The A’s are NOT an obstacle to the Raiders

In the 2014 A’s Coliseum lease, the process for the A’s to vacate in compliance with a new Raiders stadium project was quite clear. Here’s how the stadium project was defined:

‘Raiders Construction Plan’ means a bona fide plan for construction of a new football stadium for the Oakland Raiders on current Complex property, adjacent to the current Complex property, or otherwise located sufficiently near to the Stadium such that it will materially impact Licensee’s operations, which bona fide plan must include, as pertains to such stadium project, a fully executed development agreement with a third-party developer and the Licensor for development of a new Raiders stadium, supported by a non-refundable deposit from the developer and received by the Licensor of at least Twenty Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00).

And the terms for the A’s to leave:

Licensor may terminate this License upon written notice of intent to terminate to Licensee, such termination to take effect sixty (60) days after the conclusion of the second (2d) Baseball Season that commences after such notice. (By way of example, if Licensor provides Licensee with such termination notice on June 15, 2016, this License will terminate sixty (60) days after the conclusion of the 2018 Baseball Season.)

Basically, the Coliseum Authority has to give the A’s at least two full MLB seasons notice, so that they can plan for their next home. To build a stadium, the Raiders and their chosen developer partner would also have to provide a real plan, not just a couple drawings and some empty promises for studies. The point is to ensure that the Raiders and the developer are committed to the project, instead of wavering while pushing harder for alternatives outside the market (Las Vegas, Los Angeles, etc.).


That’s it. The A’s don’t have any rights or right-of-refusal to develop the Coliseum land, to dispose of the Coliseum debt, or anything else besides playing baseball games at the Coliseum. It is not up to the A’s to determine what land the Raiders can or should use. If the Raiders want to submit a plan to develop the entire complex, part of the complex, or even tear down and rebuild the Coliseum only, nothing is stopping them, especially their co-tenants the A’s. Anyone who say otherwise is lying.

Today, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf took steps to correct a report by Matier and Ross from the weekend. Here’s her statement:

‘Today’s San Francisco Chronicle contains inaccurate information I need to clarify. On May 23, I proactively contacted NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to update him generally on what we’ve felt have been productive conversations with Raiders’ negotiator Larry MacNeil.’

‘Having learned from what I believe was a past mistake of awarding an exclusive negotiating agreement to a developer not approved by the Raiders, I wanted to assure the Commissioner of my commitment to keeping the Raiders and NFL at the center of our efforts.’

‘I did express to the Commissioner my interest in continuing discussions with the Ronnie Lott/Rodney Peete group and asked how the Commissioner would view my taking more meetings with them.’

‘The Commissioner encouraged me to explore all avenues for partnership that might result in a successful project for Oakland, the Raiders and the NFL, assuming we not give away any rights without clear Raiders’ support. That is my intention in resuming discussions with them.’

‘I continue to believe the Raiders can develop a new stadium in Oakland that is responsible to the team, its fans, the NFL and the taxpayers of Oakland. Oakland has worked hard to contribute the entitlements, development opportunities and infrastructure funding to our shared vision of a stadium-centered development at the Oakland Coliseum. I’m committed to continuing to work hard to realize this vision.’

Smart move by Schaaf not only to get ahead of the story, but to also control the messaging. This statement doesn’t waver from any previous public statements made by Schaaf since the demise of Coliseum City. Certainly there are other talks happening in private. The City and County still haven’t finished the the buyout plan for the Mt. Davis debt. She knocked down the characterizations in the M&R piece, instead positioning the talks as part of an ongoing process instead of a chess match.

A Raiders stadium is not going to proceed on a ridiculously fast track as we’ve seen in Cobb County for the Braves or in Vegas for the UNLV-Raiders stadium. There are too many details, too much complexity. That’s why the whole Raiders are stuck because of the A’s lease reeks of an exercise in blame assignment. It’s going to take a while. The process of untangling all of the agreements and leases while minimizing impact on current tenants will be messy. Besides, Davis doesn’t have the coin to accelerate a project the way the Yorks did in Santa Clara. Maybe, just maybe, that’s a good thing. We have seen what happens when a project is improperly rushed.

