Manfred insists Oakland effort is progressing, hints at groundwork for deal

Months ago I pleaded with the A’s to start communicating more regularly with the public on the state of the ballpark effort, if only to give fans some confidence in the effort. With MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred’s answers to questions about Oakland during the current postseason, it appears that the A’s are relying on Manfred to be the credible source. Might as well, since Manfred isn’t (yet) reviled the way A’s ownership is among many locals.

Before I get too far into Manfred’s role, let’s reset the situation. The A’s and Raiders both positioned as preferring the Coliseum for their prospective Oakland stadia, which put the City of Oakland in a bind. The A’s pledged to look at other sites in Oakland in case a football stadium pushed them out. While the A’s are more-or-less bound to Oakland, the Raiders have put a lot of effort into a glitzy venue in Las Vegas. Raiders owner Mark Davis has also flirted with Los Angeles, San Antonio, even San Diego if the Chargers vacate for LA.

In August A’s majority partner John Fisher brought staff with him on a tour of Howard Terminal, Oakland’s best hope for a waterfront downtown ballpark site. No findings have been released, with John Hickey’s article referencing how Howard Terminal remains a difficult proposition due to cleanup and infrastructure costs. There’s also a mention of Brooklyn Basin, but given how the developers for that project weren’t able to pick up a key piece of land that now effectively splits the project in two, it’s highly unlikely that something will magically open up for a ballpark there.

That brings us to Laney College, which sits between Howard Terminal and the Coliseum physically and perhaps also in terms of rank. I tweetstormed about Laney in April. The important thing to note about Laney is that it’s actually two sites separated by E. 8th Ave. The north site is familiar to most as the Laney College athletic fields The south site is the collection of Peralta (Laney’s district) administration buildings. Laney was studied as part of the 2001 HOK presentation, and at first glance it would seem to be a highly favorable location. The land is mostly fields with few structures and is publicly owned. It’s close to Lake Merritt BART and there is some – though not much – parking to the west.

Some of the Oakland sites under consideration. Peralta is below Laney.

Some of the Oakland sites under consideration. Peralta is below Laney.

Unlike the Port and City, who have public land reserves to draw upon, Laney/Peralta have their facilities concentrated among 50 acres straddling Lake Merritt Channel, and they have shown little interest in disposing of any of that land. A planning document published in 2011 showed that the college wants to expand, mostly into the undeveloped parking lot in the southwest corner. Coincidentally, this is where the Raiders’ pre-Coliseum home, Frank Youell Field, was located.

Making a ballpark work at Laney College would require a multi-phase approach because the facilities would continue to be in use for significant portions of the development cycle. If the Laney fields become the site, it’ll be up to the college to figure out how to accommodate practically the entire outdoor athletic program. There’s no obvious place to relocate them. Some might look to a land swap with the Coliseum, but that wouldn’t make sense since the fields would be five miles away, nearly as far from the campus as Merritt College. If the Peralta site is chosen, the administration offices and support for all four campuses in the district would have to be relocated. Perhaps a solution could include a large parking structure with offices atop. That could help serve parking needs for Laney, Peralta, and the A’s. It could also be crazy expensive on its own.

There will be more time to ruminate on sites known and unknown. For now let’s get back to the commish. There’s a lot there to support the notion that Manfred is pushing Lew Wolff and John Fisher towards a solution in Oakland and holding them to account. That’s good PR for baseball in Oakland. Then there was another quote from Manfred about Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf that caught me off guard:

‘The Mayor in Oakland has made it clear to me that baseball is her first priority. She would like to keep both teams, but baseball is her first priority. And I think that’s a good spot for baseball to be in.’

Schaaf has gone to great pains to never express any outright favoritism between the A’s and Raiders, though she has admitted that the sheer number of games the A’s play (82 vs. 10 for the Raiders) is a better economic driver. And there have been whispers that she has backed the A’s privately, biding her time until the Raiders eventually leave. Of course, there’s no guarantee that “eventually” will ever happen, so she has to keep Oakland in play for a football stadium despite a funding gap that is no closer to resolution since the issue was raised during the Quan administration.

