Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ditto Natural510. Thanks to Council Member Ignacio de la Fuente and his crack negotiating skills, Oakland has been paying about $30 million a year to the Raiders for unsold luxury boxes. The money would be better spent for police, fire and teachers. For the 8 or so games they play, I'd rather watch it on TV. Hopefully, if they move, we will be off the hook and the amount owed will cease to be a liability.
In today's Financial Times, there is an Opinion piece by Bruce Katz, of the Brookings Institution, entitled "God bless the United City States of America". He described sports and entertainment complexes as "parasitic" and gave as a counter example of NYC "attracting Cornell University and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology" as a way to encourage development of metro cities.
Well, perhaps I was too dismissive in my last post but I am certain that the owner is probably more concerned about selling luxury sky boxes than he is about regular seats. I think a new stadium provides a buzz or excitement and energizes fans and attracts new fans.
Its a shame. Oakland has done too much and gained too little in return from these ungrateful teams that I wonder if its even worth it to try and keep them?
The A's for example. The city reaps ZERO financial benefits whatsoever in fact the A's are an expense.
The Raiders demanded and received an extremely profitable stadium deal which costed the city and county tens of millions.
Like Ive been saying all along, these sports franchises have become the poster child for corporate welfare.
Ditto Natural510. Thanks to Council Member Ignacio de la Fuente and his crack negotiating skills, Oakland has been paying about $30 million a year to the Raiders for unsold luxury boxes. The money would be better spent for police, fire and teachers. For the 8 or so games they play, I'd rather watch it on TV. Hopefully, if they move, we will be off the hook and the amount owed will cease to be a liability.
In today's Financial Times, there is an Opinion piece by Bruce Katz, of the Brookings Institution, entitled "God bless the United City States of America". He described sports and entertainment complexes as "parasitic" and gave as a counter example of NYC "attracting Cornell University and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology" as a way to encourage development of metro cities.
I have long felt that the Coliseum site would be a great location for a university or large research campus.
On the other hand last night when I attended the Warriors-Heat game it was awesome to see the arena packed and the place looked great. Not to mention the timed multicolored lighting against the exterior crossing beams of the Oracle Arena. Too bad that team is also threatening to leave. LOL
So eager to post negative comments on all things related Oakland but really have provided no reason to? How strange.
So everytime a wealthy corporation wants something, taxpayers are supposed to foot the bill? Is that how it works now? I think NOT.
1. That story about the A's being 'granted permission' to move anywhere has been resoundly debunked as pure speculation-you can't find a single pro-move the team to San Jose article that has anything but gossip probably being circulated by the A's themselves in order to create buzz(hollow buzz) cause there is no official word yet. MLB has given no such indication and even Lew Wolff(A's owner) has admitted that the item of moving the Oakland A's is not even on the agenda for this week's owners meeting being held in Arizona. In other words, MLB is in no hurry which still leaves Oakland a glimmer of hope.
2. A recent article stated that Jean Quan has been wooing Chinese Investors to finance a new baseball stadium in Oakland. The question of the A's moving is nowhere near resolved.
3. Mark Davis is simply doing what all other owners do when they want to hold cities and fans hostage to their greedy whims. I suspect when the dust clears the Oakland Raiders will be sharing a stadium with the San Francisco 49ers in Santa Clara just as the NY Jets and NY Giants share a stadium--this is the well known desire of the NFL by the way.
I am not here to argue with you and you can have your opinion about the A's and the Raiders. You said that when they meet in Arizona this week, they are not going to talk about moving? An article from the San Jose Mercury News contradicts you on this . Here is an article dated on 1/11/12 stating when they do meet in Arizona the topic is about moving the A's:
San Jose Mercury News article dated 1/11/12 concerning the A's move to San Jose:
It's not on their official agenda, but when the owners of Major League Baseball's 30 teams gather Wednesday in Scottsdale, Ariz., for their first meeting of 2012, observers say a proposed relocation for the Oakland A's to San Jose is an almost unavoidable topic of discussion.
Many believe a decision on a move is expected soon -- and that the A's are running out of time for an up-or-down nod from commissioner Bud Selig over breaking the San Francisco Giants' territorial rights to the South Bay. Three-quarters of the owners also must agree.
Timing is crucial for a variety of reasons: The A's would like an answer before the season begins in March; they've recently cleared their roster of much of its high-priced talent in anticipation of assembling a more competitive squad once they get their new ballpark -- whether in San Jose or Oakland; and their contract at the O.co Coliseum runs out next year.
Here's a recap of the situation for A's fans in Oakland and the South Bay.
Q A's co-owner Lew Wolff has said a discussion about the relocation is not scheduled nor is any vote expected during his visit to the desert. But is a decision imminent?
A Rumors have been swirling that the A's may soon get their wish, and Wolff last month even purchased the Sainte Claire Hotel in downtown San Jose for about $17 million. Real estate experts say the savvy developer got in early on the hunch that downtown
San Jose land prices likely will soar if MLB allows the A's to move here.
Q How long has this decision been in the making?
A Since late March 2009 when Selig appointed a three-member committee to study the A's options.
Q So, are they about done?
A Sources say that the report has been transmitted by the committee to Selig and is now in the hands of a small group of team owners.
Q Why has this been such a torturous process?
A Selig is a painstaking, methodical consensus builder, and sources say he's not going to call for a vote unless he knows he'll get a favorable outcome.
