When you’re a major league sports commissioner, saying pretty much anything about anything is going to make headlines. So when MLB commissioner Rob Manfred said this yesterday on the Oakland A’s stadium situation:
“The differentiation between the Coliseum site and a site that’s maybe downtown, that’s a local issue. That’s for the A’s to sort out. I really do feel that the degree of influence that we should exercise in the process should be related to telling the club that we’d like them to stay in the market they are.”
…it made headlines.
Reading between the lines a bit, this could either be Manfred sending a “we’ve had enough of this whole A’s mess, Lew Wolff is on his own” message, or more likely an indication that Wolff still hasn’t decided for sure what site he wants to push for — something he hinted at last week — so MLB will take his lead. Especially since last year, when Wolff was pushing for a new lease on the Oakland Coliseum site, Manfred said MLB would go along with the A’s contention that “the Coliseum site is the best site for a baseball stadium in Oakland.” Sports commissioners seldom let themselves forget these days who signs their checks.
If their going to build on the same site, what are the chances Oakland becomes vacant for 3 years while the A’s temporarily play at AT&T Park & the Raiders have “permanently” relocated to Las Vegas or San Antonio.
It’s opportunistic for a city to have 2 MLB teams near each other…. Baseball is the only major sport that can’t temporarily play in a college stadium like the Vikings did, and the A’s owner/franchise isn’t despised like the Raiders, so could they realistically pull it off?
A general comment: the often used phrase “stadium situation” is a simple ploy to solicit a completely false sense of urgency — there is no “situation”. They have already have a place to play at, it is just that the team’s owners would like (someone else to pay for) a new stadium.
“If their going to build on the same site, what are the chances Oakland becomes vacant for 3 years while the A’s temporarily play at AT&T Park & the Raiders have “permanently” relocated to Las Vegas or San Antonio.”
I’d say pretty much zero. There’s plenty of room on the site for Wolff to build in the parking lot while playing at the Coliseum until a new stadium is ready.
And re: “situation,” yeah, I should be more careful about that. “Stadium melodrama” probably would have been more accurate.
We’ve come a long way from “there is no Oakland option” haven’t we?
Nice to see that sports franchise cartels occasionally do refuse their members absolutely anything (even if, as in this case, they only refused Wolff because granting him what he wanted would have meant inconveniencing another of their number…)
That makes sense, but if the new A’s stadium is built on site, would the Raiders be out of the equation afterwards? because renovating O.Co is probably as much of a deal-breaker as sharing Levi Stadium for Mark Davis, right?
In other words, the A’s would be waiting for their new stadium to be completed next door, while the Raiders would also be waiting for construction in Las Vegas or San Antonio to finish, unless they move early to the Alamo Dome?
It’s impossible to tell while both team owners are still playing king of the mountain. But I’d say that the Raiders playing two years in Santa Clara seems more likely than the A’s doing the same at Your Phone Company Name Here Park, if only for “driving is easier on Sundays” reasons.
Alex:
It is possible for a new A’s stadium to be built “in the parking lot” while staged renovations to the Coliseum are made for football over a couple of seasons. How major the renovations needed would be is not certain. I’m assuming they would keep Mt. Davis and knock down the rest while rebuilding, possibly with temp grandstand seating along the opposing sideline during the football season etc. However, how they do it and what they demolish or keep isn’t really the point. They could do that if needed.
Or, as has been suggested above, Davis could play two years at any of the available college or NFL stadia while a new football stadium is built. In a world where the Jets and Giants have been sharing for decades, and even the Yankees played at Shea for a couple of years, truly anything is possible.
One thing I keep repeating (and many are probably sick of hearing, but…) is that what Davis and Wolff own are professional sports franchises located in Oakland. They do not own portable assets until the leagues they are members of tell them that they do. That is an important distinction.
Not sure why someone would even bother using a name like “DiridonStadiumNo” when that plan has been off the table for a while. That’d be like using “Pier30/32ArenaNo” (Warriors first proposed site in SF for those who don’t know) even though nobody is even working on that plan anymore. Are you trying to rally people against a plan that no longer even exists?
Oh and by the way, Wolff and the A’s ownership in general hasn’t asked for a dime from Oakland/AlCo to cover stadium construction costs.
I think that technically MLB can force the Giants to temporarily house the A’s if a new stadium is being constructed.
Yeah, the Raiders to Santa Clara (or even Cal Memorial Stadium) would be easier to implement since it’s only 8 games a year, give or take the possibility of playoffs, but that means Oakland would be shelling out public money for TWO stadiums? I was under the impression that~ that was unlikely, and king of the mountain was a good way of looking at it…..
(I apologize for typing that that. There was a glitch in the matrix.)
Both franchises need to distance themselves from their market dominant competitors (Giants & 49ers). The A’s should purchase Raley Field, upgrade it for a few more millions and call Sacramento their new home. Ditto for the Raiders (if they can get a stadium financed) at the soon to be abandoned Sleep Train Arena site.
The Raiders have so many other options it’s crazy. I actually don’t think sharing Levi’s is a completely horrible idea, even on a permanent basis. They could also share Stanford Stadium or Cal Mem while shelling out a bit for less dramatic renovations (though those venues really would only work on a temporary basis). That would leave the Coliseum site open for the A’s to build their stadium there and continue to play at the Coliseum while the new stadium is built without seeking a temporary home…and everybody stays in the Bay Area. This would also buy Davis time to organize a stadium plan to move back to Oakland next door to the A’s if he wanted to. This sure as heck sounds like a better idea than moving to San Antonio or Vegas for crying out loud. Am I crazy?