Now comes word that Manfred is walking back his assertion about Schaaf, though neither of their respective offices have made any statements to that effect yet (2 PM PT). Given the lack of such statements, it seems that Schaaf is not getting any serious blowback. It also confirms a certain journalistic truism:

Messaging is tough, though not as tough as getting a stadium privately built in California. Manfred wants to accelerate the process regardless of the restrictions placed on the A’s. His vague timeframe of “within the next year” follows similar statements made by Wolff and Oakland pols. It’s likely to slip. No one would be surprised if it did for myriad reasons. That said, Manfred’s desire to get a site picked is a tactic designed to inevitably put the ball in Oakland’s court. Oakland and the A’s have to this point skated on the dual-dilemma scenario with the Raiders. Manfred’s shaking the tree is meant to put some pressure on both team and City. He can do that directly with Wolff and Fisher. He can’t do that to Oakland, not until there is a site and some level of commitment. The key is Manfred’s admission that he’s not sending anyone to Oakland full time to work on the project. In the past that was either Manfred or Bob DuPuy acting on Bud Selig’s behalf, or Eric Grubman doing the same type of field work for Roger Goodell.

When that site is decided, Manfred will turn around and say to Schaaf,  Look at all I’ve done for you, I got the owners in line, there is a site and a plan,what are you going to give baseball? By give I mean the pledges of infrastructure, land, or whatever is needed to offset the enormous investment Wolff and Fisher will have to undertake to build a ballpark. That’s when messaging gives way to dealmaking. It’s a better tack than what the NFL is doing as it looks more generous. Will it ultimately be more successful? Hell if I know.

P.S. – Laney’s in the news, but remember, the A’s still consider the Coliseum the #1 for now. We’ll see if their study changes their assessment.

64 thoughts on “Manfred insists Oakland effort is progressing, hints at groundwork for deal

  1. Let’s see.. the A’s are now looking at sites again that have been surveyed many times over the years. Remember the BRC? They found nothing in Oakland that was better than SJ. Of course, Bud buried the findings, and they have never been made public. The A’s are now looking at their #4 choice (SJ, Coliseum, Howard Terminal and now Laney). Thanks, Giants for screwing the A’s!

  2. In other news, the NV state Senate voted in favor of the Raiders stadium bill 16-5. After breaking tomorrow for Yom Kippur, NV state Assembly takes up bill thursday, and is expected to pass it.

  3. re: The Mayor in Oakland has made it clear to me that baseball is her first priority. She would like to keep both teams, but baseball is her first priority. And I think that’s a good spot for baseball to be in.’

    ….Great to see the A’s getting priority, which makes perfect sense given the 81-dates-versus-10 equation. But no answer as to how this all gets paid for. We’re still looking at a privately financed ballpark in Oakland, too far to get sponsorships from Silicon Valley and leaving only what’s left over after AT&T Park and Chase Arena or whatever it’s called get corporate sponsors. Manfred has talked about Oakland “making an investment” in baseball. But we know Oakland is committed to spending $0.00 on stadium construction for the Raiders and A’s. Might MLB be ready to pay for the stadium in lieu of the $34 million it uses every year to subsidize the A’s to keep them there? Let me know when the groundbreaking is.

    • | But no answer as to how this all gets paid for.

      Sure there was an answer: “The A’s project is a project that will involve a very substantial commitment from local ownership.” (Manfred)

      The (implied) answer is “The A’s will have to do this on their own.”

      • Do you really think MLB would require the A’s to make an investment that does not make economic sense? What a precedence that would set for Tampa Bay or Toronto or potentially Montreal. Any proposal in Oakland will need to stand on its own economic merit perhaps subsidized by continued revenue sharing going forward.

      • I read it more as “Well, we told them they couldn’t leave, and there’s not enough corporate money to go around with all the teams here, so we recognize that anything or anywhere they want to build, we should try to make sure they get the best deal they can.”

    • I’ve heard this from you before: “…too far to get sponsorships from Silicon Valley…”

      Silicon Valley corporations are multi-national. If they want MLB sponsorships, they will invest in either SJ or Oakland. Actually, they may be more apt to invest in Oakland, as more of their customer base is closer to Oakland than SJ.

      • It’s been discussed in here over the years many times, but Silicon Valley execs in Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose etc won’t want to trek across the Dumbarton Bridge and up 880 through horrid traffic to get to Oakland in the evening. And they won’t want to subject their clients to it, either. So there’s a good chance these companies won’t be leasing many suites at a new A’s stadium in Oakland. Maybe they’ll buy some signage.

      • It is a tough sell for South Bay based businesses when it comes to buying suites. Signage and what not, not so much.