43 thoughts on “The A’s are NOT an obstacle to the Raiders

  1. Excuses, excuse, excuses: Recall the the Sacto mayor (Kevin Johnson) when faced with the eminent sale and departure of the Kings to Seattle, managed to find local buyer, and devise a plan for a new arena – all in a 4 month window – and keep the franchise in Sac. Oakland has had 21 years to find a solution for the A’s and has done squat. Schaff is evidently taking a page out of the Jerry Brown way of dealing with sports franchises – advising them to take a hike.

    Davis’s offer is very generous (funding $600 mil. of the $900 mil. cost for a new Raiders stadium) Oakland officials are the goats here, with all their waffling and indecisiveness.

  2. The A’s are not standing in the Raiders way whatsoever, if the Raiders want the site and have a REAL plan then go for it. As long as Davis doesn’t have a plan or the money to build even if he had a plan, he will use the A’s as a reason why it can’t happen.
    That being said the fact that the A’s have deployed the “Wait Davis out” strategy hasn’t helped things move along, since they refuse to look at any idea that would keep both teams at the site, which is doable if the two teams really wanted to do it. (Not that they have to)
    Oakland isn’t making a choice, because neither the A’s nor Raiders have given them anything to choose from, in part because Oakland is a secondary market and isn’t coming up with the money that would indicate there market value. The Raiders are not coming up with a plan because they can’t or really don’t want to, and the A’s because they clearly are waiting Davis out and probable still may not want even if/when the Raiders leave.
    If this investment group comes up with a plan the NFL and the Raiders like Oakland needs to go with it, whoever is serious A’s or Raiders that’s what Oakland needs to go with.
    The A’s with their “Wait Davis out” strategy have shown that they won’t be serious unless the Raiders leave (if even then), or perhaps if the Raiders do actually work something out that foresee them to join the plan. (If even then)
    It’s interesting that this is a minority lead group with former players, it’s not like the NFL wouldn’t like Davis out or at least see partial owners of African American decent as well as an ex player that is a hall of famer.
    One of the bigger questions I have is, why would Davis sale shares of the team to get a stadium in Oakland when he probably will not have to do that if he moves to Vegas?
    I think Davis may want to stay in Oakland, but I don’t think he wants to that bad…

  3. Libby Schaaf is the opposite of Jean Quan and it will be a great thing for Oakland. She is doing the right thing: being proactive. It may not work out that the Raiders and A’s stay. But if she can keep one of the three teams and not sell the taxpayers down the river in the process, she deserves a Congressional Medal of Honor, in my book. If she saves both, I’d vote for her for whatever the heck she ran for in Alameda County or the State of California.

    Kevin Johnson is not a Mayor that any reasonable person would wish a civic leader to emulate. He is a crook of the worst kind. Lining his own pockets with the citizens of Sacramento’s money. Good riddance, may he soon see the inside of a jail cell (I’m not holding my breath).

  4. Mark Davis keeps blaming the A’s even though he has the ability to kick them out if he could get a stadium deal done. But he can’t. Let’s hope he secures a stadium deal in Vegas soon so the A’s can proceed with a new ballpark in Oakland. Nothing happens as long as the Raiders are still here.

  5. I used to be Lew Wolff apologist too until recently.

    Mark Davis’ plan is to tear down the current Coli as it has all the lines running under it already. Run lines after demolition for a A’s stadium next door. Cheapest most efficient way to do it for Oakland/JPA.

    Leave for 3 years (A’s in ATT, Raiders in Levi’s) and comeback to two new stadiums. Davis unlike Wolff is proposing a two stadium solution to Oakland.

    While Wolff will not even entertain two stadiums at the Coli.

    Kicker is Davis gets the land in the Coli area because his stadium costs double an A’s stadium and he does not have the pockets Wolff/Fisher do.

    This plus Davis needs to sell the land to a developer and a part of the team to bridge his gap of 300M. His plan actually has merit, he is not worried about development, he just wants a new stadium.

    He is not drawing a hard line in the sand with Oakland over the A’s, he is leaving room for both teams to build, preserving parking with “some development”.

