Friday roundup: John Fisher Oakland conspiracython, plus OKC Thunder arena logic gets even weirder

Okay, so this first one needs more than a bullet point: Scott Ostler of the San Francisco Chronicle ran a long article this week on the possibility of Oakland getting an expansion team if the A’s leave, and how A’s owner John Fisher could salt the earth in his old city while moving to a new one. Ostler’s scenario: Fisher uses his option to buy the 50% of the Oakland Coliseum site currently owned by Alameda County to block a new team in Oakland from building there. Per Ostler, all Fisher needs to do to cement his purchase is to pay the remaining $45 million of the original $85 million purchase price, something that’s due within 180 days of the A’s “announcement of their relocation,” whatever that means.

Or! Given that Fisher needs a place for the A’s to play while waiting for his $1.5 billion Vegas dream house is ready, he could demand a sweetheart lease in exchange for not consummating the purchase, suggests Ostler, under threat of blocking development of the Coliseum site altogether.

And while we’re conspiracy-theorizing, “It’s possible that MLB leaked that Oakland expansion-team teaser in order to pressure Nashville politicians into offering more taxpayer assistance for a new ballpark in that city.” Sure, anything is possible!

“If this all seems convoluted and nutso, that’s because it is,” writes Ostler, and that, at least, is undeniably true. Spending $85 million to buy a piece of land you don’t want and can’t do anything with without partnering with the city you’re in the middle of abandoning seems like an idiotic move, but Fisher could certainly do it either 1) as a game of chicken with the city of Oakland to get what he wants, or 2) because he’s an idiot.

Ostler also notes that as of Tuesday, neither Fisher nor MLB has reached out to Oakland to discuss a lease extension beyond next year, and again, it’s hard to tell if this is them being crazy like a fox or just crazy. From the start nothing about this A’s Vegas move has made sense — well, other than Fisher extracting $600 million in tax money from the state of Nevada, that’s right out of the standard sports team owner playbook — and the endgame, if that’s what this is, only appears to be getting nuttier.

And with that, on to the shorter news items, if only marginally less nutty:

  • If anybody has a study claiming to show that the Oklahoma City Thunder create $600 million of economic impact, the people trying to factcheck Mayor David Holt’s public statements on Twitter would like to see it. Also, Holt’s own administration said in 2018 that the Thunder’s economic impact was only 10% of that, so WTH, David Holt?
  • Holt has also clarified that the 1% sales tax surcharge he wants to impose to provide $780 million toward a new Thunder arena, which he says wouldn’t increase taxes because it will just replace a similar tax surcharge used to pay for the MAPS project that funded the old arena, isn’t an old tax either because it’s not an “extension” of the expiring tax: “It’s the penny currently being utilized by the MAPS initiative. But some people will always call it MAPS because they call everything MAPS. It’s just not.” So it’s a new tax that doesn’t increase taxes because it replaces a different old tax that otherwise would have expired, but that’s not a tax increase because the new tax steps in as soon as the old one leaves — looks like somebody’s been studying their Felix Unger logic.
  • Pinellas County officials say they’re looking at providing $300 million in hotel-tax money toward a new Tampa Bay Rays stadium in St. Petersburg, with county administrator Barry Burton saying, “To be able to create the model, we had to put in something. That’s a reasonable number for plug number. Whether it’s up or down, it’s good for assumptions.” If that sounds like rather than determining what was reasonable in terms of either what the county can afford or how much a stadium would be worth to it, county commissioners picked the $300 million number because it’s half of the $600 million total public cost Rays owner Stu Sternberg wants, which is in turn half of the $1.2 billion stadium he says he wants, and “half” is about the roundest number available, you are very cynical and also probably right.
  • MLB owners are reportedly set to vote on approving the A’s move to Vegas in November, though it remains an open question what approval will mean if Fisher still doesn’t have a stadium plan finalized by then.
  • Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Jeff Gammage’s last article on the Philadelphia 76ers‘ arena plans may have gotten disappeared, but he’s still out there following the story, including reporting that the team is backing off from its end-of-2023 deadline for approval, as well as that this abomination has been driving around Philadelphia City Hall, presumably with an implied threat of “Approve our 76ers arena or else you have to hear this for the rest of your lives.”
  • Also backing off on deadlines: The owners of the Chicago Bears, who have said they won’t pursue state legislation granting them a property tax break on a new stadium site during this year’s legislative session. Oh, you guys, with the deciding what kind of stadium you want to build where before asking for money for it, John Fisher has a lot to teach you.
  • USA Today and The Tennessean are advertising for a Taylor Swift reporter and a Beyoncé reporter, and J.C. Bradbury has a theory.
  • I went on Battleground Wisconsin yesterday to talk about how Wisconsin officials are scrambling all over each other to offer money to Milwaukee Brewers owner Mark Attanasio for stadium upgrades, and how it fits into the overall trends in baseball stadium skulduggery. You can listen to it here.