        I work in technology and I get offered tickets all the time to sporting events. SV companies do offer tickets to 49ers, Giants and Sharks games, even more than Warriors games it has a lot to do with getting to the events from the South Bay (CalTrain v BART).

        I think a lot of the reason why the Warriors have ignored Oakland and focused on SF from day one is because of this. They can sell out the Oracle Arena, or sell out the Chase Center. They can charge way more for suites in SF.

  4. wonder when we’ll be seeing the a’s own version of coliseum city in the near future when it deals with pictures, images, or renderings. i’m guessing there are those types of pics already at the speculated locations for the speculated sites within the city of oakland.

    as much as a’s fans and even the city of oakland would love to have a park built near the waterfront or downtown area the most logical place to build a park especially financially and when you also consider transit-wise, the current coliseum location was likely always at the top of the list in terms of a realistic plan.

    but i honestly don’t know how much sprucing up that area of the city the a’s and a new park along with maybe some retail and or housing can happen for it not to still not be seen as a place where not many a’s fans will want to spend time before and after games there like we seen with so many other newer baseball parks built in “urban” areas of cities.

  5. The plan of attack here seems pretty straightforward: the Coliseum site is the top option, and I imagine Wolff-Fisher already have their ducks in a row there should the Raiders get LV pushed through (judging from the advanced way Wolff has talked about assuming the Coliseum debt and being on record preferring that site).

    That leaves them settling on a credible Plan B: seems like Laney is emerging as a fairly viable option…at least in contrast to HT and the USPS site. They should be able to put some sort of proposal together for that over the next 12 months…but all of that could be moot if the Raiders leave.

    • It would seem the difference between these two sites is: a) development potential to pay for the building, b) process required to get a shovel in the dirt. Assuming I can make an observation on how the A’s think (cheap and fast), it’s pretty clear that they want ot be at the Coliseum for these two reasons.

      That said, John Fisher has been quoted in the past talking about Stadiums as legacy pieces.

      IF the Raiders leave, it’s a no brainer to build at the Coliseum for both the City and the A’s. Both development opportunity and time to get a shovel in the ground are significantly better.

      Though, I really kind of hope the Raiders stay and the A’s end up and Laney. Because I think a stadium at that site would be truly transformational for the A’s in a way that one at the Coliseum couldn’t be.

  6. And are we completely sure that all that vacant land behind the coliseum (nearest the airport direction) is unsuitable? I was riding my bike past the area and I was surprised to see how much space is actually there. I’m it’s been brought up before (hasn’t it? I haven’t followed development so close) what is the problem with that area? Can someone explain to me?

    • It’s suitable for development. The City is thinking more along the lines of beefing up office and R&D space there. No plans for a stadium on that side of 880. Plus most of that land is privately owned, so someone would have to pay for it.

  7. I am wondering if the other NFL owners will let Mark go to LV, do they trust Mark in any location (opportunity), outside of Oakland?

    Certainly the other owners are not going to turn down a gift of 750 million public dollars, but what they could do is reward LV an expiation franchise, charge 2 billion for the right to be the owner, give 500 million to Mark since he created the opportunity, tell him, now you have enough money to build in Oakland (get out of our face), split the other 1.5 billion among the other owners, and have between three to five years to start the new franchise in this location.

    If the Chargers work things out in SD. (I know big if), they could place a second team in LA with the Rams, after that same 5 year period charging another 2 billion dollars, perhaps this fee could even help the Chargers as a way of rewarding them for staying in SD, and not taking the LA opportunity, Ok I am thinking too much, but Its party clear the owners probably don’t want Mark as an owner, and probably aren’t going to do him many fevers, as well as not trusting him with a new opportunity, but they could reward him for making that opportunity.

    • I’d bet they don’t trust him IN Oakland.

      • Probable not. But, of course they can’t force him to sale, so if they have to deal with him I’m guessing they would rather it be in Oakland.

      • I’d say, absolutely not. To whit (when the Raiders were denied LA):

        The Raiders also lose, and for reasons not entirely related to business merit. The Raiders lose because their partners hold a grudge.

        ‘‘Oakland gets nothing,’’ Texans owner Robert McNair. ‘‘Al used to sue us all the time.’’

        McNair didn’t even join the league until 2002, and yet his feelings about the litigiousness of a man who had been dead for more than four years are blunt and raw. How do the owners who actually lived through the worst of the legal battles feel?

