A big piece of pro sports commissioners’ job is supporting their team owners’ stadium shakedown attempts, generally by saying some variation on It’d be a terrible thing for something to happen to your team, now wouldn’t it? MLB commissioner Rob Manfred has tried this before on behalf of Oakland A’s owner John Fisher, and generally hasn’t been very good at it, but it is his one job, so let’s see how he did yesterday when he tried, tried again:
Manfred began by saying it’s “kind of beyond debate at this point” that new stadiums are necessary in both cities, adding: “Oakland, probably critical just in terms of the condition of the ballpark.”
“Particularly in the case of Oakland, we’ve had to open up the opportunity to explore other locations, just because it’s dragged on so long,” Manfred said. “And frankly, in some ways, we’re not sure we see a path to success in terms of getting something built in Oakland.”
Asked again if relocation is a possibility, Manfred said: “Yeah, (it) is a possibility. Yeah. I mean, they’ve been talking to Las Vegas. It’s gotten a lot of publicity, but there are options in terms of relocation in addition to Las Vegas.”
That is so close to English! Even if he hedges (“in some ways”) when he’s in the middle of expressing practiced impatience with Oakland-area governing bodies not leaping at the chance to give Fisher tax money, he sticks the landing: If not gifted $855 million in public cash, the A’s could move. To Las Vegas. Or somewhere. There are other options! In, you know, places.
Awkward syntax aside, Manfred’s word salad did accomplish what it set out to do: It got the San Francisco Chronicle to phone Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf to ask if this means stadium talks are falling apart now that Schaaf only wants to put up maybe a couple hundred million towards the project, and the mayor replied that oh, no, she’s still committed, it’s those nasty Alameda County officials who are refusing to okay future property tax kickbacks:
“I’m in regular communication with the commissioner and with the A’s, and nothing has changed,” Schaaf said. “The commissioner remains very frustrated and impatient — as am I — about progress toward locking down the Howard Terminal project.”…
“It is going to be incredibly important that the county votes to affirmatively state their intent to participate in financing the affordable housing and the public parks that are an integral community benefit for the total ballpark project,” Schaaf said. “I know the commissioner is definitely looking to see that progress. Many of us are counting on that as well.”
Look, it only makes sense for an elected official to try to get some other level of government to pay for her pet project — if the public cost breakdown of A’s stadium subsidies ends up being something like, say, $200 million city, $300 million county, $350 million state and/or federal and/or knocking over a bunch of liquor stores, she’s certainly done her duty of keeping costs down for her constituents. Except of course that Oakland residents are also Alameda County residents and California residents and U.S. residents, so fobbing off some costs onto higher levels of government doesn’t really benefit them, except inasmuch as it spreads the cost around to more people, including those further afield who may not give a crap whether the A’s have a new stadium or move to City Option #3.
It wasn’t that long ago that Schaaf was saying that she wouldn’t spend any public money on private stadiums, not when it could be going to “police, parks or libraries.” That was for the Raiders, though, whose owner was maybe the least likable person on earth, and actually she did offer to cover about $200 million in infrastructure costs for the Raiders, and anyway now the Raiders moved to Las Vegas and the A’s are threatening to as well, and there’s the promise of a big shiny thing, so sure, let’s lean on Alameda County as being the roadblock to a glorious tax-funded A’s stadium future. Fisher, meanwhile, hasn’t had to say a word — even team president Dave Kaval hasn’t made any threats lately, and making threats is pretty much his entire job — but no need to put yourself in the line of fire when you have league commissioners and elected officials to rattle sabers for you.
Is it just me but I remember for years the A’s would say “if only the Raiders would move then we could build the field of our dreams right here” then they move and now it’s Howard Terminal or bust? My head spins with these people…..
Nope, I’m old enough to remember that, too. The current site was originally supposed to be the fallback option if everything else failed for the team that’s “Rooted in Oakland”. As a person who has gone to games here for years, the main thing wrong with this location is it’s in a fairly rough part of town, but there’s still multiple public transit options and a freeway nearby. Kaval et al. said their only way to “compete with the Giants” long-term is with a downtown stadium, but I don’t see how the current site couldn’t also be viable if they build a new stadium there and whatever else they want. The neighborhood that PacBell/AT&T/Oracle Park is located had nothing going on until they began developing around it. Maybe this is more hardball tactics, or maybe it’s for real. Either way, the A’s brass is making this more difficult and painful than it has to be.
