Setting Terms: A Commitment to Exodus

Okay, there was real news about the Raiders and Oakland today, not rumors, so I feel compelled to write about it. I’m over the soap opera news cycle of the last year, looking forward to January, when something LA might (not) be resolved to the NFL’s satisfaction.

As St. Louis and San Diego provided stadium financing plans pledging $350-400 million in public funds for their respective stadia, Oakland officials offered a mere five-page letter promising no public money for construction, hoping that the NFL’s respect of legacy and history would help keep the Raiders in the East Bay. The NFL’s reaction was that the letter was expected, while Mark Davis expressed befuddled disappointment.

At this point, you have to think that based on the efforts City of Oakland and Mark Davis, few people within the NFL believe that any new stadium is going to happen in Oakland. The City has no will to do it, and Davis has spent far more time and effort on Carson than Oakland. The NFL will have to gauge the owner’s interest in resolving the Raiders’ situation against resolving the dilemma in Oakland. Of course, many within the league previously preferred to have the Raiders share Levi’s Stadium with the 49ers, the same way the Giants and Jets share MetLife Stadium. Even with Davis continually dismissing the idea, the concept remains a viable backup plan should nothing continue to happen at the Coliseum.

But again, my beat isn’t the Raiders except in how the Raiders’ plans might affect the A’s. From today we got a big list of deal terms the City is willing to make in the pursuit of the Raiders’ new stadium. Whether or not the Raiders stay, regardless of the Coliseum’s future as the home of the A’s, the numbers are effectively setting the bar for future stadium deals for either team. What is Oakland willing to provide? Let’s take a look at the “concepts” presented to the Raiders.

  1. 69 total acres in and around the Coliseum, including the “South 60” consisting of the B & C parking lots, plus the Malibu and HomeBase parcels. Also included are 9 acres of publicly owned land near Coliseum BART could be used for a hotel or other commercial development adjacent to an expanded BART station and transit hub. The Raiders and a partner developer would receive development rights based on the Coliseum City rezoning effort.
  2.  $90 million in infrastructure, to be designed and approved by the City of Oakland.
  3. No public money towards construction of the $900 million, 55,000-seat stadium. The Raiders would be responsible for all stadium construction costs, including overruns.
  4. At least 8,000 surface parking spots with minimal ancillary development.
  5. Raiders would own the stadium, City and/or County would own the land underneath. That would set up recurring ground lease and possessory interest tax (PIT) payments.
  6. Raiders would take in all stadium revenues while assuming all operating costs.
  7. City’s promised defeasance of the outstanding Coliseum debt (worth $100+ million now, goes down over time).
  8. Construction to start in 2017, stadium opening in 2019.

Per the A’s current lease at the Coliseum, if they are to be evicted because of new stadium construction for the Raiders, the Coliseum JPA has to give the A’s at least two full seasons at the Coliseum while they figure out where to play next. The lease terms also call for the A’s to be compensated for the scoreboards and for lost revenue associated with new football stadium construction.

If we’re to assume that the A’s should get a similarly valued deal to the Raiders in order to stay in Oakland, the deal would be worth $200 million straight away because of the debt and infrastructure costs, plus the value of any development rights wherever the A’s end up, whether that’s at the Howard Terminal, Uptown somewhere, or the Coliseum. That’s the price Oakland will have to pay, and MLB will be happy to press Oakland hard on that. The A’s are expected to build their ballpark entirely with their own money, so it should in theory be a pretty clean deal with no intrusions or complications created by new, single-purpose quasi-governmental agencies like stadium authorities.

Just to be clear, that’s $200 million in value, not cash. The A’s would never see that money except in terms of the completed infrastructure. It could be that certain sites have such high infrastructure costs that they could approach $200 million on their own. New parking garages, the community benefits agreements and PITs Mayor Libby Schaaf mentioned during tonight’s press conference – they’re all worth something. Will Oakland show as much restraint for the A’s as they have displayed with the Raiders? I imagine they would, though it’s far too early to speculate. For the time being, let’s continue to watch how the NFL-LA business shakes out, and see where the Raiders end up as a result.

