Actually, Mark Davis was able to get Bank of America (BofA) to bridge the critical funding gap that was vacated weeks ago by both Sheldon Adelson and Goldman Sachs, leaving the Raiders scrambling and the stadium deal on the verge of collapse. No numbers were released, so we don’t know just how much BofA is putting up, but the reaction from around the league indicates that the Raiders got the job done.
Along with you, I’m scratching my head wondering exactly what convinced BofA to sign on with what is effectively a private stadium subsidy. Maybe the parties got extremely creative regarding the revenue streams. BofA already has a big presence in the NFL thanks to its naming rights deal at the Panthers’ stadium in Charlotte, the bank’s hometown.
As for Oakland, Mayor Schaaf’s response was the same old boilerplate, where Oakland’s not going to risk the general fund while claiming it’s “ready to compete.” And as with all previous such statements, they’re falling on deaf ears at the league office. Yes, Davis could blunder this all the way back to Oakland. It’s well within his capabilities. Davis’s work is now done. The decision is no longer in his hands. Yet you have to wonder – considering that he’s got the money lined up without giving up his controlling stake or involving the omnipresent gambling industry in the deal – if Davis has a little Verbal Kint in him.
newballpark.org 
Sounds from the R-J like it’s a straight $650 million loan. Does the NFL have allowable debt ratios like MLB?
When Schaaf was questioned about kicking the A’s out with the 2 year termination clause by the NFL she could not give a straight answer.
The NFL may not immediately say yes to this because I doubt Mark Davis can pay back all this money.
He is looking at over 1.5B in debt on this stadium including the relocation fee while moving to a smaller market with less revenue generation.
If the NFL allows this, then it is on them if Davis defaults to bail the franchise out.
Davis overestimates Raider Nation and the Vegas lure. It is a city of transients and if he gets 40k in PSL sales it will be a miracle. If the team starts to lose it will all downhill.
Raiders fans are not 49ers fans who still pay but do not show up. Raiders fans won’t pay or show up evidenced by all the blackouts for years.
The A’s are about to win big, no Warriors or Raiders at the Coli by 2019-2020.
> The NFL may not immediately say yes to this because I doubt Mark Davis can pay back all this money.
Both the Finance and Stadium Committees viewed the proposal yesterday, like the financials, and are recommending a “yes” vote. That’s 18 out of the 32 owners.
> He is looking at over 1.5B in debt on this stadium including the relocation fee while moving to a smaller market with less revenue generation.
$1.15B, broken up like this:
$200M NFL G4 loan and $300M supplemental loan to be paid back over 30 years straight from team, which will reap all Raiders revenue (expected $120M+/yr);
$650M BofA loan, to the 100% Davis-owned Stadium Events Company (shell corporation to protect Raiders from any shortfalls) to be paid back over 30 years from non-gameday revenues (expected another $120M-130M+/yr).
The Stadium *Authority* is not the events company, and post-construction will only realize income from taxes.
As for the whole “smaller market” thing, yeah, it’s a smaller market *that doesn’t have 6 other major sports teams competing for corporate money*.
Plus, it has the highest amount of disposable income floating around than any other US metropolitan area.
tl;dr:
The majority of NFL owners already like the finances.
BofA likes the finances (or they wouldn’t be backing it).
Raiders *love* the finances (they get 5x more money than in Oakland).
You forgot the 650m relocation fee in your calculations.
Davis is looking at roughly 1B in debt for this project.
The relocation fee, which number has not been named, will be taken out of NFL TV revenue. If under $350M, expect 10-11 year repay time frame. If over, expect 20 years. Repayment schedule is flexible.
“Oh, shoot, we’ll only be getting FOUR times as much net profit as we would in Oakland … *sniff* It’ll be tough to budget for, but I think we can do it!” /s
@ccctl Where are you getting these “5x in revenue” or “4x in profit” figures?
The vast majority of NFL revenues are shared. The Raiders won’t get additional TV money or merchandise revenue by moving to Las Vegas.