        The comments from McNair underscore a sense that has been percolating around the league for years. The Raiders won’t move to L.A. as long as Mark Davis owns the team.

      • @ jeffrey

        Yeah man, I agree with you 100%. That’s why I don’t think they want him anywhere near LV. But, at the same time there is no way the owners turn down 750 million, so what would be the solution if both things are true?

    • There’s also a contingent of owners probably ready to tell Davis: “You can’t get a new stadium in Oakland? Fine. You have a stadium in Santa Clara that you can use. Big locker room space already reserved for you and it’s right near your current fan base.”..Also, chances are not looking good for the Chargers stadium vote. They need 67% of the vote and at last check, they were nowhere near that figure.

      • @pjk

        There’s also a contingent of owners probably ready to tell Davis: “You can’t get a new stadium in Oakland? Fine. You have a stadium in Santa Clara that you can use. Big locker room space already reserved for you and it’s right near your current fan base.”..

        Yes, that’s another wild card in all of this.

        Of course I would like to see the Raiders stay in Oakland, but we may have a situation where two leagues (NFL, MLB), for different reasons are forcing both of these teams to stay in a city that’s not willing to do much of anything to accommodate them staying there?

        It would be different if you were talking about New York, LA, Chicago, or San Francisco (the city its self), maybe even Dallas but we are talking about Oakland California. There is no way, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, San Diego, Minnesota, St Louis, Detroit, or any of Oakland’s sister cities (comparable markets), could ever get away with paying for nothing but infrastructure cost, or a little more than that.

  8. Neil: I don’t think the NFL will expand anytime soon. 32 teams works perfectly; 33 or 34 would be unwieldy. 32 is enough to fill a full inventory for Thursday, Monday, and all day Sunday. It’s not like they aren’t filling any terrific broadcast time slots that they would suddenly be able to fill if they added teams. As such, I don’t think they’d get a bump in their TV deal adding expansion teams and going to 33-34…so it would mean 1-2 more mouths to feed taking slices of the TV revenue pie.

    I think this ends with Raiders in Vegas, A’s at Coli site, Warriors in SF, Chargers as the second team in LA.

    I am biased but I think the NBA is the “Big 3” sport of the future, so I think they will be the next to expand, 5-10 years down the road. They have a terrific product right now, and their arenas are far more multi-purpose for a community than NFL or MLB (hockey, concerts, alternative sports, etc.).

    • @Jacob Jackson

      You bring up some good points, you may be correct. But, I’m not sure that they may not get a little more money out of a TV deal with one, and eventually two more teams, they certainly will out of the local markets they place a new franchise in. Plus, the owners can charge 2 billion or more for a new franchise fee, that is a lot of money to say no to, and there are plenty of people with that kind of money that want in on the NFL.

      Are the other owners going to say no, to anywhere between 2 and 2.5 billion so Mark can have LV? Didn’t the Texans have to pay close to if not a billion, what 14-15 years ago? Can you imagine what that fee is going to be today, and yeah they are going to let it pass for an owner like Mark Davis that they don’t like, and don’t trust, who has no money outside of his owning the team?

  9. Without any public funding for a new ballpark being offered, the A’s will privately build only at a site of their own preference. I believe the only realistic acceptable site for a new ballpark within Oakland is near downtown/Lake Merritt. With that fact in mind, the A’s will only consider the Laney Collage site for a new ballpark within Oakland.

    • @ llpec

      I don’t know if I think it’s the only site, certainly the coli would serve the A’s purposes, but I’m with you on the Laney Collage site, I and apparently at least Jeffery (for one) would like to see the A’s on that site.

      • I would love to see them at Laney College. Especially if they are paying their own freight.

        I had heard some time ago that they had two things in mind and that is it was 1. Coliseum, 2. Laney College.

      • Has the Laney site become feasible? I thought that the college district indicated a while back when this site was first shown as an option that it would not sell the property. I agree that a downtown ballpark would be much much better than the Coliseum for the A’s, the fans and the city, but if the Raiders go to to LV as it now appears, I don’t think the A’s would consider building anywhere except the Coliseum.

      • Hey Jerry,

        The A’s think it’s feasible enough to serve as an alternate for the Coliseum. I think the biggest part of the infeasibility is really the time it will take to conduct studies AND what ML mentioned in the article… The many moving part so developing the site.

