Kephart plays out the string

After reading tweets and reactions, and finally listening to Floyd Kephart’s spiel at Lungomare today, I can use one word to describe the whole affair.


Unlike Kephart’s 50/50-or-less assessment of the project at this late stage, I can say with greater confidence – 80/20 – that this will be the last time you see Floyd Kephart in Oakland. He said that he’ll be there through the early part of October, but that doesn’t mean he has to come back if all signs point to no on the City’s part.

There’s a rendering. It looks modern. Great. The next one’s more interesting.

After reading Kephart’s spoken points and digesting them for a bit, I realized that what Kephart presented today, warts and all, was the most honest proposal anyone’s ever given in the four year saga of Coliseum City. Here’s why:

  1. It acknowledges that the A’s are likely to stay at the Coliseum for a considerable period, so the Coliseum stays intact.
  2. The arena stays as well, because the City wants it even if the Warriors leave.
  3. The project area was downsized to 132 acres, no planned phase west of the Nimitz.
  4. The funding gap, which according to Kephart would be $300 million, would be funded by a City-sponsored conduit bond.

The conduit bond is a tricky thing. This kind of financing has the tax-free, low borrowing cost benefits of regular municipal bonds, but municipalities aren’t on the hook for repayment, as Oakland and Alameda County were with Mt. Davis’s general obligation bonds. Instead, revenues from the development, such as naming rights and certain forms of tax increment on the project area would be used to the tune of $20 million per year. If this sounds familiar, that’s because it’s similar to the way the 49ers financed their gap through Goldman Sachs. During the pre-Harbaugh era, there was a legitimate question about whether the stadium could be paid for this way. A few playoff runs and highly renewed interest later and the 49ers were able to pull it off. The Raiders, well, they’re not in that position. The makes me wonder how the financing would work if there were revenue shortfalls. Who would be responsible, the Raiders? What if they defaulted? And why would the Raiders or the NFL approve such a plan, given the revenue uncertainty?

Kephart said a few other things I found noteworthy.

“Purchase of the (Coliseum) land is key to us staying. In the event that the Council says no…we’re not going to do the development.”

The land purchase is contingent on the City and County coming to an agreement on Oakland buying out Alameda County’s half.

“I’m on my 4th city administrator and 2nd mayor in 10 months. I’m under the 2nd ENA and I haven’t negotiated one significant thing except the ENA.”

That would’ve been a drop-the-mic moment if he was so frustrated that he wanted to quit. He wasn’t. But that’s a stunning admission of how little has actually been done. Kephart has been quick to blame the City, County, and team for his failure. Ultimately, it is his failure since he was brought aboard to bring everyone to the table and work out the deal, so this grousing seems like sour grapes. He made one more observation:

“I’m not the problem, and I’m not the solution.”

Kephart also claimed that it was the City’s responsibility, not his, to get the Raiders, A’s, or Warriors on board. That’s a complete backpedal on his part. Per the ENA, as part of the initial submittal due June 21:

(b) Proposed terms and conditions required to obtain a commitment from one or more of the Oakland Raiders, the Oakland Athletics, and/or the Golden State Warriors to the Project with an update on status of negotiations between New City and each team regarding its commitment to participate in the Project;

I don’t know when this all changed, but I got a hint of it a few weeks ago when NFL point man Eric Grubman was talking about Oakland on Fred Roggin’s LA radio show. Grubman mentioned that the City hadn’t presented anything to the Raiders, which sounded strange since I too thought that New City was responsible for signing the Raiders. Now it makes sense in terms of process, though no light was shed on why it evolved this way. Exactly how was the City selling this to the Raiders? And wouldn’t those efforts run in conflict with the City’s desire to “open” the process for alternatives?

Near the end, Kephart had a sort of kiss-off moment.

“While everybody might think that Oakland is the garden spot of the world, we have projects in three different continents and around the country. And I have lots to do.”

It’s true. The ponies aren’t going to wait for Floyd to come back to Del Mar, you know.

78 thoughts on “Kephart plays out the string

  1. Am I wrong in thinking that any development on the Coliseum property is technically a violation of the A’s lease since it affects their parking revenue? Or do I have this wrong?