    This plus MLB has a revenue sharing model to make sure Wolff/Fisher turn a profit no matter what. In San Jose, Wolff was getting a stadium only, why won’t he do the same in Oakland? Especially if he stays on revenue sharing, when in SJ he would off the dole.

    He says he does not want to compete for corporate dollars and premium seating with the Raiders. Huh?

    They do not play on the same days, plus these are two different sports with vastly different fan bases and the market is lush with corporations and wealthy fans….SMH

    Wolff wants the entire Coli site, he will wait out Davis until he dies. This is his strategy and he know it will work and why??

    In the history of pro sports has any city ever kicked out one pro team for another? That is a big time NO.

    Oakland will not kick out the A’s nor the Raiders to cut a deal with one over the other. It would be a political backlash no Mayor would want to face.

    This whole lease thing Wolff has talking about the Raiders cutting a deal and him needing two years notice is all “CYA stuff”, he knows damn well Oakland will never kick him out.

    It is one thing for a team to leave but another animal for a municipality to leave one of its teams homeless for another.

    Therefore Oakland’s hands are tied until one team leaves. A’s are the biggest reason the Raiders cannot build at the Coliseum. Are they the only reason?

    No, but Wolff being a “jackass” sitting in the middle of the road not moving is not helping at all.

    • “Davis gets the land in the Coli area because his stadium costs double an A’s stadium and he does not have the pockets Wolff/Fisher do.”

      Uh, what?

      That argument boils down to: “He’s coming to the table with less than everyone else, so he gets the most out of the deal.”

      How does that make sense?

      If you can’t pay, you can’t play.

    • Also, IRT Revenue Sharing, under the current CBA, A’s only get it *until they get a new stadium*. New stadium *anywhere*, no revenue sharing.

      CBA is being renegotiated after this season, expect the A’s to fight hard to keep RS based on territorial rights restrictions (Ala & CoCo counties only)

      • @ CCCTL
        “CBA is being renegotiated after this season, expect the A’s to fight hard to keep RS based on territorial rights restrictions (Ala & CoCo counties only)”

        I couldn’t agree more, I would think the A’s must insist on RS regardless of weather they get a new park or not. It’s MLB that’s forcing them to build in Ala & CoCo, that’s two out of nine counties which of course is ridicules.
        If MLB is going to pigeon hole the A’s they must accept some of the burden for doing that.

    • “Davis needs to sell the land to a developer and a part of the team to bridge his gap of 300M.”

      How to get the land: Have an architecturally-designed stadium plan with *funded financial commitment* from a developer to build said stadium.

      Davis needs money to get the land, or the land to get the money. He can sell a stake in the team to get the money, but that won’t get him enough unless he gives up enough to lose control of the team, which he has shown zero interest in doing for years now.

      Why is this still being argued?

    • @ Sid
      Thank you my friend, I agree with you. When I first started to call Wolff out on his “ Wait Davis out” strategy some on this board claimed I was wrong, when it became clear that was what he was doing, some softened there tone but claimed he had every right to do so.
      That’s why I say if Marks broke ass can come up with some money, and if (I know still if) he does want to build in Oakland, Oakland should take him up on it…absolutely.
      Why? Because you don’t turn down a sure thing, assuming again that Davis can pull it off and actually wants to be in Oakland (10 NFL games and a stadium), for an unsure thing (81 games and a MLB stadium)
      The assumption is that Wolff will build at the site one Davis is gone, but we don’t know that Wolff will even do that.
      Again, I know I hate to say it. IF Davis can and wants to be in Oakland, then Oakland would be turning him down for what exactly? A promise that Wolff would really try hard to look at the site again? Really, really? Wolff and the A’s haven’t given any indication that they would even build on the site if the Raiders where gone.
      Ok, St. Wolff defenders you may start…

      • Ls/N – Too many if’s for a cogent argument.

        Sid – Yet more napkin plans. At least start by showing how the land deal would work. How does Davis get ahold of the land? From what governmental body? With what money? For how much?

