Big shock. What's more laughable is that Oakland's "fallback" is the "Coliseum City" site at the current Coliseum complex. Despite that fact that they estimate the Coliseum project will cost 4x or more what Victory Court would have at $2-3 billion dollars. And this in a city which is still out their $250 million in redevelopment funds. Their only plan to combat the move to the more lucrative San Jose downtown site is to offer the 3 teams (A's, Warriors, Raiders) their current parking lot and ask them to foot the entire bill... Sounds like Oakland is going to be sans all 3 of its teams by the end of the decade.

@Dan: It maybe laughable for you to say, but its the only shot we got of retaining all three pro sports in Oakland. I think if all three leagues and Alamenda County, Oakland can and could get it done. San Jose is NOT an option.

@Dan: It maybe laughable for you to say, but its the only shot we got of retaining all three pro sports in Oakland. I think if all three leagues and Alameda County get behind this project, Oakland can and could get it done. San Jose is NOT an option.

John, that's why it's laughable. You're asking 3 separate leagues that don't have a great history of working together, with 3 teams all of which are looking outside Oakland for new stadia and also don't have a great history of working together, to work together with a city that has selectively screwed at least one of the teams (the A's) and are asking the teams to foot the bill for a 3 billion dollar pipe dream that so far only one (the Raiders) has shown even modest interest in. And it's a project that has no public funding or viable non-team private funding identified. I mean come on, if they couldn't fund a $450 million ballpark in a prime location, how are they going to fund a $3 billion dollar mega complex at a location that is anything but desirable.

Hate to break it to you, but Oakland is done. By killing VC they've bowed out of the race to keep the A's. Which may be good in the long run as it may give them the wherewithal to save at least one of the teams. But it won't be the A's. San Jose is the only option left in the bay area, and the one MLB is likely to approve now that Oakland is through.

It's an interesting point, Dan... If Oakland "could" only keep one of it's teams (I wouldn't actually concede that they can't or won't, but still...), which one should they keep?

Which generates the best return for the city/county (in all ways, not just financially) on every dollar invested?

Oakland hasn't 'screwed' any of it's teams. The teams need to come to the table with something that the city can afford and justify. It may be that no common ground can be found (IE: the teams feel they need more subsidy than the city can possible provide), but that isn't a 'screwing'.

They most certainly did screw the A's: back in the mid 1990s, the A's wanted to update the coliseum and make it baseball only. Instead, they put $120M into updating the Arena (Oracle), put nearly $200M into building Mt. Davis (ruining the stadium for baseball), and gave the A's the finger. Then, starting in 2001 with Jerry Brown to Quan, more fingers, more kicking the can down the road by Oakland. I'm not surprised that the A's will leave first.

They most certainly did screw the A's: back in the mid 1990s, the A's wanted to update the coliseum and make it baseball only. Instead, they put $120M into updating the Arena (Oracle), put nearly $200M into building Mt. Davis (ruining the stadium for baseball), and gave the A's the finger. Then, starting in 2001 with Jerry Brown to Quan, more fingers, more kicking the can down the road by Oakland. I'm not surprised that the A's will leave first.

They most certainly did screw the A's: back in the mid 1990s, the A's wanted to update the coliseum and make it baseball only. Instead, they put $120M into updating the Arena (Oracle), put nearly $200M into building Mt. Davis (ruining the stadium for baseball), and gave the A's the finger. Then, starting in 2001 with Jerry Brown, to Quan, more fingers, more kicking the can down the road by Oakland. I'm not surprised that the A's will leave first.

jack beat me to it. The city most definitely screwed the A's. Mount Davis and the rebuilt Oracle arena are both evidence of that. But to answer the heart of your question John, if they can't keep the A's and their 81 dates, which doesn't seem likely, they should focus their efforts on the Warriors. An arena, as evidenced by Kansas City, can be a profitable, useful civic good, with or without a team. To say nothing of it having the cheapest price tag of the 3 potential venues giving the city the most return on investment. And the Warriors are the team who would be most receptive to the idea of staying I think despite the Raiders lip service to the contrary. The team they NEVER should have gotten back into bed with in 95, and should just let go like a bad habit now is the Raiders. It'll cost too much to build a new football stadium and the Raiders would make much more sense in Santa Clara to make that stadium make more financial sense.

Jack, saying it three times doesn't make it any truer...

Mount Davis may have been a colossal architectural & financial mistake, but please keep in mind that the A's don't own the present stadium, they are simply tenants.

At one time, they were co-tenants with the Raiders. If they had wanted to prevent the return of the football team (or just protect what they seem to have seen as 'their' asset), it might have been a good idea to offer to buy or contribute to upgrades to the facility before Davis started making noises about "coming back". They had a 13 year window to make that facility completely their own and didn't do it.