  2. I really hate bad reporting and a failure to understand the English language. New City’s job was to provide “terms and conditions required to obtain a commitment” not obtain the commitment. New City does not have and has never had the authority to negotiate on behalf of the City and County who are the only ones that can “obtain a commitment” because they are the only ones that can commit to those terms and conditions. New City provided the terms and conditions required to obtain a commitment but this doesn’t mean the City or County can or in fact should accept those terms and conditions from either team. However, they can be used as the basis of discussions leading to negotiations which is how they are being used by the City.

    I have never blamed anyone for something we were to do for not getting done. I have and will continue to provide ah honest assessment of each parties responsibilities and where issues exist. If New City doesn’t perform on anything it can do that is within its power or authority, it will always be solely my responsibility. If we perform as we have on time every time for what we were asked to do and others do not perform, then we are not and should not be responsible for others actions.

    I do not quit because of frustration. I strongly believe in Coliseum City as a Transit Hub Development and the future of the East Bay and Oakland. I also have a lot of confidence in the new team the Mayor has recruited to fill the voids existed for several months and were filled by only temporary officials. I strongly believe in the leadership of the Council and I believe that working with the Mayors team of professionals and the Council we can find a solution to the existing issues.

    The complexity of this project and number of entities involved in the decision making make the odds of keeping the teams and developing the commercial portions of the development 50/50. I think this is a fair assessment. If the number of decision makers are reduced the odds of achievement go up. Logic has a place in life.

    As for me being back in Oakland, oh ye of little faith.

    And your comment about the development potentially violating the A’s lease because of parking is incorrect… least according to the attorneys. We are very respectful of the A’s and the need to maintain their lease in good standing.

    • Floyd, your job was to put the deal together. You threw the previous stakeholders under the bus. You pointed to a delay in the mayoral change, which you considered due diligence, but nevertheless had to mention as a point of frustration. You didn’t have to do that. At the very least you should’ve seen that coming and acknowledged it. With all your various proposals, you have shown little ability to properly balance all stakeholders’ interests. You now say that your task was to provide “terms and conditions” required to obtain a commitment. Okay, what are those terms and conditions? For the Raiders, A’s, and Warriors? Why has the City chosen not to present your previous plans to the Raiders? Or are those yet more confidential pieces that you can’t divulge?

      You played up the 800 acre concept, then finally reeled it back in to 130 acres. Why did that take so long? Any observer of Oakland politics saw this coming and would’ve changed it in only a few months to reflect the reality on the ground.

      Finally, didn’t you say at the outset that if this project doesn’t happen, it’s on you? And that you’d be okay 24 hours later? You signed up for the gig, Floyd. Most observers had low expectations. We’ve wasted 4 years on this. For all your belief, Raiders fans will be back at square one in a couple of months. But hey, you tried, right?

      • I suspect Floyd could have provided some terms and conditions to each team to try to get them on board with the project, but I also suspect they were so far removed from anything reasonable that the A’s, Raiders, and Warriors simply laughed at them.

        I wouldn’t blame them, either. Given the choice, those franchises should try to get their own projects done for their own best benefits instead of signing on to the Coliseum City project. It was never realistic in the first place.

        And I can see how the wording of the second part of the ENA is vague, but it’s pretty poor form to come in here acting like someone else simply does not understand the English language when that section of the ENA itself could have been worded better. It’s obvious there was an expectation that New City would be negotiating (there’s that word) with each team in some form, even if it’s just an step in the process to get them to commit to the City and County for the project.

        Obviously, Floyd and New City failed in that regard.

      • Blaming Floyd for the possible failure of all sides coming together is laughable Marine and you should know that. Blame your inept “friends” within the Alameda County and in the City for being a bunch of idiots who lack vision and a sense of civic pride. If they were hating on Floyd from the very beginning just like you were….than why in the hell did the inept idiots within the County and City agree to the ENA in the first place?? At least Kephart as given us a legit vision to revitilize the Coliseum Site area as opposed the corrupt turds “leaders” within the County and City.

    • I guess I too don’t understand the English language, because this:

      “status of negotiations between New City and each team regarding its commitment to participate in the Project”

      Sure says to me that New City is negotiating with each team about its commitment to the project.

    • Floyd, you deserve some respect for communicating with your critics.

