Welcome to AthleticsVegasMoveThreat.com, since apparently Oakland A’s owner John Fisher (or, more likely his stadium czar Dave Kaval and whatever other hired guns they have on board) is intent on announcing something every day to keep the media too busy to actually look into things like how much in public subsidies he’s actually looking for. Today’s headline flood: binding agreement, baby!
- A’s reach agreement to develop Las Vegas site for stadium (ESPN)
- Athletics Reach Binding Agreement for Las Vegas Stadium Site; Expected to Cost $1.5B (Bleacher Report)
- A’s reach formal agreement for new stadium at second Vegas site (NBC Sports)
- Oakland Athletics reach agreement to develop Las Vegas site for stadium (USA Today)
Which … just no. The “binding agreement,” as it turns out, is between the team and Bally’s, the casino company, agreeing to transfer nine acres of land to the team for a stadium. Nobody has agreed to pay for this supposed $1.5 billion stadium — which would reportedly hold only 30,000 fans, easily the smallest in MLB — and any deal is still contingent on the Nevada legislature providing tax kickbacks and other subsidies worth a reported $395 million, but no one knows for sure until legislation is released, which was supposed to happen yesterday but did not. (The Nevada Independent, which has been doing at least a little bit of real journalism on this, reports that real estate investment trust Gaming & Leisure Properties, which actually owns the Bally’s site, will provide “up to” $175 million in “improvements” in exchange for “a commensurate rent increase,” which is to say is fronting money that the A’s would eventually pay back.)
This is, of course, the second different binding agreement that A’s management has announced in the last four weeks, raising the question of just what “binding” even means at this point. (Twitter has some ideas.) It all certainly feels geared to turn up the heat on the Nevada legislature to pass whatever stadium subsidy bill eventually lands there as the session winds down, so as not to interrupt what all these team leaks are attempting to paint as a stadium juggernaut. One would hope that state legislators wouldn’t be so easily played, but, well, we’ve all seen state legislators in action, so we know the truth. It’s a weird kind of inversion — taking a team ownership liability (a state legislative session with less than three weeks to go before the A’s are left homeless in 2025) and turning it into an advantage (sign this quick, no time to read it) — but we’ve seen that before, too.
At this point, we’ll just have to wait and see what legislators think whenever legislation finally becomes public. Or, if that doesn’t happen today, what fresh headlines Fisher and Kaval come up with to keep up their manufactured momentum.
Note the small capacity. This will create an artificial scarcity and high ticket prices so the taxpayers who finance most of the stadium will not be able to afford tickets.
Is there momentum though?
Plenty of column inches/YT fanboy videos have been devoted to the most recent “proclamations” about the A’s moving to Vegas.
And yet.
They still have no funding agreement for a stadium.
They still do not own land.
They still do not have MLB’s permission to move.
They have not even started taking downpayments on season tickets – which you KNOW these two would be all over if they thought they could do it without being jailed for fraud.
Not even a ‘golden shovel’ photo op.
Amateurs.
It’s momentum made of froth and shouting, but legislation has been pushed through on less. Or at least that seems to be Fisher and Kaval’s strategy.
Is there any possibility that the A’s and City of Oakland are engaged in “back channel” negotiations or has the City simply moved on?
Hypothetically, the Brown Act/Sunshine Laws should nip that in the bud.
With that said, Tropicana makes a nice mixer.
It’s a great question Dean. Much of what Kaval and his boss are doing looks to me like an effort to exert pressure on the city of Oakland to “bid against themselves” (even more than they already have done).
Thao says she’s done with the dynamic duo. I would tend to take her at her word, but who really knows?
An appropriate negotiating position now that the A’s have waded into poison pill territory (the AA-level team) in their current city while continuing to play footsie with a city that seems largely disinterested in subsidizing them (Vegas) would be to put an expiry date on the $500m Oakland has offered (along with some other things that may or may not come to fruition).
At the moment the A’s are acting like they ‘always have the $500m in Oakland’ to fall back on. I, for one, hope they do not have that. It will not surprise me in the slightest if one of their forthcoming pathetic negotiating tactics is to tell the LV pols that they ‘already have’ $500m from Oakland and that LV will have to step up if they want the team.
A public withdrawal of any city of Oakland offer to the Fisher ownership group would be both well timed and might help Vegas (if they actually want an MLB team, which there isn’t much evidence they do…) to reduce the public burden involved there.
One of Oakland’s deadlines re: the Howard Terminal site expired last week. It is not clear to me if this means that any outstanding funding offer is automatically off the table or not. It is astounding to me that so many of these ‘funding offers’ from municipalities do not have a concrete expiry date written into the actual language (assuming there IS any written language, of course)
Thank you John. I always enjoy your input and excellent feedback.
I agree with Dean- excellent summary and I too appreciate your contributions. As a former Oakland taxpayer with a fondness for my time there, I hope the mayor stands strong against this attempted extortion.
Re: “It is not clear to me if this means that any outstanding funding offer is automatically off the table or not.”
Two ways of looking at it – short answer first – it’s off the table if Fisher wants any of it. He’s burned all his bridges in Oakland, political, popular, etc.
Conversely, the funding (like $400M, I forget) has been secured, thanks to the state (Nancy Skinner) and the feds. It was earmarked for infrastructure projects (off-site infrastructure for a playground at the port, wink-wink, nudge, nudge.). But if an amusement park on top of a sea-level waste-dump is no longer on the cards, Oakland can spend it on better stuff. And yes, that’s in the language. (It’s in my files or I can find it.)
The next fight will be getting Alameda County’s half of the Oakland Coliseum paperwork back. That’s gonna be real ugly.
Fisher is a bum and I’m glad I called it from the start. Shame about the team, thanks for the cash, good riddance.
Now after 5 pm Nevada time and still no bill, so it seems unlikely we’ll get one today. It reportedly has to be introduced by a week from Friday — anyone want to place bets on when it will land? (I’ll take 5pm next Thursday.)
It’s the Nevada Independent that’s been doing real journalism
Big scoop- Carson city is open to $150-195 million in tax credits- the rest has to come from the county.
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-lawmakers-balk-at-as-395m-price-tag-deal-dependent-on-county-funding