Oakland A’s owner Lew Wolff responded late Friday to Raiders owner Mark Davis calling his team the “elephant in the room” (oh, I see what he did there) and saying Wolff had “tied our hands behind our back” with his ten-year lease on the Oakland Coliseum:
“The A’s signed a 10-year lease at the Coliseum because we are committed to Oakland. Mr. Davis has said he is fully committed to do a new football stadium in Oakland and there is nothing in our lease that precludes Mr. Davis and the Raiders from building on the Coliseum site. As we stated yesterday, the A’s are aggressively working with the city to evaluate venue sites in Oakland. Our efforts are fully focused on Oakland. Although the Coliseum remains the main focus of our venue efforts, we are also evaluating potential sites throughout Oakland. We are confident our efforts will continue to move forward and we will share our progress throughout the process.”
Nothing that precludes the Raiders from building a stadium except that both team owners really want development rights to the whole Coliseum site. So we’re back to being treated to “get offa my lawn” nastygram wars, which should be resolved either the minute Davis finds some other city to give him the stadium money that he’s struck out on getting from Oakland, or never, somewhere in there. Or maybe Davis and Wolff will figure out a way for them both to share the Coliseum space, and Davis will find a way to pay for a new stadium with his own money, and … yeah, I can’t really see that happening either. The best bet for both teams staying in Oakland long-term might be if Wolff picks another site, and Davis settles for a remodeled Coliseum at a more affordable price or something after the entire rest of America wakes up and decides it doesn’t want to build him a football stadium. What Vegas odds do you think I could get on that one?
Neil,
I think you’ve got this one wrong. The A’s want development rights at the Coliseum site. The Raiders want no development at the Coliseum.
In all of these articles that you’re linking to and quoting from, it’s always a developer or someone from Oakland government or an economics professor saying that the Raiders want to develop the Coliseum site. The Raiders have always said the exact opposite and Davis has always maintained that he requires parking and tailgating space around a Raiders stadium.
Davis still wants development rights to the site, even if the kind of development he envisions is parking lots.
Las Vegas & San Antonio are foaming at the mouth to build one for Davis or the next owner…. Then maybe Portland & Birmingham become the new threat bait for NFL owners.
Vegas is supposedly ready to build a stadium even without the Raiders. That means they’ll be used as a threat every time a city needs a new stadium.
Neil. If that is the case, then Sacramento is waiting.
Ben,
Seems fairer to say that the Raiders only want “a little” development, though he does want all the development rights, as “opportunity cost” for keeping the team (what a treat!). http://www.mercurynews.com/athletics/ci_29424659/development-rights-no-cure-all-raiders-stadium-shortfall
Which, even if the Coliseum site won’t be the next San Jose–for a guy to think the best use of (essentially free) land in the Bay Area (!!) is to have people tailgate on it for 10 days a year is probably the best evidence available that Mark Davis is not a very good businessman.
The possible outcomes do seem about right. However, you left out the possibility that Davis plays at someone else’s stadium, whether that’s Inglewood or Santa Clara.
jcpardell: Sacramento is waiting? Yes, I’m sure they are waiting to find $500M at the bottom of the river. I guess it happened once–perhaps they could rename the Raiders to Sacramento 16ers.
Mark Davis can have his pick of development rights in Sacramento. Whether he wants to do so at the Cal Expo location or the Sleep Train Arena site. Of course, someone will have to give him $500 million to do it. I guess Oakland has the money. No. Stan Kroenke is going to give him the cash. Wait! Vegas is holding the loot! Whoa! San Antonio has it in a Swiss account. Hold your horses! St. Louis is rolling in it. Great Shamus! San Diego has the jackpot!
Development rights isn’t Davis’ issue. He doesn’t have the money to build a stadium. Period. End of story.
All the cities you list _could_ hand $500M to Davis ($600M if that city isn’t named Oakland and the NFL pulls the extra $100M). It’s just a really bad idea.
No city in California is likely to do that. Not because it is impossible but because it’s politically untenable. I have no idea what the political environment is like in Las Vegas, San Antonio or St Louis.
Where in California can he get it built for the cheapest price yet still be successful?
For the cheapest price? Probably in a field somewhere near Visalia, but that’s immaterial. Be successful? What an odd question. It assumes he’s going to be successful anywhere.
If he builds it in Oakland he has to find $500M. If he builds it anywhere else he needs to find $600M. He’s not going to find that anywhere in California. I have no idea about other states.
As an aside, not to be too Marco Rubio about it, let’s dispel with this fiction that Oakland is not handing money to the Raiders because it’s a poor city that has no money. Oakland has more money than most but simply has other priorities.
