Category Archives: Oakland

02.11.11
by

Nuggets from the Tittle-Wolff interview

Thanks to David for alerting me and others to the Wolff interview on Rick Tittle’s second hour today.

On Lew’s opinion of Victory Court as a site:

I’d like to answer that a little obtuse… With the same kind of detail the committee is going into, we don’t think we have any options available there. It has nothing to do with the fanbase or the City of Oakland. It’s just that our exploration is perhaps deeper than soundbites in the newspaper.

If the A’s can’t move to San Jose, would they move or threaten to move out of state?

I think what we’ve tried to do is to be one of the few teams in the history of baseball not to leverage by “you know we’re gonna move if you don’t do this for us”… So we have not sat around and thought about what our options are. We want to stay in the Bay Area. Our ownership doesn’t want to own a team in Omaha or someplace. We’re gonna make every effort to stay in the Bay Area and truthfully do not measure these other options.

On Oakland Mayor Jean Quan’s suggestion that Lew’s in it for an ancillary real estate deal in San Jose:

I haven’t spoken to her – if I have it’s been once in seven years, so I don’t know what she’s thinking – but as far as the San Jose parcel there is no ancillary development right for us. My ownerships in San Jose are a small piece of the Fairmont and one lot where we have a racquetball club. I’m hoping if we go down there it’ll stimulate development but it won’t be our development.

Any updates on the status of XTRA Sports 860 (KTRB)?

We may be – I don’t have the details – the party selected for further negotiations so I think that’s happening right now.

Do you find the tarps have/have not been a success?

I think they’ve worked out fine. Maybe it’s my fault – we still don’t fill out the ballpark… I think the tarps was a plus in terms of obscuring a lot of empty seats. Is it a great thing? No. Is it a terrible thing? I don’t think so.

What are you and Billy referring to when calling the A’s a small market team?

I think we’re referring to revenue. In other words, if we had a new ballpark – I don’t want to use that as the only reason – when you have huge revenues even though you share them as the Yankees and Red Sox do – it takes revenue to pay and retain players. I don’t like the term small market. I just want to be able to have revenues close to the Giants, for example. When you trace the change in the teams from 2000, every statistic we have from advertising sales, sponsorships and so on, we started to fall way behind. Some of it has to do with revenue, some of it has to do with Barry Bonds.

Is it impossible to find that revenue in Oakland as opposed to San Jose?

Nothing’s absolutely impossible, but the answer is that demographics have changed tremendously, the corporation bases. We’re in a region here. It’s not like we’re not moving to another country or another state. If you landed tomorrow from Mars and said, “I’m looking to locate a ball team, where should I put it?” You might opt for the South Bay in the current economic and demographic environment.

On the Quakes stadium and the A’s ballpark being separate or related:

They would both be in separate venues. We don’t think we should combine them. Baseball, which is more dominant (in the US), needs to be in a baseball-only facility.

A very good interview by Tittle in which he asked numerous clarifying questions without antagonizing Wolff (it might help that Wolff may be Tittle’s boss’s boss’s boss in the near future). In any case, it covers a lot of ground that we frequently cover here at the blog, and other than the rather pat answer about Victory Court the answers were reasonably genuine. Discuss amongst yourselves.

02.07.11
by

Quan talks tough as cities race

The Merc’s Tracy Seipel has the pulse on race to the keep/land the A’s. It appears that Oakland Mayor Jean Quan and Doug Boxer have their talking points in order.

“The reality is that even though you have land,” Quan said of San Jose, “you still have not gotten permission” from Major League Baseball to relocate the A’s to San Jose. “My timeline is less urgent than your timeline,” said Quan.

Apparently Oakland’s timeline is urgent enough that the Victory Court EIR is being fast-tracked for completion in less than 12 months. When was the last time in the Bay Area anything this large got its EIR completed in less than 12 months? Beyond that, there’s still the issue of issuing bonds for the project – which may not be possible after this summer, at least not without a vote.

Despite the numerous questions about Oakland’s ability to compress 2-4 years of work into 12 months, Quan is pushing forward and that is a good thing. It’s best for Oakland and A’s fans to see if anything can come out of this, because the last thing we want right now is one less option.

Experts quoted for the story, namely CSUEB’s Paul Staudohar and Smith College’s Andrew Zimbalist, aren’t so sanguine about Oakland’s chances. In explaining how San Jose is well ahead in the process, Staudohar said:

“So unless Oakland pulls a rabbit out of a hat very soon, it appears they will lose the A’s by default.”