Except for premium seating, they will continue to share gate revenue 60/40 with the visiting team (meaning any increase in that revenue will be nominal).
Their opportunity to increase profits will basically depend on increases in premium seat revenue and stadium sponsorships. It’s debatable whether these revenue streams will be materially greater in Las Vegas than they would be for a new stadium in Oakland. Even if they were, it is very hard to imagine they will be so much greater that one of the least capitalized teams in the NFL will be able to laugh off an extra $1 billion in debt (plus the $500 million they were originally offering).
The Packers have a national profile and play in a state of the art venue with more premium seating than most NFL stadia. They netted $29 million in profit in 2014. This gives you some idea of why you can’t just shrug off an extra $600 million by saying “it’ll come out of the TV money” or “they’ll have 10 years to pay it off.” The math just doesn’t work.
Raiders expected income from the new stadium in Vegas, via financials Raiders and BofA presented to the owners: $120-130M+ (gross)
Stadium Events Company (owned by Raiders as a shell company, protecting them from liability on BofA loan) expected income from non-football events (same source): $120-130M+ (gross)
Naming rights are already being sold. Not just the stadium, but the field, and sections of seating and the plaza outside all get individual naming. $70M+ is supposedly already accounted for. PER YEAR. This is pushing up the relocation fee, because the other owners are drooling over the money.
Raiders current net income in Oakland, from stadium:
$40-50M
@ccctl First, please provide a link or other support for the figures you’re throwing out there.
With respect to your specific claims:
“Raiders expected income from the new stadium in Vegas, via financials Raiders and BofA presented to the owners: $120-130M+ (gross)”
What is included in this figure? If it excludes naming rights (as it apparently does), color me extremely skeptical.
For comparison, the Niners have 165 suites. If they averaged $250K per year each, that comes to about $41 million per year. They have 8500 club seats. If they averaged $5000 per year each, that’s another $42 million or so. That’s still pretty far short of $120 million.
Does this figure include regular gate revenue? That number isn’t going to be dramatically different than in Oakland.
“Stadium Events Company (owned by Raiders as a shell company, protecting them from liability on BofA loan) expected income from non-football events (same source): $120-130M+ (gross)”
If BofA is really lending to the Raiders without recourse to team assets, they’re either idiots or they’re getting an insanely high interest rate. Where is BofA’s cut reflected in your figures?
For that matter, where’s UNLV’s cut? They’re the ones providing the bulk of non-football events.
Beyond that, $120M for non-football events is pure fantasy. For one thing, suite leases typically include all events at the stadium, meaning that money is already accounted for in the analysis above.
For another thing, a relatively small number of events really need the capacity of a football stadium, even in Vegas. And those events (UNLV football, motocross, truck and tractor pulls) typically don’t bear ticket prices comparable to NFL games.
Finally, the historic rate of the number of “non-football events” falling short of projections is probably something like 100%.
“Naming rights are already being sold. Not just the stadium, but the field, and sections of seating and the plaza outside all get individual naming. $70M+ is supposedly already accounted for. PER YEAR. This is pushing up the relocation fee, because the other owners are drooling over the money.”
I’m calling bullshit. The Cowboys only get $19 million per year. No way are the Raiders getting $70 million per year in Las Vegas.
“Raiders current net income in Oakland, from stadium:
$40-50M”
Meaningless comparison. The meaningful comparison would be against a new stadium in Oakland but with $1 billion less debt.
To answer many of your questions:
http://lastwordonprofootball.com/2017/03/13/las-vegas-stadium-financing-relocation/
“If BofA is really lending to the Raiders without recourse to team assets, they’re either idiots or they’re getting an insanely high interest rate. Where is BofA’s cut reflected in your figures?”
If non-game revenue falls below a certain point, BofA takes control of Stadium Events Co. from Raiders, and get *all* non-football revenue … and the Raiders would then be renting from BofA.
“For that matter, where’s UNLV’s cut? They’re the ones providing the bulk of non-football events.”
UNLV gets 100% of their gameday revenue, by law, and only pay their own costs, under SB-1.