      • @ ML
        Too many if’s? I only see two if’s.
        If Davis really wants to stay? And if it can happen from a finical stand point?

        Those might be big ifs, but not too many. The biggest if of all however is IF they saintly Mr. Wolff will build in Oakland rather the Raiders are in town or not? The A’s have given absolutely no indication that they will…
        And if Davis is not willing? To hell with him along with Wolff. Until Wolff shows or dose something differently.

      • 1. If Davis has the resources
        2. If Davis actually wants to do it

        3. If the City/County has the political will to pull it off
        4. If the City/County can make a fair deal for both teams or can only work with one team
        5. If the NFL will prefer a significantly worse deal in Oakland compared to other markets
        6. If Oakland citizens jump all over any real/perceived giveaways to the Raiders or A’s (likely)

        There’s a reason why the lease specifies a “bona fide” plan. It’s because City/County/Raiders/developer are supposed to resolve all of that before a shovel hits the ground. Then and only then will the A’s be forced out, as people say. Thankfully the A’s are looking elsewhere in Oakland just in case this happens.

      • @ ML
        Point taken. Wolff is still bering somewhat of an ass, not that Davis or the city of Oakland have not been ass’s at times.

      • Can’t argue with that

  6. “Thankfully the A’s are looking elsewhere in Oakland just in case this happens.”

    So what is the status of that search? The last rumor was that Fisher is interested in a downtown location, including Laney College, but I haven’t heard anything about that. Is it just that such negotiations are completely confidential or that nothing is really going on to report?

    Schaaf is being smart in her public comments but she forgets about the A’s, who have no choice but to wait because the city has set it up so that nothing will happen with the A’s until a decision is made about the Raiders. But how long does this go on? Does she not have a deadline after which the Raiders must be shown the door so that the city and the A’s can work together to get a ballpark built? She seems most worried about doing anything that would piss off Raiders fans, yet it is Davis himself who has put the team in the pathetic situation that it is now in.

    But Wolff is content to wait. The A’s say they won’t spend money on signing players that have a chance to produce a winning team until they have a new ballpark. They’re still getting revenue sharing from MLB and are not losing a dime. So they have no incentive to prod things along. Meanwhile the team sucks, A’s fans have nothing to look forward to regarding getting a decent team or a ballpark, and Schaaf seems to be in danger of blowing it.

    As usual, the situation is fine for everyone except the fans.

  7. @ Jerry

    “Thankfully the A’s are looking elsewhere in Oakland just in case this happens.”

    I’m with you, I hope this results in something, but we would still be talking about another five to eight years at the earliest.

    “A’s, who have no choice but to wait”

    I disagree with you. The A’s have as choice as the Raiders, even more since they actually have resources unlike the Raiders. There is absolutely nothing preventing the A’s from submitting a proposal to build a new stadium, other than themselves.

    “Because the city has set it up so that nothing will happen with the A’s until a decision is made about the Raiders.”

    The city did not set it up that way, if anything the A’s have set it up that way with their 10 year lease. They did this as part of their wait Davis out strategy (IMHO), the 10 year lease allows them to do nothing.

    • The city set the lease terms, and the A’s did not initially agree to them.

      • @ CCCTL

        “The city set the lease terms, and the A’s did not initially agree to them.”

        Not saying they city had nothing to do with the lease agreement, but do you really think the 10 year lease had more to do with the A’s, or the city?

        If it wasn’t what Wolff wanted he could have simply signed a year to year, or two year lease. I think it’s actually a 4 year lease that goes year to year after that for up to 10, with the 2 year out if the Raiders actually come up with a real pan.

        It gives Wolff the flexibility to not only wait Davis out while doing nothing, but “promising” to look really heard at the coliseum site, wow. It’s also stipulates that local officials can’t bring up other sites, again wow.
        So I will give you four years (In hopes that San Jose works out in court, which it didn’t of course), then I will go year to year after that (to give myself maximum flexibility to leave), after that I will require a minimum of two years notice, in the unlikely event that the Raiders actually work things out (In this event I can go back to MLB and say see they kicked me out), I can claim again I need San Jose.