And, for the record, the Giants have (as of a couple years ago) offered to share AT&T Park with the A’s for a season or two if the A’s get a stadium agreement in place that requires them to seek a temporary home. And, as much as Lew Wolff would find that idea unappetizing, if they had to find a temporary home, there really is no other option. That being said, the way I see it, that shouldn’t be necessary.
Sharing AT&T Park would have many contingencies. For example, would the Giants request additional revenues above just annual rent payments? It is a possibility. After all, the Warriors original plans for a new arena in SF was to partner with the Giants for the Sewall Lot 337 location development. That fell apart when it was reported the Giants were seeking too much control of the arena.
Alex;
As I understand it, Wolff is not presently seeking actual construction money from the city/county. He has a history of saying things like that and then requiring that some entity transfer to him property at less than actual value and agree to rezone etc so he turns an immediate profit on what was a public asset… which in my view is still a subsidy, but it’s not cash.
Unless I’ve missed something recently, though, he has said he will pay the construction costs (just as he would have in SJ) for an Oakland stadium. I doubt that means “no” public money of any kind, just that he isn’t at present looking for someone to build him a free stadium.
I don’t know if that helps the Raiders get free money or not. Anything they give to Davis Wolff will almost certainly expect as well.
There was a discussion on another thread here months ago about whether, given the Raiders fan base and the Oakland economy, Davis might be the first owner to purpose build a 42k-46k seat new facility… it would obviously cost less to do that than a 72,000 seat behemoth, and could create the kind of ticket scarcity that he hasn’t been able to achieve with Mt. Davis untarped….
Still, even if he was able to do that without public cash, it seems unlikely that the NFL would accept a 0-20% public contribution doesn’t it? Of course, I’m forgetting that the league isn’t really a fan of his family…
Don’t forget that Raley Field is now the home of the Giants’ AAA team. I doubt the A’s could buy it.
All though the Sacramento Rivercats are the Giants AAA affiliate, they are not owned by the San Francisco Giants. The team is independently run by a different ownership group, while Raley Field is owned by a defact public agency comprised of three counties surrounding the Sacramento area. Thus, it wouldn’t be up to the Giants if that stadium were to be sold.
John Bladen. “I don’t know if that helps the Raiders get free money or not. Anything they give to Davis Wolff will almost certainly expect as well.”
You are correct. In fact, the primary reason the City & County of San Francisco didn’t place themselves into a position of funding a new stadium for the 49ers was because of a potential negative reaction from the Giants, who paid for their own stadium.
The Oakland situation is a zero sum game. Someone is going to happy, while the other party will be upset. Frankly, I still believe the best thing for the A’s and Raiders is a move to Sacramento, while Oakland could stand to make more money by using the Coliseum land for developing much needed quality housing in that city.
“In fact, the primary reason the City & County of San Francisco didn’t place themselves into a position of funding a new stadium for the 49ers was because of a potential negative reaction from the Giants, who paid for their own stadium.”
That’s not even remotely true. The 49ers themselves proposed a San Francisco stadium with no public money (though lots of free public land) in 2006, then switched gears and went to Santa Clara. I followed it pretty closely, and don’t remember even a hint that the Giants owners had a hand in opposing subsidies for the 49ers.
Not true Neil. The initial proposal for a new 49ers stadium in San Francisco had an allocated $100 million resulting from a bond measure. When that fell apart, the developer for the Hunters Point project was offering $100 million to develop a new 49ers stadium. However, the agreement was for the 49ers to own and maintain their new home. What the City & County of SF offered was similar to what they provided for the Giants, which was to pay for the public infrastructure improvements.
Although the Giants never publicly displayed any opposition to the 49ers plan, there were opinions being expressed by a few people at city hall as to what the Giants response was going to be if the city agreed to fund and operate a new stadium for the 49ers.
The bond measure with the $100m didn’t fall apart — it passed in 1997, but the mall developer who was behind that project ended up backing out.
As for “opinions being expressed by a few people at city hall,” you’re going to need to direct me to a source on that, because it certainly wasn’t something that got much press play.
The initial stadium project fell apart after Eddie DeBartolo’s bribery issue and the subsequent transfer of the 49ers ownership to his sister. Ironically, the mall developer (Mills Corp) eventually ran into their own financial hardships and that company was taken over by the Simon Corp., which is partly owned by the DeBartolo family. The current developer of the Hunters Point property (Lennar) was offering $100 million in seed money for the stadium project. However, the 49ers had their eyes set on Santa Clara because that city was willing to assume ownership of the stadium.
The opinions expressed by people at SF City Hall were never made public. Its information I heard from reliable people who happen to work there. Most likely, how the Giants felt about public subsidies for the 49ers was something that had to be taken into consideration. Perhaps it explains why the 49ers were offered the same project allocations from SF that were granted to the Giants.
Couple of things that need to be set straight
1. The 49ers left Candlestick because it had 2 access points total and no public transportation options. The 49ers said they would pay for the stadium but the City/County had to pay for major infrastructure improvements estimated at 200M-300M….Of course SF balked big time at this. This plus if they built while playing at Candlestick next door would lead to even a more of a traffic nightmare….Hence they went to Santa Clara.