50 thoughts on “Setting Terms: A Commitment to Exodus

  1. Looks like the Raiders will soon be in Los Angeles so the Athletics will have the Coliseum site all to themselves. {{-_-}}

    • Most likely scenario is the Raiders are denied LA because they have a viable stadium – Levi’s – in their own market. Tough for Davis if he doesn’t want to play there. He’ll share with the Chargers but not the 49ers? Why not?

  2. Johnny,what are you gonna do with your life when the Raiders are denied in L.A.?

  3. well if wolff and the a’s have those plans and or images of what a new baseball only park for the a’s and or village will look like at the coliseum site they should be ready to release them in the near future because that’s where this is likely heading.

  4. Just for laughs, it would be funny if Oakland chose not to renew the raiders lease. Then this would get interesting.

  5. Huh… Mark Davis wants the entire Coliseum complex to himself… Seems some Raiders fans are completely full of shit (cough oaktowngreek cough). Go figure..

    2 months
    Not true, Davis said it at the owners SF meeting and on ESPN radio, that he would share the site. In poll terms, all three are even.Let’s take the next poll below MacArthur

    • “Davis offered his own blueprint for getting a new Oakland stadium built, saying he could potentially bring aboard someone to invest in both the team and a new facility if he gets full control over the 120-acre Coliseum complex.”

      Anybody got a cup of tea, I am thirsty.

      • So what happens when big chunks of public land are given to the Raiders? Think the low-cost housing advocates might get a little upset? There’s just not enough ROI for Oakland to make a huge investment in NFL football worth it.

      • Nothing. Because low cost land isn’t being given to the Raiders. The 60 acre plan is so that half of the site can be other wise developed.

        My point was, I have listened to nitwits preach about how the Raiders are being pushed out of town because the A’s want the entire site. To which I always responded that the opposite was also true… The Raiders want the whole complex to themselves. Nitwits reply “Not uh, he said he didn’t want it all.”

        Now, he has said it, even though it was plainly obvious from the very beginning that the problem has always been that there is not enough room at the Coliseum Complex to accommodate two stadiums and ancillary development financially… it’s not about physical room, it’s about paying for a stadium. Davis and Wolff have identical positions on this. “We can build our stadium and attract the capital we need to do it if we control the whole complex, but not if we don’t.”

    • Wow, that’s hella crazy that you remember shit like that from motherfucker you don’t even know. But it’s all good, and anyway the JPA owns approximately 800 acres in and around the Coliseum Complex. 120 acres of free land in East Oakland ( which has probably several thousand acres of empty and abandoned public land all throughout) that will create a billion dollar construction project for Alameda County unions, and keep the Raiders in town… No brainier. A baseball stadium Downtown where you have more to do after the game than try and get killed at Hegebburger Denny’s.. No brainier. Use your brain Jeffrey, not your heart, we know you hate the Raiders.

      • Use my brain? I think it’s funny that your reaction to being called out is to talk more complete garbage and then insinuate that is my emotions that are in question. Use your brain, not your heart. I know you love the Raiders, but your emotional attachment isn’t going to make anything happen.

        The JPA does not own 800 acres. There is a plan that includes 800 acres, 70% of it is privately held. Not that it really matters in your fantasy world, but the JPA as a unified entity doesn’t even own all of the Coliseum Complex. Maybe you didn’t notice that the County and City have separate holdings that they are working on a deal to sell or trade the County land so the City can control the whole property?

        I do not hate the Raiders. I have gone to more Raiders games over the past 3 years than 49ers games (the 49ers are the team I grew up rooting for, mainly because the Raiders were in LA). I’d love to watch Derek Carr and Amari Cooper blossom, in person. I’m not one of provincial squabble fans. The only Bay Area team I have disdain for is the Giants, and it’s entirely because they ARE actively doing to the A’s what you think the A’s are doing to the Raiders.

        None of this matters. My desire, or your desire, doesn’t create $1B to build a football stadium. That’s the point. It’s the point that Mark Davis is making by planning to leave. It’s the point that Lew Wolff is making by saying he wants the whole complex (which, Mark Davis also has said).