Alternately, they could have done what the Giants did as soon as they knew the Raiders were returning (build their own).

I agree that Mt. Davis has made the stadium much worse for baseball, guys, but tenants seldom get to choose their neighbours. There's plenty of blame to go around for the situation the A's find themselves in.

Dan, I was thinking the same thing re: the Warriors. If built properly (IE: designed with concerts and the like in mind), an arena is a much better investment (Maybe they could bring back the Seals too...)

Will the city really miss the 81 dates if the A's leave? The general concensus seems to be that very few people are attending anyway. They need MLB permission before vacating, however, and that doesn't seem to be any closer than it was five years ago.

I've been to the Coliseum, but not to the arena — what exactly is wrong with it? I know it's new construction (well, 15-year-old construction) fit inside a 1960s shell, but the Knicks and Rangers seem to be fine with that, as witness their renovations of Madison Square Garden.

The arena was renovated in the 1990's. I've been there several times since then, and there's nothing wrong with it as far as I can tell.

@Neil - there's nothing wrong with Oracle arena, except for its location. The arena itself is fairly modern, certainly serviceable by NBA standards, and it's one of the loudest buildings in the league. Unfortunately, it's also located at the Oakland Coliseum complex.

Fair or foul, the Coliseum complex has a very bad reputation, it's in one of the worst parts of an already skeevy city, and there's very little surrounding the building itself that the W's can take advantage of in order to derive revenue.

If you compare the Coliseum complex area to the site that the W's are currently drooling over - which is a parking lot on the south side of McCovey Cove in San Francisco, there's really no question as to what'll be better for the owners long-term.

Well, except for the pesky question of who'll pay for the new arena in SFO, but that's another question for another day.

I live and work in Oakland. I object to its being referred to as "skeevy." It is a wonderful city with its good points and problems, like other cities. The coliseum complex is extremely accessible by all kinds of transit including public, and Oakland is the geographical and transportatation center of the Bay Area. That it has negative publicity is of course a problem.

Neil, I think that's part of why you don't get what's wrong with the Coliseum. It's not a 15 year old stadium inside a 60's shell. It's a 60's stadium with a few 17 year old parts tacked on to the sides (namely the Mt. Davis portion of the park which is useless for baseball and actually ruined the gameday experience (and airflow for fly balls), a few second level suites and the ramp system and team stores behind home plate). The vast majority of the stadium is still 1960's vintage and it shows. Small, dark, cramped, dingy concourses that can't even handle the traffic flow with the modest crowds the A's are drawing today. Leaking pipes. Bad electrical. Clubhouses that have more in common with San Quentin prison than a modern ballpark. Bathrooms that are rusting away. Foul territory that puts fans further from the action than any other park in MLB (and this problem has existed since before the new wave of parks came along in the 90's). I could go on but you get the picture. The Coliseum is a dump that was in no way "improved" for baseball by the additions they made in 1995.

And why is that a problem the general population should care about? It serves whatever meager public functions it is supposed to deliver. Baseball is played there, people to come and spend money there.

If owners are not happy with their 15 year old stadiums that is great and I wish them the best of luck on their new constructions, but I don't see what that has to do with the city unless there is some clear economic development benefit (which there almost never is), or the city doesn't currently have a serviceable public meeting/space stadium venue.

Yeah arenas are definitely the best investment overall. 80% of the activities at HP Pavilion AREN'T Sharks games.

John: I get that the A's had a lot of time by themselves at the Coliseum to make improvements, but think of the time period. In the 1980's, cookie cutter multipurpose stadiums were the norm. Not until Camden Yards in Baltimore, which I think was 1992, did owners realize that a baseball only park in a downtown location is a far superior venue. When the A's attendance sank to nothing in the mid 1990's(1995: 1.2 million- decent team, strong economy), they realized that they needed a new ballpark. The window was much smaller than you think. They could have renovated it for Baseball a la Angels stadium, but instead, the built MT. Davis, and effectively killed any charm the old Coliseum had for baseball. Oakland had made it's choice- the Raiders were more important- and Haas sold the team. And since then (16 years!), Oakland has done little to help the A's find a new home, yet spent 100's of millions of dollars to upgrade venues for the W's and Raiders. Oakland treated the A's like a red headed step child. Even way back in 2001, they had a site picked out for a nice uptown ballpark. Oakland built condos there instead. It was the first of many slaps to the face. Only now, when it looks like the A's are on their way to San Jose, do they hold up pipe dreams like Victory Court to look like they tried to keep the A's.