Other Recent Posts:

Share this post:

14 comments on “Friday roundup: John Fisher Oakland conspiracython, plus OKC Thunder arena logic gets even weirder

  1. Just what Taylor Swift doesn’t need or more importantly, want. Another stalker. Rolling Stone had an article recently about Swifty swarms. How prepandemic her fans were adamant on social media about not swarming her in public.
    Now? Quite the opposite, dangerously so, as new obtuse fans swell the ranks.

    Still, it would be fascinating to listen in on those job (up to $100,000 a year!) interviews.
    “Here is my history and my methods of stalking the target.”

    Could this ‘job offer actually be an undercover FBI operation to find the most dangerous “fans,” like those fake Mafia weddings?
    Do I read too many Dan Brown novels?

    Time will tell…..

  2. The other Felix Unger item that comes to mind is that these sports owners say something and reporters “assume” they understand – which just makes an ass out of u and me.

    1. Clearly it’s time for my next book: “Everything I Know About American Democracy I Learned From The Odd Couple.”

  3. It doesn’t really matter if it’s a new or old tax. It’s money that could have been spent on something better.

    1. Can someone explain to me why the other MLB owners would approve a move from Oakland to Vegas (a smaller market) and waive the relocation fee? The owners are guaranteed to send more revenue sharing money to a Vegas team, that if they stay in Oakland. What am I missing?

      1. I believe the bottom few teams get money. I don’t know the exact number, (I am having a hard time finding it online), but in the past, the union filed a grievance against the A’s, Rays, Pirates, and Marlins for not spending the money they received. If the A’s aren’t getting money now, they will possibly take the place of another franchise by moving to a smaller market.

        I guess large-market owners feel like they are going to be paying someone, they might as well pay Fisher. They are probably also a little grateful to Fisher if he moves the team because it strengthens their own “I might move the team if you don’t pay to renovate my stadium” threat.

        1. You are correct in that IF the revenue sharing pot is the same, no matter who they share it with, then it doesn’t really matter where a team resides. Although, I think the ultimate goal should be for each team to be self sufficient, rather than relying on revenue sharing. I think the A’s would have a higher probability of self sufficiency in Oakland, rather than Vegas. But on the other hand, the Knights seem to be killing it in Vegas. So what do I know?

  4. A couple points/questions:

    1. Since the purchase of Alameda County’s stake in the Coliseum land is not completed and is contingent on the official announcement of a move, could they include as a condition of the sale that the A’s remain in Oakland (though not necessarily at the Coliseum) to prevent Fisher from pulling this type of gamesmanship?

    2. If Fisher does salt the earth at the Coliseum, how much could Howard Terminal still be in play? Can the EIR be extended to prevent a new one from being done? Could they use the old BCDC approval?

    2a. Schnitzer is mentioned as one of the bigger obstacles to HT. If the fight with them continues, is there any chance the city uses eminent domain to shut them down to allow for ballpark development?

  5. RE: Fisher, my vote is for #2 (Idiot). If there’s a way to screw up someone giving you team free money, he’ll find it.

  6. It’s hard to find fault with Ostler wanting to speculate on what “could” happen… given that that is what most of us have been doing for years.

    I guess we aren’t paid journalists however, from whom perhaps you would expect more.

    I laugh out loud when I hear or read notions about Fisher “buying the coliseum land from Alameda” just to screw Oakland. It’s not like he hasn’t been doing that for nearly two decades already.

    The city is the development and planning authority, not Fisher. If he buys the county’s share without a similar agreement to acquire the city’s share, he is not just an idiot but a gold star buffoon. The city can then prevent him from doing anything with his “share”, as there is no specific portion that he owns. It could also require him – as their defacto partner – to pay for 50% to any improvements they choose to make to the property and prevent him from doing anything with the land until he pays that share in full.