      You deserve criticism for a proposal you floated that would’ve given New City a percentage of Raiders ownership that was comically out of line with NFL franchise valuations in 2015.

      You deserve criticism for not being realistic about what was possible at the Coliseum site years ago.

      And you deserve criticism for even today still maintaining that this all still has a 50/50 chance of happening.

      This entire stadium process has been at times intellectually dishonest, and that is hurtful to members of the community who have gotten excited too many times to count about fancy-looking renderings.

    • I applaud you Floyd for giving this an honest effort. It’s not your fault the City and County “leaders” and politicos are an inept group of idiots who lack vision for the Coliseum Site. They are the ones who agreed to the ENA with you just a few short months ago and all of a sudden they are all silent. What a bunch of inpept losers. They have just wasted everyones time and some money as well.

    • @ Floyd Kephart: U sir are a BOOB. The Raiders are leaving. Deal with it.

  3. a couple of thoughts–first is FK isn’t the only developer who has been challenged in working with Oakland/AlCo- LW himself has been less than successful in past endeavors with this group ….and most developers choose to not even try to play with this group. Second, FK has done what was expected which was to figure out how to build a $1B stadium with no public funding or the Raiders. In reality, Oakland’s best investment would be no stadium(s) at all to maximize their return for this 130 acres.

    Finally, I don’t see any significant increased value in having a baseball stadium surrounded by a sea of parking v. a football stadium surrounded by a sea of parking. One has 10 plus dates the other has 81 plus dates—or less than 1/4 of the year when an event is happening. I know that folks believe that LW will still develop around a ballpark but if you do the math there is not alot of space left if there is to be surface level parking.

  4. Kephart’s sour grapes comment sounds very similar to what the director of that really crappy Fantastic Four movie tweeted the day it came out. Coliseum City will bomb out just as poorly as that movie did too so the comparison is fitting.

  5. “oh ye of little faith. ”

    That would be a good way to describe Eric Grubman.

    I heard him on Fred Roggin a while back. He warned the city of Oakland 5 years ago about working with 3rd party developers on stadium deals. Essentially said Kephart plan represents everything Grubman tried to warn Oakland about years ago. After listening to that interview my odds for CC happening went to ZERO. If the NFL is not interested why bother?

  6. Where is the parking for A’s games?

  7. First I would like to give props to Floyd Kephart for coming out both here and in the conference and braving the spears and arrows.

    Whatever else I think he is plainly getting out there he needs to know if the land is for sale. If it is he’s got ideas if not game over.
    So OK Oakland are you willing to sell the land? There is no time to work out a deal over months.
    Let’s see if Larry Reid is as brave as Floyd.

  8. Queue up the realistic proposals from the teams that are interested in presenting them (cough, A’s, cough). I can’t wait to see more pretty drawings.

  9. Matthew Artz!? He looks like Gollum from Lord of the Rings. SMH

  10. Kephart was hired to promote Coliseum City to the City/County. This is why he signed the ENA with them not the A’s/Raiders/Warriors.

    He is right when he states it is up to the City/County to bring the teams to the table.

    The stadiums are just a piece of the puzzle, the City/County know this as they were the ones who promoted Coliseum City in the first place not Kephart.

    Kephart cannot negotiate infrastructure improvements, tear downs, consolidation of old debt or even the new stadium itself without the City/County involved in a major way.

    He at least has all 3 stadiums in the view, not excluding any one team from the vision itself.

    If the terms are fair to the City/County after a negotiation, only then can the Raiders, A’s, Warriors or discuss the stadium pieces.

    ML put up a pic with the chicken and the egg, and that is the problem here. Kephart cannot unilaterally negotiate with the Raiders, he needs bilateral negotiations to occur with the City/County and one of the teams to make this work.

    The finger to point here is at Oakland/Alameda County for not being on the same page. In fact, Alameda County wants to bail from the project for selfish reasons.

    While Oakland wants the world but at zero cost to them. How can Kephart negotiate with the Raiders in this situation?

    He cannot, his hope is the terms are acceptable (after a couple back and forth) with the City/County to open up negotiations with the Raiders first.

    Then he can bring all parties together with his framework and see if a deal can be struck……This is how business works guys.