As to the Arena (which was Neil's question-not the Coliseum, whose foibles have been well-documented), there's nothing really wrong with it. The suites in number and niceness are comparable to most other buildings built in the late '90's. Some complaints are that the concourse is too small (I've never experienced this problem but I've been to more concerts there than games) and the upper deck is weird in that it's really dark up there during the game (could just add some lights).

The problem is that there's no LA Live-type deal or downtown around the venue. It's a drive, park, and go home deal like the Coliseum. At the same time, the transit, parking, and freeway access is better in Oakland and it's quicker to most parts of the Bay Area than SF would be. They could probably make more money in SF from suites and corporate seats, but enough money to privately finance the venue? I think not.

Joshua, first off, what 15 year old stadium? The Oakland Coliseum is nearly a half century old, not 15 years.

And no it isn't necessarily something the public should care about, though the public seems to if public opinion is any indication. Though they're not willing to do anything about it at this point except complain about the A's trying to do what few teams have done (ie: build their own ballpark in San Jose privately), and have done everything they can to block that including working with the Giants.

And that's where the problem lies. It's fine for Oakland to help block the A's move to San Jose IF Oakland plans on providing a ballpark for the A's in Oakland, but they don't. So by what logic would they cock block an A's move to San Jose to build a private park? The A's cannot survive in the Coliseum long term. They're not making any money (once you discount revenue sharing), no fans are showing up at games, and the team is awful.

I wouldn't be too sure about that Brian. If they can privately fund a ballpark in SF, they can privately fund an arena. Particularly since you'd be leveraging not just the Warriors, but also the Giants who are the ones driving that particular project. But even IF the city of San Francisco were to make some form of contribution to it, the money would be worth it unlike say a football stadium. Arenas as you say are used for so much more than just the primary tenant. They host a slew of other events both civic and private that make them an overall "civic good." And an arena is something in particular that San Francisco has always lacked having never had one of any size in it's history beyond the old Civic Auditorium.

Consider the irony: Oakland works with the Giants to help stop the A's from moving to San Jose, while at the same time the Giants are stabbing Oakland in the back by likely stealing the Warriors. It's so ugly and ruthless...

Dan, the Giants ballpark was a clear step up (or several steps up) from Candlestick Park. Is a new arena really that much of a step up from what they have at Oracle? They don't seem to have a problem selling suites or seats at Oracle at standard NBA prices. Are they going to be able to charge THAT much more in SF? Never mind that that is just one more venue to add to the competition for concerts, family shows, and the like (HP Pavilion, Oracle, Cow Palace, the Shoreline and Concord amphitheaters, etc.), so they won't have a lot of leverage with which to charge high fees for those events.

Brian, they will be able to charge more in SF. How much more is of course up for debate. But they'll definitely sell more tickets in SF. Despite not doing terribly at Oracle, though they don't sell out very often anymore (not in reality anyway even if they "announce" sell outs). I went to a game three weeks ago against the Magic that was maybe half full but the announced attendance was about 95% of capacity which was just patently false. That said the issues with Oracle have little to do with the venue and have everything to do with location. As someone once said, there's no "there" there. Where an arena in SF would be surrounded by all the business, resturants, etc... that Pac Bell Park currently enjoys as neighbors. That's where the real appeal is for the Warriors. And while Oakland did pay 200 million to update Oracle to near modern standards, it wasn't for this current ownership group who have a definite SF slant on their ownership of the team which is readily apparently in their choice of logos, the uniforms they push for fans (which are almost all their SF era jerseys), and where they hold every team event over in San Francisco. They have little interest in Oakland.

Dan, you are so blinded by your anti-Oakland bias, you can't even follow this conversation ...

the Arena, called ORACLE - was gutted 15 years ago and totally rebuilt. After that rebuild, the Warriors, hosted the 1998, or 99 NBA all-star game. There is nothing at all wrong with the arena.

Dan, you are so blinded by your anti-Oakland bias, you can't even follow this conversation ...

the Arena, called ORACLE - was gutted 15 years ago and totally rebuilt. After that rebuild, the Warriors, hosted the 1998, or 99 NBA all-star game. There is nothing at all wrong with the arena.

Yeah I can't speak for Dan, but I think the problem with Oracle is the location, not the facility itself. As someone once said- there is no there "there". SF would definitely have the upper hand in that case.

Jack - what "problem"? 20 years of packed houses, watching a scrub team? The loudest gym in the NBA??

azephan, I don't think you're following the conversation very well. Joshua wrote, and I quote,

"Baseball is played there, people to come and spend money there.
If owners are not happy with their 15 year old stadiums that is great and I wish them the best of luck on their new constructions..."