        Deflecting from the point is a sign of intellectual inability. Attack me. State falsehoods as if they are facts. Change the point, ignore that I have written numerous times that I’d love to see the A’s in a downtown stadium… whatever floats your boat. I just can’t resist calling out a blowhard when it’s due. And it was entirely due.

      • Dude, stop sucking your own d—, it’s a blog. Maybe your New Years resolution is to focus more on females than random dudes on this blog who for some strange reason you remember their comments and names from months ago. The only name I remember is Marine Layer. Now even though she and I don’t share the same passion for the A’s owner, I do think that this blog has been amazing on truly dedicated to covering the Oakland stadia situations. Especially since all Bay Area media outlets are anti raider like yourself. And that is not an easy task to do so Marine does deserve a lot credit and I think you and I can agree on at least that. Happy new year, and calling fools blowhards on a blog you don’t even know shows once again, you don’t know shit about Oakland, stop acting tough

      • Dude, stop sucking your own d—, it’s a blog. Maybe your New Years resolution is to focus more on females than random dudes on this blog who for some strange reason you remember their comments and names from months ago. The only name I remember is Marine Layer. Now even though she and I don’t share the same passion for the A’s owner, I do think that this blog has been amazing on truly dedicated to covering the Oakland stadia situations. Especially since all Bay Area media outlets are anti raider like yourself. And that is not an easy task to do so Marine does deserve a lot credit and I think you and I can agree on at least that. Happy new year, and calling fools blowhards on a blog you don’t even know shows once again, you don’t know shit about Oakland, stop acting

      • My New Year’s Resolution, if I made those kind of things, would be “don’t argue with idiots on the Internet.” Unfortunately, that means I don’t get to continue this enlightening conversation.

      • *clapclapclap*

        That was hilarious.

        Praising the blog, while trashing *the co-editor*, as well as intentionally getting Marine Layers’ gender wrong.

        Best ‘Poe’ of the year so far.

  6. I would tend to think that the NFL would want to first see the Raiders playing at Levi’s Stadium, at least on a temporary(five years+) trial run basis. If that arrangement doesn’t turn out to be suitable for the Raiders, then the NFL would likely open up a St. Louis move for the team Either way, this scenario could likely force Oakland to work out a Coliseum football stadium deal.

  7. So, if the NFL wants more, more, more from Saint Louis, what is it going to do with Oakland’s far more paltry offer?

    • What I expect them to do, but I have no insight into, is that they are trying to angle to make Stan K and Dean S work together on a stadium in LA and Mark Davis can be a tenant in Santa Clara.

      I say, kudos to Oakland. The NFL doesn’t pay your bills. It actually creates them. Be a standard bearer for cities all over and tell these fuckwits to pay their own way or go somewhere else.

      Oakland would be much better served with an arena that is booked 200 plus times a year.

      • Of course, the NFL’s logic likely is, “We name these franchises after their host cities and your city gets big time exposure (and economic benefits) by having a franchise. So we expect the cities (or states) to pony up a huge chunk of the costs.” That’s all well and good, unless you’re a city like Oakland that needs police officers and schools more than it needs a football team. Not to mention having $2 billion in unfunded pension liabilities…As far as an arena, that ship appears to have sailed. Once the Frisco arena is built, we can expect concert business in Oakland to dwindle even further. If the Oakland arena stays, it might still get a few concerts, the circus, but have lots more open dates than it has now. Major arena acts will look to play Frisco and San Jose.

    • $100 mil. of the St Louis stadium proposal was authorized without NFL approval. A few pro Spanos owners offered to pay an additional $100 mil., besides the NFL $200 mil. loan, towards a new stadium, St Louis officials included that $100 mil. with their new proposal. The NFL later balked at that comment – saying that they don’t deviate from their $200 mil. loan policy, and also added that Kroenke wasn’t obligated to stay in St. Louis if the St Louis stadium plan was not to his liking.

