Hey, remember way back, oh, yesterday morning, when Oakland A’s execs were abruptly reopening talks for other sites to build a stadium on in Las Vegas, while the total subsidy for the project remained a moving target? Well, that was a fun six hours or so before:
The Oakland A’s and Bally’s Corp. have an agreement in place for the team to build a $1.5 billion stadium on a portion of the Tropicana Las Vegas site, a move expected to reduce the amount of public financing sought for the project to $395 million.
Read the whole Nevada Independent article linked above if you like, but here’s the gist:
- Bally’s will demolish its Tropicana casino and allow the A’s to build a stadium on 9 acres of the 34-acre site. (As many people are pointing out, 9 acres is really small for a modern stadium, especially one with a retractable roof and all its necessary infrastructure, which those things are huge, seriously.)
- A’s owner John Fisher wouldn’t have to pay land acquisition costs, because Bally’s has a 50-year lease on the site and only plans to charge Fisher [amount of rent not included in article].
- Not spending a still-as-yet-undetermined sum on acquiring land would allow Fisher to lower his demands for public subsidies from $500 million(ish) to $395 million, according to … no source given for that at all, just “expected to reduce the amount of public financing,” I hoped for better from you, Nevada Independent.
- The “binding agreement” agreement to buy the previous parcel of land would now be unbound, I guess? Again, no details on this in the article.
This is huge news … and yet, at the same time, not really huge news at all. The A’s still have an agreement to use a site in Las Vegas for building a stadium, assuming the Nevada state legislature gives them some unspecified hundreds of millions of dollars in tax kickbacks and transferrable tax credits and maybe property tax breaks. Moving the needle from “around $500 million” to “$395 million, maybe” might help in anchoring terms, but it would still be one of the larger MLB stadium subsidies in history, and could still easily end up over half a billion dollars if the Independent’s unnameable sources left out a tax break or two. More to follow soon, no doubt, but Ray Ratto is probably going to have to resign himself to a lot more wasted pixels before this is all over.
This plan is dumber than the last one. Ballys gaming isn’t really a Vegas company, their political clout is limited compared to the Fertittas.
Ballys is also involved in a $1.6 Billion casino project in Chicago which screams fools gold (yes Chicago has a lot of people, but taxes for casino operators are insanely high, state of illinois thinks they can balance the books with gaming money, which is just not how it works).
As you mentioned 9 acres is very small for a stadium, but not impossible, the twins are on about 9 acres. They could build up though, the Tropicana site sits fairly close to the airport, which might be a limiting factor (although not directly under any flight path). Either way, you’re right that a retractable roof isn’t going to happen with 9 acres.
“This plan is dumber than the last one.”
Yes, but that is the genius of it… don’t you see? If they just keep coming up with ever more stupid plans that make no sense then Oakland will HAVE TO offer them $300 Bn with no strings attached just to build a ballpark at HT.
Or they could take the money and just paint the existing ballpark too. That’s the great thing about a $300 Bn subsidy with no conditions.
Let’s do this one more time. Baseball is the sport whose revenue structure most depends on local fans. Northern California, understood correctly (i.e. including not only SF-Oak-SJ in one barrel but also Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto/Santa Cruz) has 12+M people with an overall per capita income in the high $40K range. Las Vegas has 2.5M people with an overall per capita income of 33K.
There are two managements in the world that think this move is a good idea: the A’s ownership and the Giants ownership.
The announcement of a deal happened when it did because the A’s management was under pressure to distract us for a minute and a half from the performance of the A’s on the field. This didn’t work even for five seconds.
Literally the only thing left is for MLB to coerce the sale of the team to minimally competent people – as it has done before. We may then get a team move, though I honestly doubt it will be to Las Vegas. Sure as anything, though, you can expect the expansion announcement to follow will include another Northern California team, since leaving the Giants alone there is in the interests of none of the other 28 teams.
In fact, once we are talking about expansion rather than supposedly established geographical rights, and the ownerships of today rather than the ownerships of 20 years ago, here’s betting San Jose will be back on the table, lawsuits and all.
I’m wondering if A’s management is counting on Vegas visitors coming to games when their home team is in town ? Some clubs’ fans travel well (Cubs, Cardinals, Yankees, Mets and Sox…Dodgers, Giants, padres too). I just read that 42 million people visited Vegas last year. Maybe with the right marketing they could pull it off.