    You really never want to be in partnership with an entity that writes the laws pertaining to your land development if that entity hates you (and rightly so). Could he sue and claim he is being unfairly treated? Sure, but that is a hard row to hoe.

    If you want to own land, you need a title. There does not appear to be one for the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum. It is 155 acres of land governed by an agreement between the two bodies. Effectively, it seems to me, it would be classed as ‘direct control’ zoning… meaning Fisher or any other landowner would need the permission of the city to do anything at all. In the meantime, if approved as the new owner of whatever the hell Alameda actually owns with respect to this parcel (which is unlikely, IMO) he would be occupying Alameda county’s position in all this… as an entity that spends $12-15m per season more than it sees in revenue on the sports site. Wouldn’t that be true justice?

    He may be interested in this parcel solely to try to compel Oakland to buy him out. But if so I refer back to the Gold Star buffoon designation. It’s hard to see why Oakland would be in a hurry to buy him out… They don’t have a pressing need for 100% ownership of the parcel (unlike Fisher), so why rush?

    1. As I recall, Alameda County was still paying off the Mt. Davis fiasco back then. The money from the sale of their half paid that off and ‘got them out of the sports business’ as one Supervisor put it.

      I’d argue this wasn’t a bad gamble for Fisher. He got the land for pretty cheap and, if he could have got the City to do the same, he’d have had an amazing parcel of land for a decent price.

      I think he was hoping the City would go along with something where Howard Terminal got funded, the City kept the A’s, and Fisher got full ownership of the Coliseum property. I’d agree he’s an idiot, but this part of it doesn’t seem like it was a bad move.

      I was always confused about the details of the sale. I think they kept it deliberately murky. If Fisher left himself an out, that was a pretty good move. I would agree that paying the final amount now would be dumb, but backing out of a potentially lucrative real estate deal isn’t that smart either.

      1. The problem is it’s only potentially lucrative if he figures out how to work with the city and their preferred developers, and so far that’s not going great:

        https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/07/black-led-development-group-seeks-to-buy-the-as-share-of-oakland-coliseum/

        Though also the city seems to think the Coliseum site is key to building a “second downtown,” possibly even including TIF money for it, so that likely has dollar signs lighting up in Fisher’s eyes, even if he doesn’t really have a plan:

        https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/oakland-coliseum-a-s-redevelopment-18368948.php

      2. The sale of the county half has not been completed, though. Ostler suggests Fisher paid $40m up front. I haven’t seen any numbers on what he paid as a deposit, but some comments made around the time the option was negotiated suggested it was $20m or less (and perhaps as little as $10m). FWIW, I wouldn’t spend $40m buying an option to purchase half of something that is not defined for a total of $85m… one of the key benefits of buying an option on something is that you don’t have to pay most of the money up front and can withdraw with the loss only of a relatively modest deposit if your plans change.

        I completely agree that it was a murky deal and remains so. I suspect that is because there is no way for Fisher to assume Alameda county’s position in the ownership structure. I cannot come up with a way for a private entity or business to become a partner in a joint powers authority.

        Now, a new ownership structure could certainly be created should Fisher actually become owner of half of whatever it is that Alameda county is proposing to sell to him for $85m, but that would require the consent of the city of Oakland to either change the agreement, transfer their ownership into some sort of share structure, or something similar. I am not convinced that the City of Oakland is willing to do anything more for Fisher than they have already done (and, in fairness, they’ve done bad things to previous A’s owners… albeit at the behest of Al Davis…). I think they are done with this clown, and rightly so.

        I don’t doubt your suggestion that Fisher wants to become a big time land developer (and given his tremendous success farming the subsidy as the managing partner of the A’s, I mean, how hard could it be?)… but the problem as I see it is that he doesn’t really have the kind of money necessary to develop 155 acres if he gets control of them. The way he is behaving I wonder if he even has enough cash on hand to cover the demolition and remediation costs.

        He’s inherited part of a fortune and is a rich guy, no question. But not that rich. Perhaps he has plans to take on an actual developer as a funding partner… but then, it’s no longer his sandbox to play in alone.

        Like most things we’ve seen GAPman and Robbin’ get up to lately, this one seems poorly planned, poorly executed and basically doomed.

        But maybe he’s been one step ahead of everyone else this whole time. I’m sure his family is hoping so…

Comments are closed.