2. The Raiders cannot play at Cal Memorial Stadium, when renovated a clause was negotiated by local residents the NFL could not play there ever. This was to make sure the Raiders and their fans did not flood their streets. Stanford is possible from what I know, but in that case they may as well share Levi’s.
The A’s are trying to frustrate Mark Davis to leave, Wolff is stalling hence his 10 year lease.
He almost succeeded but the NFL did not oblige. He refuses to entertain a 2 stadium solution at the Coliseum as Mark Davis is proposing.
Wolff is greedy, he wants the entire site himself. Even though him and John Fisher could sneeze and build the stadium now on the Coliseum site.
Wolff should go to Manfred and demand he stays on revenue sharing this guaranteeing his investment.
Instead he plays the poor old rich guy stuck in a dump. It is getting old…
This plus Wolff knows full well Oakland will not kick him nor the Raiders out. It is one thing for a team to leave a city but has a city ever kicked out a pro team for another? Exactly
Wolff then goes out in public and says if the Raiders strike a deal with Oakland he can leave so nothing is stopping them….Horse shit.
Wolff is playing Oakland to get the Raiders to leave. It is obvious, this is why Davis is pissed and he is 100% right.
| Wolff then goes out in public and says if the Raiders strike a deal with Oakland he can leave so nothing is stopping them….Horse shit.
Under the terms of the 10-year lease, this is not horseshit, because it is *literally correct*: if the Raiders come forward with a *funded and approved stadium plan* that does not include the A’s, the A’s receive two years to make an exit from the Coliseum site, with the lease terminating early.
| Wolff is playing Oakland to get the Raiders to leave. It is obvious, this is why Davis is pissed and he is 100% right.
Davis is also without the money he says needs to build in Oakland (that being $400M±), and refuses to allow *any* cost-offsetting development on the Coliseum site (because tailgating is far more important to him) … so, essentially, he wants someone/ANYONE else to buy him hundreds of millions of dollars worth of parking lots, at a site where he doesn’t have full control/ownership.
“1. The 49ers left Candlestick because it had 2 access points total and no public transportation options. The 49ers said they would pay for the stadium but the City/County had to pay for major infrastructure improvements estimated at 200M-300M….Of course SF balked big time at this. This plus if they built while playing at Candlestick next door would lead to even a more of a traffic nightmare….Hence they went to Santa Clara.”
There are a quite a few reasons why the 49ers left San Francisco. The ones your listed were not paramount. After all, the parking and traffic situations at Levi’s Stadium have turned out to be worse than what existed at Candlestick Park. If you examine the primary factor for the 49ers moving to Santa Clara, throw out all the disclaimers. They wanted someone else to own and pay for most of the stadium. San Francisco wasn’t willing to do that.
I realize that Mount Davis is a problem. But I really don’t understand how engineers and architects cannot design a 2-sport stadium design that works, even with luxury seats.
Of all the MLB stadiums I’ve been to, Oakland Coliseum is actually one of the best for sight lines (and in the sun feels warm and great, especially compared to SF).
One of the great mysteries of our era is how a sport that plays 10 times a year could justify its own massive publicly-funded stadium without question (OK, I’m sure I’m missing an NCAA lacrosse tournament or two a year).
Neither team *wants* a two-sport stadium.
jcpardell: Is there any team you don’t want to move to Sacramento.
A publicly financed stadium in San Francisco paid by a bond issue is, was and always has been a non-starter in San Francisco. It had nothing to do with offending the Giants. The public would have voted 80% opposed and I say that as a registered San Francisco voter.
Heck, there is often public opposition to stadiums that _don’t_ have public financing.
John Bladen: Don’t chalk it entirely up to Giants territorial issues.
Banging my usual “it’s the economy stupid” drum, it’s worth noting Oakland is in an economic boom. That makes selling tickets in Oakland much easier than a few years back. Furthermore, Oakland housing prices are rising fast and there’s a building boom. Lew Wolff is a real estate developer by trade.
Suddenly Oakland became an option when there was more money to be made in Oakland.
CCCTL
I do get it that they don’t “want” a dual purpose stadium. My point is, given that they basically have capital construction budgets of zero, why do they get to choose?
The main complaints about previous dual use stadiums are that 1) they are boring (of course, the Roman Coliseum would be boring too) 2) they have astroturf (plant grass) and 3) luxury seating. Put some engineering to work on the last and see what is possible, since you don’t need a roof in Oakland.
This whole argument over who gets the most free land is silly given that there are only two mutually exclusive options. Develop a third.
@Scola
Yeah, look at what the Warriors are going through. They are not only doing this with 100% private money but they are paying for infrastructure/traffic improvements on their own dime.
@GDub
Neither MLB nor the NFL want multipurpose stadiums anymore. O.co will be the last of it’s kind but you’re right. It’s unbelievable what the NFL gets away with for a mere 10-20 events a year. Throw in the fact that TV money covers so much and you have all the more reason for them to stay in their old stadiums as opposed to having their hand out for more.
GDub: Given the very different desired capacities and field sizes getting a good stadium with a good environment and good sight lines that works for both football and baseball is non-trivial. Heck, to be honest most new football stadiums suck. They still haven’t figured out how to make the game work for both the folks in the luxury boxes and us proles. In fact they’ve been getting progressively worse. Baseball does better.
