS SF)
Hasn’t the NFL made it clear it has no faith in these roll-the-dice, developer-profits-based stadium financing schemes? Who makes up the difference when the developer profits aren’t enough to pay the mortgage on the stadium? The Raiders? It’s easy to see why the NFL doesn’t even invite Oakland to its stadium planning meetings and says Oakland has offered nothing “viable.”
I think they should have expanded the league back in 1986, by two. The NFL was still at 28 teams back then. The two teams should have been the Baltimore Stars and the Oakland Invaders. It would have saved a lot of headaches and memories too.
Just my opinion. Oakland was better off with the Invaders.
Yep the col city was a pip dream.
Look like the raiders will be playing some where else, LA, San Antoneio or Mares
never even heard of a couple of those places
warriors are leaving to frisco. the warriors ownership wants to make this move happen and they aren’t barred from moving to the city they want to go to unlike another oakland team that’s colors are green and gold.
raiders likely going to leave for la since there isn’t the money to build a second billion dollar stadium here in the bay area.
the dilemma for the city of oakland is whether the us supreme court will take on and rule against the anti trust exemption that mlb has. if they do then oakland could lose all three teams honestly.
imo the best shot of oakland even holding onto the one realistic team they can continue to keep really depends on what the supreme court does.
In the next 30 days or so we will know whether or not the SCOTUS will hear the case in The Court or they pass on it and by default say the ATE is safe.
If they hear the case, I really think MLB loses.
If the court hears the case, I don’t see how MLB defends this 100-year-old exemption, granted on the grounds that baseball was a local matter and not a business. Not a business? Spare us.
Also Manfred may have some explaining to do about that recent “we (MLB) are a growth business” comment. The timing of that comment was bad considering the SC is going to review the case soon.
The ATE Is based on the Court’s determination that individual baseball teams are not engaged in interstate commerce, and thus the Federal antitrust laws cannot be applied to them. The Supreme Court never held that baseball was “not a business”. That would not have passed the laugh test in 1922 anymore than it does now.
By the way, the two biggest myths about the business of baseball are that the ATE is responsible for whatever a commentator does not like, and that the Commissioner has an unlimited “best interest of baseball” power to do whatever he wants, such as let the A’s into San Jose. Neither is true.
@simon94022: The Giants have been strangely quiet since Manfred took over as MLB commish. They also are likely not at all pleased with Manfred’s aggressive push to keep the A’s in Oakland (they would definitely prefer that the A’s quietly slip away to Portland, Las Vegas, etc) Also, they are very likely p.o.’ed about Manfred’s recent “MLB as a growth business” comment.
question is if the supreme court does rule against mlb or if mlb opens up sj before such a decision is made which could allow the a’s to move to sj whether or not the a’s org would be seen as some sort of pariah or outcast to not only mlb front offices but the rest of the mlb owners?
you can argue al did this with the raiders but would wolff/fisher want to be themselves or the a’s org viewed negatively by their fellow peers?
@letsgoas: Likely not. Most MLB owners are likely for the A’s move anyhow (Wolff has requested a vote for it several times) Manfred may be for the move also. Soon after Manfred was elected – the MLB commissioners office agreed that the Giants opinion that they would lose attendance if the A’s move to SJ is very questionable, and that MLB has frequently informed the Giants organization about that.
If most MLB owners wanted the A’s to move to SJ, why hasn’t MLB allowed it?
The only one on record as supporting the A’s a couple of years ago was Reinsdorf. And we know from the vote to elect Manfred that Reinsdorf has fallen from influence, to put it mildly.
@simon94022: You must be a Giants fan -spewing mis-information. Reinsdorf, also the owners of both Florida teams have publicly supported the A’s move. No team has publicly supported the Giants. Wolff has commented that he believes that most MLB owners support the A’s moving to SJ, (that likely is credible, also – why would Wolff request a vote about it several times if he didn’t have good support from other MLB owners?) Selig (when commissioner) was at one time was stumping MLB owners to support the As’ move, and achieving good success. The A’s must already have plenty of support for the SJ move -possibly even Manfred supports it)
I don’t see MLB caving and letting SJ “win” without the case being heard. If they do that, they have set the precedence that all a city and team have to do is sue, let it go to the SCOTUS (which has let it get this far so likely it would again), and expect MLB to cave again… and again… Caving at this point would essentially amount to MLB abandoning their ATE on their own.