  8. The NFL would be crazy to put 2 teams right away in LA when there wasn’t enough support for 1… If the owners do approve the move, the NFL and Raiders will both be screwed.

    Raiders and A’s stay put – that’s my call. Raiders stay on site with NFL money to help stadium construction, and the A’s get a new stadium because MLB won’t let them move.

    Enough of this “Oakland doesn’t have money or fans” nonsense – attendance is fine for both teams, and new stadiums will skyrocket attendance for years. Just build the damn things and watch.

    • Attendance is fine for the A’s? The A’s have a long tradition of poor fan support in Oakland, even when they are winning and ticket prices are rock-bottom.

  9. Libby was interviewed on KQED this morning and said that lately the A’s have become more interested in a downtown ballpark. I thought Howard Terminal was dead, but she mentioned that it is on the table and since it’s slated for some type of non-maritime use (which the Port has already supported), that means clean-up would be required for whatever is built at there. Seems like some of the “public infrastructure” money that the city would contribute could be used for this purpose at Howard. Hopefully the city would be able to help streamline the process through the various agencies. There is also the question of proximity to BART, but maybe the existing stations are close enough if supplemented with a shuttle.

    As for the Raiders, if they just do the obvious and share Levis with the 49’ers, then the A’s could build on the Coliseum and the city could make the rest of the land available for housing and commercial development.

    • She’s going to say what she needs to say for PR reasons. There is still no site in Downtown Oakland, or nearby, that is an actual thing. Look at the last post on this blog and read through the emails exchanged between the A’s counsel and the City of Oakland point person. 10 sites? Most already eliminated and those that the city hasn’t eliminated have been previously dismissed by the team.

  10. First of Howard Terminal is dead, I was there at JLS for a lunch meeting at Scott’s Seafood with a client of mine last week.

    That entire area is too built out to support a stadium of any kind. Brooklyn Basin is also under mass construction currently. Libby Schaaf is in a dream world.

    As for the Raiders, they are stuck in mud big time.

    The Rams owner is offering a fair deal to the Chargers or Raiders. Split the cost with me 50/50, I get full rights on design and full revenue from other events.

    Stan K is a fair man, he got the land, did all the leg work and is shovel ready.

    But the dumbass Chargers/Raiders want to share still when both damn teams are in the same division? When realignment is necessary?

    Do you think the owners want to re-align? No, Arizona and Seattle already did that once. They are not doing it again for the Chargers or especially the idiot Raiders who dropped the ball not sharing with the 49ers in their own market.

    The NFL has no sympathy for Mark Davis, Dean Spanos? Maybe, but he has to step up and partner with the Rams who are the logical choice.

    On another part of this article, Oakland is holding its ground and I respect it but they are wrong.

    They should give the entire site to the Raiders and let them build with their own money. Now Oakland is being dumb and wants to keep a piece to themselves?

    Stupidity and I see why Mark Davis is pissed. I would be too. If you are not going to pony up money for the stadium then offering land and infrastructure of 90M+ is fair.

    Stupidity on top of stupidity…..

    Oakland and the Raiders deserve each other

    • why would realignment be necessary? I’ve heard this presented as an absolute fact over and over, but no one can explain why.

      • Realignment would be necessary in a Chargers+Raiders pairing at Carson. Mostly this would be because the LA market would be given over to the local CBS affiliate since that station would broadcast the local AFC team(s) games. From a network broadcast revenue standpoint it would be a no-no since Fox would lose big. If you’re going to have a two-team market, gotta have both conferences represented.

        There are some potential scheduling conflicts as well, but those can be worked around.

  11. I think Oakland needs to offer the Raiders the 120 acers if Mark can build on it (with a finical partner), the way he claims then so be it. If Wolff is serious about the site then he will actually make an offer (which we still don’t know if he truly is), if not Wolff will get his wet dream of being kicked out of the coliseum, and we will get the chance to see if his wait Davis out strategy actually worked, as he will turn to MLB and say “See I need San Jose”, again if in fact he is not willing to build in Oakland.

