A’s Reject 10-Year Lease Offer From Coliseum Authority

The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority announced yesterday that it had extended an offer for a new 10-year lease to the A’s (hat tip: John Shea of the San Francisco Chronicle on Twitter). However, as MLB.com’s Alex Espinoza writes that the Athletics promptly declined the lease offer to remain in O.co Coliseum. Via Espionza, the A’s issued the following statement:

“The A’s received the Oakland-Alameda County Authority’s proposal earlier this afternoon. While the proposal was for 10 years, it did not address all of our issues. Consequently, we cannot accept the terms of the offer. We have tried to negotiate in good faith for the past several months. As the Authority knows, it is still our preference not to negotiate this agreement through the media.”

Oakland’s current lease runs through the 2015 season, and there has been no shortage of media coverage surrounding the unsatisfactory conditions of O.co Coliseum. For one, it’s baseball’s only remaining shared facility, but that’s hardly the biggest problem. The A’s have also had to deal with flooding on the field and sewage leaks in the clubhouses, among a host of other issues. Still, A’s owner Lew Wolff recently said that he would like to extend his lease in the Coliseum.

The Athletics’ stadium situation has long been a cause for debate in the game, as the team has made its desire for a new park very clear, citing the dilapidated nature of the Coliseum. There’s been talk of a move to San Jose, but the Giants claim that such a move would further infringe on their territorial rights.

The city of San Jose, unsurprisingly, would welcome the move and the economic boost it would provide, as evidenced by the lawsuit it filed against Major League Baseball last June. However, a report this past December revealed that the commissioner’s office declined Oakland’s most recent relocation proposal the day before that lawsuit was filed. At the time, Susan Slusser of the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the move itself wasn’t outright rejected, but rather that specific proposal (MLB cited a need for more information). More than two years have passed since commissioner Bud Selig said that he was prioritizing the stadium resolution, and it’s been more than five years since Selig formed a special committee to investigate the situation.

62 Responses to A’s Reject 10-Year Lease Offer From Coliseum Authority Leave a Reply

  1. Karkat 1 year ago

    The line “it’s the country’s only remaining shared facility among major sports” is a bit misleading. I know what you mean, but NBA and NHL teams share facilities all over the place.

    They really need to get out of that park, though. It seems to be a consensus nightmare for everyone who plays there. San Jose is a really wonderful city, and it’d be great if the A’s would actually get the chance to move there. The Giants need to just let it go and rely on some jilted fans coming from across the bridge in Oakland.

    • Matthew Essex 1 year ago

      I agree not to mention Jets and Giants sharing MetLife!

      • Karkat 1 year ago

        Lakers and Clippers share the Staples Center floor, too.

        • davE 1 year ago

          and the Kings too

          • Daniel Rosas 1 year ago

            The kings have there own. And there getting a new arena

          • Matt Galvin 1 year ago

            He’s talking about Hockey team.

    • Steve Adams 1 year ago

      Touche. I was writing that it was baseball’s only shared facility, then saw a line in Espinoza’s piece that I misinterpreted without really thinking about it and made a change. Much appreciated.

      • LazerTown 1 year ago

        Not for long. NYC FC will be playing it’s home games in YS starting next year.

      • Mike Patton 1 year ago

        Jays and Argos (CFL) share Rogers Centre

      • Craig Dow 1 year ago

        The Toronto Blue Jays play at the Rogers Centre which is shared with the Toronto Argonauts.

    • josh 1 year ago

      “San jose is a really wonderful city? Oakland is a trend setting political staple in this country. San Jose?

  2. Hills of Glenallen 1 year ago

    It’s 2014 and the Giants are acting like it’s 1914 or something. Weirdos.

    • Ericka 1 year ago

      Enough people/fans in the East Bay; South Bay; Contra Costa County; Santa Clara County and the valley’s that will keep all venues full!

  3. Eliseo 1 year ago

    The giants just want to control the market and not allow the A’s become a big market team.