        The real answer to “Is it feasible?” is “That depends on if all the stakeholders can work out a development timeline that takes care of all of them, including Peralta having new offices.”

  10. I still think we’re going to a situation similar to what the Raiders and the NFL have faced. “All right. we, MLB, are ready to put up $300 million for the construction of this $500 million facility. We now need the city of Oakland to partner with us to provide the remaining $200 million.” Oakland’s response: “We can provide $0.00.”

    • @pjk

      I’m confused, aren’t the A’s on the record as saying they will build their new park themselves? Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I was thinking in the A’s case if the city/county could provide infrastructure which the mayor of Oakland has verbally committed to then the other details could be worked out.

      • Yes. That’s not the hold up in Oakland. It’s always been about trying to retain all 3 teams keeping all 3 teams in limbo.

        The A’s will privately finance whatever they build, where ever they build it in the Bay Area.

      • The A’s owners have always known there is no money from Oakland taxpayers for stadiums. But Manfred recently said baseball was “best economic investment” for the city. Best “investment,” not best “gift.” Sounds like he’s expecting a municipal contribution. And it won’t be forthcoming. I’m betting a few million dollars for infrastructure won’t cut it – MLB will want Big $$ for construction or some other in-kind contribution, such as control over the Coliseum land for development.

      • @ pjk

        “MLB will want Big $$ for construction or some other in-kind contribution, such as control over the Coliseum land for development”

        I could be mistaken, but I believe this is already understood. If the A’s build at the site I’m sure infrastructure and control over land development is a given. You are always so fond of pointing out just how broke Oakland is, so you of all people should know these are the only two things they have to give.

  11. re: could be mistaken, but I believe this is already understood. If the A’s build at the site I’m sure infrastructure and control over land development is a given …Meanwhile, we still have Oakland trying to steer the A’s over to already-studied-and-rejected sites like Howard Terminal so the Raiders can have the Coliseum site, while still offering $0.00 for ballpark construction. At what point does MLB say enough is enough?

    • @ pjk

      “Meanwhile, we still have Oakland trying to steer the A’s over to already-studied-and-rejected sites like Howard Terminal so the Raiders can have the Coliseum site, while still offering $0.00 for ballpark construction. At what point does MLB say enough is enough?”

      Probable at the point, when many of the other owners felt that Lew Wolff gave San Jose the green light to take them to the SC. It’s probable going to be Oakland or nothing (in the Bay Area), hopefully it’s not nothing. Or would you be happier if it was Portland, Or San Antonio, or wherever?

      • I would definitely be happy if it was Sacramento. With the new Kings Arena downtown. What looks like eventually an MLS Stadium downtown. The A’s on the river would definitely be welcome.

  12. Obviously a site near downtown/Lake Merritt is a better site than the Coliseum. The Coliseum’s main advantage is access, it’s great for that, but who needs great access to a place no one wants to go? It needs to be an awesome location. Fisher I think gets it, which is why he shoved Wolff out of the way to take the reins. Let the Raiders have the Coliseum.

    As you point out MLB looks nicer now…but if the A’s don’t commit to a different site, thus forcing the Raiders out of town, they will look like the bad guys again. Time to hit the gas on this.

  13. LW is just terrible. Is LW deaf or blind? I don’t understand why Fisher allows LW to speak for the A’s. Manfred just suggested that the A’s better have a stadium plan within a year. Why in the f*ck is LW talking about an 8 yrs stay at CC ? Did they not hire a PR lady recently? Where is she? It is time for Fisher to unleash the CC plan NOW.

    Btw, The raiders gone to LV. No way the NFL owners will walk away from 1.5B+ freebies. The NFL wants to expand soon, so the next city will be asked to commit a huge sum after LV.

    • the A’s have 8 years left on their lease, he was just pointing that out.

    • Wolfe and Fischer were strung along for how many years by the joke that is Bud Selig? And now the same party-line from Manfred?

      Wolfe and Fischer have earned the right to tell Manfred to go pound sand as far as I’m concerned.

      Besides the terms of their lease pretty much give the Raiders the upper hand when it comes to the fate of the Colosseum. If in fact the A’s want the C site, they have to wait until the fate of the Raiders is decided. So, the soonest a shovel can turn dirt at that site is what, 2020?

      There is NO rush to get a plan in motion from their perspective. They’ve already seen two workable plans go up in smoke.

    • | Manfred just suggested that the A’s better have a stadium plan within a year.