The projected revenue of the City of Oakland in the current fiscal year is $1.2139B. The projected revenue of the City of Sacramento is $951.6M. This is despite the fact that Oakland only has 414k people vs. Sacramento’s 485k people.
As cities go, Oakland’s tax base is nothing to shake a stick at. However, having money doesn’t imply wanting to make a giant bonfire of that money.
Somewhere in the depths of a hot place, Charlie O. and Al – the original narcissistic purveyors of deliberate mayhem for their own gain and ego
gratification – must be chuckling about this.
“Oakland, the luckiest city since Hiroshima…” – Mo. Senator Symington
JC,
I guess it all comes down to the fundamental question–even if you assume that Sacramento is where an NFL (as opposed to a CFL) team wants to be, why would you spend so much money on a stadium?
Either Sac is a nice town already, and stays nice. Or it is not a nice town, and stays not nice. I’m not clear what this NFL/MLB/MLS team does for the city.
Since the parking meters are already spoken for, why spend more money on something that could probably be built for itself.
Oakland has a large port. That agency supplies direct and indirect revenues for the City of Oakland. The city is very much like Long Beach. There are revenue sources but, because of the high crime rates, both expense nearly 70% of the general fund revenues for public safety. In Oakland’s case, it is considered the most unsafe city in California. Frankly, I don’t believe a franchise worth nearly $1 billion wants the stigma of being associated with such a moniker. In fact, although both cities have similar populations, Oakland’s violent crime rate per year is nearly double that of Sacramento’s
All things consdiered, and if the variables for a new stadium are similar, I believe Mark Davis will choose Sacramento.
Gdub: We already know what the preliminary cost will be for the Raiders stadium in Oakland. However, getting it financed is the obvious hurdle. I’m not stating it will be a simple process to get one financed in Sacrmaneto. However, I believe the options in Sacramento are better. For example, there is not much of a need to expense anything for freeway access or parking. Those items already exist. In regards to the locations in Sacramento I mentioned, both can obtain financing in ways that can alleviate placing the burdens on local taxpayers. The Cal Expo site is owned and operated by the State of California. They are looking to upgrade the facilities but are interested in having a development partner for that project. The Sleep Train Arena property is privately owned and maybe Mark Davis is amenable to bringing the Kings owners in as partners in a project for a new Raiders stadium. As I stated, it will be chore to fund a new stadium in Sacramento. But I don’t believe its impossible.
Why would Davis be any better off building a new stadium in Sacramento than staying at the Coliseum?
You before you state things, you should Googling them. The police expense which you claim are 70% of the Oakland General Fund is actually 46.54% of the General Fund. That is higher than Sacramento’s 30.9% but it is nowhere near the 70% you claim.
In wikipedia parlance “it is considered” is known as “weasel words.” Considered by whom? And what does crime rate have to do with sports franchises? The Yankees became the most valuable team in baseball at a time when the Bronx was synonymous with crime.
Oakland has its problems but it is both far above the national average in income and has the hottest housing market in the country at the moment. It’s doing fine and will continue to do fine if it doesn’t shoot itself in the foot by wasting tax dollars on stadiums.
You still haven’t answered the basic question: If the Raiders were to move to Sacramento (or anywhere else) where would the $500M-$600M come from? If you can’t answer that as much as you may hate Oakland the Raiders will be playing in a stadium someone else already has built.
I don’t get your hating on Oakland. I don’t live in Oakland (I live in San Francisco) but I admire the way the citizens and politicians have prioritized the right things and told the NFL and MLB to stuff it in a way few towns have.
jcpardell: You have identified how Sacramento can solve the problems Oakland doesn’t have. Getting land is not Mark Davis’ problem. The Warriors found land in San Francisco (twice). The A’s found land in Fremont, then San Jose. Land is a non-issue. There’s plenty of land.
Transportation is also a non-issue. Heck the current site has freeway access and direct BART service. Sacramento doesn’t even have a transit system like BART to begin with.
Mark Davis’ problem isn’t land and it isn’t transit. It’s that he’s $500M to $600M short of what it costs to build a stadium. That’s his problem and unless Sacramento is willing to give him that money (something that is politically untenable) it doesn’t solve his problem.
That wasn’t my question. My question is, why would Sacramento build a stadium–a very sketchy proposition and investment for a smallish city with no obvious upside–when the team/league could finance a reasonably priced and outfitted stadium itself.
If it doesn’t make the city nicer–and there really is no tie between NFL teams and business investment–why do it?