The absolute gall of Schaff (and the Oakland CC) to not only try and drag Alameda County into their boondoggle, but to now even portraying them as the roadblock to getting this thing done. If I’m AlCo, I’m telling Schaff and company to kiss me where the Sun doesn’t shine!…and go look for loose change somewhere else!
I don’t know, it all seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The only reason I haven’t started construction on a $20m house in the small town in which I live is that I don’t have an agreement with the local council to provide 100% funding for the project (plus contingency). Well, that and the 35 year tax treaty that would see me exempt from all property taxes and utility costs during the agreed binding non relocation period.
John. Well, isn’t it high time you explain to your town council all the economic and other benefits of a $20 Mn home build!
New job creation!
Jobs, jobs, jobs!
Construction!
Retail!
Office!
Service!
Your neighborhood, nay the whole town, will undergo significant renewal!
New retail shops!
New restaurants!
New hotels!
New luxury towers!
New office space!
New luxury condos!
New luxury homes!
Incalculable and unmeasurable economic and other benefits (just in case town council doesn’t understand supply side economics)!
All for the price of a pilot and tif for your new $20 Mn home. I’m not sure why your town won’t go for it. It’s a win-win all the way around.
It’s discouraging, Tim, I won’t lie. I am prepared to sign on the dotted line tomorrow if they would only meet me half way. I’m prepared to make an irrevocable commitment to the community in exchange for only a few basic considerations.
I hate to generalize, but I’ve put a lot of work into this and it feels like my town is just not business friendly.
NdM,
Not sure if they will (they shouldn’t!), but if AlCo decides to go in on this HT IFD, doesn’t it require voter approval from AlCo voters? I’ll be damned if I’m a citizen of Fremont and have my tax money go towards a white elephant that would be absolute hell to get to/from.
Yep! 2/3 majority required, too, so good luck with that.
Thanks NdM,
A supermajority to pass at that! The only tax measures that have ever (barely) passed with a supermajority here in The Bay (Santa Clara County for example) are transportation measures that BENEFIT ALL. Good luck on trying to sell AlCo citizens tax money for this HT fantasy (many Oakland citizens to for that matter).
I actually am a resident of Fremont and I will be happy to campaign like hell against it.
I was campaigning when the A’s tried to move to Fremont back in 2008. I was initially hesitant to speak out against baseball (isn’t that un-American?), but after talking to voters I found that about 4 out of 5 people were against it. I then started campaigning against the idea and got a lot of support.
Crazy idea, but what if they played in Montreal in the spring and fall, when the Rays aren’t there?
That could work!
Brilliant idea!
Oakontreal Athletics’pose.
The Xpos-A’s! Their mascot would be an investigative reporter…
Excellent!
Wonder if Herb Caen’s image is ©️
I want you to be Commissioner.
I know portmanteaus are the rage, but if this comes to pass, I would like the combined team to be named the Montreal/Oakland Ehs.
I can kind of see the Raiders going to Vegas. They have something of a national fan base and they only play 8 regular season home games a year. People might go to Vegas to watch them.
But baseball? The As are not a broadly popular team, Moneyball notwithstanding. I do not see it. Is there enough support in Vegas alone?
A city of slightly more than 2m (maybe) in which a high percentage of working people earn relatively modest wages? A city which already has two major professional sports teams newly installed? A city in which the in-season temperature is ridiculously high and only going to increase going forward?
Not likely.
Fall and winter sports make some sense in LV, although the temp is still too high for much of the year for anything like ‘walk up’ traffic. Maybe if they built an air conditioned stadium with an air conditioned parking garage too????
Yes, I would like to know the costs of keeping an entire stadium to a reasonable temperature of 80 (?) degrees when then temperature outside is in the low 100’s, as it regularly is in LV during the summer.
Greensboro or bust!
They can share a stadium with the Bills…
What is the incentive of Alemeda County to give any concession to the A’s if there hasn’t been a peep from any Las Vegas Pols
Neil, FoS is always a great service. Its interesting to see Manford has said more cities. If I am correct, this is the first I have seen of this for the A’s?
