|
Post by mikecubs on Jul 9, 2014 22:51:50 GMT -6
I could see scenario 2 happening just as much as scenario 1. If you made me take a guess I'll say Oakland and Tampa get it done somehow, 20 years from now MLB goes back to Montreal and Charlotte. Minor league ball is popular in Charlotte(google Charlotte Knights break attendance record) and the city does have 14 fortune 1000 companies but only 2.5M people right now. Charlotte is growing 300,000 for every 10 years if current trends hold. I could see a 3.2M ish Charlotte getting a team and by that time a 5.1 to 5.6M ish Montreal getting a team. yup minor league ball is big in the carolinas....but i dont want that tradition to change. I feel like they should be proud of that strong minor league tradition in that state. Its kindof like the cape league in a way where its good baseball that has a ton of tradition tied up with it at a lower level. Carolina should be proud of that tradition. Charlotte just opened a new minor league park this year and the mayor says it will take 20 years at least for MLB. IF Charlotte ever does become big enough I see nothing wrong with moving up.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jul 10, 2014 0:05:46 GMT -6
'Triple-dealing' could cost Oakland both A's and Raiders If there is a compelling reason for the City of Oakland -- which clearly has reached the point where the left hand actually doesn’t know what the LEFT hand is doing -- to deal with either the A’s or the Raiders, it is this: Triple karma. The city delayed the A’s-or-Raiders decision far too long and are now in a vise of their own manufacture. The A’s underplayed their hand with Major League Baseball and San Jose, and are now locked into a city they can’t escape. The Raiders have talked about staying and leaving at the same time for months now. And none of them can foot the full bill for what they all say they want and need. In other words, it’s just a longer ouroboros -- snakes eating each other, with the best result for all of us being that they all finish the job with one final massive bite. Both Phil Matier and Andy Ross, the noted Chronicle troublemakers, and Matthew Artz of BANG reported Wednesday that the Raiders and the city have been talking about a date to demolish the Oakland Coliseum -- the same Coliseum that the A’s just signed a flexible 10-year lease to inhabit, and better yet, the same city that runs the building specified in the lease. Think of it. The city is negotiating to tear down a stadium and keep it standing at the same time. There isn’t enough medical marijuana in the state to make this make sense.
To call this idiocy is to slander idiots. To call it political cowardice is to disgust cowards. So let’s just call this what it really is.
Triple-dealing. The Oakland political culture looks like a Dr. Seuss tree, bent, threadbare and unrecognizable as living fauna. One group negotiates with the A’s, who are wedged in at the Coliseum because of the burdensome issue of having noplace else to go, while another group talks with the Raiders for the Coliseum City plan, and they all string each other along while knowing they are all being strung along, and they all end up well and richly screwed. And it suddenly becomes clear that the unintended consequence of the Warriors leaving Oakland for San Francisco is that the Warriors never have to deal with the people allegedly in charge of running Oakland ever again. The Oakland political structure has pushed the day of A’s-Or-Raiders reckoning down the road month after month, year after year, in a cavalcade of fecklessness that could fell a herd of moose. It has never had the leverage over or the respect of either Coliseum tenant, but neither tenant has a place to go. And while working together toward a common satisfactory goal for all involved is just passé, the triple-backstab is just too difficult a gymnast’s trick for any of the three principals to pull off. And yet, they try. The worst-case scenario, of course, is that both teams leave, something that cannot happen for years since the Raiders’ best option, Los Angeles, still doesn’t have a shovel to put into an as-yet-undetermined bit of dirt, and the A’s can’t go to San Jose and the rumored options of San Antonio and Montreal are utter non-starters. But the biggest problem with both the A’s and Raiders leaving Oakland is this: We’ll still be stuck with the people who operate the city, and that is an eventuality that should horrify you down to the cellular level.Even if you’re not a sports fan, you understand that. And even if you’re a sports fan who disagrees with the concept of cities subsidizing sports teams because the cities never get their money out of the deal, you understand that. A cranky baseball ownership group with wanderlust and a football team that keeps churning out five-win seasons may not be ideal companions for the future, but they still beat the hell of the third alternative. www.csnbayarea.com/raiders/triple-dealing-could-cost-oakland-both-and-raiders
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jul 10, 2014 8:48:11 GMT -6
I think the problem oakland has right now is fence sitting. They need to say 1 we are not demolishing the colliseum now until we have a guarantee that we can keep both teams and we will not evict the A's from oakland.