    It just sucks dealing with Oakland/Alameda County…..dysfunction everywhere.

    • Sorry, this whole limited responsibility revision of Kephart’s history is a bit rich. If his job was only to get a list of demands (that’s really what he was saying) from the teams, the City could’ve done that themselves. Hell, they’re doing that NOW.

      Sure, Oakland wants the moon for free. And AlCo doesn’t want to be 5th among the stakeholder beneficiaries. You can call it selfish. It’s also fiscally responsible. Floyd’s job was to balance those interests, as well as his own investors and the teams. We all called it pie-in-the-sky in the beginning, and that has proven itself out three times in four years.

      It matters little how much any one party is at fault. In the end Kephart will be a mere footnote in this story. As was Jean Quan. Move on, and let this chapter end quietly as it should.

      • Wait, so does this mean Kephart won’t tweet anymore?

        If we could see this happening, and the meadia could too, why waste all this time one it. I also don’t why Kephart couldn’t see this playout before he even signed on.

      • End quitely as it should is the spin huh ML? What a joke! The exact opposite is what should happen. More pressure should be put on your buddies within the County who are a joke and with the City to have some balls and maintain some civic pride….instead of worrying about how they can line their pockets and make money for themselves.

      • What money are they making for themselves?
        Put pressure on City and County leaders to pay for a football stadium? That worked out awesome before! Oh, wait..

    • Exactly! the County and City inept leadership is much more to blame for all this than Kephart. Don’t believe what ML and other Wolff and County cronies try to spin it when it comes to putting all the blame on Kephart. The County and City politicos are an inept joke. City needs to what it can tp buy out the County asap!

      • I’m no defender of Oakland and Alameda County leadership. But the issue remains the same: Oakland and the county simply don’t have the financial resources to be a player in major league sports at 2015 prices. Should the city and county pay for police pensions, police on the streets and fix potholes or pay for stadiums and arenas? $2 billion worth of stadiums/arenas with no help from the state. It’s a no-brainer that Oakland can’t do this.

      • @PJK…. I’ve been saying that all along… Oakland is not a “major league city.” It will always be in the shadow of SF and now SV outshines it as well.

        Sorry all you Oakland folks… just an outsider’s point of view.

      • Oakland LOST! Raiders are gone in 2016.

      • It’s too late for that. Oakland has lost.

  11. Oakland asked Kephart to present a plan to keep room for both the A’s and Raiders, and a financial plan that would not include a subsidy from the city. He just did that… ball now in Oakland’s court!

    My guess is that Oakland is going to play hard ball with the Raiders because they believe that they will keep the A’s because MLB won’t let them leave.

    Decision by SCOTUS on 9/28 will have a big impact on the whole Raiders/ A’s situation…stay tuned!

    • We will stay tuned because we can’t change the freakin’ channel on this thing. LOL

      • Speak for yourself. I tuned out a long time ago. Stay, go, frankly my dear I don’t give a damn…

      • @ Dan…Spoken like a true historian to the great classic Gone With The Wind…or was it Farting in the wind….i just don’t know. LOL

    • re: would not involve a subsidy from the city. And that’s why this plan will be DOA with the NFL. The league does not developer-financed stadium schemes. It wants a stable, dependable source of revenue to pay for stadiums (from taxpayers)

      • @pjk: How do you explain the Goldman-Sachs financed Carson project then? (which the NFL has given plenty of slack and appears to endorse) If the NFL’s policy was favoring publicly financed stadiums over privately financed stadiums – then the Rams and San Diego would be locks to stay that their present markets – however the opposite appears true. The Rams appear likely 99% ready to bolt for Inglewood (it’s difficult to imagine what could stop them at this point) Also the Chargers chances of moving to Carson (or Inglewood) appear better than 50% (even though both San Diego and St Louis officials have devised taxpayer funded stadium plans to keep the franchises)

    • Actually, we may hear on 9/28 that we have to wait a bit longer.

      We will know within about a week after 9/28 whether or not they will hear the case. If no, then it’s over -SJ loses. If yes, we have to wait a while for the actual case to be heard, the justices to make up their minds and then publicly release their decision.

      • If SCOTUS agrees to take the case, MLB will fold…they do not want to risk their ATE to protect the Giants.