  4. Jimmy Sherman 1 year ago

    It’s not baseball’s only remaining shared facility. The Blue Jays share the Skydome (I refuse to call it the other name) with the Toronto Argonauts, who’s season runs alongside the Jays for the most part. And the Argos play 20 games a season.

    • Morley C 1 year ago

      True, but the Argos are relocating to BMO field in the next couple years.

      • Craig Dow 1 year ago

        But, it would still be a non-factual statement, as of this point in time.

    • ognewjack 1 year ago

      but it’s canada… so it doesn’t count!

  5. Quikmix 1 year ago

    I can’t think of an organization in baseball that’s in more desperate need of a new facility. As an Angels fan, I have total respect for Oakland being such a well-run organization and they’ve proven themselves repeatedly. It’s offensive to me that the Giants blocked the A’s move, and I hope the A’s can work out a deal that pleases their ownership, players and their fanbase.

  6. Bleed_Orange 1 year ago

    “The city of San Jose, unsurprisingly, would welcome the move and the economic boost it would provide”. This for the most part is untrue, part of my graduate research was on city subsidized sports complexes and more often than not the city loses revenue after the construction of a stadium, at best breaks even. Most scholarly research supports this argument. That’s not to say that bringing in a team and building a stadium is a bad thing, there are many non economic variables in play, but to say it will boost the economy is untrue. Not trying to nitpick just pointing out a myth that is believed by many when the team wants a new stadium.

    • Karkat 1 year ago

      Is the supposition that the city itself benefits economically, or that local businesses in the vicinity benefit economically? I always thought it was the latter, which seems much more likely to be true.

      • Bleed_Orange 1 year ago

        Actually neither truly gain much benefit economically. Professional sports are some of the only legal monopolies in the United States. Being a monopoly they have great leverage over the municipality that attempts to attract them or retain them. Usually in the bargaining process the city offers millions of dollars of tax payer money to help subsidize the construction/renovation of the stadium and as well as tax free status. So privately owned stadiums are partially constructed by tax payer money and they do not pay property tax back into the system. As for the surrounding businesses there was a study done that showed that there wasn’t a significant increase in revenue for bars, restaurants, etc. As most who visited the stadium would attend the event and leave as the average Americans budget for entertainment is fixed and the majority of it would be spent at the event itself, which again goes back to the teams owner.

        • bravo_84 1 year ago

          How did that compare with baseball as a whole versus other sports? I would think things like amount and length of games would also have a huge impact on how much the local economy benefits, but I certainly haven’t researched enough to know what those impacts would be.

          • Bleed_Orange 1 year ago

            When I conducted my research I more so looked at professional sports as a whole (baseball, football, hockey, etc.) but I don’t think the type of sport would really have much to do in a variation of the outcome. With the substitution effect people have a fixed budget for how they are going to spend their entertainment money so if the professional team was not there they would still be going out to dinner, bowling, etc. which would still be supporting the local economy. And though people do travel from outside areas to see the team they are not enough to outweigh the costs that are associated with the having/bringing in a team.

    • josh 1 year ago

      Dude San Jose is fine economically. The A’s belong in Oakland.

    • NomarGarciaparra 1 year ago

      Yeah but isn’t that how a lot of these sporting things work? Same with the Olympics…the host country loses money, but it certainly provides a boost to businesses.

      • Bleed_Orange 1 year ago

        No research shows that businesses do not receive that much of a benefit from the franchise, for sure not enough for the investment that the franchise requires. The “local businesses will thrive” argument is one that is usually pushed by the lobbyists

        • NomarGarciaparra 1 year ago

          So then what empirical benefits, if any, does a host country gain by hosting the Olympics or other large scale events?

          • Bleed_Orange 1 year ago

            Olympics, world cub and mega events like that are a bit different and I really did not account for those in my research. Non economic benefits that cities can receive are mostly image based (but image is a big deal). The thought of being a “Major league” city can help attract businesses, a better workforce, etc. It creates a thought that your city is a destination in the way the rest of the county/world sees it. For example Oklahoma City has received much more prestige as a “destination” sense they got the Thunder. It’s an investment in the city that will never truly pay itself off but will assist in municipal rejuvenation.