I don’t doubt that there are many cities that Mark Davis would like to have build him a stadium at no cost to the Davis family. That, frankly, is irrelevant.
Scola. Actually, I stated public safety costs which includes code enforcement, fire and police. That accounts for 53% of Oakland’s general fund expenditures. Granted, my contention was off. I don’t know if the budget accounts for the annual pension contributions made by Oakland taxpayers of the for the employees of those agencies. However, it does show more than half of what Oakland takes in is dedicated to the task of public safety.
I have never purported that someone has a magic bag containing $500 million for a new stadium If that were attainable, Mark Davis would have already jumped at the opportunity. I don’t hate on Oakland. I am pointing to certain existing facts about the city. The problems have been there for decades. But I do agree with you. Oakland has greater priorities than building sports facilities for franchises that are making millions of dollars for their owners.
That’s great. So we agree. Mark Davis isn’t getting a public stadium anywhere in California which means he has three options:
1. Play in someone else’s stadium. Inglewood, Santa Clara, heck do you think Atlanta would like a second team?
2. Play in the Coliseum.
3. Keep poking around until he can find some other city that will hand him $600M, because real city, NFL, blah, blah, blah.
None of those three options are Sacramento.
“You have identified how Sacramento can solve the problems Oakland doesn’t have. Getting land is not Mark Davis’ problem. The Warriors found land in San Francisco (twice). The A’s found land in Fremont, then San Jose. Land is a non-issue. There’s plenty of land.”
To the contrary. The Warriors first moving venture was met with opposition. Even after receiving their second location entitiled by the municipal government, there is judicial opposition (even if its frivolous). The A’s project in Fremont was equally met with local opposition and we know what happend to San Jose. The locations I referred to in Sacramento would be readily accepted by all parties involved, as well as the public.
Gdub: I mentioned the possibility of Davis partnering with the current Kings ownership on a project. Aside from that, I am unaware if Sacramento voters would support a taxpayer funded stadium for the Raiders. However, that is a dilemna we’re finding with other cities which have been mentioned for the Raiders.
Political opposition is not the same as difficulty in procuring land.
The Warriors ended up buying land from Salesforce. The A’s Fremont proposal was to use land owned by Cisco. It’s not like there’s not land.
I have no more idea if there would be hypothetical local opposition to a hypothetical site in Sacramento built on with hypothetical money than if there would be hypothetical local opposition to a hypothetical site in Oakland built on with hypothetical money. Come back when you have an actual proposal.
jcpardell: The Kings’ owner is Vivek Ranadivé who is worth $700M. If your plan is “find a really rich guy and hope he wants to pay $600M for a non-voting stake in an NFL franchise” you’d probably do better calling Sheldon Adelson, or at least one of several hundred people in the Bay Area who started companies that have market caps larger than TIBCO (Ranadivé’s company). You’d certainly do better finding someone who has $600M sitting around.
Scola. Viviek Ranadive isn’t the sole owner of the Sacramento Kings. Just like Mark Davis isn’t sole owner of the Raiders. However, there are realities Mark Davis may have to confront, the greatest being there aren’t many cities out there willing to hand over $500 million in taxpayer funds for a new stadium.
JC,
Again, I’m asking you:. assuming, even with your “partnership” with some rich due, that the vast majority of the costs would be borne directly or indirectly by taxpayers–why would Sacramento/Sacramentans build a stadium?
I’m not asking for a plan or a financing arrangement or whether a ballot initiative would pass. I’m asking why this is a good idea for Sacramento in your opinion? What does having an NFL team bring in benefits to Sacramento? And how do the benefits stack up against the costs?
Gdub: That is a question asked of virtually every city which has constructed a new NFL stadium. Based on what these facilities cost, there is no return on investment for whomever invests in such a project. After just two years of operations, there appear to be questions regarding the finances of Levi’s Stadium.
I don’t know if a new NFL stadium would be a good thing for Sacramento. I just believe, if I were owned the Raiders (all things being equal) that Sacramento is a better option for the franchise when compared with all of the other interested cities.
jcpardell: “That is a question asked of virtually every city which has constructed a new NFL stadium.”
Actually, it’s not. That is actually a question that is seldom asked. People just pay up for a lot of totally irrational reasons, but not so much on the West Coast.
All things being equal you would put your team in the biggest market you can find, which if you are open to sharing the market is New York, LA, the Bay Area, etc. and if you are looking for a vacant market is Portland. However, all things are never equal.