        And, in return Oakland gets to call the A’s theirs for a short time while Wolff hopes any of these things work out in his favor.

        Wolff is smart and has every right to have his team located wherever he wants, if he can make it happen. After all it is his team, but as to whether he wants to build in Oakland? He has made it painfully obvious that he doesn’t want to, and if that makes thing more difficult for the Raiders then so be it.

        Will Wolff build in Oakland? He may but it won’t ever be because it’s what he wanted to do (IMHO), which is fine, but I will never confuse him for someone that was not a di*k about along the way.

    • “The A’s have as choice as the Raiders, even more since they actually have resources unlike the Raiders. There is absolutely nothing preventing the A’s from submitting a proposal to build a new stadium, other than themselves.”

      Lakeshore – You repeatedly say this but this is simply not true.

      The Coliseum site is not some blighted property that the city would love for someone to do something with. It is a functioning site with tenants.

      There is no standing RFP out there for the A’s, or any other business for that matter, to raise a proposal to the city.

      I know you will say that most recent Coliseum City negotiating rights agreement allowed the city to talk to other entities about the site. This is a far cry however from saying that they’re open for bids. This was simply a CYA measure so that no one can claim tampering when conversations with current tenants could be viewed as conversations that could undermine Coliseum City.

      What your proposing would be along the lines of someone knocking on your door, asking to buy your house (when it’s not for sale) but only if you agreed to move out tomorrow. You would only consider doing this if you got a massive premium over the price. Could the A’s do this, sure, but that would be idiotic from the business perspective.

      A project like this requires that the city be 100% on board up front. That doesn’t mean the city has to do all the work, but the A’s can’t just crash the party either.

      • @ Slacker

        “Lakeshore – You repeatedly say this but this is simply not true.”

        It not true, that the A’s not have the right to submit a proposal?
        The A’s and the Raiders for that matter have the right to do so, but neither has. They both have their reasons, but none of those reasons have anything to with the inability to do so.

        “There is no standing RFP out there for the A’s, or any other business for that matter, to raise a proposal to the city.”

        I would guess that if the A’s or Raiders actually wanted to do something, this and everything pertaining to building would be taken care of.

        “What you’re proposing would be along the lines of someone knocking on your door, asking to buy your house (when it’s not for sale) but only if you agreed to move out tomorrow.”

        It’s really not (IMHO), but for the sake of augment let’s say I had a house that I shared with someone. If there was enough room for us to put two houses on the same land, and I said no, I would rather live in the same place with you until you leave for Las Vegas, LA, San Antonio, San Diego, St. Louis, or Mars, so I can have the land to myself (assuming I’m even willing to build on it after you leave), or I will stay until your broke ass can actually build something, so I can go to MLB and claim I was kicked out. (In hopes of getting permission to move to San Jose)
        Keep in mind that I plotted this eviction in the first place by getting a 10 year lease with no intention to build, that Sir would make me an ass (IMHO) which I probable already am in your and many other people’s view…
        PS. “project like this requires that the city be 100% on board up front. That doesn’t mean the city has to do all the work, but the A’s can’t just crash the party either.”
        I agree the city needs to get their sh*t together as well.

  8. When the A’s had signed their ten year lease renewal at the Coliseum they allowed a scenario to be incorporated into the lease clause where the Raiders would be able to force the A’s to vacate and terminate its lease, if the Raiders could get a new Coliseum site stadium deal done for themselves. By doing so, this would create the real situation where MLB would then be forced to put pressure on the Giants to allow the soon to becoming homeless A’s to play at AT&T Park as temporary tenants, until the A’s can get a new ballpark built for themselves. While this arrangement would be acceptable to the Giants on a short-time basis, an overly extended stay by the A’s would give the Giants great heartburn. Knowing the difficulties in finding a suitable East Bay site for a new A’s ballpark, Lew Wolff viewed an overly extended stadium sharing arrangement at AT&T Park would ultimately provide the necessary leverage for the Giants to finally allow the A’s to move to the Bay Area site of its choice, San Jose.

    • @ llpec
      Right on the money, agree 100%

    • There’s no benefit to the A’s (or any tenant for that matter), when your landlord has an option to kick you out.