For his part, Lew Wolff relates that Bud Selig wants to look at every angle, which would indicate that Oakland should and will have time to complete the process. Unfortunately for Oakland, this redevelopment crisis may provide the most cruel, unkind cuts to both the schedule and funding. Here’s to Oakland finishing the work, with as few legal and procedural issues as possible.

02.04.11
by

Struggling in The Town

Let’s go back two weeks. Lost in the glorious vengeance that usually comes with an Al Davis press conference was a question about a future stadium from KPIX’s Kim Coyle. Davis admitted that he is not involved day-to-day in the work, but he pressed the notion that the Raiders need a new stadium… somewhere. Go 24 minutes into this video to get the question and response. Below is the text.

“The best place for a site is the Oakland Coliseum. It really is. Traffic-wise, the BART, all those amenities that go there – it’s the best place. BUT. If they can’t get it done, you’re gonna have to use other avenues. You’re gonna have to do other things. And we need a new stadium.”

“I mean we’re no different just like someone here brought up, being able to compete… If we’re going to be able to compete we need a new stadium.”

“And we want the Raider Nation, we want the fans out there, you gotta support us.”

“Someone said we had 22,000 (season tickets). We’re at the low end or close to the low end and we’ve gotta to do better. That’s just the facts.”

After the press conference officially ended, Davis talked a bit more. Asked about the impact of the new CBA and the extension of the regular season to 18 games, he said this:

“What does a club do that’s in a depressed area like Oakland, where we find out that the fans don’t have all the money we’re hoping they do?” Davis asked. “What do the Raiders do about 18 games, which means another home game? These are important things that we have to decide.”

So you have the short term danger of even more blackouts coming from greater ticket inventory, thanks to 18 games. Yet Davis is clear in favoring Oakland first, as opposed to immediately looking south to Santa Clara or even Los Angeles.

There’s the dilemma. The Coliseum is great from an accessibility standpoint. It is rich in history and legacy. Is that enough? Davis did something no other owner in the Bay Area is really willing to do – talk directly about the elephant in the room, Oakland’s struggles as a city. Unfortunately, to ignore Oakland’s issues is to ignore reality. Yes, there are great places to live within the city limits. Yes, it is only one-sixth of the East Bay’s population and is near many other wealthier cities. But it has issues that make it difficult to consider from the standpoint of funding a near billion-dollar stadium (not to mention a half-billion-dollar ballpark), and Davis has been feeling that pinch for a while. You’re not going to hear outsiders or “carpetbaggers” like Lew Wolff or Joe Lacob talk about this. They’ll dance around it as much as possible. Davis has nothing to lose at this point and has never edited or censored himself for good or bad. His opinion counts more than most other local owners because he’s part of the community, at least much more than Wolff or Lacob. Apparently Davis gets credit for giving the Coliseum a real college try – at his behest no less. If it’s too hard and the Raiders explore those “other avenues,” what then? Does that college try translate into greater goodwill? A shrug? Or will people remember only the endgame?

02.02.11
by

Quan speaks out in defense of redevelopment

We’ve been waiting for comments from Oakland Mayor Jean Quan about redevelopment, and now we have them courtesy of KGO-TV’s Alan Wong.

ORA apparently has $52 million in cash on hand, $20 million for Victory Court’s development area. Quan was quick to talk up the benefits of redevelopment, specifically pointing to the renovation of the Fox Theater as a glittering example done under Jerry Brown’s watch.

Updated: More from Oakland North’s Laura Hautala:

Currently, the city council is the governing body of Oakland’s redevelopment agency and directs its actions, but (CEDA director Walter) Cohen said the successor agencies might turn out to be cities themselves. If so, the council might continue overseeing the projects normally carried out by Oakland’s redevelopment agency, but with less funding.

Quan told the council that she and the nine mayors from California’s 10 biggest cities will meet with Brown’s finance director next week to discuss details of how the proposal would work. “The scary thing is that folks in Sacramento have not a clue what redevelopment is,” Quan said, adding that even Brown, formerly Oakland’s mayor, seems to have forgotten the extent to which the redevelopment agency provides funding for the city. “We have a special responsibility to make this real,” Quan said.

When the subject shifted to the A’s, things got a little more uncertain. Let’s Go Oakland head Doug Boxer took the question.

When asked if this was the nail in the coffin for the Oakland A’s, Doug Boxer — Co-found of Let’s Go Oakland — says, “I don’t like to think of it like that. It’s very difficult to move a franchise. The Giants were on their way out, quite frankly, including Canada.”

Not exactly confidence inspiring. And there’s an important distinction to make here. In nearly every case of the A’s or Giants wanting to move, the owner was looking to sell the franchise.

