Could Coliseum rehab satisfy A’s?

Today’s San Francisco Chronicle has a rundown of how the Oakland Coliseum could be rehabbed for the A’s if the Raiders moved out, possibly to share digs with the San Francisco 49ers. The Chron’s verdict: “It just might work,” citing the Coliseum’s central location, the Los Angeles Angels‘ successful (and relatively cheap) renovation of their stadium back to baseball dimensions after the Rams left for St. Louis, and that some of the stadium’s new premium seating could be retained even if Mount Davis were torn down.

Of course, the Raiders would need to move out first, but there are more relocation options for an NFL team than for an MLB team, so maybe. Much will depend on whether A’s owner Lew Wolff is willing to sit tight until the Raiders situation is resolved — that is, if he has much choice in the matter.

14 comments on “Could Coliseum rehab satisfy A’s?

  1. I honestly do not see it working (Unless the Raiders are going back to LA). From everything I have read about the issue, the priority for the City of Oakland is the Raiders. From Al Davis perspective, would I like to share a stadium with the Niners in San Francisco (An organization he NEVER liked). No way Jose? This guy is a fighter, who led the AFL to a merger with the NFL, I can’t see him accepting as his final legacy, being the equalavalent of the Los Angeles Clippers to the Lakers (Not to mention, he went down that route before with sharing the Coliseum with the Rams).

  2. Actually, the Rams moved to Anaheim two years before the Raiders moved into the Coliseum.

    Where have you read that the Raiders are the priority for Oakland?

  3. Neil I stand corrected about the Rams. You are 100% correct of course. Here is the main part of the article I was referring to, about the Raiders and Oakland.
    Raiders have their own redevelopment plan
    David White, Chronicle Staff Writer
    Saturday, February 14, 2009

    (02-13) 20:40 PST — Raiders chief executive Amy Trask looks at the 42-year-old Coliseum and sees the hope of stadium development where a glamorous stadium can one day replace one of the most dated slabs of concrete in the National Football League.

    Oakland vice mayor Ignacio De La Fuente looks at the vacant lots surrounding the Coliseum and envisions an urban renewal center, one that is bustling with retail stores, condos, restaurants, maybe even an ESPN Sports Zone.

    Lay aside all the talk about the Raiders hauling it back to Los Angeles or sharing a new stadium with the 49ers in Santa Clara or Hunters Point, if only for a moment. To this point, it’s nothing but talk, and it isn’t coming from the Raiders’ lips.

    The one big idea the Raiders have proposed is this: staying put at a new and vastly improved Coliseum as the anchor to a redevelopment project that pours jobs, revenue and tax money across the vacant spread between 66th Avenue and Hegenberger Road.

    And, above all, it keeps the Raiders in the Oakland city limits, where they would just as soon stay.

    “I think that’s an area that has unbelievable possibilities,” said De La Fuente, who has served 12 years on the Coliseum Joint Powers Authority, which runs the stadium. “We have the site. We have the land. It’s definitely a doable thing. It’s probably one of the few things that will work…………….

  4. Yeah, I reported on that here at the time:

    That was before the Fremont A’s deal fell apart, though. Since the A’s got back in the mix for Oakland, I haven’t see anything indicating whether De La Fuente prefers dealing with one team or the other.

  5. Honestly with the A’s back in play I can’t see Oakland favoring the Raiders over the A’s. Remember this is the same Raiders organization that has sued Oakland several times and that is the primary reason Oakland is still paying off the debt service on Mount Davis. To say nothing of the Raiders only having 8 dates a year at the stadium (most of which are not sell outs).

    The A’s by comparison have been near model tenants who play at the stadium a minimum of 81 times a year.

  6. By all means, convert the Coliseum back to the way it used to be. Let the Raiders play in the middle of the street for all I care. The A’s used to have one of the best ballpark landscapes in baseball until that eyesore of Mt. Davis went up. It’s nauseating watching games there on TV.