  12. If the Raiders do not get approval to move to LA, Mark Davis will still have the Santa Clara leverage needed to get a new or partially rebuilt Coliseum deal done. However, to force Oakland to make a move on a Coliseum stadium deal with the Raiders, Mark Davis will likely have to indicate to Oakland’s elected officials that the Raiders are serious about sharing their home with the 49ers at Levi’s Stadium. Even if the Raiders do move to Santa Clara on a short-term basis, that could be just enough to cause Oakland to work out a new Coliseum deal with the Raiders. As for the A’s, if they are ultimately forced to vacate the Coliseum, AT&T Park will be their most certain destination and to share their home with the Giants. At that point, an A’s move to San Jose won’t look so bad to the Giants.

    • @ llpec
      I would agree on your first point, if Mark Davis would come off of the silly notion that he will not share with the 49ers.
      On your second point, it would seem to make sense that if the A’s have to play at AT&T park for anywhere between 2-4 years (or forever), that the San Francisco Giants would relent and allow the A’s to move to San Jose, but I really don’t think so. The San Francisco Giants have already stated publically that they would only allow the A’s to play in their park as long as the A’s plans to build a new park were in there already defined territory (AL/CC counties)
      I don’t think the Giants will allow the A’s to play in their park unless that’s part of a strict agreement, and I don’t think MLB can force them to do so. I’m sure someone will point out that MLB can threaten the Giants by telling them they will allow the A’s to move to San Jose if they won’t allow the A’s to rent AT&T, but really if that was the threat, why would the Giants relent if they were going to lose San Jose anyway?
      I realize I’m an Oakland supporter, but at this moment San Jose is off the table, as far as we know unless or until that changes, its Oakland AL/CC counties), or out of the Bay Area altogether.

  13. @Lakeshore/Neil, The control that the Giants have over their shared market is unprecedented within MLB. I put the blame totally on Manfred-Selig for allowing this unfair, unequal territorial division to continue within MLB’s Bay Area market. That said, if what you say is true, then at some point in the future the A’s will have no choice other than to relocate to another market. At that point, the Giants will get their ultimate wish and will have the entire Bay Area market all to themselves.

    • @ IIpec

      Wow, we are on a role. Again I agree with your first point, and I think it’s totally unfair of the Giants not to work with the A’s in there effort to get to San Jose, after all the A’s were helpful to the Giants when they wanted to build in San Jose.
      On your second point I don’t agree with you (although I see your point ), as I think the A’s will do just fine in a new ballpark in there currently defined tarritory (although not as well as in San Jose), if they had a willing ownership group. I realize we have all debated these things over and over, and there are plenty of points and counter points that make sence. I do however believe the A’s will do fine in the East Bay, even if it’s not the first option of the ownerships choosing, as you like to say.

      • The A’s averaged 20K per game in 2015, at a outdated football only stadium, with a last place team – respectable under the circumstances. With a new baseball only stadium, the A’s would have likely averaged 25K or more in 2015 (not bad for a last-place team) They would probably (worst case scenario) be a mid-market type franchise at the Coliseum site ( It’s debatable if San Jose is really a better site than Oakland anyhow)

        The Giants now have the DBacks, besides the Dodgers, to contend with for the division title. They may not see the post season for awhile now (La Russa appears focused on taking the NL West – or at least beating out the Giants fo a wild card berth)

  14. I love the idea of giving the Coliseum site to the Raiders and doing Howard Terminal at the same time for the A’s.

    And on the topic of Howard Terminal, I’m truly skeptical about the barriers. The regulatory/zoning barriers seem to me to be political in nature. I suppose they prevent things like Oil Refineries and factories from being built.

    And the environmental/toxic stuff to me seems like another scam cooked up by the environmental clean-up lobby that makes bank from clean-up contracts. It is really hard to believe that breaking a concrete cap will cost $100-$200 million in repair costs. That’s some windfall profit scheme by the West Coast version of the mafia – the environmentalist/construction alliance.

    These guys all know that if a deep pocketed MLB team was going to use the site they can all get in line to pick their pocket with this environmental protection racket.

