Raiders say they don’t need to tear down Coliseum right this very minute after all

No major shifts in the Oakland A’s and Raiders who-gets-dibs-on-the-Oakland-Coliseum-land controversy today, but there is one minor bit of notable news: The Coliseum City development team aligned with the Raiders issued a letter on Wednesday saying they don’t actually need to tear down the Coliseum right away, and are fine with the A’s new lease requiring two years notice before any demolition.

Which couldn’t have been that hard, given that the lease is almost certainly going to go through anyway, that the Raiders aren’t going to have funding in place for a stadium anytime soon, and that waiting two years in the grand scheme of things isn’t that big a deal if there’s a new stadium and a giant development project on a huge swath of public land at the end of the wait. But still, it’s a concession, kind of.

In any event, it seems like everyone involved is now positioning themselves to move ahead to Act II (or really more like Act XXVII), wherein the two teams fight over the Coliseum site without discussing in public, for as long as possible, how much public cash and/or free land and/or tax breaks they’d want as part of the deal. Assuming the Oakland city council signs off on the A’s lease extension by the end of the month, which while still likely, isn’t yet assured, with tons of official “undecided” votes. We could be here a while.

4 comments on “Raiders say they don’t need to tear down Coliseum right this very minute after all

  1. I love the way the press puts it – “… even as the teams appear to be in conflict over building new stadiums at the Coliseum complex.”

    I’m also in conflict over whether I want a Ferari or a Maserati. I’m just pleasantly ignoring the fact that I’m way too short on being able to get either, with no realistic possibility of getting the money anytime soon.

  2. Just when you thought it was safe to put a 10 year deposit on A’s season tickets…The Oakland City Council tonight voted to change the terms of the lease agreement unilaterally. The changes are described as “minor” by the city council but the A’s representative said he was disappointed in the changes.

    Silly me, I thought when two parties signed an agreement, a third could not change it without getting agreement from the other two parties. Apparently not. I’d hate to be the A’s negotiator who has to get agreements from two different “owning” organizations to sign a lease.

    So, the A’s said no more changes. Oakland city council just made some changes. Who blinks first?

  3. Here is the easiest answer for the Oakland Stadium situation.


  4. Are the A’s just looking for a reason now?