  • 1976 – Horace Stoneham looked to sell Giants to brewing giant Labatt’s, who would move the team to Toronto. A court injunction stopped the sale and the team was sold to Bob Lurie.
  • 1978-79 – Charlie Finley tries to move the A’s to New Orleans but is bound to his lease by the Coliseum Commission.
  • 1980 – Finley tries to sell to Marvin Davis, who would move the team to Denver. Commissioner Bowie Kuhn struck down the move. Finley was held to his lease again. (Thanks, MB) Finley would sell the following year to Wally Haas.
  • 1992 – Lurie tries to sell the Giants to Tampa Bay interests after striking out several times in his efforts to get a new stadium built in SF or the South Bay. NL President Bill White intervenes and allows time for Walter Shorenstein to assemble the saving ownership group.

Legal obstacles (ironclad lease, sale acting as a gating mechanism) prevented the moves in all cases. Talk of a lawsuit against the A’s emanating from a clause in the lease has been all but debunked. That leaves Wolff/Fisher with the thing we already know as the last true obstacle: T-rights enforced via the commissioner. We can debate all day and night about how sacrosanct T-rights actually are, but let’s be clear – they’re the only real obstacle left.

01.31.11
by

Redevapocalypse What-If Scenarios

Now for the “fun” part.

Last night I described the fate of redevelopment in a California where the concept no longer works within the budget framework. Today it’s time to discuss all of the great/terrible fates that await our favorite local sports franchises should RDA funding sources dry up.

49ers Bond Rush
It all starts not with the Oakland Athletics, but rather the San Francisco 49ers. The linchpin to the Santa Clara stadium plan is $114 million in public funds, $42 million of it from the RDA (the 49ers would provide a partial advance). This money would have to be raised before any RDA dissolution or cutbacks take place, so the deadline would presumably be sometime in the next 4-5 months. This means that Santa Clara would have to go to the bond market three times for the stadium project:

  • $42 million from the RDA
  • $35 million from the newly assembled Mello-Roos district (hotel taxes)
  • $330 million from the Stadium Authority

If the RDA doesn’t get the bonds by the deadline, there’s no chance that the hotels will even tax themselves for their piece, let alone fund a RDA shortfall. The agreement between Santa Clara and the Niners would have to be reopened so that an alternate funding source could be inserted, and that source couldn’t be tied to the general fund in any way. The Stadium Authority couldn’t get started because there’d be no certainty of the project getting off the ground until the funding package worked itself out.

$40 million doesn’t seem like a big deal as it’s less then 5% of the project cost. It’s still a lot of money to raise and a big enough gap to throw a wrench into the works. There’s a chance that both parties could figure out a way to bridge the gap but it’s not going to happen immediately, and unless it’s the team pledging to cover it completely, any contractual details will require renewed scrutiny.

Should the team find the sledding too rough, there’s always a Plan B. They can run to Oakland, where the Coliseum Authority and the Raiders will be waiting with open arms.

The Coliseum Authority has bonding authority and capacity through its joint powers, the City of Oakland and Alameda County. There’s that nagging problem of ongoing debt burdening both parties through 2026, which can be looked at one of two ways: Should the JPA endeavor to get a new two-team NFL stadium built in the hopes that helps cover the debt or cut its losses and keep paying the debt even though the Raiders could be long gone before it’s retired? (Not that amassing more debt is favorable as the current bonds were downgraded to BBB last month.)

The problem Oakland and the JPA has going forward is the fact that the new Raiders stadium plan had integrated redevelopment along Hegenberger, including a new conference center, hotel and retail. With the well run dry, none of that stuff could get built unless some new taxation/indebtedness occurred, or unless the stadium project’s funding coved it. So what you’d be left with is in all likelihood an updated version of the stadium and arena complex, surrounded by parking. Sounds familiar, eh?

On the other hand, if Santa Clara is able to get the funding ball rolling, it’ll prompt the Raiders to move more quickly in order to leave Oakland. Al Davis isn’t going to live forever, and Roger Goodell is a take-no-prisoners negotiator who has been clamoring for the two teams to share a stadium. Whatever the location, expect an agreement between the host city and the two teams sooner rather than later. Otherwise it might be too late for both.

Which Way Warriors
We’ve discussed the Warriors and the Lacob-Guber group’s interest in San Francisco. The Port of SF owns land to the south of AT&T Park that could be well suited for an arena. This is important as the money’s already spent, no new funds required. In order for a new arena to be built, it would have to be privately financed and it would make the most fiscal sense if two teams shared the arena, not just one. This model has worked well in Chicago and Dallas, where both cities’ representative hoops and hockey teams created partnerships to build their venues. The Giants being the developer has only limited impact since they couldn’t materially impact which touring acts or other events came to town. Two teams means two major winter sports teams, not just the W’s and a minor league franchise.