Also I don’t know where you got the idea that the A’s capital construction budget was zero. Unlike Mark Davis Lew Wolff has a fair bit of cash as well as an ability to finance big multi-use projects. That’s his day job. End of the day he’ll probably do something like he did with the Earthquake’s stadium.
| they basically have capital construction budgets of zero
Nope.
Mark Davis has about $600M of an estimated billion towards a new football stadium surrounded by tailgating-friendly parking (and NO development that could infringe on that), and is waiting for someone to hand him the rest of the money (without asking for effective control of the team). He has no assets to leverage besides the team itself.
The A’s (Lew Wolff & John Fisher) are, literally, loaded. Wolff is a very well respected real estate developer, with stakes in multiple hotels in the Bay Area and beyond. Fisher is one of the billionaire heirs to the GAP, but in his own efforts wasn’t a very successful businessman, so he lets Wolff handle that stuff.
The usual complaint “why don’t the A’s spend more money on payroll” goes flat when it comes out that the A’s actually would be bleeding gallons of red ink without revenue sharing. Asking a rich man to go broke keeping players on the field is, quite literally, a large part of how the A’s got into this mess: the Haas family forced the sale in the mid-90’s, because they had this crazy idea that Dad shouldn’t spend the family into the poorhouse.
Raiders want a stadium with 45-60K seats, and draw most of their money from the NFL TV money fountain.
A’s don’t want to be stuck with bad TV contracts because of having to cover 25K seats every game (advertisers hate empty seats on screen), only need about 35K seats, and like all MLB teams are much more dependant on local revenue.
TL;DR – Raiders are far from having enough money to build, and want a big stadium surrounded by parking (keeping them from getting investors), while the A’s have money to build on their own smaller ballpark, but have the city trying to play both sides, keeping the Raiders in the way.
CCTL: That’s actually an excellent summary.
I’d add my reference to Avaya Stadium was in that case my understanding is he bought a big parcel more or less at market and got the city to rezone it so he could make a bundle, a rezoning that wouldn’t have done without a stadium.
The “not sure on the site” is I imagine he’s not sure if he want a big site like the Coliseum where he has to fight the Raiders or a smaller site that suddenly changes from industrial land to “new luxury waterfront condos, one BART stop to Embarcadero”. That might depend on things like what happens to the IPO market which are very unknown.
In such a scenario the loss of industrial land and transportation hassles for trucks might make ships decide to call in Long Beach instead of Oakland impacting the public coffers. However that’s a sufficiently Rube Goldberg-esque public subsidy that you could make it fly, even in Oakland.
I don’t know, if he has “$600 million of a $1 billion dollar stadium” you’re really saying “he has $600 million.” So maybe the right answer is to build a $600 million stadium?
Since every building proposal (on either side) depends on either free money or free land (to make money developing to build the stadium) I’d still say they really don’t have a lot of skin in the game. Which is typical for real estate people.
As for all the “wants”–well, you kind of get what you get. A proposal for a city paying $400 million so the Raiders can live off TV contracts seems like a reason for Davis to try to borrow $400 million.
I realize that the engineering problem is probably difficult (but surely if $1bn is going to be spent on a roofless stadium something unique could be done). I’d agree with Scola that football stadiums are generally lame, so I really don’t see the advance to the public of spending more money to get fewer seats.
GDub: No one is getting free money in Oakland. They might get free land or at least discounted land but even that isn’t certain.
There are ways Wolff could make it work with private financing. He made it work with a soccer stadium and the Giants made it work with a baseball stadium and the market fundamentals are there.
As for the Raiders, no idea. They have less money than Wolff, no development experience, the price tag is bigger and they want big parking lots. In every way their challenge is greater. Seems to me they will either play at the Coliseum, move to LA, move to Santa Clara or find a city without Oakland’s aversion to direct handouts.
Clarification on the $600M that Davis says he has:
$200M NFL G4 loan (of which he’ll really only have to repay $50M)
$100M “money on the dresser” consolation for missing out on Inglewood
$300M± to be borrowed against new stadium naming rights, advertising signage sales, and PSL’s.
Actual assets Davis has: The Raiders, a newish Camaro, and a twenty+ year old custom Dodge Caravan (“with built-in VCR!”).
Scola. The initial bond measure for a new 49ers was passed by a razor thin margin. I say that as a native San Franciscan who VOTED on that ballot issue.
And NO, I don’t want every team to move to Sacramento. However, from a point of mere strategy, I believe the A’s and Raiders should move there.
That bond measure was from 1997, a very different time, and was repealed by 63% of San Francisco voters in 2008. The people who opposed 2008 Prop G did so not because they wanted to keep the bond but because they felt there should be more affordable housing in the Bayview.
I’m not going round and round with you on Sacramento again, but let’s just say that anyone who moves an entertainment business, including a sports franchise, from the Bay Area to Sacramento without being given a large pool of free (preferably taxpayer) money is a complete freaking moron. Now Mark Davis may arguably be a complete moron but Lew Wolff is anything but.
The bond measure was repealed when it was pretty much set the 49ers had their sights set on Santa Clara. Why have $100 million floating around for a project that wasn’t going to happen?
For some reason, you’re tooting Oakland’s horn when the supposed Renaissance of that city has been nothing but a facade. The growth of that city’s problems continues to outpace the improvements. As for Sacramento, if that city were such a terrible sports community the NBA would have allowed the Kings to move and MLS wouldn’t be considering adding a franchise in that city. Now, I don’t see MLS knocking on Oakland’s door, nor do I see the Warriors fighting all that hard to remain there.