      No, he said we *may* have an update on an A’s stadium plan “within the year”. There was no pressure being brought to bear in that statement.

  14. @ CCTL : keep believing that. It is obvious to me that Manfred and other owners are sick and tired of this mess. Why do u think MLB is monitoring weekly calls ? Why do u think Fisher is providing updates to Manfred/MLB ? Fisher and LW have a year to make something in Oakland or they will be forced out. That is my guess/belief. Yes, it is unfair and all that but MLB has had enough. MLB wants to expand but first they have to resolve the A’s and Rays situation.

    • “Fisher and LW have a year to make something in Oakland or they will be forced out.”

      I see people continuously saying that MLB will ‘force out’ Wollf & Fisher, but with no support other than personal outrage as to how/why it can/will happen.

      Point to anything they’ve done that violates league guidelines to such an extent that a sale will be forced. (Hint: nothing even remotely like the LA Clippers situation has happened).

      You don’t like them. We get that.

      “Why do u think MLB is monitoring weekly calls ?” Do you have anything to support that? At all? Besides supposition?

      “That is my guess/belief”

      So, that’s a no.

      • Once again, no one is going to force the A’s owners out because they have been unable to get a ballpark built in a city that is offering $0.00 toward ballpark construction.

    • Even if Manfred and the other owners are sick and tired of this mess, there’s no way they force a sale of the team.

      This isn’t like the Frank McCourt scenario with the Dodgers where there was risk of bankruptcy. A different owner does not change the A’s situation in Oakland.

      By forcing a sale, MLB would be forcing a sale on the cheap. No owner wants that.

      Only other option would be an owner who wants to move the team, but if the goal is expansion, that just takes away another potential expansion market.

      Right or wrong, we’re at a stalemate until one of the following occur:

      1. Raiders leave
      2. Oakland gets the funding/plan to make another site viable
      3. MLB grants the A’s permission to SJ

      MLB doesn’t want option 3, so they’re working to keep the A’s engaged, while at the same time putting whatever pressure they can on Oakland to solve either option 1 or 2.

    • LOL Daniel.

      The A’s situation is simple to solve… Take the money MLB would be paying into revenue sharing for the A’s and give it to the GIants for the next six to ten years instead, turn the Bay Area into a TRUE shared marked and let the A’s move to San Jose.

      There. Problem solved.

      Of course we all know it’s not that simple though.

      Bum Selig spent how many years with his “#1 priority” BRC deciding that there is no viable option in Oakland? Now suddenly locations that were non-starters are viable again? And not only are they now viable, you have one year to figure it out or you’re outta here??? I don’t buy it,

  15. This is a classic comment -obviously not a position shared by the gints. Ironic how different MLB and the NFL view the Bay Area.

    The reason the NFL wants a team in the Bay Area is because if the Raiders leave Oakland, that leaves the league without a team in one of the country’s largest media markets. Obviously there’s the 49ers, but they’re located 55 miles away from San Francisco in Santa Clara.

    • SF and Santa Clara are not 55 miles away. More like 40 miles.

      • Regardless of the miles the individual from the NFL that said this implies that the Bay Area is 2 distinct markets- with the SF/Oakland market and the San Jose/Santa Clara market- my point was is his view is completely different than the gints/MLB view.

  16. A’s fans rejoice! The Raiders are going to Las Vegas.

    Barring a miracle, this is a done deal. Mark Davis is going to get the palace Oakland nor LA would give him nor his late father.

    With the Raiders gone after 2 more lame duck seasons in Oakland, Wolff can finally say he succeeded in outlasting Davis and the Raiders. By being stubborn and not caring about Oakland, the Raiders or their fans or even his own fans he won.

    With the Raiders and Warriors both gone at the same time in 2019 the entire Coliseum complex is at his disposal. He can start planning once the Raiders get final approval from the NFL in January.

    Break ground the moment the Raiders and Warriors leave in 2019, with a new stadium opening in 2022 maybe 2021. I am assuming the Raiders/Warriors will object to the bitter end on any construction in the parking lot while they are still there.

    Meanwhile, Mark Davis will find out he will only be able to sell 30k-40k of PSL’s in Las Vegas due to the cash strapped local fans and the lack of PSL commitments from his “so called Raider Nation” in LA and Oakland.

    He will lose money year over year in Las Vegas, especially if the team is bad.