Can it be done? The Giants/Warriors would have to attract the Sharks or a second NHL team, neither of which seems likely. SVSE would probably entertain the offer as a way to extract lease concessions from San Jose, but it wouldn’t move beyond that. It’s much like trying to get the W’s to move south permanently – it’s technically doable but highly unlikely. Lacob-Guber could also use the SF arena as a stalking horse for improvements to the Arena.

Again, any new arena in SF is only possible if it is privately financed. The good news? There will be so little big project construction in the future (save for public facilities) that the labor could be relatively cheap.

It was nice knowing you Cowtown
Unlike some of the whispering about MLB contracting two teams, there actually has been talk about contracting the Kings. And it will only get louder as the current season draws to a close later this summer. The woes of the Kings and the Maloofs have been chronicled here and elsewhere for some time now, and there doesn’t seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel for them. Mayor Kevin Johnson is playing this like he has to walk the ball up the floor and dump it into the post every possession instead of being able to do anything dynamic like this. Being a mayor is a tough job. I want to see the Kings stay in Sac, but it’s hard to see long term with every proposal linked to some kind of redevelopment. The NBA probably won’t buy them as it did the Hornets, which leaves the Kings in some sort of limbo for years to come.

San JosA’s
The landbanking strategy San Jose has used for years has never been more wise than right now, as it works to cobble together the remaining land at Diridon. As I understand it, the money is basically untouchable at this point and SJRA can do whatever it wants as long it takes care of its housing set-asides (25%). If SJ and the A’s are given the green light, the vote this summer or fall won’t be about ballparks vs. schools since the money will already be spent. The debate will be about baseball vs. other housing or commercial developers in a time of a glut of both housing and office space. And yes, the decision could drag on for another several months or even a year.

Oakland mayor Jean Quan has been publicly silent on what the death of RDAs could mean for the Victory Court project, and that’s not a good sign. When the mayors went up to the Capitol last week, the most quotable guy there was Chuck Reed, not Quan. There should be a greater sense of urgency there if Oakland’s various supporters want the donut hole strategy to come to fruition, but it’s not happening publicly, perhaps by design. Should the EIR be delivered at the beginning of April, there will be ample opportunity to go over every detail of the document, and it’s that thoroughness baked into the CEQA process that could eventually kill MLB in Oakland. The way I see it, Bud Selig is looking for a politically expedient opportunity to declare support for San Jose, and that could come in the form of a 400-page EIR that brings up more questions than answers. Why? Because Lew Wolff has to have been in his ear constantly about this redevelopment business, and opportunities are running out fast. Maybe the day of reckoning wont occur immediately, it might occur well along in the process as it did in Fremont. Either way the clock is ticking as it is for AT&T in that commercial for the Verizon iPhone.

Of course, if Let’s Go Oakland had declared Victory Court as its site in December 2009 instead of 2010, Oakland might not be in such a bad position. Oakland’s only saving grace now is something out of its control: the continued difficulty with T-rights negotiations. That’s like basing your retirement plan on an upcoming shared inheritance – will you get a good enough piece, or will it mostly go to the more favored child/mistress/charity? It’s not a real investment strategy.

01.30.11
by

A Lawsuit-free Redevelopment Solution

When Mark Purdy starts writing about the state of redevelopment, you know it’s serious.

The truth is, whether by design or accident, Selig has dawdled so much that any Northern California ballpark plan could be imperiled by new Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan for the state to scarf up redevelopment funds. Oakland was counting on those funds to buy ballpark property. Fortunately, San Jose has already purchased most of its land and has a Plan B to obtain the rest — selling other downtown parcels owned by the city and using that money to buy up the remaining ballpark footprint.

Following up on former San Jose Mayor Tom McEnery’s appearance on The Ronn Owens Show, Purdy is taking the tack of calling Bill Neukom’s stance on T-rights silly, as opposed to McEnery’s appeal to Neukom’s better angels. Again, I can’t see this media campaign as being effective other than the fact that the issue remains in public view, which may be the point.

Going back to redevelopment, an article in today’s Merc tries to project what would happen in the near term to the beleaguered SJRA. The agency has tax increment over 8,100 acres of property in SJ city limits, equivalent to a 12 square miles or a city the size of Mountain View. Even if Sacramento ordered SJRA to stop any new development contracts tomorrow, they couldn’t claim any new tax increment off the top because it’s already sworn to pay off debt for existing projects. That’s because nothing new is being built in San Jose other than a few projects which started a few years ago such as the Brocade headquarters in North San Jose. For Sacramento to be able to get “new unsecured” tax increment, San Jose and other cities would have to embark on a new development boom, or at least encounter a situation where a bunch of property gets sold among private parties. That means that, ironically, one of the ways Brown could see that new tax increment is if he allows the RDAs to make their last hurrahs and go out with a bang by approving new projects, like a Diridon ballpark. Diridon would be a different case from most other new projects in that no new funding source would be required to complete the project.