Prop G specifically zoned land for a privately financed stadium and Santa Clara Measure J which approved the financing for Levi’s Stadium wasn’t passed until 2010. It most certainly was not “pretty much set” that the 49ers were moving to Santa Clara. San Francisco taxpayers, like yours truly, simply said “we want you to build a stadium but we’re not paying for it.”
As for your Oakland-bashing, Oakland is doing fine and Alameda County is the fastest growing county in the state. Give it up.
From Wikipedia: On November 9, 2006, the San Francisco 49ers ended negotiations with the city of San Francisco for the development of a new football stadium that would also be used as the centerpiece of the 2016 Olympics. The 49ers would eventually move to nearby city Santa Clara. Bid organizers would have had to create a new plan for a central stadium if the 49ers relocated.[2]
Termination of bid[edit]
On November 13, 2006, San Francisco withdrew its bid from the national selection process. Scott Givens, speaking for the bid committee, cited a “damaged reputation”[3] due to failed negotiations surrounding the 49ers’ stadium.
The disruption between the 49ers and City & County Of San Francisco occurred three years before the passage of Measure G (which I voted for). Despite the repeal of the 1997 bond measure, Lennar was going to provide the $100 million for a new 49ers stadium. However, the 49ers intent on leaving SF for Santa Clara was established long before Measure G was passed.
As for Oakland, I’m sure its doing just fine: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/FBI-Oakland-Dangerous-City-282469281.html
You know it’s 2016 right? Just checking because your article is about a report of what happened in 2013.
Oh, I’m sure in less than two years Oakland has wiped out decades of problems. In fact, my girlfriend and I were thinking about taking a romantic stroll along International Blvd.
That’s nice. If you can find a house over there anywhere north of 580 that’s under a million and not a total gut job let me know. I’d be interested.
I get. You only count the Oakland Hills and Piedmont as being Oakland. I understand. The areas around MacArthur or San Pablo Ave. are not part of your census.
I know they exist but they aren’t the people with the disposable income who buy football or baseball tickets. Except maybe the hipsters in West Oakland, but they don’t do sports.
But fine, move all the teams to Sacramento. I know in business when I’m having some business troubles I always say “let me find a smaller market with less disposable income, that should turn things around.”
That is your perception. The other way of looking at it is whether if the A’s & Raiders want to remain the small fish in big pond or become the big fish in a small pond.
jcpardell: I get it but that’s frankly that doesn’t make any sense.
Others have covered this in depth but I’ll summarize this for you: You think the two teams will move or stay for the same reasons and have no nuance for the economics. They will move or stay for totally different reasons, in fact almost opposite reasons.
—
Mark Davis: “America, the world, all possibilities for the Raider nation.”
Mark Davis wants a new stadium surrounded by a parking lot. He has no money of his own. Such an idea would yield no development revenue. He can’t get other investors because he’d have to sell a controlling stake in his franchise to do so which defeats the purpose.
Such a stadium would cost $1-$2, with his proposed idea coming in around $1.2B. Between NFL funds, PSLs and naming rights he could come up with $600M. That leaves him $600M short.
Why not Sacramento? In a word: Politics. The voters of Sacramento are not likely to approve that kind of public subsidy. If they would he would gladly move there.
What will Mark Davis do? Well, right now he has a shot of going in with Kroenke in LA depending on what happens in San Diego. Therefore, he stays in Oakland until that option isn’t on the table. If he can move to LA he will. If not he will continue to poke around cities to find someone who gives him $600M. Whoever does gets the Raiders.
If history is any guide, given infinite time, eventually some city will. Civic boosterism, “put our city on the map”, blah, blah, blah. It’s just a matter of his patience. Where would he end up? Who knows. Or perhaps Oakland forces the issue or his mom dies and he decides to cash out. Don’t know but until he comes up with a $600M public subsidy from some city, he’s in limbo.
—
Lew Wolff: “Cities like San Jose and Oakland are in the path of growth.” He said that unprovoked when commenting on buying the Sainte Claire Hotel (now after his renovation the Westin San Jose)
Unlike Davis, Wolff isn’t really a sports team owner. He’s a real estate developer with most of his interests in the Bay Area though he does have some in Southern California and Arizona.
A baseball stadium costs more like $400M-$600M, much less than a football one, which is well within his means. Wolff’s play has always been using a stadium to anchor a larger development. Wolff’s profile is not exceptionally risk-seeking. He’s savvy and makes good but somewhat reserved bets and he knows the local environment of the Bay Area well. He can work the zoning codes.
Nearly a decade ago he had a pretty solid plan to build a stadium in San Jose with private money, though there were some small, hidden giveaways that wasn’t going to cost anyone their office. The Giants scuttled it. However, Wolff also made a bunch of other investments in San Jose–Avaya Stadium and associated developments, the before mentioned Sainte Claire as well as the Fairmont and a number of office buildings. He decided he was going to bet on San Jose real estate and the A’s stadium was just part of that bet.
Why not Sacramento? Economics. Sacramento has limited demand for the kind of development Wolff does well–hotels, large office buildings, high density condos. There’s not much demand and the local economy is heavily tied to California government, which is a whole different animal. They opportunity is just not there.
Wolff is in some ways conservative, or prudent depending on how you put it. He’s not going into high risk areas. He doesn’t do low income housing. Not his business.