    By the way, I’m down at Howard Terminal right now breaking the concrete caps, so let’s get this “clean-up” underway. Kidding.

    • The concrete cap isn’t the problem. The concrete cap is the thing keep all the toxins in the ground below from seeping out. If that concrete cap is removed someone has to clean the contaminated dirt underneath and figure out a way to prevent it from contaminating the bay and groundwater. Cleanup is the expensive part. The chief alternative to a full cleanup is also very expensive. Either way you can’t avoid $$$.

      • didn’t at&t have issues with toxic soil when they were constructing that park? i even remember some a’s fans were mad that the soil was being stored somewhere in the east bay after it was removed from that site.

        is what’s in the ground at howard terminal even worse? I’d guess the site is bigger and the history of the area with the port would play a potential bigger role in why the grounds around howard terminals is deemed worse than what we saw happen nearly 20 years ago at china basin.

        all total a howard terminal construction of a park would cost probably 500 million alone for the park itself and maybe 300-400 prepping up the site and or infrastructured improvements? yeah that’s not happening no matter if wolff or somebody else like ellison who seems to be every bay area sports teams’ dream future owner had ownership of the a’s franchise.

      • It’s bad enough that the deed restriction prevents residential or school construction, or even a public park without major cleanup. Yes, the China Basin site also required cleanup.

      • I understand what you’re saying and agree that people have quoted big dollars for cleanup or alternatives. I’m saying something different.

        I’m not sure I believe the following:

        1) the disruption of the area by removing the concrete cap will cause an environmental issue. Basically, I’m saying I don’t believe the toxins are that big of a threat to the groundwater and bay. Overstating and scare tactics are always needed to justify the clean-up/mitigation game.

        2) I’m not sure people estimating the cost of the clean-up are honest. It has been proven time and time again that the environmental consulting/clean-up companies know how to shakedown people with big, deep pockets. In fact a lot of times they simply pick a figure that seems reasonable (like 10-20% of the cost of the project) and go for it. Again, like a protection racket. These people aren’t stupid and they’ve got the game wired.

        So yes, you could avoid $$$ – you simply call b.s. on the greedy interests trying to shakedown the A’s/city/county.

  15. You are getting me wrong. I do believe that the A’s can have a successful ballpark operation in the right Oakland location. However, I believe the best and likely only really viable possible ballpark sites would be in the near downtown/Lake Merritt area. Victory Court and Laney College come to mind as previously considered sites, and may very well be given a second look. The main problem with these locations is that land value is prohibitively too costly, as well as the huge costs to relocate current residents(commercial and individual) on these properties. Without any public funding support, land acquisition from private sources becomes much more prohibitive.

    • @ IIpec

      Yes indeed, I agree 100%. Just because it could be done in Oakland/East Bay, and successfully I might add dosent mean it will be. If Oakland dose give the coliseum site to the Raiders as I suggested they should and the A’s don’t get San Jose with that beautiful Dirdon site ready to go there is a chance they could be sold to a new owner or group that have no intention of building in the Bay Area at all.

      That would assume that Davis can actually pull off what he is saying, which is still a big if. But, that’s the chance Wolff took when he employed his wait Davis out strategy (IMHO), Wolff had nothing stopping him from putting a plan together for the coliseum site that would have killed Davis ass back to LA, certainly not that flimsy non binding working agreement they had with Floyd’s group. Wolff was waiting for either Davis to fail at the site and move, which he had good reason to believe he would so he could have the site for himself (if he is actually willing to build there), or if Davis actually pulls off the unexpected and builds at the site, then Wolff could go hat in hand back to MLB and say “see we are homeless, I need San Jose “, in either case Wolff got his ten year lease and choose to wait. The situation in LA for the NFL help to speed up the process, but either way you slice it, and for a several potential reasons Wolff chose to wait.

  16. Not sure if this has been brought up before, but what about the Oakland Airport? Is there a plot of land available suitable for a stadium? Are there any FAA restrictions etc…

  17. How is this a bad starting point for the Raiders? While part of this would be covered by the fact that the Raiders would essentially be leasing the land, the city is offering to forgive the Raiders’ Coliseum debt as well.