That’s not a situation that would work in Oakland, since ORA would have borrow against future tax increment to assemble the Victory Court land and infrastructure. That’s exactly what Brown wants to prevent. Oakland could raise funds without ORA, but it would have to occur via a hike in sales tax or a parcel tax, the same kind used for local school improvements, and thus would require a vote. Should the dissolution or scaling back of RDAs happen – say by this summer – the biggest obstacle facing San Jose would also face Oakland, except that Oakland would require a supermajority (2/3rds approval) 55% approval per Brown’s proposal for limited redevelopment, whereas San Jose would require only a simple majority (no new taxes). Judging by the results of the last vote on a parcel tax measure in Oakland (for police funding), it’s not very promising.

Even if the cuts were quick, there’s no chance that they’d be clean. The Bay Citizen’s Zusha Elinson ponts out that both Oakland and San Jose have a lot of budget crossover between RDA and City, with both cities paying for some police task forces and even city council members’ salaries. When Controller John Chiang finishes his audit of 18 cities (including SJ), he may find that whatever revenue Governor Brown thought he could realize by killing RDAs was a mere illusion. Then what?

Then there’s the issue of what tool Brown would use to extract funds. He promised not to go after already under contract projects. He might go after recently agreed upon projects, the ones cities have been rushing to approve over the last few years weeks. This goes against the spirit of Proposition 22 which was passed in November. Brown and his aides talked of Prop 22, which is now enshrined as a constitutional amendment, being moot if the agencies themselves were eliminated. But that would undoubtedly run into lawsuits and scared the big city mayors enough to lobby Brown in the Capitol last Wednesday. The result of the meeting was that the mayors, including Chuck Reed and Jean Quan among others, agreed to put together a “working group” whose mission it is to make a counterproposal. Given our experience with panels/committees/working groups, the mayors aren’t the best bet right now.

A compromise solution may come from the legislature. Assemblyman Jim Beall suggests that the state could place a cap on the percentage of tax increment any RDA takes. For many cities and specific redevelopment districts, such a step would amount to a freeze. San Jose would have to search far and wide for projects in areas not affected by a cap, whereas Oakland might benefit from having large swaths of former industrial lands or brownfields which could work under the cap. It’s unlikely that this solution would net the $1.7 Billion in revenue Brown is seeking, but at least it would keep the lawyers at bay. I could also see a situation where there are caps on individual projects based on proportionality. Even if San Jose wanted to raise bonds for a big project right now it would be in trouble because Fitch just dropped its rating on non-housing RDA bonds from A to BBB-, putting the confidence in SJRA bonds just barely above that of junk bonds.

If you’re reading this and thinking, “GAWD why is ML writing about this crap again?!?!” or “Cities have too much power to let RDAs die” I suggest you read up on this. I assure you, when it comes to the A’s staying in the Bay Area long term, it’s very serious. The cities aren’t acting like they’ve got nothing to lose, they’re battening down the hatches. The end is nigh for the era of modern redevelopment throughout California, and if cities aren’t proactive, the chances of being able to pull off the next big library/sports facility/city hall/transit hub will dwindle to nothing (admittedly some are cheering this on).

Tomorrow, I’ll go over the weird possibilities for the local sports teams if RDAs were to crumble.

01.24.11
by

Talking legal actions (again)

A piece by The Bay Citizen’s Zusha Elinson suggests that Oakland may have a legal bullet at its disposal in its efforts to keep the A’s in Oakland. Elinson cites specific language in the original lease that may help Oakland:

“Licensee [A’s] shall not permit or cause to occur any event that may result in the transfer of its Franchise or any of its Home Games to any other city or location or do or fail to do anything which will cause its right to play major league professional baseball in the Stadium to be lost, impaired or transferred to any other city or location.”

I emailed Elinson to figure out where he got this language, as I couldn’t find it in the Seventh Amendment to the Coliseum Lease, which I posted over a year ago. He sent me a 121-page document which, lo and behold, contains the original 1995 lease agreement, the First and Second Amendments, and a bunch of exhibits pertaining to the various improvements that would be made for both the A’s and Raiders. If you’re interested in the grisly details, here’s a link (PDF). The doc has also been added to the Links section on the right. In my rushed reading of it so far, I found it quite illuminating.