A decade ago some developers went into Oakland, mostly around Jack London Square. Some did well. Some got burned. However since then the folks who did the Uptown condos did very well. Mission Bay Development Group did very well on the old Sears which they bought for cheap and just sold to Uber. This is the kind of market Wolff likes.
Furthermore, 10 years ago the Coliseum site redevelopment called for 2 stadiums and a basketball arena. That left little room for the hotels, condos, etc. that are key to his investments. Now potentially he’s down to just his stadium if the Raiders do go to LA and the market is a lot better and lower risk.
My best guess is Wolff is exploring sites, crunching numbers, talking rezoning, etc. etc. around various Oakland sites and will move if and only if it gets him into the type of development he wants anyways. If it doesn’t work out he’ll stay at the Coliseum until the next time he wants to get into a market and he’ll buy some other Oakland property instead. Either way, the A’s are staying in the Bay Area and their future stadium will materialize if and when it suits Wolff’s investment portfolio.
Anyways, there you have it. Sacramento makes no sense for either team unless they come up with $600M in public subsidies for the Raiders or they go through an economic transformation to resemble the kind of places Wolff buys real estate.
The only place big fish or small fish and big pond or small pond comes into play is how you design the coi pond in Wolff’s hotel or office building.
Obviously you haven’t seen the amount of growth occurring in downtown Sacramento. There are new condos being constructed and, if the Sacramento Republic becomes the next MLS franchise, the largest urban infill project in the country will soon be taking place. As for Lew Wolff’s contentions, he is in his early eighties and there’s no telling how much longer he will remain in association with the A’s or long term real estate projects.
Unjustifiably, Sacramento was given the moniker of being a “Cow Town”. That is no longer the case. There has been a tremendous amount of growth in that city and it will continue to grow. Strangely enough, the Oakland hotel occupancy rate is 79%. That is much higher than the national average. However, how much of that is the result of spill over activity from San Francisco hotels being overbooked or too expensive? But to state Sacramento has much less visitor activity is a farce. There hotel room occupancy rate is 78%. Thus, there is a demand and existing opportunities for visionary projects. In fact, a brand new Kimpton Hotel is being constructed adjacent to the Sacramento Kings new arena. Is that the type of economic activity that Lew Wolff doesn’t like?
Eventually, Lew Wolff and Mark Davis will decide what to do with their stadium situations. Where that ends up being is anyone’s guess. If being the small fish in a big pond has worked out so well for the A’s & Raiders, they would be two of the most successful sports franchises in their industry. We all know that isn’t the case.
Oooh. A Kimpton. Ahhh.
If Lew Wolff wanted to build a development with a stadium at its core in Sacramento he could have already. In fact Sacramento grew by 14.6% from 2000 to 2010 and 4.0% since. Oakland declined by 2.2% and has grown 5.9% since. If Sacramento is such a good investment today it was a great investment 10 years ago.
If Sacramento is such a fantastic market, why didn’t all these team move there already? Heck why aren’t other NFL or MLB teams moving there? Why did the Kings move in the 80s (an epic disaster for city and team alike) and the Raiders threaten it in the 90s and not a peep since? What’s up? It’s a great market, right?
As for MLS, don’t count your chickens before they hatch depressed cow town.
Great, now I have this stuck in my head:
Perhaps this should stick in your head, Neil. Because Scola believes Oakland is doing just fine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvTEBYgGjvk
I’ll appeal to Neil more directly :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/fashion/oakland-california-brooklyn-by-the-bay.html
I may live in San Francisco, and love San Francisco but nothing pisses me off like the snooty people here who thumb their nose at Oakland. I go over to Oakland all the time because while it may be a little rough around the edges in places, Oakland is pretty great.
Scola How many major sports franchises have relocated over the past ten years? Its not as if its an everyday occurrence. Sacramento is definitely an emerging market. Are you stating the Kings moving from Kansas City was a mistake? Three years ago the team was sold for a then record $500+ million. Even after winning last year’s World Series, the Kansas City Royals are still one of the least valued teams in baseball. The A’s are also near the bottom of that list.
The probability is high that Sacramento will be one of the next cities to host an MLS franchise. I heard there were a few league representatives at the recent SJ Earthquakes v. Sacramento Republic preseason soccer match. Reportedly, they were very impressed with the Sacramento crowd.
“MLS officials showed up. Reportedly they were impressed with the Sacramento crowd.” If you were a journalist, Neil would link to that puff piece and tear you to pieces. :)
I’ll simply agree with his take on the Sacramento MLS franchise. “Yeah, I have no idea how this is going to work out”
https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2015/12/02/10192/sacramento-council-approves-mls-stadium-term-sheet-owner-swears-he-can-pay-for-it-himself/
Good for Sacramento if they can pull it off. The numbers don’t add up, but not my money and thankfully not the taxpayers in this case.
As for the Kings moving they moved from KC to Sacramento but doesn’t seem to have solved the problem. They are still near the bottom of the league in revenues and the city is giving them subsidies now, due to a corrupt end-run by their crook of a mayor, much to the anger of the average citizen. They should have just moved either to Seattle or to San Jose when they had the chance. Would have been better for everyone.