  7. Once again Neil, has got his bases covered. I just read that article on the Raiders in a different spot, than his.
    As for the Raiders, I see some real hate here for the Raiders. Let me say as a Steeler fan, who goes back to the 70s (I don’t like the Raiders either (Jack Tatum, George Atkinson, etc arggggggg)). But looking at things from an economic perspective, if the choice became Raiders or A’s, I would choose the RAIDERS, if I was the City of Oakland. At least the Raiders are on 16 times a year on National TV, giving the City of Oakland free advertising, which the As, do not bring to the table. As for the A’s, there is little national interest in A’s baseball (1 game on Fox this year (July 4th), and none listed for ESPN). I am sure that concerts and other events can take the place of A’s games with limited financial hardship for the city (For example: Notice their home attendance against teams NOT named the San Francisco Giants, Boston Red Sox or New York Yankees……. It flat out stinks, and they have trouble drawing flies to the Coliseum. Which is why they are finally spending some money: Holliday, Giambi, Nomar, etc).

  8. Did you seriously just list “national exposure for Oakland” as a reason that the Raiders would be a more desirable tenant than the A’s? Setting aside that the Raider games are most often televised regionally and not nationally, the more bizarre aspect of your statement is the idea that showing “Darth Raider” a handful of times a year will change the common opinion that Oakland is a dump.

    Did you then say that you were “sure” that concerts and other events could take the place of 81 dates – even though the only event other than an A’s game to occur in the Coliseum since the conclusion of the baseball season was a soccer match back in January?


  9. When someone asks you where your from and you say Oakland, the response is often “Do you like the Raiders” or “Oh, where the Raiders play”. It is never “Oh, where the A’s call home”.

  10. Actually I’ve heard both. But the Raiders do help to propagate a negative image of Oakland (deserved or not). The A’s are largely positive press. Which would you rather keep if you were Oakland.

  11. The Raiders’ days in the Bay Area are numbered. Once the lease is up with the Coliseum, they will start moving in a direction towards relocation. Al Davis has missed out on a lot of serious revenue in Oakland and never will make the kind of cash there he sees the Jones, Snyder, and Mara/Tisch organizations are raking in. Davis also wants to make sure his family is taken care in the coming years. He is not excited about going back to LA and wants to go into a virgin NFL market. That means he will consider San Antonio, Salt Lake, Birmingham, Portland, Norfolk, and Sacramento. He wants his own version of the new stadiums being built in the Meadowlands and Arlington and he will do anything to get just that. Right now San Antonio is the clubhouse leader but do not count out Birmingham, Memphis, Orlando, or even an Oklahoma City. The more rabid the fans are for pro football in a place, the more likely the Raiders will end up there in 2011 or 2012. Davis could end up doing for the Raiders what the Browns did when they moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens, largely now a model franchise both on and off the field.

  12. George, did you really say MEMPHIS?? Hell, we’re only keeping the Grizzlies because of an ironclad lease we forced Mike Heisley to sign when they moved here.

    We’re not building a new stadium, unless it’s for the University of Memphis on their campus, with their money.

    We had our shot, but wouldn’t build a new stadium, and that is why there is a franchise known as the Jacksonville Jaguars.

  13. Left Wing cracker, I resent your remarks. Memphis is a fine city and more than capable of being the next home of the Oakland Raiders. But George is probably right that the city with the most rabid fans will get the Raiders, and Memphis don’t matchup well with San Antonio and Birmingham. Both those cities will build another Jerry Jones like palace if the Raiders were to move there. We here in Memphis would only build another Bud Adams building which ain’t going to be good enough for Al.

  14. San Antonio took in the Saints after Katrina but the region won’t support an NFL club full-time. Not to mention it’s a huge Dallas Cowboys market.

    Sacramento is out unless the Raiders build their own stadium. Major budget problems in both city and county government.

    Birmingham? Hardcore college football town, heart of the Bible Belt. Falcons and Titans are on local TV only because they’re the closest teams.

    Portland? Seahawks market.

    Norfolk? Redskins market.

    Salt Lake City? Heart of the Mormon Belt.

    Orlando? Bucs first, Dolphins second, everyone else third. Jaguars are on local TV for at least the away games.

    Oklahoma City? Hardcore college football town, plus it’s a Dallas Cowboys market.

    Memphis? Many more Steeler fans than Raider fans — ask Bud Adams.