    Meanwhile if Uncle Lewie doesn’t croak before 2022, he will see his ballpark come to fruition. Only 22 years after the Giants got Pac Bell Park.

    • @Sid- your one person I would never go into business with- you have a very myopic perspective that changes with the wind. So,etching tells me if you were investing (not donating) more than $500M of your own money you would have managed this the same way LW and MD have- if there is any fault in this debacle is both teams could have stayed in the Bay Area if MLB had granted San Jose-

      • Or if the Raiders went to Levi’s with the 9ers…

      • If I had all the money LW and JF have and I could build a ballpark next a Raiders one at the Coliseum (this with SJ out of the picture for good)….Why not?

        500M is a drop in the ocean for LW/JF and if MLB lets them stay on revenue sharing in Oakland with a new ballpark guaranteeing a profit…..That is good business.

        LW is not getting any younger, and his greed is getting old.

        As for MD…..He could have built Levi’s with the 49ers and had 50/50 input. But he is a bad businessman, LW is only better due to his overall experience but LW is a bad owner.

        At least MD got it done in LV, even though I am skeptical of the overall economics of it (so is the NFL, hence the delay on the relocation vote).

        LW on the other hand has sat around and done zero…..

    • if this gets approved by the nfl sometime next year you really think the raiders would want to spend two lame duck seasons in oakland when everybody knows they’re going to leave?

      they may have to play at the coliseum/oakland during the 2017 season since the vote will take place if these reports are true maybe a few months before the regular season even starts next season. but in 2018? why wouldn’t they play in las vegas in 2018 at unlv’s football stadium just as the vikings did for two seasons when their new football stadium was being built in downtown minneapolis.

      regarding the baseball park, the a’s i don’t know when they would release their plans for what they’d want to build at the coliseum location. sometime next year i’d guess right now.

    • Sid could be accurate, The Raiders could bomb with attendance in Vegas, In Oakland, they can get sell-outs with sub .500 teams. Either Davis is tired of playing politics with Oakland officials – or the significant income generated from the luxury suites from a Las Vegas NFL stadium (hotels over there would generate a big demand for them) are the only two reasons why Davis would opt for Vegas, one would believe. (Although the Raider’s fanbase in the near by LA region is considerable also and could help the teams attendance there)

      • There could be plenty of LA Raider fans who decide to head out to Vegas for the weekend and while they’re there, take in a Raiders game. Maybe even get season tickets.

      • True, that could be a cash cow for Davis, also those casino/hotels demand for Raiders tickets might be a huge, untapped market over there.

  17. If you are a Raiders fan in LA or Bay Area why would you buy a PSL in vegas?

    Think about it, you have pay for a license, season tickets AND travel to LV, hotel, tailgating expenses, and then on top of it all, head home before work Monday morning or take Monday off for every home game???

    Makes no sense, will fans travel occasionally? Yes, why not take a trip for 1-2 games.

    This is where MD is wrong on “Raider Nation” following him to LV. He has 55k of season ticket holders in Oakland and it took 20+ years to get that many.

    The NFL is skeptical and has delayed the relocation vote……They are not sold on the economics of it and neither am I.

    • You misinterpret facts:

      The vote has not been delayed.

      Since Davis and Adelson want *everything* ironed out before the Vegas matter officially goes before the NFL in December, there has been no official request for relocation.

      Can’t vote on something that hasn’t been requested, and it was always intended to have relocation matters presented during the December meeting, and then voted on in January *after* the regular football season. (as was done last year with the Carson/Inglewood proposals)

  18. Las Vegas could offer the Raiders plenty of corporate support from the huge casino and hotel industry over there, however their actual Vegas fanbase could be small. Also, even though the NFL appears to support Davis, some media types keep insisting that the NFL wants another owner to take over ownership. Maybe Davis would be better off spending $300 mil. or so redoing the Colisium into a football only facility, that way the team could stay locally and Davis could retain ownership (not be squeezed out by Adelson (worth $30 bil.) in Vegas.

    • Expected ticket sales count on local sales, tourist sales to fans of visiting teams, luxury box comps by casinos, and LA/Central Valley fans to make the trip to LV.

      Latest rumors have the NFL owners with only 4 expected ‘no’ votes. Jerry Jones and other owners are said to have great respect for the way Mark Davis jumped on the opportunity and got it moving quickly, as well as the way he got the largest ever public contribution to a sports facility.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s