Non-football events expected by the Vegas money-men: 80±/year
“For another thing, a relatively small number of events really need the capacity of a football stadium, even in Vegas. And those events (UNLV football, motocross, truck and tractor pulls)”
and stadium-attendance-level concerts, and NCAA tournaments, and other events for which Vegas currently does not have large enough venue.
Your disbelief will not prevent this move.
@ccctl Thank you for providing the link, it was an interesting read. However, I remain highly skeptical of the numbers presented.
“If non-game revenue falls below a certain point, BofA takes control of Stadium Events Co. from Raiders, and get *all* non-football revenue … and the Raiders would then be renting from BofA.”
This doesn’t seem to be great security to me. If non-game revenue is flagging under the Raiders, I doubt BofA is going to be able to do much to improve it.
“UNLV gets 100% of their gameday revenue, by law, and only pay their own costs, under SB-1.”
This only increases my skepticiscm regarding the “non-game day revenue” figures. Along with the fact that suite license fees typically include both NFL games AND other events.
“Non-football events expected by the Vegas money-men: 80±/year”
They can say this, but I don’t believe it for a minute. Levi’s Stadium has exactly five non-49er’s events scheduled for 2017 right now. You can say Vegas is a tourist destination and will attract more events, but it’s not going to attract that many more. South Florida, Southern California etc. are tourist destinations too and they don’t see anything like this.
For that matter, a Raiders stadium in Vegas would be competing with Kroenke-world for many of these available events.
“and stadium-attendance-level concerts”
There are maybe 4 or 5 concert tours per year that need a football stadium sized venue.
“and NCAA tournaments”
Only the Final Four itself can really justify larger than an arena-sized venue. Vegas might land the Final Four once or twice per decade (assuming the NCAA doesn’t care about the gambling thing).
“and other events for which Vegas currently does not have large enough venue.”
Like what exactly? And just having events doesn’t mean they’re going to sell out the stadium or generate large amounts of revenue. Monster trucks tickets are cheap. And I’m not buying that thousands of people are going to suddenly start flying into Vegas to spend big money on rugby.
“Your disbelief will not prevent this move.”
You misunderstand me. I’ve never said I don’t think the move will happen. In fact, I’ve said I think the odds are better than 50% (although I think there are still some significant hurdles remaining). The main reason being because, for whatever reason, Davis seems to want the deal so badly.
However, that doesn’t mean the venture is going to be a financial bonanza for all parties involved. I believe either Nevada, BofA, the Raiders, or some combination of them are likely to take a bath on this.
The cited $70 million per year for naming rights seems especially preposterous. To my knowledge the biggest naming rights deal in the US right now is $20 million per year for CitiField, with most naming rights deals coming in more around $5 million per year. I simply don’t see anything that would justify tripling that figure, even if they license naming rights for the corner gates.
You seem way too credulous of these fantastical figures. Understand, pie-in-the-sky projections are a standard part of selling these deals. If he can sucker Nevada and BofA to take on all the risk, Davis doesn’t necessarily need these figures to prove out. He just needs to get his partners to believe them.
@ ccctl I see what you’re reading, I just don’t believe it.
It’s hard enough to understand why naming rights on the main stadium would be worth so much more in Vegas than, say, New York. But $11-13 million each for corner gates? No way in hell.
The main stadium name at least is constantly displayed on TV and other media seen by millions of people. No one is going to see the name on a corner gate other than a few thousand who pass through it on game day.
In any event, even if it were true the other owners only benefit indirectly to the extent it influences them to raise the relocation fee. Other reports today state the owners have decided on a relo fee in the range of $325 – $350 million. The fact that this is roughly half of what the Rams and Chargers are paying strongly suggest the other owners are not expecting this financial bonanza that is being reported.
Relocation fees are determined by owners based upon the market being moved to, not a preset price. As so many people keep pounding on, LV is not the market LA is.
“Relocation fees are determined by owners based upon the market being moved to, not a preset price. As so many people keep pounding on, LV is not the market LA is.”