      This lease was signed while Coliseum City negotiations were still going on. The city needed an out clause to account for that and any potential future deals with the Raiders.

      The A’s likely mandated the 2 year notification window however just to give them some time in case a deal was struck.

      The A’s playing at AT&T without another stadium 100% for sure being built somewhere in the Bay Area would be the death knell for the team in the Bay Area.

      With no guarantee on where the team would be within a couple of years, the A’s would get 0 corporate support.

      I’m sure attendance would go up because of the novelty of it, but corporate dollars are what’s needed to sustain a sports franchise.

      Major corporations don’t invest in uncertainty.

      • @ Slacker
        “There’s no benefit to the A’s (or any tenant for that matter), when your landlord has an option to kick you out.”

        Or, when you have plotted to force your landlord to kick you out.

      • Patience (like we have any other choice after 10 plus years of this?). I have a feeling you will hear something soon that will make it very clear that there is no “leverage for SJ” ploy in the lease (ship has sailed!), that the A’s are focused on Oakland and that they are working through the details with the City but not quite ready to let the cat out of the bag.

        Complete speculation on my part follows these two dot thingies: The A’s have three options that the City would be willing to work with them on. Coliseum, Laney, Howard Terminal. NONE of those are simple. Not even remotely. The Coliseum could be really simple in short order. The other two not so much.

        If I had a stake in the team, I’d be pushing like Hell for something at Laney College, that would take a little while longer. But having been to 22 of the current 30 parks, that site is something that could sparkle more than any of the others from day one and I’d be able to focus on rebuilding one of the greatest brands in sports with a great, unique environment to watch baseball.

      • Thank,s Jeffrey. I need some hope.

      • @ letsgoas

        Thanks man, I derfinitly need that pic.

      • Tell me that isn’t mondo majestic? If that has a chance of happening, and the Coliseum can be done in 3 years… I am perfectly fine waiting 5. (before I make Raiders fans mad, I should point out… I do not WANT the Raiders to move)

      • Here is another IF statement. IF the A’s built at the Laney College site, and IF the Raiders built at the existing Coliseum site, could a deal be worked out where Laney College would be allowed to play games at the new A’s and Raiders facilities? Football could be managed since college and NFL play on different days. Baseball could be a little trickier, but college has a limited season, but could be worked out with a detailed home/away schedule. Just a thought…

  9. Paying for two stadiums, privately, again begs the question of where will the corporate dollars come to sponsor them? As has been said in here 1,000 times over the years, Oakland is not convenient for Silicon Valley companies. I anticipate that if the Raiders break ground on a stadium, MLB will start looking for a new home for the A’s, as long as Oakland won’t pay anything.

    • Oakland is not on an island the combined area of San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland CSA is 8,713,914 for 2015, which is the 5th largest in the country. When you consider the fact that the Sacramento combined area of 2,544,026 which is 20th in the country for 2015 is within driving distance that’s a combined 11, 25,940.00.
      While Oakland in and of its self is not San Francisco, or San Jose, the area its self along with the rest of Northern California is more than capable of supporting two teams in Oakland. (If that were to happen)
      The Raiders and the A’s have done a poor job of promoting their product over the years (I know you don’t agree practically concerning the A’s), for a verity of deferent reasons. It’s up to both teams to market their product better and in different ways
      Oakland is not sitting in the middle of a desert, it can be done.

  10. Wolff and/or Davis at fault? (the finger pointing needs to be directed elsewhere – at Oakland city officials) Davis is wiling to finance 67% of the cost of a new Oakland Raiders stadium (very generous, especially by NFL standards) Also, Wolff keenly observed 11 years ago the impossibility of dealing with Oakland officials because they are so dysfunctional. Wolff’s observation has turned out to be very accurate – 11 years later, and Oakland is still no closer to finding a stadium solution for the A’s.

    • Bullshit. Davis should be willing to pay 100%. He is who benefits from the stadium. It’s not “generous” to ask for $400-$600M for a private enterprise. It’s called “welfare for someone who doesn’t need it.”