  7. $21621694 1 year ago

    Good for them. Don’t settle

  8. ScreenTalker DotOrg 1 year ago

    Unfortunately this doesn’t confirm they’re looking into getting a new stadium, just that they’ve rejected it based on team demands. I’ve never liked the look of the Coliseum since Mt. Davis was added but would be head over heels excited if they just did a complete renovation or added a stadium in the parking lot area. There’s more than enough room for parking if a new one goes up.

  9. The 3 things I want Selig to do before retiring is lift Pete Rose’s ban, award Armando Galarraga his rightful perfect game, and grant the A’s rights to move to San Jose.

    Baltimore objected to the Expos’ move and MLB forced them to cave. This should be a lot easier since the A’s are right there anyway. The Giants’ fanbase is pretty vibrant right now after 2 World Series wins in 3 years and this just looks petty.

    • Lefty_Orioles_Fan
      Lefty_Orioles_Fan 1 year ago

      I will agree to all three what you suggest here!

    • Bleed_Orange 1 year ago

      I like your train of thought, but the Nats forced movement to DC still has lingering problems and lawsuits due to the MASN rights which are overwhelming owned by Peter Angelos.

      • I’m sure it’d be messy, but the fact that Oakland already has TV rights in San Jose makes a difference.

    • bravo_84 1 year ago

      The other aspect of the Nats/Expos move was that MLB owned that team and therefore had to make it more attractive so they could find a buyer. All in all Bud had to act to make something happen there, and if history tells us anything its that Bud Selig only acts when Bud Selig has to.

      • Someone is going to have to act if they don’t sign a new lease. That doesn’t appear to be a big concern for Bud right now.

  10. Lefty_Orioles_Fan
    Lefty_Orioles_Fan 1 year ago

    it’s been more than five years since Selig formed a special committee to investigate the situation. I could tell you what Selig can do with his ‘special committee’!
    The very same thing he can do with the new replay system and transfer rule!
    He can’t retire soon enough!

  11. letsgobucs 1 year ago

    The A’s need new digs. A great organization with immense history and a passionate (if not large) fanbase. Baseball is better when teams like Oakland, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, etc. are doing well. We are entering a new age of parity in the game, young stars are showing loyalty to their original clubs instead of trying to get to free agency as fast as they can. It seems like every franchise has at least 2-3 legit young superstars either in the bigs or close to getting there. I’m sure San Jose is a lovely town, but this is a franchise that has already resided in 3 different cities and Oakland deserves to keep their team in town.

  12. TigerDoc 1 year ago

    Would be nice for the A’s to get a better stadium. Really is more of a football stadium and it looks bad to see the upper deck seats covered when they play there. We don’t see many of the issues (like sewage back ups) but few if any teams would put up with that. Seems Oakland thinks they have the A’s over a barrel. The way they spend they can’t seemingly build their own stadium, the Giants trying to block them from moving elsewhere in the area, and really, no other city to move to. Come on Oakland Co.!! Treat the A’s with the respect they deserve. Fix the problems!

  13. Edgar4evar 1 year ago

    All of baseball should rejoice that the A’s will not be moving any time soon. For all must beware the abomination that would be: Billy Beane with money to spend.

    • Matt Galvin 1 year ago

      Orlando it they do move.

      • Bleed_Orange 1 year ago

        Highly doubt they put another team in Florida. I can only see three markets (outside of California) that a team could go to. San Antonio/Austin area, Nashville/Memphis area, North Carolina

        • Matt Galvin 1 year ago

          Orlando is been saved for Rays. Hawaii? Monterrey? P. Rico? Las Vegas? OKC? Charlotte? Columbus? New Jersey? Montreal? New Orleans?