The Raiders have a high chance of bolting to LA. I have a feeling things are worked out behind the scenes there...the NFL would rather buy time though and figure out St louis and San Diego. You can do that on a 5 year lease with the Rose bowl if you know that You can get industry or have plenty of private partners wink winking that we will get a stadium done.
I think the NFL would possibly alter their rules and put in more than usual to build an LA stadium (most likely using funds funneled in from outside sources that their owners control as to not set a precedent with other cities). They get an LA stadium they have the market and they have Superbowls ever 4 years in LA.
Also colony capital may be more willing to kick in money on an LA stadium than the bay area.
IMO an LA stadium can pretty much be presumed bcause you can always find private money to build it, Hell worst case scenario Davis lets roski buy out some of his minority partners and take a non controlling interest in the team.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jul 11, 2014 22:14:54 GMT -6
So now the raiders are cool with the lease? Aka Goodell said shut up morons you ahve the ability to go year to year and move what are you complaining about? Shut up and let us wait for St louis and san diego to figure it out. When we can cut it down to you and another team then we will figure out a private fnanced LA stadium.
Im actually almost convinced (and i dont agree with the move ) the NFL wont commit to LA until they can widdle it all down to 2 teams to LA then they will get a 2 team stadium
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jul 11, 2014 22:56:15 GMT -6
Yep you probably got it right. I was going to post the same thing. If they move 2 teams now city number 3 gains the leverage. If you only move the Raiders only it makes it hard because you don't know who your partner will be and how to arrange the terms of the stadium deal(who pays for what). Other problem going without a guarantee of a stadium is environmental wackoos. There is a guy trying to stop the Sacramento Kings new arena saying it will cause riots. Here is the link to the Raiders story. www.fieldofschemes.com/2014/07/11/7564/raiders-say-they-dont-need-to-tear-down-coliseum-right-this-very-minute-after-all/#commentsI hope San Diego makes it and LA's 2 old teams move back. I have a bad feeling it will be the Rams and Chargers instead. Goodall/Davis/Oakland City council are pretty dumb and I bet the find a way to save that awful franchise.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jul 16, 2014 14:12:09 GMT -6
Oakland ballpark may get 2nd look Oakland Athletics owner Lew Wolff is willing to re-examine whether it would make sense to build a new ballpark at the site of Oakland Coliseum. Wolff has hoped for a new stadium in San Jose, California, but that is in the territory of the San Francisco Giants, who have blocked the A's from building there. Baseball commissioner Bud Selig appointed a committee in March 2009 to examine the issue, but the committee has not made any public report. Speaking Tuesday before the All-Star Game, Wolff said a new ballpark on the Coliseum site was "an option to look at."
"We don't have much of an option right now anywhere except there," he said. "We're going to revisit that."Wolff expects the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority to vote Wednesday on a 10-year lease for the team at the Coliseum. "If it isn't, it's my last time," he said. The Coliseum has hosted the A's since 1968 but has had sewage and lighting problems. A lease vote was planned on June 27 but was postponed after representatives from the City of Oakland did not show up for the meeting. The NFL's Raiders are in the final year of their lease at the Coliseum and are interested in building a new stadium at the site. "We've provided for the Raiders. I don't think the Raiders are really behind any of this," Wolff said. "Their owner is a nice guy and I think he's just trying to do what we're trying to do, make sure that the other guy doesn't cause the other guy any problems." Oakland City Councilman Larry Reid was quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle last week as saying that Montreal and San Antonio could be possible sites for the A's to move to if they don't get a new lease at the Coliseum. "I have no idea where that was coming -- nobody certainly had talked to me. So it was beyond absurd," Selig said Tuesday. "We're two-thirds of the way home, and that's pretty good. We have only one hurdle to go, and I feel that we'll solve that hurdle," he said of the new lease. "We've had to go through the tortures of hell to get to where we are." espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11220021/a-owner-lew-wolff-willing-re-examine-new-oakland-ballpark
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jul 16, 2014 15:05:56 GMT -6
HE just wants development rights around the park. He will get it too if the raiders cant come up with the money
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jul 16, 2014 15:11:52 GMT -6
Yep but I have a sickening feeling the city will somehow save the Raiders.