      If he can’t do it, sell the fucking team.

      • 1. The A’s lease does effect the Raiders. If the Raiders want to start building in February 2017, they can’t.
        After the A’s are given notice they need to leave, they can take two years (or more) to vacate the site, by the terms of their lease. A possible two year delay doesn’t help attract investors and would probably require a new cost analysis (after two years). Stadiums seem to increase in price a 100 million a year!
        2. No NFL owner, all richer than Mark Davis, have paid for 100% of their Stadiums.
        The NY Giants & NY Jets, paid for all of their Stadiums together without public money.
        3. Levi’s Stadium. Only cost Jed York about 62 Million out of his own pocket.
        200 Million NFL G4 Loan.
        The Santa Clara Stadium Authority borrowed 900 Million for constructions, that should be paid back through naming rights, SBL’s, percentage of other event revenue, etc.
        4. Stan Kroenke is “Paying for his stadium on his own” in LA, but will get more than a 100 million in TIF.
        He also more than doubled the value of his franchise moving from St Louis to LA (He wouldn’t have footed the bill on his own in St Louis).
        He is also the developer, so that makes him money and gives him tax write offs on several fronts.
        He is also using the NFL G4 loan for a couple hundred million.

        The Oakland Coliseum has been there for 50 years.
        It has had about 300 million spent on it (in 2016 dollars).
        When you think of all the events and Raiders and A’s games, has it been worth it?
        Would you have rather that money not have been spent and take away everything that it has brought to the community?

        If done right (Even the Arlington Model, where Jerry get’s all of the money from the stadium, has been successfully funded through hotel & rental car tax and is a decade ahead on the payments and has made additional revenue for the community) it can be a win-win for everyone.
        Not to mention, by paying off the existing debt to build the new stadium, the taxpayers will have millions immediately go towards other uses.

    • Also, please take a screen shot of this. I am going to laugh at you. Really loudly, you pompous windbag. Just watch…

      • Yes, Oakland only has to come up with a mere $400 million to pay for a football stadium used 10-15 days a year. Should it lay off police officers? Close libraries? Maybe sell some public parks? Where do the cuts come from to pay for this? Compare $400 million to the $135 million San Jose spent on an arena used hundreds of days a year that benefits pretty much everybody in town and brings national exposure to the city (especially this week).

      • You are hilarious. In most cases, municipalities (not franchise owners) typically finance 67% or more of the cost for a new stadium – and Davis is a villain because he is willing brunt most of the cost for a new Raiders stadium? LOL – you are comical.

        Supply and demand is the name of the game here. If Oakland can’t find a way to accommodate the Raiders and/or A’s – some other municipality will. Many cities are more than willing to finance $300 mil. to host an NFL franchise. Very few sports franchises, if any, need to 100% finance the cost of new digs. Even the Yankees (possibly the wealthiest franchise in pro sports) paid 80% of the cost for their new Yankees stadium, and you believe Davis and Wolff are a-holes, even though they are willing to finance most, if not all, the cost to build new stadiums? Someone needs a reality check and it isn’t me.

      • @pjk: Sure, Oakland is fiscally broke. They do have an asset though, the land at the Coliseum site ( a very valuable asset)

    • @ duffer
      “Wolff and/or Davis at fault? (The finger pointing needs to be directed elsewhere –“

      You can point a finger in any direction in this situation, and have some truth attached to. There is plenty of blame to go around If you don’t think Wolff and (or) Davis deserve some of that, well I really don’t know what to say to you.

      “11 years later, and Oakland is still no closer to finding a stadium solution for the A’s”

      Because, we all know it’s only up to Oakland to find a stadium solution…

  11. Love hearing Fosse wax nostalgic about the great Kirby Puckett. The same Puckett arrested for dragging a woman into a mens room (a mens room. Where men go– not transgendered btw) and groped her until her screams were heard. The same great Puckett who was arrested for getting out of his car in a parking lot and urinated in clear view of others. The great Kirby Puckett, who according to his ex-girlfriend blew off visiting a child in hospital because “who cares– it’s just another sick kid.”

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.