    This proposal is world’s better and significantly more concrete than anything the city has ever proposed for the A’s.

    While this isn’t the city’s problem, but this proposal is also much more feasible than anything that’s been proposed to the A’s, when you factor in the economic differences between the NFL and MLB.

    If Davis doesn’t want to do the heavy lifting, he also has Levi’s in his backyard as an alternative.

    The more you look at it, the clearer it becomes that Davis does not want to stay in the Bay Area.

    • @ Slacker
      Re: “The more you look at it, the clearer it becomes that Davis does not want to stay in the Bay Area.”
      I think he wants to stay in the Bay Area; he just wants anyone, or everyone other than him to pay for it. Weather its going half with the Chargers (which problem won’t happen), or gravy training off of the Rams owner in LA, or with the help of the NFL in LA, Oakland, sharing with the 49ers in the South Bay, or San Antonio, or St. Louis footing the bill, Mark Davis is one broke d*ck of an owner. He is as poor as they come he owns nothing but the team, and doesn’t own all of that.
      As much as I believe he would prefer to say in Oakland, I believe he may be forced to fallow the best deal as his broke ass has little chose.

      • Davis needs money in LA too. He’s only paying for half but the Carson project is significantly more expensive ($1.7B – $2B) than what he has talked about in Oakland ($900M). The Raiders share is pretty much the same.

        As you called out, he can rent from the Rams just as easy as he can rent from the 49ers.

        The Raiders are worth more in LA than in Oakland, but it’s not like MLB where the differences are massive.

        While Davis lacks capital and skills, the differences between his options in LA and the Bay Area aren’t that great. If he can make it work in LA why can’t he make it work in the Bay Area?

      • @ Slacker
        I hear you, and basically agree.
        But, when you ask “If he can make it work in LA why can’t he make it work in the Bay Area?”
        I would only say he probably has more potentially viable finical partners in LA, then he dose in the Bay Area, that being said I think everything you said is on the money.
        Actually the fact that he has not tried to move the team to LA much earlier then this, may suggest that he would really rather be in Oakland, epically consider by some peoples estimate the team would be with twice as much if he were to move to LA.
        But, again if he would rather be in Oakland (which we don’t know if that’s even true), his simple desire to be so obviously is not enough, if you don’t have money or can’t get enough of it from somewhere ells make it happen.

    • “…That puts Oakland right out of the move then, don’t you think? …”

      Not necessarily. I think you’d be right if the fee must be paid in one lump sum. But, it is doable if the league agrees that the fee be paid over a certain number of seasons. If this is the case, the article did not say if an additional amount in interest must also be paid.

      I found it interesting that the article says in part, “… Only teams that are approved to move would be required to pay that hefty fee. …” Suppose you’re Stan Kroenke (or, for that matter, Mark Davis) and the owners vote AGAINST approving your team to move to L.A. Does this mean that if you move your team and you weren’t approved to do so, you are NOT required to pay the fee? More than likely, that sentence seems to imply (at least, to me) that any team not approved to move will be taken to court by the league.

      It would be interesting to see what happens if NONE of the three teams are approved to move to L.A.

      • That’s true… they may allow payments over time.

        No teams moving is actually a pretty realistic scenario. It’s looking like St Louis and San Diego are getting something going stadium-wise and… well… Levi’s is still there. Plus if there are no plans to build a new stadium on O.Co land, then there’s always the chance the Raiders are stuck there indefinitely.

  18. Please City of Oakland:Do not Renew the Lease to the Raiders As the Raiders
    Have Truly shown that they Do Not want Oakland but Somewhere else!!!
    Please Please,Move on and Let’s
    Get the Construction and Building,
    The Oakland A’s A New Stadium/Ballpark !!!! They Have the Money, To get this Done!!!! The Raiders
    Do Not!!!! Enough Time Wasted on Dealing with the Raiders !!!!!
    Let them share Levi stadium,With the

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.