Sacramento is not an “emerging market.” Sacramento emerged in the 80s and has been fairly stagnant since. Austin is an emerging market. Portland is arguably an emerging market. Orlando is an emerging market.Sacramento, not so much. How is a market that is 37th largest in the US but growing at about the rate of Minneapolis or Boston in any way “emerging”. It’s a small mature market.
I lived in North Oakland in 1984. I’m sure I could never touch anyplace around there now. Not that having a pricey neighborhood makes an entire city wonderful, but neither does having a lot of crime make a city entirely undesirable. Especially for a sports franchise, which is more concerned about having people to sell to than about walking to the grocery store at 2 am.
I’ve never been to Sacramento, but I know that 1) it’s a lot smaller than the East Bay and 2) you can’t commute to the Bay Area from there. Not that this makes it a bad place, but all things being equal, a share of a bigger market is better than a smaller market to yourself. (See: New York Islanders, still not in Kansas City.)
None of this applies much to football, which cares far more about stadium deals than about market size, because of the whole lack of local cable deals thing. (Megamarkets like L.A. somewhat notwithstanding these days, obviously.) If Mark Davis is smart, he’ll just shop around for whatever city is offering him the most stadium cash — given that he’s already ruled out St. Louis out of hand, I think we can determine that rational economic decision-making isn’t his strong point.
As I stated, the greater likelihood is an MLS franchise will be in Sacramento’s future. That won’t happen for Oakland.
The Kings purported move to Seattle was blocked by the NBA. Obviously, the league wanted a team to remain in Sacramento. What would moving to San Jose have gotten them? SAP Arena was built with subsidies from the City of San Jose. So, what is the difference. However, I doubt the NBA would have allowed such a move with the Warriors being the dominant market team.
Sacramento is an emerging market with continued growth. Perhaps you don’t like the fact its doing so at a pace which is much better than Oakland.
Actually as I already pointed out Sacramento proper is growing slower than Oakland (4.0% vs. 5.9%). It’s also growing slower than San Francisco (5.87%), San Jose (7.38%) and even freaking Fresno (4.31%) ferchrissakes. Fresno.
On a national level it is growing slower than the following cities: Houston, Phoenix. San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Columbus OH, Ft Worth, El Paso, Seattle, DC, Denver, Boston, Nashville, Oklahoma City, Portland and Las Vegas, Atlanta, Omaha, Raleigh, Miami, Minneapolis, need I go on.
Neil. It depends where in North Oakland. If you’re looking towards the Rockridge area, of course there will be very expensive homes. However, if you’re heading more towards San Pablo, the prices are relatively affordable by Bay Area standards.
I disagree with your contention. First, Sacramento County is not much smaller than the East Bay. If you’re going to incorporate the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, then add San Joaquin, Solano and Yolo to Sacramento’s and you will find the population is nearly equal. As for sharing a larger market, how well has that worked for the A’s and Raiders? They still are ranked near the bottom when it comes to franchise valuations.
I believe Mark Davis wants to remain in California. As you stated, it will depend where he can get the best deal. Quite frankly, should remaining in the Golden State be his optimum wish, he needs to change his expectations.
Generally agree. I assume St Louis is because they ruled themselves out and their previous offer of $477M was $123M short of what he needs and probably would bankrupt the city of St Louis anyways. Maybe I’m giving Davis too much credit.
That said, I wouldn’t be shocked if after trying a bunch of other cities, he comes back to that one, even though St Louis is worse in every metric than Oakland (including murder rate).
Scola. If you think Fresno’s GDP is growing at a faster rate than Sacramento, I have a stadium to sell you.
I was going based on city population. GDP makes me do math. 2010-2014 Sacramento MSA grew by 13.4%. San Jose metro grew 30% and San Francisco/Oakland metro grew 23%. Can’t find Fresno.
As for your other numbers, you realize most people in Solano County live much closer to Oakland (or heck, closer to San Francisco) than they live to Sacramento? Not many people live in Winters. Likewise, some parts of San Joaquin County (e.g. Tracy) are as well, though admittedly Stockton is 20 miles closer to Sacramento.
Also, Neil contends you can’t commute to Sacramento from the Bay Area when in fact, Amtrak gets you there in approximately 90 minutes.
By Amtrak you can commute from Wilmington DE to NYC in 90 minutes and it drops you at Penn Station, not Emeryville.
I worked with a guy who lived in Sacramento and commuted to Milpitas (I was commuting from SF which sucked). He had a friend and slept on his couch. He couldn’t do it twice a day. I actually have a few friends colleagues who have moved to Sacramento and telecommuted due to cheaper housing.
I may have been ripping into Sacramento but I actually have nothing against Sacramento. There are some good things to say about it. It’s actually America’s least segregated town. I harbor Sacramento no ill will.
Unfortunately Sacramento is right in the sweet spot for getting screwed by pro sports teams. NYC, LA, the Bay Area, etc. can get things built without public subsidies. The markets are large enough that they can demand it if they hold their ground. Sacramento is more comparable in size with Pittsburgh, Cincinnati or St Louis. Those cities have gotten seriously screwed over and the Kings arena was a giant screwing of Sacramento. In you Sacramento boosterism (or perhaps SF snobbery and irrational hatred of every other Bay Area city) you’re basically advocating these people getting screwed, and that doesn’t sit well with me.