Back to Elinson’s article. He spoke to two sides on the SF divide. Jim Hunt represented the Giants in both 1978 and 1992 in their attempted moves to Toronto and Tampa Bay, respectively. Louise Renne was SF City Attorney in 1992 and fought to keep the Giants in town until a new ownership group could be found, effort led by Walter Shorenstein. As would be expected, the two legal eagles don’t agree as to how effective the attempted legal roadblocks were in keeping the team, though it’s likely that at least employing a stall of some kind helped buy the City time in both cases.

Elinson goes on to suggest that Oakland may be able to employ a similar strategy based on similar language in both the Giants’ leases with SF and the A’s lease in Oakland. However, it’s hard to imagine how this would work. Unlike the Giants, the A’s have multiple ways of ending the lease with minimal if any penalty, either by simply staying through the end (2013) or by paying a termination fee if they want to leave anytime in the next three years.

After struggling to find the specific clause in the lease that Elinson cited, I found it in Section 9, titled “LICENSEE’S COVENANTS.” The term licensee refers to the A’s, licensor the Coliseum Authority. The section mostly has to do with keeping the A’s from losing its membership in the American League. As far-fetched as that sounds, it makes sense. If the A’s were routinely going with $10 million payrolls and otherwise making the team look like it wasn’t worthy of being in the majors (some would say this is happening), then Oakland might have just cause. That’s not really here nor there at this point. Section 9.2, which contains the language we’re discussing, is as follows:

9.2 American League Franchise. Licensee shall do all acts required to maintain its membership in good standing in the American League and to comply with all Rules, Bylaws, Regulations and Requirements of Major League Baseball and the American League. Licensee shall notify Licensor promptly after receipt of any information that Licensee is the subject of any action or contemplated action by the American League or any other person or entity that could affect Licensee’s right to continued membership in good standing. No change in the rights and privileges of Licensee as an American League member including the area or exclusivity of the Franchise Territory shall in any way affect Licensee’s obligations under this License. Except as authorized pursuant to Section 3, Section 16 or Section 22, Licensee shall not permit or cause to occur any event that may result in the transfer of its Franchise or any of its Home Games to any other city or location or do or fail to do anything which will cause its right to play major league professional baseball in the Stadium to be lost, impaired or transferred to any other city or location.

Before I do my non-legal (I am not a lawyer or legal expert) reading of this, I must point out that Section 3 has to do with use of the stadium, parking and surroundings, Section 16 has to do with damage done to the stadium due to force majeure (acts of God), and Section 22 deals with condemnation of the stadium (due to deterioration of some kind or eminent domain).

When I first read the part Elinson clipped (in italics), I interpreted it to mean that the A’s can’t do anything to the stadium that would prevent them from playing games there while the lease was in effect. For instance, the Quakes occasionally play games at the Coliseum. The A’s aren’t allowed to cover the baseball diamond with grass for a Quakes game right before an A’s homestand starts, since the time and cost to reconvert the field for baseball use would prevent the A’s from playing there for a lengthy period.

A broader reading of the language could potentially include actions taken by the A’s off the field, such as discussions with San Jose (or even Fremont), which would move the team away from the Coliseum. However, I think this is much too broad an interpretation. If that were correct, it would preclude the A’s from even talking to other cities about future moves even as they terminated the lease by one of the methods described previously. Terms of a lease don’t bind a team any longer than the length of the lease, whatever that is, and most leases have a termination fee. It’s really all a matter of whether or not that fee is too high to stomach (hello, Tampa Bay). Besides, the A’s couldn’t be in San Jose anytime before 2014 due to the lengthy ballpark construction process.

Since I am in no way a legal expert, I can’t say whether or not my take on this matter has any validity. It is clear that from reading the full agreement and the amendments, there are few contractual obligations keeping the A’s in Oakland. Unlike the Giants back then or the Rays today, the A’s aren’t locked in. They’re free agents after a few years at best. If this bit of language is the basis for a lawsuit to keep the A’s in town, things don’t look particularly good for Oakland. Then again, we’ve heard that their strategy is the same as SF’s was: threaten with a lawsuit, stall and hope for a moneybags savior. And we know how that turned out.

01.19.11
by

Boras chimes in on Oakland/San Jose

We can now add über-agent Scott Boras to the list of people who hate Oakland, along Lew Wolff, John Fisher, Steve Schott, Ken Hofmann, Guy Saperstein, and just about everyone else in league with A’s ownership over the past 15 years. Ken Rosenthal reports that Boras, well, his words speak for themselves.

“The idea that we’re here, sitting on our hands and not letting this franchise get going is detrimental to the game,” says Boras, who grew up in Elk Grove, Calif., near Sacramento.