Of course, you reference “all the other interested cities” which is an interesting construction. It depends what “interested” is. If “interested” refers to “would like another professional sports team” that means “all cities.” If “interested” refers to “would like to give Mark Davis $600M” that means “no cities” or else the Raiders would have moved already.
jcpardell: Correct. Ranadive owns a mere 65% of the team. Other owners include Shaquille O’Neil with 5% (sure he’s more interested in football than basketball).
The other major investor is the Jacobs family. You may have heard of them. They have a bit over a billion dollars, so maybe them. Just one little problem–Irwin Jacobs is the founder of and Paul Jacobs is the CEO of Qualcomm. You may have heard of the company run, perhaps from the naming rights deal to the stadium that will soon be knocked down if the Chargers rather than Raiders move to LA. Oops. No worried though, what’s a shareholder lawsuit among friends. Something about fiduciary duty.
Nice try.
Utilizing the Kings ownership is just one example. However, given they own the land in Sacramento where Sleep Train Arena resides, they would be the likely candidates for some sort of partnership with the Raiders. As you stated, land is easy to procure. But as we have seen with Levi’s Stadium, a property selection doesn’t always produce the best results.
The reality is Mark Davis will have to obtain business partners to develop a new stadium for the Raiders. I don’t see that happening in Oakland. If that were the case, sponsors and financiers would have lined up along time ago offering their capital to build a stadium in that city.
Um, if building a stadium wouldn’t turn a profit for Davis alone, adding “business partners” isn’t going to magically put the project in the black.
The location of the team has little to do with “business partners”. No one wants to pay $600M for a small non-voting stake in the team and Mark Davis doesn’t seem interested in selling a controlling interest in the Raiders.
So once again, you haven’t solved his fundamental problem and we’re back to the same options:
1. Play in someone else’s stadium (that is already built or being built anyways). Inglewood, Santa Clara or somewhere else.
2. Play in the Coliseum.
3. Keep poking around until he can find some other city that will hand him $600M
Also, why would you be better at finding “business partners” in Sacramento than the Bay Area. Your “just an example” “business partners” are a guy who started a tech company in Palo Alto and a guy who started a tech company in San Diego.
And there’s clearly no sigma with the team having an “Oakland” moniker for finding business partners. When the A’s wanted to build a stadium in Fremont (and still be called the Oakland A’s) the found a partner in Cisco Systems, a freaking Dow component company, which offered not just the land but to buy the naming rights and to build a whole bunch of the stadium whistles-and-bells as a showpiece of “look at what our network equipment can do.” Sacramento has no comparable companies in its metro area.
By the way, Cisco’s CEO recently retired with $1B in his pocket though I believe he’s a basketball fan (or at least a friend keeps running into him at the Warriors games). Just another rich guy in the Bay Area if Davis ever wants to sell (which he clearly doesn’t).
You want immediate answers for a complex situation. The 49ers had to find a fool in Santa Clara before they secured anything and that was years in the making.
Most likely, Cisco agreed to sponsor that proposed stadium because of Fremont’s proximity to Silicon Valley. Will Cisco remain the stadium sponsor if the A’s build their stadium in Oakland? Why is it the most well known Internet company headquartered in Oakland doesn’t sponsor any of the professional sports teams in their city? A title sponsor no longer has to be from within the local boundaries. As I previously stated, the Giants stadium (along with the Warriors new arena) will not have naming rights sponsors that are headquartered in San Francisco. Thus, it will not matter if Raiders left Oakland for Sacramento. The likelihood they can obtain a financial partner of value equal (or greater than) to what they can attain in Sacramento is moot. Their franchise has never been the darling of corporate sponsors. Even the LA Stadium proposal with the Chargers was without a naming rights sponsor.
“Cisco agreed to sponsor that proposed stadium because of Fremont’s proximity to Silicon Valley.”
Well, sort of. Cisco had a big parcel of land in Fremont. That land was in Fremont because back in the dot-com boom Cisco was convinced they were going to outgrow their San Jose campus. After the bust they abandoned that plan. The A’s wanted to buy it and in negotiations to sell the land Cisco said “hey, can we do something bigger together?”
It had nothing to do with the A’s moving closer to Silicon Valley. It had to do with a deal that kept growing in scope. Cisco has since sold the land in Fremont to Integral Communities as there is a housing boom going on. Cisco may still may buy naming rights to whatever stadium the A’s build (or not) as they commercial relationship outlived the parcel of land.
Anyways, there’s the actual history.
I still have no idea why you think moving to Sacramento will suddenly make $600M appear and clearly either do you.
Also I like the line “you want immediate answers for a complex situation.”
I can’t think of any less complex of a situation than this. “I want something but I don’t have to money to buy it” is the most mundane, least complex situation I can possibly think of, experienced by literally billions of people all over the world every single day.