      • @KA…. nope. They are in it for the duration. If they fold they have set the precedent that they will always fold so go ahead and sue you will get what you want from us. If they were going to fold, the time to do it was long long ago. This case challenging the ATE has gone all the way to the top very quickly (in federal court terms) and it likely will every time someone sues in the future.

        Remember, this has gotten this far, not because San Jose has LOST per se, but because the lower courts have said THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE CASE… IT IN THE HANDS OF THE SCOTUS!!! They are not deciding, the lower courts are passing the buck. That is the new precedent for MLB ATE cases…. pass the buck up the chain. If they fold, any city that wants a team, has an agreement with that team to move there and MLB is blocking it will sue and they know MLB will fold and win.

        Nope, MLB has to let this one ride or they give up the ATE on their own… of course only if the SCOTUS decides to hear the case.

      • “…the lower courts have said THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE CASE”

        None of the lower courts have said they did not have jurisdiction to decide the case. They have said they are bound by prior precedent in deciding, which is not the same thing.

        “If they fold, any city that wants a team, has an agreement with that team to move there and MLB is blocking it will sue and they know MLB will fold and win.”

        There is already precedent for this with Tampa Bay. And there is value to MLB in maintaining a less-than-bulletproof ATE over risking losing the whole thing. Forcing future litigants to fight their way to the SCOTUS to get there way still gives MLB plenty of leverage. And the path is by no means a gimme; each time it happens they have a chance of getting out on standing or other grounds without reaching the merits on the ATE.

  12. Is Carson actually going to happen? The Carson project can draw from the richness of LA; Kroenke has his own riches. Oakland and Davis don’t have this advantage. Financing a project with “conduit bonds” not backed by the city? Citing funding sources that the Raiders and NFL probably already had reserved for themselves? With no government “co-signing” of these bonds, the NFL is not likely to accept this funding mechanism.

    • @ pjk…It has a 50/50 chance of happening. I don’t think CC will happen. 80/20 chance the Raiders leave for L.A. in 2016.

  13. The problem is the entire idea behind Coliseum City. Because the proposal involved multiple teams, a third party had to be put in the middle. That third party has to profit on the deal. As everyone knows, there may not even be enough money to build one stadium, let alone two or three. Adding in a middle man that needs to make money, just makes this impossible.

    The city (and to a lesser extent the county) are to blame for continuing with this idiotic idea.

    That being said, no one held a gun to New City or Kephart forcing them to take on this project. They did this knowing full well the dynamics of the situation. It was a long shot from the start.

    Floyd tried and failed. Nothing wrong with that as I’m not sure anyone could have succeeded here. Throughout the way, Floyd has been pointing the blame though at everyone else which is just wrong as he knew what he was getting into.

    This is kind of like buying a lottery ticket and then blaming the state when you don’t win. The odds of success are low, but you know the odds going in. When you don’t win, it’s not the fault of the state. It’s your own fault for buying the ticket in the first place.

    Once this deal is officially dead, the city can work directly with both the A’s and the Raiders (if they’re not already gone) and let them make their own proposals. This is what should have happened as soon as the Warriors made it clear they were moving to SF.

  14. I’m not sure that this process was a total waste of time. Quan used the CC idea as a way to plan and finance two new stadiums with three sports franchises through development, but the city let it go on much too long after the first attempts proved infeasible. They should have rejected CC and worked directly with the A’s and Raiders years ago.

    While I’m no fan of Wolff, he at least has committed the A’s to funding their own ballpark and not asking for public money. Davis should have been told years ago that if he can’t finance a new football stadium without public money, he is free to leave. Instead he talks about how he wants to stay even though he can’t pay and he knows the city can’t help him. And he tries to use Carson to put pressure on the politicians.

    The City needs to reject the CC plan, get an agreement with the A’s to build a new stadium on the Coliseum site, sell or lease them land around it to develop to help fund it and tell the Raiders to leave. We’re still paying off their debt!

    Finally, boo on the NFL for letting the 49’ers build Levy without making the Raiders be a part of it. Two billion-dollar football stadiums in one metropolitan area? Ridiculous!

    • I approve of this message

      • Watching the CBS half time show tonight, it reminds me that the Raiders had a very smart and capable CEO in Amy Task.