Ah, but if it were really possible to get quadruple the amount of naming rights money as is possible in New York City, that would suggest it is a comparable market, yes? That’s my point. The amount of the proposed relocation fee tells us Vegas isn’t going to shatter previous records for revenue streams such as naming rights by 300%, no matter what Jason Cole says.
Here, again, what I’ve been saying….
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/03/22/raiders-las-vegas-plan-flimsy-stanford-economist-says/?source=email
If anything, the Las Vegas deal now is even stronger in the eyes of NFL owners.
Adelson, a casino owner, is removed from the equation.
Replaced by BofA, an even stronger financial institution, and an existing NFL partner (naming rights to Panthers stadium).
And, as before, $750 mil from Nevada taxpayers.
NFL owners won’t turn away free taxpayer money, won’t go against an existing partner, and now don’t have to worry about a casino owner being part of the stadium financials.
It’s looking like a slam dunk.
As an A’s fan, I’m hoping the Raiders play at UNLV’s stadium during stadium construction, rather than staying in the Coli. That said, it’s looking like the A’s are considering more seriously HT and Laney sites. But it’s good for them to have the Coli site as a viable option. And the sooner the Raiders, who are in limbo, leave, the stronger it makes the A’s locally.
I feel bad for loyal Raiders fans, losing their team twice now. However, they never should have left the first time, but once in LA, they shouldn’t have come back. They’ve been a vagabond team for decades now. However, Vegas isn’t too far, and I’m sure plenty of Raiders fans, from the Bay Area and LA, will be making regular treks to Vegas.
But Davis DOES NOT CONTROLL THE $750M Nevada tax subsidy, nor will he OWN the stadium. ITS A PUBLICLY OWNED STADIUM, He will be renting, NOT owning. Also, the SNTIC still needs to decide if they agree to his terms and whether or not they want the Raiders there … remember what happened last month when he made his ‘proposal’ to them, they shot it down and basically said ‘beat it!!”
Now comes the Adelson factor … don’t forget about him!!
The Raiders will be paying rent to the Stadium Events Company … which will be owned by Davis. That’s why the Raiders will pay $1/year rent. The Stadium *Authority* does not receive a red cent, except from stadium-generated taxes.
The SNTIC was created *by NV Governor Sandoval* with the *specific purpose* of obtaining a joint NFL/UNLV stadium.
The SNTIC’s job was to bring together all the pieces (including SB-1, the authorizing piece of legislation) for the Raiders to submit their proposal to the Stadium Authority (created by SB-1) and the NFL. Their job is *done*. The $750M in room taxes is already starting to be collected by the Stadium Authority.
Adelson is out.
Whether he likes it or not, there’s nothing he can do, except try to throw enough money at state politicians to convince Gov Sandoval call for an emergency Special Session of the NV legislature (next due to meet normally in 2019, after the half-term elections), to sway enough votes to *amend* SB-1 to just being for UNLV.
He’d have to achieve that in the next 20 days (no more time, period, full stop, gtfo) before the NFL owners vote and finalize the deal.
Simply. Not. Happening.
kinda surprised that Adelson would let the whole stadium deal move forward w/o him. There are several ways Adelson could sabotage the deal but does not appear he will. Maybe Kraft and/or Jones has talked to Adelson. Mark Davis used Adelson to get the hotel tax package then dumped him. just like that. Oh, I believe LV will crash and burn after a honeymoon period. UNLV is losing money there because of attendance problems. I highly doubt that the fans from LA or Oakland will keep coming for games. Eventually, people will get tired of flying/driving to LV. LV is city of transients and gamblers.
re: The NFL may not immediately say yes to this because I doubt Mark Davis can pay back all this money.
…The Raiders can’t start building until the NFL approves the move. More delays mean more years at the Coliseum or some other place, if Oakland doesn’t want to give the Raiders more lame duck seasons. It’s looking more like the Raiders are gone, which should pave way for the A’s to get a new ballpark. The Raiders, and their potential to take up prime ballpark space and sponsors from the A’s, have been the roadblock for years. We still haven’t seen how a privately funded A’s ballpark pencils out in Oakland but it’s certainly going to be easier if the Raiders leave.