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jul 16, 2014 15:13:03 GMT -6
^ It looks like they almost want the NFL more than the MLB. If that's the case, get ready Montreal.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jul 16, 2014 20:54:59 GMT -6
Ya, I just don't understand it. They should tell the Raiders to get lost. 81 games > 8 games plus an MLB ballpark is much cheaper.
Hey you never know. Montreal would still need a stadium. Biggest risk would be if congress stepped in lead by California politicians and threatened the anti-trust exemption.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jul 16, 2014 21:48:18 GMT -6
Ya, I just don't understand it. They should tell the Raiders to get lost. 81 games > 8 games plus an MLB ballpark is much cheaper. Hey you never know. Montreal would still need a stadium. Biggest risk would be if congress stepped in lead by California politicians and threatened the anti-trust exemption. the anti trust exemption has been on think ice for along time. The supreme court decision supporting it pretty much was a love letter to baseball and was lacking in actual reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jul 17, 2014 15:20:36 GMT -6
Oakland council fixes dumb typos in A’s lease, everybody threatens to freak out againThe Oakland city council approved the new Oakland A’s lease yesterday … or approved a lease, anyway. The council made a few “procedural” changes to the lease that was approved by the Coliseum Authority earlier in the month, leading team president Michael Crowley to pronounce himself “caught by surprise” and “disappointed” that the council had changed the lease terms, and refuse to commit to signing the revised lease until he’d had a chance to review the new lease. So what are these changes? Newballpark.org ran them down late last night, and here are the main ones: Clarifying that if A’s owner Lew Wolff chooses to terminate the lease by announcing it in the middle of the year, the termination goes into effect following the second full year after the termination. (So if he terminates in mid-2016, the A’s are locked in through 2018.) Fixing a typo that indicated a developer payment as being both $10 million and $20 million. Clauses clarifying what happens if the team is sold, or if the Coliseum Authority defaults on its part of the deal. As Newballpark.org notes, these are all really minor changes, and nothing that Wolff would have cause to reject. The de-typoed lease does have to now go back to the Coliseum Authority for a re-vote, though (as well as to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, which was always going to have to vote on this), so maybe Crowley was just disappointed that things are going to drag on an extra week or two? All signs point to things still getting worked out, but it wouldn’t be a week in Oakland without somebody pointing fingers angrily at somebody about something. www.fieldofschemes.com/2014/07/17/7599/oakland-council-fixes-dumb-typos-in-as-lease-everybody-threatens-to-freak-out-again/#comments
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jul 17, 2014 15:23:10 GMT -6
In the Marine Layer link it suggest the Raiders also want a lease extension at the Coliseum(probably 1 year). I don't think any moves happen until San Diego has their vote in November 2015.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jul 17, 2014 15:25:34 GMT -6
Goodell suggests Levi’s Stadium as option for RaidersThe 49ers unzipped the Field of Jeans for its unveiling on Thursday and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell used the moment to suggest that the stadium could also become home to another NFL team. With the Raiders’ status at O.Co Coliseum in doubt with a year left on their lease because of squabbles with civic authorities and the Oakland Athletics baseball team over the future of the site, Goodell suggested they could solve their problem by shacking up with the 49ers at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara. “They have to make that determination, whether they’re in a new stadium in Oakland or whether they feel that it’s best to join this stadium,” Goodell said, via the Bay Area Sports Guy. “We’re working on that, and that’s one of the decisions they’ll have to make.” Raiders owner Mark Davis has been asked about the possibility of playing at the 49ers’ new digs in the past and he’s never shown much interest in that scenario. He couldn’t be forced into moving into the stadium and the 49ers couldn’t be forced to take on a tenant, but the league made a loan of $200 million to build the stadium and Goodell probably wouldn’t have floated the idea if it wasn’t something that the league wanted. If nothing else, a short-term rental at one of the few viable options for keeping them in the Bay Area would allow the Raiders to get out of their current mess and give them time to formulate a plan to build their own stadium without worrying about what the A’s might be doing. profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/17/goodell-suggests-levis-stadium-as-option-for-raiders/
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jul 17, 2014 15:59:26 GMT -6
Well considering they gave money for it, They might have a say in it. they could do a 2 year deal and pay la and oakland off each other
the san fran stadium board may love to have more events there
|
|