Q Why don't the Giants want to allow the A's to move?
A They say they built their $357 million AT&T Park in the mid-1990s with Major League Baseball's promise that the Giants would own the lucrative South Bay market. They insist the A's should honor that rule and find another place to play within their East Bay territory.
Q Would any baseball owners balk over the deal?
A Possibly. Some observers say messing with territorial rights makes certain owners nervous, particularly those in the other two-team markets of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. "Once it starts, how do you protect your franchise?'' said one source close to the league. Yet sports economists Roger Noll at Stanford University and Andrew Zimbalist at Smith College contend there's likely no cause for worry.
Q Which teams would likely be in favor of such a move?
A Noll said he wouldn't be surprised if support comes from the 10 teams with the largest revenues who are "tired of paying all this money" into a revenue-sharing pool for the weaker teams, including the A's.
"The guys in the bigger markets would like to see the A's go to a place where they make substantially more revenue," said Noll, who believes the A's in San Jose could take in $25 million to $30 million more annually than they do now.
Q Could the Giants convince a group of owners to block the vote?
A Maybe not, said Zimbalist. "(Selig) has very cleverly managed important decisions in such a way that it's unlikely people would go against his recommendation," Zimbalist said. "He has a variety of ways of rewarding cooperation.''
Q What could make the A's move more palatable to either the Giants or other team owners?
A Sources close to the league say that in exchange for a vote, Selig could grant certain owners a range of favors, from promising to schedule a moneymaking All-Star Game in their stadium, to moving their training camp, or changing something in a team's minor league operation, among other possibilities.
Q Are Wolff and Giants CEO and President Larry Baer trying to lobby other owners?
A Wolff said Selig has not told him he can't, but Wolff said he believes it's "in the best interest of baseball'' to refrain from doing that. A Giants spokeswoman declined to comment. But observers say it would be naive not to think that it's happening.
Q What else could be holding up a decision?
A Noll and Zimbalist both agree that money is at the heart of the matter -- even though the Giants have publicly said a deal that would allow the A's to move is not even negotiable. Though there is no confirmation about what price the A's might have to pay to move to San Jose, Noll believes it's in the $25 million to $35 million range.
Q What does Noll base his figure on?
A First, precedent: the fees that have been paid in the past when one team invaded the home territory of another. Second, it's an upper estimate of the effect of the A's move to San Jose on the revenues of the Giants. Like others, he believes the Giants stand to benefit almost as much by gaining fans from the East Bay as they lose from the South Bay. Noll said the most important factor affecting the Giants' revenues always has been and will continue to be the quality of the Giants, not the quality or location of the A's.
Q What has Wolff agreed to shell out for a ballpark in San Jose?
A In 2009, the A's co-owner said he would pay for the $461 million to build a stadium (now likely closer to $500 million). San Jose recently offered to sell him about 5 acres of city-owned land on the site for a discount price of $6.9 million.
Q If the A's get the nod, could anything hinder their move?
A Lawsuits could be filed by groups related to the Giants.
More crucial is a vote by San Jose residents, who will be asked if they agree a ballpark should be built using public land.
Contact Tracy Seipel at 408-275-0140.
he's not going to call for a vote unless he knows he'll get a favorable outcome.
This has probably been the holdup. Selig has been lining up the votes by greasing many wheels, owner by owner, to make sure he doesn't get any surprises that make him look stupid when the vote finally comes up. Time is just about up - we'll find out very soon.
Bet on:
1. A's to San Jose (Lew Wolff getting the land for cheap, and even purchasing the Saint Claire are ominous sign for doubters)
2. Raiders share Santa Clara stadium with the Niners (which was the original intent of the NFL; both teams get $150 million in NFL money if they do this; 49ers are entirely on the hook if they miss any payments on those enormous loans to build the thing, which would result in the banks taking over, so they can use all the $$$ help they can get)
3. Warriors 50/50 staying put (starting to make noise about a new arena next to ATT, but might go for Mayor Quan's Coliseum Park idea; might even move to HP Pavilion, which was originally planned to host an NHL and NBA team)
4. SJ Earthquakes get new stadium (pending desperate appeal by silly NIMBY's, the shovels are about to hit dirt, on Coleman next to SJ Airport)
There's no loyalty in sports. It's all about money. The Raiders were the dream of poppa Al not the son. As far as the son goes the bottom line is money. As for the fans, just get ready to travel to see the A's or Raiders. With all the cameras on players and fines on hits the Raiders of old are a distant memory.. Jack Tatum and others would be fined into unemployment if they played like they did back in the day
1. A's to San Jose (Lew Wolff getting the land for cheap, and even purchasing the Saint Claire are ominous sign for doubters)
2. Raiders share Santa Clara stadium with the Niners (which was the original intent of the NFL; both teams get $150 million in NFL money if they do this; 49ers are entirely on the hook if they miss any payments on those enormous loans to build the thing, which would result in the banks taking over, so they can use all the $$$ help they can get)
3. Warriors 50/50 staying put (starting to make noise about a new arena next to ATT, but might go for Mayor Quan's Coliseum Park idea; might even move to HP Pavilion, which was originally planned to host an NHL and NBA team)
Agree with the first two, but the Warriors will be in SF sooner or later.
The Warriors will most likely not move to SJ, nor should they.
Traffic and parking issues wouldn't be pretty downtown if the Sharks, Warriors, and A's are all stuck on the same block.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