Nothing about the Las Vegas Raiders move makes sense – relocating from the 6th largest NFL market to the 30th, why a bank would be willing to loan $650 mil. for that. If Davis has $600 mil. for a stadium – why not build a low budget NFL stadium at the Coliseum site, Davis doesn’t want a big budget stadium anyhow. Also the infrastructure is already in place, no need for government environmental impact studies and potential legal/zoning problems – staying in Oakland is a simple solution.
Let’s not forget, Mark Davis does not control the LV Stadium project or the $750 million tax subsidy, Nevada/LV does .. and they have not even approved this “deal” with BofA or the revenue portion of it. Davis would be a ‘TENANT’ not the owner .. he will be renting. Do you people actually think they are going to turn over that money and project to Davis? LMAO
To them, it looks like *Mark Davis got the best of Sheldon Adelson in a business deal*, and they get an NFL team for no out-of-pocket because out-of-towners will pay for it by renting rooms. Hell yeah they’re going to do it.
@ccctl: it is not that hard to wreck the deal. A pol can introduce some bills that prevent them from using public funds for sports stadiums. In the meantime, the city refuses to sign any deal with the raiders or NFL until the bill get debated or passes. They can debate/battle for months while the raiders get strung out. It won’t happen yet unless Adelson uses his political juice to push some people around. The deal can be killed instantly if the city wants to stop it. The NFL does not control what might happen in LV. So far, it does not look like Adelson wants to wreck the deal. He and Kraft are friends.
IMO, Libby has decided that the A’s is the team she wants to keep.
> A pol can introduce some bills that prevent them from using public funds for sports stadiums.
NV leg meets for a few weeks early on, soon after the elections. They’ve already done that.
To bring them back in and handle *any* legislation requires a Special Session of the NV leg have to be called for by the governor, with agendas posted a week before the meetings.
In order to stop this deal politically, Adelson would only have *19* days to get Gov Sandoval to call for a special session, which agenda must be published 7 days before said session due to public meeting laws).
@ccctl: why 19 days? It does not matter even if the NFL approves the relo application tomorrow. The city and state control the process. Sandoval called a special session when Adelson lobbied them so yeah Sandoval can do it again anytime. They have not negotiated the new agreement/lease yet
The owners are scheduled to vote *on the finalized plan* on the 26th-28th. No more “Do they have [this]?” or “What about [that]?”
After the vote is approved, it’s over. All “i”‘s will have been dotted, all “t”‘s crossed, the owners will have spoken, the Raiders (presumably) will be moving.
Again, Sandoval was one of the main movers-and-shakers to get the whole process started, including his order to create the SNTIC to ‘explore’ if they could get an NFL team, and to bring about the Special Session to iron out SB-1. This is his baby.
And the state legislature *has nothing to do with approving the lease*. That’s the Stadium Authority (which is meeting *right now*), created by SB-1, and started collecting the additional room tax amount as of the 1st of this month. The tax money is already flowing.
If the NFL approves it will likely happen. Still, even then it isn’t over until it’s over.
The Patriots and the State of Connecticut had a fully negotiated, approved, signed deal for the Patriots to relocate to Hartford. It was about the most team-friendly, sweetheart deal that had been signed up to that point. Yet, you’ll notice that the Patriots do not currently play in Connecticut.
Las Vegas officials have two goals which the Raiders offer them A: A: major pro sports franchise, B: a large domed 70K + capacity stadium which they would use to host events other than the NFL. They’re likely still interested in the Raiders, and won’t back out of the deal. Why Davis is interested in Vegas is a mystery though, staying in Oakland would make much more sense. Also considering the way the Yorks are managing the Niners, the Niners won’t be much competition for the Raiders any time soon.
> Why Davis is interested in Vegas is a mystery though, staying in Oakland would make much more sense.
Would you rather be a small fish in a lake full of competition, or a big fish in your own pond full of bait?