Sounds to me like he's referring to the Coliseum (stadium), not the arena. And I also never said there was anything structurally wrong with the arena beyond its terrible location.

ok Dan. Its clear that you have nothing better to do than disparage the city of Oakland - on this blog, the newballpark blog and on Facebook. Some would call that trolling. Oakland is a beautiful, centrally located city. Someone once said "if you don't have anything good to say about something, then don't say anything at all". When Wolff loses his San Jose bid, don't take it personal.

Who is disparaging Oakland? Oakland would have been a great place to have a ballpark if it were built in the proper location. The Uptown site that was killed by then mayor Jerry Brown in favor of a housing development for one of his cronies would have been a great place for a park. And it would have been one MLB would have been very happy with that would have cost just over 1/2 what a park today would cost. And Victory Court if Oakland had been serious about it, rather than just spinning their wheels and never even having started the EIR, would also have been a great site.

However Oakland's LEADERS were not serious about it. They haven't been serious about much of anything with regard to the A's in decades. And that's sad, but that's also reality. The Coliseum City concept is just the latest indication of that. It's an unrealistic plan at a location the team and league have both rejected for years now. The city leadership knows this, so they're either stupid, or more likely just don't care.

azephan, you're welcome to disagree with Dan, but this is edging into casting personal aspersions, which isn't okay on this site. Let's kick it down a notch, okay?

I think that Oakland definitely cast its lot with the Raiders rather than the A's, probably because there was a lot of emotion around getting the Raiders back, and nobody was really worried about losing the A's at the time. It was a bad call - especially given the horrible lease they arranged with the Raiders - but barring tearing down Mount Davis and telling the Raiders to leave if they don't like it, I'm not sure how to undo it.

As for the Warriors in SF, I'm not clear on why being "surrounded by businesses and restaurants" would be seen as a plus by them - that's just fan money going into other pockets than theirs. Clearly they'd do better in SF because there's more money there, and clearly that's why they're marketing there as well. But I'm with Brian that there's no way on earth they'd bring in enough extra revenue to make building an entire stadium worth it (unless somebody else pays for it).

message received.

Neil brings up a good point- I remember when the Raiders were talking about coming back to Oakland- people were thrilled and would have done anything to get them there. Unfortunately for the A's, they went a little too far with the stadium mods.

As for the W's in SF, the situation is a little different- as azephan mentioned, the Warriors are doing pretty well at Oracle, which, though far from perfect, isn't a bad venue overall. It certainly isn't the disaster the Coliseum is. It's more like the W's are being lured- not forced- to SF. I kinda think that the Giants are going to build the Arena no matter what. I think I read on another blog that 80% of the events at HP Pavilion AREN'T Sharks games. So it's probably a pretty good investment in the long run, therefore the W's might get a pretty good deal. There probably is more money and sponsors in SF, and the place would be state of the art.

As for the businesses, bars and restaurants surrounding the arena, the advantages are a little less obvious. Few fans going to see the game just want to get there at the last minute, then go home as soon as possible. Most want to grab some dinner, maybe a reasonably priced drink or two, and maybe just hang out somewhere or walk around and window shop. It doesn't sound like much, but it makes the area a destination, rather than just the place where the game happens. It's more fun for the casual fan. While all of us on here are clearly sports nuts, for others, the game is just part of the evening out or day away from the house. That keeps the seats full and the ticket prices higher.

I'm not sure that Oakland overdid it with the stadium mods, if the goal was to bring the Raiders back. If they hadn't built it the way they did, it would've been inadequate for a football stadium circa 1995 (the old setup had only 54,000 seats and temporary bleachers with no luxury boxes on the east side). Better to have too many seats for one sport than too few for another.

Brian, if they'd made those modifications 5-10 years earlier than they did I'd agree. However by 1995 when they decided to build Mt. Davis the "retro ballpark"craze was already well underway and it was readily apparent to anyone what the requirements of a baseball park would really be. Anaheim realized this, Oakland didn't.

I've got a crackpot idea. Let's just say, and why not, that the Raiders move back to LA. Then let's say that the Giants say that under no circumstances will they give up San Jose and that Bud does not force them to do so.

What if the Coliseum is torn down for a new stadium for the A's (baseball only) with the A's sharing AT&T with the Giants for two years? Is this possible?

MLB already considers the site non viable because it isn't a downtown location. What "Coliseum City" was supposed to do is build the 3 stadia/ and fill in the gaps with businesses and condos and a parking garage. The A's can't do that by themselves, nor would they want to when the could be downtown in NorCal's largest city. And 20 years of the Sharks has already set up the area for sports.

Plus the Giants won't share Pac Bell. The infrastructure for two teams (clubhouses, training facilities, FO space, etc...) just isn't there at Pac Bell.