        After Al died, she left very soon afterward. Don’t know if Mark Davis pushed her out, or she left on her own. Mark could surely use her advice now as he tries to get a new stadium in Oakland. Carson has Carmen Policy, the Raiders could really use Trask to help getting something done in Oakland!

      • My understanding is that she pushed for the Raiders to go in on Santa Clara and Mark Davis didn’t want to do that. Not sure if that’s fired, quit of her own accord or…

    • The Cowboys play at a $1.5 bil. stadium – they are the only NFL team in the Dallas fanbase. 95% of NFL teams don’t share a stadium with another NFL team Why should the Niners/Raiders should be forced to share a two team stadium when most NFL teams don’t do it. Besides, the Niners are paying most of the cost of Levi’s stadium – not taxpayers. If they choose to invest their finances building a new stadium – kudos to them (Candlestick park was a dumpy baseball -only stadium that needed replacing anyway) Since the Niners brunted most of the cost of Levis stadium, they should have the right to use it for themselves (or also lease it to the Raiders – which they evidently are open to doing)

  15. i think she left on her own terms.

    • Amy Trask obviously had a very realistic perspective on the chances of the Raiders getting a new stadium in Oakland, if she pushed for them to go to Santa Clara.

  16. With a new state-of-the-art facility just about forty mile south of the current Coliseum, the NFL would likely want for the Raiders to remain in their current Bay Area market. As long as the Raiders would appear to have to share a stadium with another team in LA, the NFL would much rather have the Raiders to remain in their current market so as to not lose their current loyal Bay Area fan base.

    • That’s what I think is going to happen: The Raiders, kicking and screaming, will be “directed” to Levi’s, after their move to LA is turned down. Rams-Chargers to Inglewood, Raider to Levi’s. Game over.

      • It must be deflating for the Raiders, one of the most-storied franchises in all of pro sports, to be unable to get a new stadium while a ho-hum, championship-less franchise like the Falcons is getting its second new stadium in fewer than 25 years. But the Raiders are simply the victim of circumstances in which they play in a struggling, underfunded city in a state that does not help pay for stadiums (nor should it).

      • Agreed! This could very well be the likely scenario.

      • true and i doubt the niners are going to want to “raider up” levi’s stadium.

        these proposals i’ve read from some raiders fans who think that levis stadiums will all of a sudden change 70k red seats to some neutral green or having a raiders hof museum built somewhere at levis i think is a non starter.

      • Sounds like we have a winner….DING DING DING DING

      • Yes it will either be as you say or it will be Raiders/Chargers to Carson seeing as how St. Louis and Mo. are both looking like they are trying hard to keep the rams. Might be 50/50 in my mind.

        The NFL could also just say to Kronke “if you are willing to pay that much to build your own new stadium in LA you can go ahead and just pay less than that to build one in St. Louis.”

      • @DTP – The NFL learned it’s lesson with Al. It can’t stop a team from moving. They can’t force the Rams to stay in St Louis.

        This is one of the reasons why I don’t think the Raiders end up in LA. The Rams can do everything on their own. The NFL really can’t stop them. To a lesser extend you could say the same thing about the Chargers. The Raiders on the other hand of no hope of doing anything on their own.

        If the NFL only wants two teams in LA, it needs to make sure a third doesn’t crash the party. If they green light the Raiders they can’t stop the Rams (or potentially the Chargers). If they green light the Rams and the Chargers, while technically the NFL can’t stop the Raiders, because the Raiders can’t do anything on their own they’re stuck.

      • “It must be deflating for the Raiders, one of the most-storied franchises in all of pro sports, to be unable to get a new stadium while a ho-hum, championship-less franchise like the Falcons is getting its second new stadium in fewer than 25 years. But the Raiders are simply the victim of circumstances in which they play in a struggling, underfunded city in a state that does not help pay for stadiums (nor should it).”

        The Raiders are not victims in this; a lot of the blame goes to Al. His preference for confrontation/litigation over negotiation/accommodation are big reasons the Raiders haven’t been able to get a new stadium in the 35 years they have been trying.

        If nothing else, the Raiders could’ve had a shared stadium at Hollywood Park 20 years ago. They chose instead to play in a “struggling, underfunded city” (and I’m certainly glad they did).