While I believe the NFL will approve the Vegas move, there might be some owners who argue that the Raiders have not exhausted all stadium options in their current market (translation: they can play at Levi’s if they want).
Pjk: it’s a unique opportunity in this exact moment in Vegas tho. It might not strike this perfectly again.
$750M in tax dollars, the opportunity to be first in Vegas, and the potential to carry some pre-existing fans with them to Vegas. (I mean, if it was Jacksonville moving to Vegas, they would need to cultivate an entirely new fan base. But the Raiders will have people come in for the weekend from all over CA to see their favorite team).
I could see the owners looking very far down the road and saying, even if the Raiders falter in Vegas we’ve built a new market here at no charge to the league, with one more new stadium in the Super Bowl rotation.
That empty second home locker room at Levi’s isn’t going anywhere. Some NFL team could still fill it 15 years from now. Maybe the league will need an influx of cash at some point, and there will be a Silicon Valley billionaire willing to pony up a few billion for an expansion team if the league chooses to go that route.
I think the owners probably believe it’s good for the league that the Raiders leave. Reinforces the principle that local municipalities have to bend over backward to keep their teams, which is leverage the league desperately wants to maintain. Oakland hasn’t done that.
@ Jacob Jackson “Reinforces the principle that local municipalities have to bend over backward to keep their teams, which is leverage the league desperately wants to maintain.”
On the other hand, it also gives the lie to the notion that public assistance is in any way need to build new venues. If you strip out the $750 million in public subsidy, you’re still left with one of the “poorest” teams in the NFL privately financing $1.5 billion ($1.15 billion stadium costs plus $350 million relo fee) in one the leagues smallest markets. That is substantially more than it cost to build Levi’s Stadium, AT&T Stadium or any other NFL stadium except Met Life and the forthcoming Kroenke-world.
In a few years I can see the NFL putting a team in SJ which would share Levy’s Stadium with the Niners. No way the NFL is going to leave the Bay Area with just one team given the TV market and $$ here. That may be the plan all along. Poor Marky is going to get his pocket picked in Vegas!
i can’t see an expansion team being placed here in the bay area. unless the niners really stink it up these next few years, i mean like 1-15 and 2-14 terrible, and show no signs of progress under the new regime of lynch and shanahan and fans are just fed up with the org as a whole.
really don’t envision enough pissed off 49ers fans or disgruntled raiders fans to switch their fan allegiance to a brand new team with absolutely no history in the area.
nfl did quite well with the bay area being a one team market for about a dozen years from 1982-1994. course it helped having one of the greatest nfl dynasties which the niners were during that time.
if the league could created the monster it has become without having a single team in the second largest market in the country in los angeles for over two decades i’m sure they’ll just do fine without a second team in the 6th biggest market in the country.
The Raiders look like they are gone. I am stunned as Davis in his ineptitude has not decided on the site and the one he ones across from Mandalay Bay is not big enough for excessive parking around it that he wants.
Forget the fact it will cost 900M in infrastructure just to say hello. Of course Davis expects Vegas to pick this up. Even if this gets approved I am still skeptical the stadium ever gets built.
He still has to appease UNLV and sign a lease agreement. These are not small items.
Davis continues to put the cart before the horse.
They vote monday and, if it goes through, which is pretty likely, whether the raiders succeed or fail in Vegas no longer matters.
To make my position clear, the only time I care about the Raiders is how soon they leave.
They’ll be out of the A’s way, on a 30-year lease in Vegas, and all bridges in ashes behind them.
@ccctl As an A’s fan, I want the Raiders to stay because it greatly increases the chance a new A’s ballpark would be built at Howard Terminal or Laney College rather than the crappy (for baseball) Coliseum site.
@ Sid You are right those are not small items, so much so it’s hard for me to understand how the NFL could approve this move before they are resolved. The infrastructure issue alone seems like it could derail the whole thing. But we shall see.
