Representatives of Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao and A’s management are set to meet tomorrow, and city officials are prepared to offer a new interim lease deal to the team, according to documents provided to ESPN and KGO-TV over the weekend: A’s owner John Fisher would pay $97 million, and get to stay at the Oakland Coliseum from 2025-2029, with an opt-out option after 2027.
The city is proposing the five-year lease with the opt-out after three to safeguard itself in case there are construction delays in Las Vegas or the deal falls through. According to the offer sheet obtained by ESPN and KGO-TV, the city has dropped previous requirements that called for MLB to keep the A’s name and colors in Oakland, as well as a demand that MLB guarantee the city a future expansion team.
Not sure how giving Fisher the choice of leaving after three years or after five is “safeguarding” the city, but okay. ESPN reports that the A’s would owe the full $97 million whether he stayed for five years or opted out after three, so depending on how you look at it, this is either a five-year, $97 million deal or a three-year, $97 million deal with the ability to stay for two more years for free if Fisher’s Vegas dome isn’t ready.
As for dropping the demands for keeping the team name and getting an expansion team, that’s been replaced by a choose-one-of-three-options menu for MLB:
- (1) a one-year exclusive right to solicit ownership of a future expansion team; (2) vote to leave the A’s colors and name in Oakland, or; (3) facilitate the sale of the A’s to a local ownership group.
That’s going to be disappointing to A’s fans who have threatened city officials with retaliation if they let Fisher stay without those provisions, since the hope has been that Oakland could leverage the A’s lack of an interim home to ensure that a new A’s team will arrive after the door hits Fisher’s butt on his way out. But it’s always been a dicey proposition: What would it even mean to “guarantee” an expansion team, since MLB could presumably still demand a new stadium, a competitive expansion fee bid, etc., as conditions for approving one, regardless of what was in the A’s lease.
Which leaves the question of whether $97 million in cash is the best that Oakland can do for letting Fisher out of his self-created dilemma of not having anywhere to play until his Vegas stadium is ready, if it ever is. City chief of staff Leigh Hanson tells ESPN that $97 million is, in the news outlet’s words, the “shortfall” that “Fisher walked away from on the multibillion-dollar Howard Terminal project” — if anyone thinks they can make sense of that word salad in comments, be my guest. But most of all, when you’re negotiating a lease deal, “How much money do we need to fill a budget hole?” is never the right question; it should be “How much do we think they would have to pay to play somewhere else, and would that be enough to make it worth our while to live with a lame-duck franchise for up to five more years rather than just moving on and doing something else with the land?” It doesn’t sound like Oakland officials are thinking that strategically, which should be even more disappointing than throwing in the towel on the A’s-colors thing.
Whatever happens tomorrow, it doesn’t seem like there’s going to be any happy ending here: A’s fans have already completely given up on buying tickets in Oakland following the announcement of the Vegas move, so the most Fisher could get out of this would be continuing to collect on his $70 million a year cable deal for a few more years while selling pretty much zero tickets. (“How much of the $350 million in cable money over the next five years can we extract as ransom?” would have been another good question for Oakland officials to ask themselves.) Maybe there’s a world in which keeping the A’s in town makes it more likely Fisher, or somebody Fisher sells to, will negotiate staying long-term in Oakland if and when the Vegas deal collapses, but that seems like a pretty shaky hope on which to rest a lease extension that, from the looks of things, would bail out the most hated man in town after he painted himself into a corner by announcing a Vegas move without a stadium to move to there. Oakland Twitter’s gonna be blowing up tomorrow if this happens, and I don’t expect Mayor Thao to be getting much love.
That rent is $239,506 and change for each home game. Should be enough to staff and secure each game plus pay stadium attendants a nice wage! There might even be enough left over to stop sewage overflows…..
It certainly looks like Oakland has just caved in on this and I cannot really see why. $97m is a lot of money that could do a lot of useful things in Oakland, but unless Sacramento was offering a much better deal, it seems like Oakland could get more concessions.
I’m curious about this $70m cable fee thing. Is that assured?
According to Google, NBC Sports California is the RSN that has the rights to the A’s, the Sacramento Kings and the Sharks.