  17. more talk during tonight’s game about Davis being willing to put up “half” the money for a new stadium. Too bad Oakland/Alameda County can’t put up the other half. It’s been the same story for 5-6 years now.

  18. First of all if SCOTUS hears the SJ case MLB will fold. Too much as risk to let it go any further.

    The NFL learned the hard way with America Needle. NFL won on the lower courts (sound familiar?) and went to SCOTUS looking for a de facto ATE. They lost miserably.

    Second of all Goldman Sachs is willing to fund Carson but with what plan? They helped with the 49ers but they had a plan on how to pay back the loans.

    Raiders/Chargers have yet to show this anyone. Seems odd and their site needs cleanup and has no development attached to it, just a sea of parking.

    As for Kephart, he has been working with so many moving parts it’s unreal. Alameda County and Oakland are to blame for not working with the teams with Kephart bilaterally and for not working with each other.

    Instead Kephart is on his own and is trying to make this work without input from the other parties. This is dysfunction at its finest and it’s not his fault at all.

    Finally, Raiders fans kill me, they would rather share with a division rival than the 49ers. SMH

    If the 49ers left the bay I would hate them forever.

    • Sid, you’ve got to remember that these are just simple football fans. These are people of the land…the common clay of the New West. You know…morons.

  19. If we had Trump instead of Kephart doing the negotiations, we’d have two new stadiums, a new arena, and a giant wall built on the Coliseum property by now.

    • … and they’d all be kept purposefully vacant due to tax reasons while The Donald goes through bankruptcy *yet again*.

      Except for the wall, which will be manned by armed volunteer militia from out-of-state, to “keep them brown people whose parents didn’t immigrate legally” out.

  20. Embarrassing scene at last night’s game, with padding from the wall falling off for a “Fence Repair Delay.” It had to do with the quick turnaround from NFL football to MLB baseball, which, of course, is only an issue in Oakland.

    • NHL has delays for repairing the glass above the dasher boards all the time. Maybe the Sharks should hold a Stadium series at 😉

  21. Going off this idea here, and something I’ve thought about for awhile now – but could you see a situation where the layout looks like this but reversed? As in once Floyd and his Coliseum City proposal runs its course and dies, the A’s follow through with a new ballpark on the south lot (like you have previously talked about) and a renovated Raiders stadium takes place where it currently stands. I know Miley has proposed that and both Mark and the NFL said its a non-starter, but with reports today that the idea of the Rams and Chargers in Inglewood are gaining favor amongst owners, the Raiders might not have much of a choice. The north lot remains for parking, maybe even a chance for some anchillary between the two stadiums coming off the new BART ramp etc etc. Lots of “ifs” there, but potentially a way for everyone to come out a winner

  22. re: Badain wrote that the team needed to control stadium revenues to help pay for the team’s $500 million contribution toward the stadium including a $200 million stadium loan from the NFL. ….Yep. Just what I figured. The Raiders and the city both want stadium revenues as their “contribution” to the stadium. But both of them can’t have it. And with no chance of the Raiders /or the city/county agreeing to pay off the bonds in case of funding shortfalls, that leaves the two parties as far apart as ever. Bye bye Raiders. It’s been fun.

  23. re” :Why have the city and county spent so much time, effort and money pursuing something that was dead in April?” …Because it follows the credo of the city/county NEVER acknowledging that any of the teams are leaving. Don’t acknowledge it until the Warriors tip off in Frisco or the Raiders kick off in LA, San Antoni, Levi’s, wherever.

  24. Given the article that came out today in the Murk and the CCT, I am now 100% convinced that Floyd Kephart is, and always has been, a lying sack of crap.

    Adios, Rai-duhs.

  25. It’s puzzling why Davis is so committed to building in Oakland, when Oakland officials don’t show the same respect or courtesy to the Raiders. Davis could sell 20% interest in the team, build a lower budget stadium in the east bay somewhere other than Oakland – and avoid dealing with Oakland officials. Possibly Davis would rather invest $900 mil. at the Carson proposal than building in the east bay – believing that is a better ROI building at Carson (The Chargers believe that – that’s why they are willing to finance $900 mil. to the Carson project, not nearly that amount for building and staying in San Diego)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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.