Scola. You’re comparing spending $1 billion on a new stadium with purchasing a #1 meal at McDonalds.
The basic principle is the same.
If you want something and you don’t have the money you have some options:
1. You can get a job (unlike most NFL owners Mark Davis doesn’t have one).
2. You can borrow the money (but then you have to pay it back)
3. You can save your money (so he’ll get a stadium in 20 years)
4. You can get someone to give you it (but no city in California feels like being a Mark Davis charity)
5. You can sell some of your stuff (your TV, a controlling ownership stake in an NFL franchise, whatever)
6. You can steal it (but you might go to jail, and while I know how one can steal a Big Mac, not sure how you steal a stadium)
This is called life, son.
And that is understood. However, since neither of us can predict the future its safe to state we don’t know where the Raiders will end up building a new stadium.
You’re close.
It’s not quite “safe to state we don’t know where the Raiders will end up building a new stadium.”
More accurate would be “its safe to state we don’t know IF the Raiders will end up building a new stadium.”
Which makes it extremely perplexing that you seem to believe not only will they but that it will be in Sacramento.
I never stated that Sacramento will build a new stadium for the Raiders. I reiterate my belief that Sacramento is the best location for any potential move undertaken by the Raiders.
Best in what way?
The best market for a sports team is the largest one available. The best market for Mark Davis is whichever one has $600M to give him.
Sacramento is, unless they happen to grow immensely or go nuts with public subsidies, neither of these.
Which is the largest available market for the Raiders? There is an outside chance at LA if the Chargers get their own stadium. Oakland? If its worked so well why do they want to leave? Portland? Even Mark Davis knows that wouldn’t work.
Which city do you believe is ready to fork over $600 million so the Raiders can have a new stadium?
Guys, can we stop going around in circles? Scola says that nobody is offering the Raiders $600m, including Sacramento. JC says if somebody’s going to offer $600m, it might as well be Sacramento. These are not incompatible notions, just different ways of spinning the same lack of information.
The exclusivity of those two break down to the old “If I was the Queen of England, then pigs would fly” logic problem. Technically if I know no one will pay the money, then there is no way to prove or disprove that if someone was to pay the money, it would be Sacramento. Likewise there’s no way to prove or disprove that it would be Dubuque.
However, I don’t have any idea if there is any city willing to give the Raiders $600M. Given an infinite amount of time, I suspect there may be.
Mark Davis has been trying one city after another. If I was a better man, Las Vegas and San Antonio seem better bets because of what I know of the politics in each place vs. California. That said, “a city not yet named” is just as likely.
Which brings me back to my basic premise. Davis has 3 choices:
1. Play in someone else’s stadium (that is already built or being built anyways). Inglewood, Santa Clara or somewhere else.
2. Play in the Coliseum.
3. Keep poking around until he can find some other city that will hand him $600M
My basic point is if Davis chooses #3 it cannot be Sacramento because the politics of Sacramento make giving $600M impossible. I guess I could have restated that as “If Mark Davis wants Sacramento to give him $600M then he will either have to play in the Coliseum, Inglewood, Santa Clara or another existing or under construction stadium.”
jcpardell: The largest available market right now is the Bay Area. That’s why he’s still here. If there was an obvious alternative, he would have moved.
As for Portland, why would that “not work.” It is the largest available standalone market. I mean beside the fact that there is no stadium and Portland isn’t going to give Mark Davis $600M so he can build one. However, that’s the same problem with every city being discussed, including your beloved Sacramento.
I guess San Diego has a stadium and it would, should the Chargers move to LA, become the largest available market without a team–America’s 18th largest vs. Portland the 19th. I suppose Davis could elect to play at Qualcomm Stadium. I can’t logically discount that possibility.
The Raiders are still here because: 1) The NFL owners voted for the Inglewood project 2) Abdicating the current fan base may prove too costly 3) Oakland granted him a short term lease.
To my understanding, Mark Davis wants to remain in California. Perhaps Portland would work for another NFL team. However, I can’t remember that city ever being on the short list for the NFL relocation committee. I do know that Mark Davis mentioned Sacramento as a possibility. The same can’t be said for Portland.
Neil: I haven’t put out any financial considerations or proposals. Scola is throwing out the $600 million benchmark for what it will take to persuade Mark Davis. If it happens elsewhere, that’s business. Mark Davis, and his partners, pending league approval, can do whatever they want. Scola is the one having an aneurysm over this subject.
Closing comments on this post now, out of mercy for anyone who’s read this far.