I’m not sure about the Kings, but I cannot imagine that any advertiser is especially interested in putting their ads on the A’s or Sharks broadcasts right now. The A’s TV viewership will likely be as negligible as their attendance. The Sharks are the worst team in the NHL and not likely to get much better soon.
So I have to imagine that NBCSC is taking on water just like the rest of the RSNs, in which case, might they be better off not reneging on that $70m? Indeed, isn’t Universal about ready to get out of the RSN business altogether?
That’s what I was thinking, why would there be any more watching the A’s on cable than the 5,000 that show up at the Coliseum. Although the Tropicana is closing tomorrow, financing and building the dome on 9 acres is still a long way off. Unless the Diamondbacks are going to the World Series, attendance in Phoenix is miserable, a much smaller market like Las Vegas would be even worse. Maybe within 5 years the A’s will have a new owner after the Vegas scheme collapses and staying in Oakland will be the best option.
I was slightly off on the RSN fee — it’s $67m a year, but it’s guaranteed through 2034. Yes, I’m sure NBCSC would love to bail out of it, but short of filing for bankruptcy they probably have to hope that the A’s skip town sooner than later to get it done. (It’s only guaranteed if the team stays in the Bay Area — I don’t think Sacramento even qualifies.)
Folded like a house of cards. Clearly, someone was shown the stick, but by whom I wonder? Must be embarrassing to have to publicly backtrack like this so I guess we can assume the stick is of impressive heft.
It’s a fair offer. Left out is the demands that Fisher sell his half of the Coliseum complex back to local developers, allowing development of a modular soccer field. Also the NBCS deal is likely being reworked if they leave or not. The talk is that it will certainly be restructured if they end up moving to Sacramento.
It’s a close call but I think Fisher won’t take the offer. The $97m is lightyears above what he’s paying now and I think he’ll bank on being able to re-negotiate the tv deal for Sac and figure he’ll fill Sutter Health’s 14k seats with enough casual season tickets.
I think that about 3500 of those ‘seats’ at SHP are actually spots on the grass berm. Last I read the stadium has 10,600 fixed seats.
I hope you are right about the team rejecting the offer. It’s a much better offer than they deserve (if it is as reported. – guess we find out tomorrow).
Then negotiations can conclude permanently and the team can find a new place to play starting next year. Shouldn’t be hard to find a spot big enough, given that they are fielding a semi pro level team.
I would imagine that Fisher will assume he can negotiate this offer. I hope he can’t.
On the financial side I would say the city did ok ($97m for 5yrs may not seem like a lot, but it’s a hell of a lot more than they’ve been getting for years’ past). I was hoping that they would insist on Fisher handing over his right to purchase (or whatever is left) for the coliseum site. Maybe the city has other plans to get that (the development authority in any municipality has to abide by the rules, but within those rules can exert significant pressure on an unfavoured development partner).
I watched bits of the opening series v Cleveland. It’s about what you’d expect when a cheapskate idiot fields a team of mainly AA / AAA players against major leaguers. The fielding in particular has been extremely poor. Maybe people (A’s fans) will watch just for the schadenfreude???
5,000 avg attendance seems like an unattainable goal for this year. Will MLB allow this for FIVE YEARS?
When the Expos attendance fell to sub 10k on avg, the team was moved (and would have been much sooner had MLB been able to find a spot for them). We are talking about half that level of fan support.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/WSN/attend.shtml
What worries me is that the A’s RSN may be so desperate to unload the property Fisher has “created” that they are willing to pay him a lump sum just to not have to broadcast his pathetic disgrace of a franchise, thus freeing him to take his ‘product’ elsewhere. An assclown like Fisher should not profit from his own incompetence (though it would not be the first time).
Of course, NBCSC/BA could hold the rights and just not show the games (because reruns of celebrity poker or the West Wing generate more ad revenue…)
I doubt the league would allow such a lump-sum buyout deal. The whole value proposition is that their product must absolutely be treated as capital-MLB Major League Baseball, even when it so clearly isn’t. Much like how professional wrestlers rarely break kayfabe. Letting the broadcast partners push back on that must remain completely inadmissible. Far better to let the broadcaster go under and temporarily reassume distribution duties at the league level, as we have seen.