Heck it would even mean all this nonsense about who the NFL will let move to LA would be meaningless… Kronke would say “screw you NFL I’m building a stadium just try and stop me and we’ll let the SCOTUS decide the outcome.”
Nope, MLB is in this thing to the end. The time to cave has long since expired.
Didn’t they already set that precedent when the Giants-to-Tampa deal was nixed and MLB got sued then?
If the case goes to the Supreme Court that will force MLB to open their books which they absolutely do not want.
In terms of the ATE, because the San Jose situation is so unique, it also doesn’t set a precedent for future cities as there aren’t any other two team markets setup this way. This wouldn’t be the same thing as a third team trying to move to NY or a city like Quebec asking for a team.
MLB has a lot to risk by letting this go to trial. The only thing they risk by settling is pissing off the Giants.
@DTP: the NFL issue is not linked to the MLB ATE. In fact, Kroenke would likely pull what Al Davis previously did with the Raiders and move the Rams to Socal anyway if the the NFL does not ok the Rams move – Davis already established that precedent.
@pjk – no… that case never got even close to getting this far. Also, the Giants never moved. If MLB caves AND the A’s move, that’s the opening of the floodgates.
@duffer… you may be right about the NFL thing, but it certainly would bolster any team from any league’s claim that their league can not force them to stay where they don’t think they can financially stay afloat. But I think if the NFL ok’s the Chargers and the Raiders Carson deal, he won’t want to be there anyways… WAY too much competition, especially when it seems Mo and/or St Louis may be stepping up to the plate for a stadium deal.
re: Raiders stadium proposal A $300 million, city-sponsored, 25-year conduit bond that wouldn’t leave the city on the hook in the case of bond default. The bonds would be repaid by various stadium revenue, including naming rights, non-game day revenue and ticket or parking assessments. …of course, the NFL and the Raiders will be happy to give up this revenue to help pay for the stadium, right? Right?
I am the most disgusted A’s fan that there is right now when it comes to the fucking bay are politics and how the A’s are treated. I believe the ownership has done what it can to make the product better. Getting a better home has proven nothing but hell for the A’s. The A’s were wanting to improve the old Coliseum back in the early 90’s. They were told by the stadium officials that this would happen. Then the Raiders happened and the customization for the A’s were flushed. Then the stadium was ruined. Now the Raiders are going to leave with the A’s playing in a rotten park and the City and County on the hook for 100 Million in debt. The A’s asked for peanuts early on and they were told to go pound sand. The ownership then tried to go to San Jose in the late 90’s but the Giants said that was theirs and that they have a minor league club there. OK their territory given to them with a handshake. I get it….fine…..whatever. Then the A’s propose to finance their own stadium on land north of the Coliseum. They just needed help securing the land. But the City and County did not want to move any businesses(most are now gone) and they didn’t want the A’s owning the stadium to where they could not get money from the team. The A’s then try to move to Fremont. A move that angered the Giants internally so much that it silently assisted the Fremont residents to question it. And then the California state economy hit with housing and building bond changes to where it made the deal impossible to go with. Then the A’s again try to go south to San Jose. The Giants again get involved and say that is their territory. Deal goes dead with MLB not doing anything. Then Oakland does this pie in the sky dream of a Coliseum City plan. The A’s are still wanting to get a new home. Then even before this is all hashed out, the Giants take over Sacramento for AAA and invade the A’s territory. It wasn’t even a fight. Why was this allowed to happen to squeeze the A’s? Oakland needs to give the A’s something good and NOT near the Coliseum. It needs to be near downtown or the A’s need to leave. Give the A’s Fairytale land. They deserve it. If not, the A’s should leave the bay area to a place where they will be wanted and the new city will be more than happy to built a quality stadium with a quality government backing them.