You guys are missing a sort of long-game play. Let’s say Davis is in too deep and the financial burdens are too much. If he defaults, the NFL could end up controlling the franchise, which would be the best/only practical way to get rid of Davis. Then they could turn the team around and sell it for a very nice “expansion” fee to a approved, responsible owner, a la the Expos to DC. If instead Davis doesn’t run the franchise into the ground then he will have proved his worth after all.
Raiders are not at all responsible for choosing a site, the Stadium Authority is.
Majestic is eager to be back on board as developer (bowed out on Adelson’s request so he could make more money, but he’s no longer part of the deal).
If SA chooses Russell Road (Raiders favored site), Raiders have option to buy site, then turn over to SA as part of their $500M contribution.
State of NV is responsible for the infrastructure improvements for which they scheduled and budgeted before SB-1 was a wet dream. They just shuffled the schedule to bring them forward.
@ML You may be right, though I’d be interested to see how the deal is structured to allow the NFL to do that. But if they’re really guaranteeing all of the obligation, I don’t think they can be too cavalier about the viability of the plan. That’s an awful lot of money and a 30 year commitment.
To be honest, if this goes forward I’d be somewhat rooting for the scenario you described. In light of how quickly Davis was willing to write a check for an extra billion dollars for Vegas, it’s hard to see his efforts in Oakland as anything other than insincere.
@bartleby: it is obvious that the NFL is the silent/unamed co-signer of the loan(s). Owners know Davis does not have cash or equity. Let them go. It is time to help the A’s now. CC is the place. HT is a pipe dream.
@ daniel If we were having this conversation a few years ago I would have agreed that HT or Laney were a pipe dream, but the economics have changed. It’s pretty clear that A’s ownership is taking those sites seriously right now. If they’re taking the long view, it wouldn’t surprise me if they chose one or the other of them even if the Coli site comes vacant. If the Raiders stayed at the Coli, I think a new ballpark at HT or Laney would be a near certainty.
@ daniel As far as letting them go, I love both the A’s and Raiders but if I could only keep one I’d keep the Raiders.
really hoping that the a’s choose one of the howard terminal or laney sites.
naval himself seems to be making subtle hints that’s what he prefers over the last few months whether it’s in the many interviews he’s done or thru social media.
but honestly i’ve felt that the coliseum is where the a’s will end up. financially and feasibility wise it’s by far the easiest choice.
just hoping the a’s franchise looks long term with this plan and howard terminal even though it’ll cost the most by far, be the longest wait in all likelihood to build it, and it’ll be by far the toughest one to realize. it has a chance to be a game changer of a project for both the city of oakland and the a’s franchise itself.
would feel like choosing the coliseum site would be just be settling for the easy path to get a park done and with it the least amount of excitement and positive impact it’d make for again the city of oakland and the a’s franchise as a whole.
I would love the Riders to stay, but hell it’s hard to argue against 750 million in free money. It won’t be the same for me however, the first time they left I was in the 11th grade, and that sh#t tore my heart out, now I’m 50 and understand the economics of sports a little better. That being said I won’t spend a dime on the Raiders from here on out…
re: really hoping that the a’s choose one of the howard terminal or laney sites.
…if the Raiders are gone, the A’s will probably do the most sensible thing and go with the existing site. BART, lots of parking, great highway access, infrastructure already in place. Maybe it’s not the most aesthetically pleasing site but do we really want to wait for – who knows? – 5 years just to study and clean up Howard Terminal (presuming the city is willing to fork over Big $$ for this whole process)? That’s 5 years before ballpark construction could even begin, I’ll bet. Some of us will be very old by then. Laney, I don’t know much about that site.
i would hope howard terminal worse case it would take at the most 2 extra years to get it done compared to lets say the coliseum site.
i mean as an a’s fan i’ll be willing to wait for a couple of more years for something to be great and or “iconic” which is a term that kaval has used in describing the type of park he wants to build for the a’s rather than a nice but not spectacular ballpark experience both in the park itself and maybe more importantly outside of it.
don’t know how you could relate it to the team across the bay? but lets say they had two sites to choose from in the year 1995. one being where at&t park was built which eventually would’ve opened in the year 2000 or staying where at the candlestick location if the niners had already moved to santa clara in this alternate time line and have that park opened in 1998?