The Giants/Jets stadium in New Jersey was built without public subsidies. The proposed Inglewood stadium for the LA Rams is (supposedly) going to be built without public subsides. Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara was built with public subsidies. If the Raiders get a new stadium in Oakland, it will be built with public subsidies. For more than twenty years, Oakland taxpayers have been getting screwed by paying for not just the installed renovations which lured the Raiders back from LA, but for having to subsidize the annual revenue shortfalls of the entire Coliseum complex.
And if you think Santa Clara taxpayers aren’t going to be screwed over from the results of Levi’s Stadium, then maybe you should testify in front of the grand jury currently investigating the public agency that operates the 49ers new home.
You seem to have missed the line “NYC, LA, the Bay Area, etc. can get things built without public subsidies.” So I’ve already stipulated this. When a stadium is built without public funds in Pittsburgh, let me know. Sacramento isn’t New York or LA. The Bay Area is at least in the same league.
Also, you are absolutely correct with your statement “If the Raiders get a new stadium in Oakland, it will be built with public subsidies.” Agree 100%. This is along the lines of “If I was the new queen of England, I’d be rich”. It’s probably not happening. In my view there is essential zero chance the Raiders are building a new stadium in Oakland. Haven’t I told you think at least a million times by now.
No stadium in Oakland is getting public subsidies these days. It just isn’t happening. Libby Schaaf isn’t some crusader against public funds. She represents the voters.
Admittedly the city may sell some public land possibly for less than market which is a form of subsidy, though a smaller one and even that isn’t guaranteed. They also may change zoning or make transportation improvements or other such things to encourage a development they otherwise wouldn’t. That’s sort of a subsidy too but that involves economic discussions around opportunity cost, assumptions, etc. rather than actual shoveling of tax dollars.
This last scenario makes a lot more sense for the A’s than Raiders because their owner is a developer, their owner wants to do development, their owner can fund it, they need less space, and a baseball stadium makes a better anchor tenant for a new development. However, if Wolff wants to do this development on the coliseum site (and it is possible he might prefer somewhere around the booming downtown) the issue is he still has two other sports teams playing there, and while the Warriors are moving out, the Raiders may well be playing in the coliseum for years or even decades to come if LA doesn’t pan out.
By the way, since you always seem to bring things back to Levi’s Stadium, you must be the only San Francisco resident who is the least bit upset the 49ers moved there.
From where I sit Levi’s Stadium is fantastic. The redevelopment plan for Hunter’s Point and Candlestick Point is the anti-Barclay’s Center. They planned a development with a sports stadium and affordable housing, and they ended up building all the affordable housing and not the stadium. In fact they took the stadium land and are building more housing. It’s great.
I thank the voters of Santa Clara for solving that problem for us. If you ask any SF resident “what do you want, a football team or affordable housing?” it wouldn’t even be close.
I could care less about the 49ers having moved to Santa Clara. My rebuttal is your contention of stadiums being built in the Bay Area without subsidies is not accurate. To my understanding, only the Giants and Earthquakes have privately financed stadiums.
Santa Clara effectively loaned the 49ers a bunch of money for their stadium, but the team is going to end up paying it all back. Other than that and the two you mentioned, there haven’t been any new stadiums or arenas built in the Bay Area since the Oakland Coliseum in 1968, have there?
Nothing new. However, the Oakland Coliseum was renovated for the Raiders and the arena was redone for the Warriors. It will be interesting to see if the 49ers pay back every dollar which was lent to them for Levi’s Stadium. I don’t believe that will happen.
SAP Center did have public financing but it passed a public vote in 1988 and only 53%-47%. I’m not at all convinced it would pass today. San Jose was big on the whole “emerging city” “get out of SF’s shadow” civic boosterism back in those days just like Oakland was in the 60s. That era has passed.
More recently the Warriors arena is 100% privately financed too plus they are kicking in extra funds to buy off UCSF. In fact it doesn’t even have the indirect subsidies from free land and the like the Giants stadium has.
As you point out Santa Clara took on risk, but it looks like they may not end up on the hook due to revenues looking good so far. I wouldn’t have played that game of Russian roulette if I was a Santa Clara voter, but I’m not and I’m glad it doesn’t look like they will get screwed.
I don’t think I would ever say “No Bay Area city is ever going to spend public money on a new stadium or arena.” But if you wanted nominations for the metro area where it’s the most uphill of a battle for team owners to loosen the public purse strings, it’d have to be at the top of the list.
Scola: I believe its premature to call Levi’s Stadium a financial success after only two years of operations. In fact, according to the City of Santa Clara, there was a positive general fund impact of $2.9 million resulting from the first year of the stadium’s operations.That doesn’t take into account the decrease in revenues from Great America, which renegotiated their lease because of the impact Levi’s Stadium was going to have on the amuesment park.
They already sold the PSLs and naming rights, though, which are supposed to cover the bulk of the city’s share of stadium debt. And the rest is owed as flat rent payments from the team, so the only way those don’t get paid is if the 49ers go bankrupt:
https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2012/03/15/3348/santa-clara-49ers-stadium-hits-1-2b-but-who-pays/
Santa Clara got lucky, yes, as poor PSL sales could easily have blown a Mount Davis-sized hole in the public treasury. But now that the money has been raised, it’s basically assured of paying back its construction costs, regardless of how ticket sales go in the future. (Unless PSL buyers default on their payments en masse, but that’s never happened before in the history of ever.)
Repayment of the debt service was one expense for the Santa Clara Stadium Authority. Let’s see if the rent payments are sufficient enough to cover the other existing annual expenses of Levi’s Stadium.