That’s not going to help with TV ratings, though.
They could definitely draw some visiting fans who fly in for a weekend to combine a casino trip with some baseball, though they’d be risking a Chargers home-games-feel-like-road-games situation. But Miami is a popular tourist spot, too, and visiting fans haven’t done much for their attendance issues.
And, of course, while visiting fans would help the team, if they were already planning to come to Vegas anyway, that’s not a net plus for the local economy, hotels, tax revenues, etc.
I think between the TV rights(once they fix the mess they’re in now) and casinos working with the teams to get comp tickets and what have you, a venue that’s a fun place to watch a game might work there on the strip. I bet a bandbox type of place with a roof that can host a small bowl game might be worth it for all parties involved.
Still would rather see that then expansion.
The TV rights are likely to be pretty dismal, though, for all the reasons Kenny cites above. And I’m still waiting to hear whether the Diamondbacks and the other California teams would have to be reimbursed for losing a chunk of their TV territory, like the Orioles were by the Nats.
The last MLB team that moved from a top-10 TV market to a non-top-30 TV market was … the A’s moving from Philadelphia to Kansas City, I guess? How’s that going?
TV markets weren’t really a thing in 1955, were they?
Radio markets? In any case, it’s very rare for an MLB team to relocate from a large urban area to a significant smaller one. (The Pilots moved to Milwaukee, but the Seattle and Milwaukee metro areas were about the same size back then.)
The A’s move in 1955 was more about the power struggle within franchise ownership, a decade or more of severe cost cutting and the club being saddled with massive debt as a result of the forced buyout of Connie Mack jr by his ‘partners’.
The club was basically bankrupt (debts totalling well in excess of the clubs value, as I recall) and, thanks to years of cost cutting and incompetent management by both Mack and his heirs, attendance had nosedived.
Sound familiar?
Let’s hope so… this crisis was resolved by the then-AL president engineering the sale of the club.
There has been utter clarity in MLB that once Oakland and Tampa are in new venues there will be expansion to 32 teams. This does not seem like a question.
Gonna need to see a source for that assertion.
There has been utter clarity that there won’t be expansion to 32 teams *until* Oakland and Tampa Bay are in new venues. Whether and when there may be expansion after that point will almost certainly depend on how big an expansion fee they can get away with and who’s willing to build a new stadium.
I retract “utter clarity.” Manfred, whose job it is to encourage or discourage expansion talk, always chooses “encourage”. For example: https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/34130915/hate-baseball-wants-save-it
Yeah, it’s probably a mistake to ever use the term “clarity” in reference to any words coming out of Manfred’s mouth.
The only thing that possibly saves the A’s in Oakland is John Fisher’s utter incompetence in getting any sort of deal. Hopefully Vegas and Nevada officials see through the shitshow.
What are the chances of the league using the Best Interests of Baseball Clause to force a sale?
Agreed.
However, unless and until Fisher’s incompetence and dishonesty starts costing the other owners money I wouldn’t count on the empty suit that presently sits in the commissioner’s chair doing anything at all. Unfortunately, at the moment all the A’s inept leadership is doing is costing themselves money and poisoning the well in Oakland.
A’s fans may be completely fed up with Fisher and his yappy lap dog Kaval, but I don’t think that level of toxicity will carry over to a new owner. Blackhawks fans stayed away for decades waiting for Bill Wirtz to die. When he obliged, they stormed back in. I could see a similar situation here.
I am wondering if at some point – when the Vegas sham is well and truly revealed for what it is (which could be now, let’s be honest) – Oakland leadership appeals directly to MLB (or more likely via the media) to illustrate what their commitment to subsidizing the team has been and is (*greater than even the proposed LV subsidy that has no-one on board) and then announces that the current subsidy ($495m – $775m depending on who’s numbers you believe and what you consider ‘guaranteed’) would be available to a future owner but NOT to John Fisher.
MLB is not going to like that… but at least some of the other owners have to be thinking the same thing… it’s time. And furthermore, the offers aren’t going to get any better as long as Fisher is involved.
Does anyone think LV would be a target market for expansion if Fisher wasn’t playing footsie with Nevada right now? I don’t think it would be a serious candidate. It doesn’t have the population, the disposable income or the TV eyeballs to make it attractive.