“A few franchises need to be evaluated and examined. Oakland can immediately improve and become a success if moved to San Jose. You would then have two well-run and successful franchises in the Bay Area.”

Now, let’s not read anything more into this than Boras’ own self-interest. I doubt he’s out there, rubbing his hands, actively conspiring to destroy Oakland. I doubt he cares for either Oakland or San Jose. What he wants is the ability to have one more suitor who could offer a nice, fat, nine-figure contract, whereby Boras gets his cut. That’s it.

It’s interesting that Boras’ comments were so pointed, when Joe Stiglich reported over the weekend that he talked to two unnamed agents who felt that the Coliseum’s condition being a factor in signing free agents was overblown. Instead free agents were turned off by the organization’s lack of commitment to winning. We’ll see how that equation changes this season and next.

The rest of Rosenthal’s article pretty much rehashes the current situation, though he editorializes quite strongly in favor of San Jose.

The three other AL West clubs — the Rangers, Angels and Mariners — play in terrific markets with terrific parks. The proposed 32,000-seat stadium in San Jose would be the smallest in the majors. But the A’s average home attendance would almost double if they filled the park, and premium seating and luxury suites would provide additional revenue.

It’s time. It’s past time.

“In the end, this is hurting baseball,” Boras says. “It’s depriving baseball players and baseball fans of a successful franchise. That’s wrong. We need to correct that.”

The solution is within reach.

Somewhere, the commissioner is twiddling his thumbs.

(Thanks gojohn10 for the link.)

01.14.11
by

News for 1/14/11

I ducked into a Starbucks in downtown San Jose on Thursday afternoon to finish the latest CBA Talk entry. While I was proofreading it (it happens every so often), a gentleman at the next table over caught a glance at my screen and asked me what I was blogging about. I explained to him what this site was and how long I’d been at it. He then introduced himself as Bill Bradley – not that Bill Bradley – the Bill Bradley who formerly labored as the sports editor for the Sacramento Bee. He just launched a sports news site, 27×7.com, only 10 days ago and he’s already quite prolific. Bradley was in town working the Sharks game, and while he’s based out of the Sacramento area, he has expansion plans in the works (the “27” stands for 27 markets). After he headed out to HP Pavilion, it got me thinking about the incredible amount of downsizing in the news industry. Whether it’s columnists getting cut and going cut-rate to cable networks, or entire content providers like AOL Fanhouse going practically belly-up, it’s a rough time to be in the sports news game. Good luck to Bill and all of the others out there, hopefully your hustling will be kept to a minimum. On to the news.

  • Added 11:13 AM – The Merc’s Tracy Seipel reports that San Jose is racing against the clock, with a deadline to complete its work (sans vote) coming as early as March.

    The ballpark plan in particular could become more difficult if Brown shuts down redevelopment. Last week, San Jose’s agency announced it was selling five parcels of land and using the proceeds to buy other properties within the ballpark site near the main rail station.

    City officials said they’re pushing ahead with the plan to assure Major League Baseball they can complete the site regardless of state politics. Redevelopment chief Harry Mavrogenes said the sale of the agency’s parcels should be done by June 30.

    State finance officials, however, said Tuesday that if the Legislature were to vote as early as March to disband the agencies, it could issue an order to halt all agency contracts immediately and not wait until the next fiscal year begins July 1.

    Even if Mavrogenes beats the state’s deadline — and baseball officials agree that the Oakland A’s should be allowed to move south — voters would have to give permission for the city to use the downtown land for a ballpark. It’s an open question whether they’d be as inclined to bless a park if there were fewer limitations on how proceeds from agency land sales could be used.

    Mayor Chuck Reed said the council will fight Brown’s proposal, which state finance officials say will return at least $1.9 billion annually to schools, cities, counties and special districts around the state beginning in 2013.

    This paints a worst case scenario, but it shows how serious the redevelopment collapse is, and how its implications are far-reaching. Brown talked about turning off the tap for projects that weren’t already under contract. San Jose is definitely not there yet. Already, LA has allocated $883 million of its own RDA funds to projects in anticipation of a raid and shutdown. LA has also agreed to convert the current RDA into a city-run non-profit entity after the agency is officially disbanded (there is an allowance for a successor, though what form it would take is unclear). I suspect that Wolff has communicated the gravity of this situation to Selig. Will it matter to Selig and the owners?