would their org and fans have waited an extra 2-3 years and spent more money on possibly building at china basin near waterfront site over the more easier and possible cheaper site to build a park at hunter’s point? which like the coliseum site in one of the more undesirable parts of the city and is far away from that central urban location many mlb teams have wanted to build a park at over the last two decades.
best case what are we talking about really?
a’s new park at howard terminal site having the potential to be another at&t park or pnc park. two parks located in a scenario area near the waterfront and downtown of one’s city.
a’s new park at the coliseum site having the potential to be another citi field or citizens bank park. nice parks but built out in the middle of nowhere away from the downtown areas of their cities and imo lacks that wow factor overall.
An A’s park at HT would have to be built facing away from the Bay, no? There goes any chance to compete with the scenery viewed beyond the AT&T Park outfield. And we know it’s going to cost a lot of money to prepare the HT site and nobody has said where that money comes from. $500 mill for a park at the Coliseum site vs. $700 mill for one at HT, with no BART nearby. Seems like a no-brainer.
actually the park i think will look as it has in those renderings.
believe some, and i thought so myself for a short time, are believing the howard terminal park is looking towards the west because of the orientation of the park facing the estuary but in reality it’s facing southeast which is okay.
as long as the park isn’t looking anywhere near west i think you can build any park looking at any direction.
“It is desirable that the line from home base through the pitchers plate to second base shall run East Northeast.” – Official Baseball Rules, section 1.04.
http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/general/facts/diamonds/
but there are a handful of mlb parks that have a southeast orientation which is basically the same as a howard terminal park with a view of the estuary and cranes would have.
pnc park in pittsburgh.
great american park in cincinnati.
comerica park in detroit.
guaranteed rate field in chicago
@ letsgoas Agree with your comments 100%.
@ pjk An HT park could still offer nice views of the downtown Oakland skyline and would still have energy of its urban environs.
Laney College would be better still, with views of Lake Merritt and possibly some of the skyline as well and terrific BART access.
Even assuming the “extra $200 million” figure is correct, if you’re taking the long view that investment may still be worthwhile. Once the park is in place it will be virtually impossible to move. If the Raiders situation has taught us anything, it should be “do it right the first time.”
@ llpec For the reasons you cite, Laney would also be my preferred site.
extra 200 million?
lets say the a’s in the end do build at the coliseum location? wouldn’tt hey need to spend somewhere close to that amount just to build the village around the park at the coliseum location.
basically create a santana row type development which is something kaval has said could happen if the a’s were to pick the coliseum location.
at howard terminal you wouldn’t need to spend that money i don’t think as the baseball village is basically already there with jls being close nearby with restaurants and shops just waiting to serve the public before, during, and after potential a’s game at howard terminal.
sure there is some land to be developed in and around the park itself but it won’t likely cost anywhere near what it’d take to build up the coliseum location when it deals with development of the site besides the baseball park itself.
@ letsgoas The difference between the two scenarios is that at the Coli that $200 million would go toward additional revenue generators while at HT it would not. Nevertheless, taking the long view I think it could still be justified for HT.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7966414,-122.2809632,2760m/data=!3m1!1e3
an overhead view of the howard terminal site.
all the renderings of the park whether it was done by hok back in the early to mid 2000s or by the city recently have the park facing south east which means you wouldn’t have to change the orientation of the park so you would indeed get those waterfront views of the estuary.
If the Raiders do permanently vacate the Coliseum site, the A’s would best be served to move to an already developed area which will also be in relatively close proximity to existing transportation infrastructure, including BART. The one proposed ballpark locale that meets all these prerequisites is at the Laney College site. Given that the A’s will more than likely have to fund their new ballpark mostly on their own, they should be allowed to build their new ballpark at a location which will serve their best interests, both in terms of overall construction costs and in offering the best and most potential for generating ballpark revenue when the facility is in full operation.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/lost-in-the-sun-the-physics-of-ballpark-orientation/