This is so sad, the legendary A’s that won 3 World Series in a row, Catfish Hunter, Vida Blue, Reggie Jackson, I can’t believe this is what the A’s have sunk to.
It is.
And after lucking out and winning one of the first four against Cleveland, the A’s are regressing to the mean tonight.
Top of the third, 8-0 Red Sox and the A’s have racked up 5 errors (so far).
And no, this isn’t an April Fool’s joke either…
Strongly agree that this isn’t building any political capital for Sheng Thao, and she’s likely to face down even more accusations of inexperience, etc. Hard-nosed realpolitik would dictate that resolving the Coliseum ownership situation in the city’s favor is the top priority here, and leaving that out completely is a silly omission. Of course, this assumes that Thao sees a future for herself in politics after Oakland mayorship, which may not be the case. I figured we’d hear something about Libby Schaaf trying to climb to higher office by now, if that’s what she was going to do, and so far she hasn’t. I know from observing ex-mayors of the farther-flung Bay Area exurbs that there’s at least as much money and influence in political consulting after time in office.
Options 1 and 2 of the three-option menu aren’t worth the bits it takes to transmit them. I’ve always been skeptical of the idea of leaving the franchise identity with Oakland, as that requires a league expansion approval that may not happen. Option 1 further constrains that improbability to a one-year window, with other municipalities like Salt Lake City waiting in the wings to simply roll over and hand out ridiculous subsidies without prior negotiation.
This is a hail-mary that Fisher won’t secure financing or an equity sale in Vegas, and will have to sell the franchise as-is, where-is. Clearly Oakland admin agrees with us online kibitzers that Fisher is too broke to go on owning a major sports franchise, but they’re also doing very little to shore up their side of the deal, and they’re the only ones with power to do so. The only way this deal is a rational decision is if they’re receiving back-channel communication from influential league insiders and interested team buyers trying to build a graceful off-ramp for FIsher, and I have my doubts that league insiders would break solidarity to communicate that, if they haven’t done so before now.
I missed this the first time through the Keown article (Mar 30th):
“The city is also asking the Athletics to sell the 50% share of its ownership in the Coliseum complex — an agreement that has been agreed to but not finalized — to a local developer to allow the city to move forward with redevelopment of the site. Both of those conditions were covered during previous negotiations and are not expected to be contentious.”
Define ‘not expected to be contentious”?
Does it seem odd to anyone else that the city is requiring the sale but specifying it is to a local developer and not the city itself?
Why in the world wouldn’t they want full control of the site (that they already have joint ownership of) rather than be pushed into a partnership with another entity?
And if it’s just a matter of money, they could easily tell Fisher they want $30M for the 3/5yr extension AND the land. That amount won’t help the general fund deficit, but it will cover demolition of the stadium so the land can be sold or redeveloped on lease.
If I recall correctly, the county sold their 50% share of the land to Fisher. The city has committed to sell their 50% share to a developer to build as he sees fit. Trying to get Fisher to sell his 50% share to the developer cuts out the middle man.
I am guessing the reason the city wants a developer in charge instead of taking the reins themselves lies in the fact that most politicians are A) small thinkers, B) cowards, or C) scared of being called socialists. Leaving the entire development in the hands of one party could be an issue due to his ability to secure financing to complete the entire project quickly. This whole thing will likely take years. The city might be better off parceling off the land to multiple developers.
Fisher certainly had an option to purchase the land, and it is known he paid a deposit (which the county described as “certain funds deposited… to allow the process to continue”). I have not been able to find any confirmation that he has completed the purchase, though it is possible that he has made further installment payments. Options usually come with expiry dates, but again, the Alameda County folks have not – to the best of my knowledge – released any such details on the agreement.
I completely agree that the city would be better off taking full control and then deciding what to do. As you’ve suggested, the problem is that every time you increase the size and grandeur of any development district, by definition you reduce the number of people who could potentially purchase & complete same.
There would be no shortage of suitors for that land if the city took control of it, rezoned it and sold individual lots (be they commercial, residential or what have you) of varying sizes. Setting the bar so high that most small and midsized developers are excluded is a mistake IMO.