  • There are plenty of reasons to dislike Ignacio De La Fuente, such as his being a career machine politician. His DUI arrest on Christmas Day was not the result of a smart decision. That was followed by a lot of bile, people hoping IDLF would lose his job, people wishing the worst on him – mostly because he dared vote against the Oakland City Council’s $750k expenditure for the Victory Court EIR. Well, now he won’t be charged because of a “lack of evidence.” Officially, IDLF didn’t comment on the matter, but I imagine on the inside he was going, “How ya like me now, haterz!”
  • Speaking of the Oakland City Council, Larry Reid was elected Council President. You may not remember that Reid proudly proclaimed that he’d stake his career on the Coliseum North plan. Thankfully for him, when that plan fizzled out Reid’s career was not irreparably damaged. If there’s a person on the City Council who can be described as the most gung-ho about Oakland’s pro sports franchises, it’s Reid. Having Reid lead the charge won’t make up for a loss in redevelopment funds. Can Reid deliver in other ways? We may find out in due course.
  • Lew Wolff took time to shoot down rumors – made up out of whole cloth by Buster Olney – that he might be interested in buying the Dodgers from the legally challenged McCourts. The most interesting exchange regarding this non-news came from the Boston Globe:

    “Lew was in touch with me as soon as he became aware of the rumor that started to circulate a few days ago to make sure that I knew there was nothing to it,” McCourt wrote in a text.

    McCourt saw Wolff at the owners’ meetings in Phoenix and they discussed it again.

    “I have no idea where this one originated,” said Wolff from his cell phone at the owners’ meetings. “It’s completely untrue. We’re right in the middle of trying to get the go-ahead from Commissioner Selig about moving our franchise to San Jose. That’s all I’m thinking about. The Dodgers have an owner.”

    But we like our conspiracy theories, Lew! /s

  • Union Pacific bought 160 acres of land at the north and south ends of NUMMI. Hope all the NIMBYs there like the prospect of a railyard in their backyard. Because if it’s an intermodal hub like in West Oakland, the potential health issues could create a volcano of outrage the size of which will make the ballpark hubbub look like a neighborhood bridge game. Note: South Fremont is home to large warehouse/light industrial area, which makes it prime for such an operation.
  • The not final A’s promotional schedule is out. It includes bobblehead days for Rickey (4/30), MC Hammer (7/17) and Ray Fosse (8/13). Remember when the A’s also did collectable figurines for a spell? Did anyone like those?
  • I expect to renew my Fielders Choice season ticket plan, though I will be moving to the Value Deck.

The rest of the CBA Talk series will be posted throughout the weekend.

01.11.11
by

Olney has a silly idea

In Buster Olney’s blog (Insider accout required), he floats an idea that, unfortunately, Craig Calcaterra thinks has legs.

It’s been awhile since Bud Selig formed the committee to study the Oakland ownership situation, with no resolution in sight for his longtime friend and former fraternity buddy Lew Wolff, the Athletics current owner. What Wolff and the Athletics want is a ballpark in San Jose, and Selig might feel as though he can’t give that to him.

But if McCourt eventually has to sell the Dodgers, providing Wolff — who lives in L.A. — an opportunity to buy the Dodgers would be a heck of a compromise move for Selig, who is, above all else, a deal-maker. In a similar way, he ushered John Henry and Tom Werner — previously connected with the Marlins and Padres, respectively — into control of the Boston Red Sox.

And Wolff, of course, could bring along GM Billy Beane, who could leave the Athletics in the hands of the next owner and heir apparent David Forst.

It’s all speculation. But it all could make a lot of sense, depending on which way the dominos fall with the Dodgers.

First of all, Wolff doesn’t have the scratch to buy the Dodgers. Most owners don’t, and with the valuations of teams as high as they are, they’d be foolish to buy teams on their own. Wolff certainly could partner with people in LA, but really, does anyone think the Dodgers will have a problem attracting extremely wealthy buyers when the time comes?

Besides, Wolff’s share of the A’s has diluted over time. The vast majority of ownership of the A’s are highly entrenched Bay Area people, whether it’s John Fisher in SF, Wolff’s friends and family in the South Bay, or Guy Saperstein in Piedmont. When a team sale happens, the turnover of an owner or ownership group is usually complete. We don’t hear much about a major partner cashing out of an ownership group all that frequently, and when we do it’s often because the partnership was somehow broken.

While Wolff lives in LA, he has children and grandchildren here. There have been plenty of video shots of him sitting in the Coliseum with a young child decked out in full A’s regalia over the years. For him it’s not just about real estate, or getting the stadium done, even though that is his charge. There’s a real emotional attachment there, and it’s gotten to the point that the team is family. If anything, the man is too invested in multiple ways to just let this go. Have you noticed how much more defiant he has gotten the last few months? Despite the challenges and mistakes, he’s a man who generally sees things through, and that’s what he intends to do.