          • Bleed_Orange 1 year ago

            Hawaii, Orlando and Las Vegas are tourist towns so they probably wouldn’t have the population to support a team. Columbus is very close to Cincinnati and not to far from Cleveland, no way I can see Ohio supporting 3 teams. New Jersey would be going up against the Mets and the Yankees for viewership.. don’t think that would work. New Orleans, and OKC, as well as Charlotte I could see. I’ve heard rumblings of Montreal getting their team back but if I remember correctly it wasn’t supported when the Expos were there. P. Rico… now there is an interesting idea…. I just wonder if the population is financially stable enough to be able to support a major league team.

          • Matt Galvin 1 year ago

            P. Rico had Expos before. Orlando was rumored at the time Tampa Bay got a team.

          • NomarGarciaparra 1 year ago

            NOT Montreal. By in the 90s, Montreal had a bunch of big stars. Nonetheless, the stadium remained empty. ANYWHERE BUT MONTREAL!

          • nick bruggeman 1 year ago

            MLB would want a city with a high metro population if they were to approve a team to move to a new city. Highest metro populated that don’t already have an MLB team are; Charlotte, Portland, San Antonio. Orlando, Columbus, and Indianapolis in that order. Rays and Marlins already have problems selling so I dont see a 3rd team in Florida. Heck the almighty NFL teams don’t even sell out in Florida. Living in Columbus myself it would be hard for another MLB team to be here. A lot of the people here are Reds and Indians fans so it would be difficult to pull fans away considering they already have truly 2 teams to chose from. Also, Columbus is the one market in Ohio that carries both Reds and Indians games. Both teams would be fighting against a 3rd team here. I think Charlotte and San Antonio would be the best fits.

          • Matt Galvin 1 year ago

            Rays are looking for a new home in South Florida but they should expand their looking up I-4 to Orlando because already have Cracker Jack Stadium or Citrus Bowl or Jacksonville.
            Where the Colts,Cowboys and Saints play. Columbus,San Jose,Portland have Soccer Stadiums available.

          • nick bruggeman 1 year ago

            I know for the Columbus Crew stadium only sits around 20,000 people. Also Crew Stadium is square shaped. I imagine the MLS stadium in Portland is also only for soccer and is probably also same shape and near same size so that wouldn’t work for baseball. If they problem the A’s are having is they want there own stadium then Jacksonville or any other stadium you speak of doesnt solve their immediate problem. The only city that has a place big enough for baseball that is already constructed would be the Alamodome in San Antonio. They have two football games a year there in January which of course isn’t in baseball season.

        • NomarGarciaparra 1 year ago

          I agree with all 3 of those choices. First choice is San Antonio though given its larger population.

          • Bleed_Orange 1 year ago

            And San Antonio has proven to be a sports town with the Spurs.

  14. chefjon510 1 year ago

    Oakland Waterfront Stadium! If the A’s would like to have a perfect site for a ballpark
    its gotta be Jack London / Square Howard Termanal or even rebuild at The present site would be better than San Jose. The Gaints would feel it more$$$ if the A’s stay in Oakland and build at the water. Oakland would then be the destination for MLB in the Bay Area.

    • ikkf 1 year ago

      That would be a nice location, but I think the issue is not enough people want to go to Oakland. SJ seems to be more accessible because of all the people working in Silicon Valley during the week.

  15. ZeelandCap 1 year ago

    Just kill the Athletics and one other team. A’s have failed in 3 cities so far.
    Maybe the other team to kill is the White Sox.

    • Hills of Glenallen 1 year ago

      You mean the recent as 9 years ago World Series Champion White Sox?

  16. northsfbay 1 year ago

    Warriors build new arena in San Francisco. Raiders share Levis stadium with 49ers. A’s owners give up pipe dream of moving to San Jose and sell to owners that will build a new stadium in Oakland. Problems solved.

  17. Trefilov22 1 year ago

    Didn’t the A’s originally own the rights to that area? I think they did the Giants a solid so they could build their stadium, but I don’t remember the details…

  18. Jose 1 year ago

    The name of the movie: “in limbo forever”

Leave a Reply