Why is Austin never talked about? Austin in the last census is 11th biggest city in the US. Its neighbor San Antonio is 7th. As a metro area (TV) its 28th (2.2m) and SA (2.4) is 24th. Austin is bigger than Las Vegas, Cincy, KC, Cleveland and Milwaukee. Combined that is 5m–which would be in the top 10 and growing. Better yet, Texas has no income tax (players hate the CA income tax) and it has HQ companies like Oracle and now Tesla–which means suite sales. Plus Apple, FB and Google have large campuses there. If I were the Fishers, I would think Austin would be better deal. Plus close their travel costs to their west rivals to Houston and DFW got cheaper. Oakland always has had huge challenges. And now, the homeless and crime are out of control. Not ideal for any team.
Neil, like the Giants with San Jose, Do the Rangers and Astros control the 7th and 11th largest cities in Texas?
City limits size doesn’t matter much in terms of ticket sales or TV ratings, and “bigger than Milwaukee” isn’t really a huge selling point. San Antonio-Austin might well be a better option than Las Vegas, but that’s not saying much – the A’s are still almost certainly more valuable as second fiddle in the Bay Area.
As for why Vegas keeps being talked about and not Austin, dunno, though I imagine it’s easier for Dave Kaval to fly to Las Vegas every couple of weeks than to Austin, which helps.
Full disclosure. I live in the Bay Area, but go back to Texas a lot. I have watched this saga (SJ, Fremont, Coliseum and now Howard Terminal) for 16+ years….I agree with you on being bigger than Milwaukee is not the best selling point…..
As for Oakland, unless the city signs a check for everything–(not likely)–I just don’t see how this is possible. The regulatory, taxes and now crime and homelessness does not make California and especially Oakland ideal for anything. It had some things going for it in 2018 and 2019 (the “new Brooklyn”). But post pandemic–it may be another decade if Oakland ever comes back.
On Vegas, I do find it interesting the Knights and Raiders seem to be doing well….whether that translates to 81 baseball games is TBD. So I agree with some of the comments above.
In terms of second fiddle. yes, they will always be a second to the Giants. Oakland is #26 in the Forbes valuation. Houston and the Rangers are #12 and #13. I think Austin would have much more upside than Oakland. Not saying they will get that high of the Texas clubs—but there is a lot money and upside to Texas now.
So back to Austin–do the Rangers and Astros have territorial rights extended to Austin or San Antonio?
I don’t believe anyone has territorial rights to Austin/San Antonio, in the “can block a move like the Giants in San Jose” sense. The Astros and Rangers share the TV rights there, because every bit of the U.S. is carved up as someone’s TV rights territory, so a team moving there might have to pay them off as the Expos did for the Orioles when moving to D.C., but could otherwise be done with a three-quarters vote of MLB owners. (Whether all but seven owners could be convinced to go against the Rangers and Astros owners if they objected is another question.)
Las Vegas, interestingly, is currently shared for TV rights among the five California teams and the D-Backs. Obviously the Giants wouldn’t object to the A’s getting offa their lawn, but I do wonder if the Dodgers, Angels, Padres, and especially D-Backs owners might demand a payoff for allowing an A’s move there.
Staying put and developing the Coliseum site, even if it would require buying out whoever gets the city’s half of it, still seems to make the most financial sense if Howard Terminal falls apart. But admitting that would reduce the pressure on Oakland and Alameda to approve Howard Terminal and the $855 million, so there’s no way Fisher and Kaval would say that out loud even if it’s true.
Thanks–this is what I was looking for. The teams may have TV rights, but not a veto power. Of course, Baltimore and the Nats are still fighting over MASN fees….so not sure MLB will want to go down that road with any team. It will have to be a straight pay off vs joint ownership of TV rights.
Also, I think there is a $2 billion relocation fee?? Not sure the Fisher’s can even afford that. Even if they moved to LV, is LMB going to waive that?? I don’t see how? As they do not want to establish the precedent.
Its funny—the A’s always wanted the Coliseum site to themselves. Now they have it and yet—they don’t want it. Unless Newsom and the City write a check for $800 million (not likely)–there is no way Howard Terminal will work. You can not get to it!! I go to a lot of Giants games and that is now getting hard since they got rid of all the parking lots. So good luck A’s @ Howard Terminal with no parking and no Bart nearby.
There is no set MLB relocation fee. And even if the league were to impose one in this case, there’s no way it would be anywhere close to $2B.
As for getting to A’s games at Howard Terminal, that’s presumably what a lot of the $855 million in overpasses and shuttle buses would pay for. I agree that it still would be harder to get to than the Coliseum, but Howard Terminal has always been more about trying to get Oakland to subsidize a real estate development than about getting more people to A’s games.