Of course, if the real goal is to direct the sale of this land to a developer who will be bidding on an expansion franchise as well as building a ballpark ‘village’/mallpark, well, it makes more sense doesn’t it?
Municipalities always cave. Hopefully the voters in Kansas City will not .
Everything ends badly or it wouldn’t end at all.
I guess the win for Fisher in this deal is that it buys him more time to make something happen that isn’t any of the other options that are currently on the table, because they all suck in the long run.
I’m baffled why everyone thinks the city caved here. I think because Neil (uncharacteristically) missed some of the details. They are asking for a tremendous amount that the A’s will never agree to.
The A’s proposed 2 years for $17 million total and nothing else.
The city is demanding $97 million up front, plus the sale of the A’s half of the coliseum site, plus allow the Ballers and the soccer team to use the stadium and pay for the field conversions, plus 1 of the 3 poison pill options: Leave the name and colors, facilitate an expansion team or sell the team.
The $97 million is symbolic because that is the exact amount Fisher said was the shortfall in funding for Howard Terminal site.
I say good for Oakland for driving a hard bargin. Let’s hope they stick to they’re guns and don’t let the A’s negotiate it down.
The only part I left out was demanding that Fisher sell his share of the Coliseum site to a developer, and that’s kind of nebulous since it doesn’t appear the city is requiring Fisher to sell at any particular price.
No worries, love your work here Neil. Just guessing maybe that’s why people were commenting that the city quote “caved”, when I thought they were holding the line and asking for a lot. Anyway, the A’s rejected it, as expected.
Maybe I haven’t seen it in the story or comments, but the A’s currently pay $1.25M per year in rent, so +$19M per year over five is an outstanding opening offer and it looks even better if the A’s leave after three.
Also from the Chronicle: The Raiders paid $7.5 million in rent for 2019 and had a $10.5 million option for 2020 that they didn’t exercise because their new Las Vegas facility was ready.
So it looks like Oakland learned from its dealings with the Raiders and took an aggressive stance.
Of course, the A’s and City of Oakland met today and no deal was reached, so now Sacramento looks like the likeliest option. But will the MLBPA really agree to having a team play in a minor league facility for a least three years?
Baffling that Fisher acts like he has leverage (other than owning half of the Coliseum property), but he’s running out of options.
Per Casey Pratt, it looks like Fisher is leaning toward Sacramento.
https://twitter.com/CaseyPrattABC7/status/1775319986934005910
“So here’s what I’m hearing:
A’s met with City today.
A’s meet with Sacramento tomorrow.
A’s have internal meeting Thursday.
Some employees have been told Sac is happening.
Layoffs likely incoming.
Stay tuned.”
“layoffs likely incoming”
If that means they plan on shortening the roster to 20 players and playing without a shortstop or CF for the rest of the season, I’m not sure anyone is going to notice.
Maybe that’s how they plan on fitting their Vegas stadium on 9 acres. “Anything hit to right field is a foul ball.”
I’ve been closely following this drama for years, and even at this late date I’m astounded and how many balls are still in the air. When people ask me about the “A’s leaving thing”, I have to ask how much time they have so I can provide an appropriate level of detailed explanation.
* We want the team to stay, but if they’re really going to leave, many of us want them gone ASAP.
* But, if they extend the lease and ultimately can’t afford a Vegas ballpark, then Fisher might be forced to sell and they’d never leave.
* Oakland needs control of the other 50% of the Coliseum property, because if Fisher leaves AND can afford the Vegas ballpark, he can let the site rot for all eternity. But the sale may only take place if he extends the lease, with the sale providing $$$ for the new ballpark.
* With the TV deal negated by a move out of the area, what would the value be in their new location?
* Is MLBPA on board with its members playing in a AAA ballpark?
* Can Fisher/MLB partner with Bally’s at the Trop site?
* Is the EduOverStadiums lawsuit/referendum a reality?
* Would MLB promise expansion exclusivity and then scuttle it somehow? Would any of us put it past MLB to do that?
I’m woozy. I have to stop.
*