Whether by intention or happy accident, Oakland has made itself seem like the more reasonable partner here. They are offering more than I would to keep a professional sports team. And what I would offer to people who have conducted themselves in the incompetent and deceptive way Fisher and his puppet have is precisely $0.
You’re right, we will support anyone (within reason) besides Fisher. A little before my time, but Charlie Finley did the same thing, isolating fans, feuding with players, almost moved the team to Denver and then New Orleans. Then Walter Haas bought them, they led the league in attendance (regularly outdrawing the Giants) and payroll, consistently contending for the pennant, and just generally making it cool to be an A’s fan. That’s what we need now, and Joe Lacob said he’s got a standing offer to buy the team. And you saw how he turned the Warriors around from the Chris Cohan shitshow.
Unfortunately the rest of the league treats struggling teams like wounded animals that need to be put down. This was on display with the Expos when Jeffrey Loria did the same thing Fisher is doing now.
As for Vegas, I’d love for them to get an expansion team. Just not the team I spent 34 years rooting for in Oakland. Ideally it would be Montreal getting the expos back, and Vegas, or maybe Vancouver (let Western Canada get a team of their own).
Yes. And 30 years before Charlie O did it…. Connie Mack and his sons did the same thing with the same franchise in Philadelphia.
Who says history never repeats?
At least we know Fisher won’t be following the Tampa playbook of threatening to play half the A’s games in Montreal. What is it with MLB?
Anyone want to take a guess what the cost to do this would be:
a) demolish Mt. Davis
b) demolish the lower bowl of the coliseum and rebuild to new specification – possibly including raising the field a few feet and definitely include fixing the infrastructure issues that have existed since the coliseum opened.
c) build a temp stadium in the parking lot/play in SF or Sacramento for a couple of years while the work is done
It’s more or less what the Yankees did in the 1970s. I am guessing it could be done for under $300m, depending on what the new spec of the new lower bowl is. Effectively you are building a new 13-15,000 seat stadium within the existing bowl.
And I bet Oakland would pay for all of it.
Or they could just condemn the stadium/pull it’s license of occupancy (or whatever California uses in place of them)… sometime this summer would be good. As Fisher now theoretically owns one half of the stadium, he is partially his own landlord and would be on the hook for half the costs to remedy the situation.
“Anyone want to take a guess what the cost to do this would be”
Like the pharaohs, Xanadu’s landlord leaves many stones to mark his grave.
He doesn’t theoretically own half the land. He owns half the land. The County caved and gave it to him for cheap. My guess is he was hoping the City of Oakland would do the same with his half. Oakland wisely didn’t give up their half.
This brings up an odd scenario where two properly owners might have conflicting ideas on what should be done. They can’t proceed with anything until they agree.
My guess is the most likely scenario has the A’s giving up their half now that they see they won’t get full control. However, they’re sure as hell not going to let it go for cheap. While the nearby area is economically depressed, it is in the heart of the Bay Area right next to a BART station.
Do you have a link to proof he actually owns the former Alameda share?
Last I heard he had negotiated an agreement to purchase Alameda county’s share at a set price. I have found nothing to confirm he completed the purchase and is now the beneficial owners of Alameda County’s share of combined property.
If he doesn’t have an agreement to buy out the “Oakland” half there are significant drawbacks to owning Alameda’s half (as noted above).
The story was certainly presented as a done deal. Then again, Kaval just presented the option to purchase the wild west land in Vegas as a binding commitment and had his unpaid press agents in the media referring to it as a “confirmed deal to move to LV”.
Perception is everything, I guess.
Thos is an old story, written a few years after the sale.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.siliconvalley.com/2021/08/07/what-happens-to-the-oakland-coliseum-if-the-as-leave/amp/
I wonder if Fisher will use it as leverage with Oakland, i.e. he returns at market value in exchange for letting them play an extra season at the coliseum after the lease ends? Oakland should tow the hard line.
Well, for those who think it can’t possibly get worse…. YT renderings of the new Las Vegas 51s stadi-ship!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzk7uxhQL7U&ab_channel=STSE
Oh boy. Disappointed about the lack of holographic displays, but totally stoked about the roof being retractable so that space aliens can watch the game as they fly over.
There’s a season ticket package that covers that right? I’d hate to think Fisher would just give away the UFO views….
The SimCity graphics have gotten a lot better since the last version I played!